Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Would the Committee of Supply come to order, please. This section of the Committee of Supply has been dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training. Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber at this time.
We are on Resolution 16.2. School Programs (d) Program Development (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits, still.
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): I have for tabling the fee-for-service payments that were requested the last time we sat. I have three copies for the Chamber.
I was about to answer a question for the member when we met last time, and I am ready to resume here. The question was regarding reading difficulties or preventing reading difficulties in young children, and from a report on the National Research Council, there were questions about the prevention of reading difficulties. Current difficulties in reading largely originate from rising demands for literacy, not from declining absolute levels of literacy. In a technical society the demands for higher literacy are ever increasing, creating more grievous consequences for those who fall short.
The National Academy of Sciences was asked to examine the prevention of reading difficulties by conducting a study of the effectiveness of interventions for young children who were at risk of having problems learning to read. Much of the research they did focused on children at risk for learning for read, but much of the instructional research encompasses populations of students with varying degrees of risk.
Good instruction seems to transcend characteristics of children's vulnerability for failure, and I think that is the key point to note. The identical mix of instructional materials and strategies does not work for every child. Effective teachers are able to craft a special mix of instructional ingredients for every child they work with. There is, however, a common menu of materials, strategies and environments from which effective teachers make choices. Our curriculum addresses this.
There is little evidence that children experiencing difficulties learning to read, even those with identifiable learning disabilities, need radically different sorts of supports than children at low risk, although they may need much more intensive support. Excellent instruction is the very best intervention for children who demonstrate problems learning to read. Our curriculum and differentiated instruction document are helpful in this regard.
* (1440)
The majority of reading problems faced by today's adolescents and adults could have been avoided or resolved in the early years of childhood, and that is why we introduced early literacy intervention and that is why we are working so hard on the early years, including, through the Child and Youth Secretariat, on preschool years as a preventative measure for children at risk of being illiterate or having less than adequate literacy standards. Key elements that all children need in order to become good readers include learning letters and sounds, how to read for meaning, opportunities to practise reading many types of books, and more intensive and systematic individualized instruction for those that need it.
In terms of Reading and Writing Immersion, which was asked about the other day, this is a decision-making literacy development project. In June of '92, Manitoba Education and Training approved and funded the Reading and Writing Immersion project for three schools in Whitehorse Plain School Division No. 20, the Hutterian Bon Homme Colony School, St. François Xavier School and St. Laurent School. Funding was accessed from the Student Support Grant program, and the division provided additional funding for additional teachers from the funded schools and two other schools, Hutterian Maxwell Colony School, Hutterian James Valley Colony School, in order that they could also participate in the project.
The project was identical to a program funded in the Winnipeg School Division No. 1 at David Livingstone School and St. James-Assiniboia School Division No. 2 at Brooklands School. Those were funded previously, but those were not continued beyond the three years that the program was funded.
Reading and Writing Immersion was designed to assist early years teachers in becoming more effective in working with students who were "at risk of failing" to develop the reading and writing performance goals expected of them. The resource teacher from each school participated in the program because it was envisioned that the consultative, collaborative nature of their role would serve to build an ethos or climate for collective language arts efforts in each school. The project included resource teachers, Grades 1 to 3 teachers and two Faculty of Education, University of Manitoba, staff members who facilitated the professional development activities.
The activities included study workshops, study groups and site visits to each other's classrooms. The study groups and workshops involve the discussion or presentation of whole language issues, procedures and materials related to the teaching of reading and writing skills, the development of reading and writing objectives, the assessment of reading and writing skills, classroom management strategies, the effectiveness of procedures being tried in the classroom, miscue analysis, and other project-related matters.
The site-visit component consisted of participants establishing the goals and purposes for the site visits and observations. These included the university staff observing the participants using project strategies with the students they identified as being at risk, and demonstrating instructional strategies and assessing student performance. This allowed the teachers to view the modelling of a variety of teaching techniques. The teachers were debriefed after each site visit. The observation sessions were also used to provide participants with constructive feedback regarding their instruction and to assist with the analysis of student performance. The evaluation of the project indicated that the students did benefit from the project in varying degrees. They either had obtained the objectives set out for them, or they had improved in certain ways and were on their way to obtaining the objectives.
Data was collected from the following sources: from student portfolios; student journals; printing books; writing folders; anecdotal observations; reading, writing, spelling continuums; Dolch word lists; letter identification tests; the Marie Clay signature; and reading log books.
The Reading and Writing Immersion projects resulted in positive outcomes for students. It operated with provincial funding for three years and continued on its own for several years after. Doctor Gerald Bravi retired from the Faculty of Education at the University of Manitoba one year ago, and he is unavailable to provide follow-up support or facilitate the introduction of this approach in other schools across the province. There is, therefore, no infrastructure to support the ongoing implementation of this program.
Reading and Writing Immersion and Reading Recovery have a great deal in common with what research has suggested are effective early university intervention approaches. White Horse Plain has made a decision to introduce the Reading Recovery Program in the upcoming school year. The characteristics of the early literacy intervention approaches that research has indicated Reading Recovery and Reading and Writing Immersion have in common include--these would go not just for those two, but for others as well. The research review indicated characteristics common to successful early literacy intervention programs, plural. I am making specific reference to these two, but it could apply to others as well. These characteristics could apply to others as well.
They are: dependence on a strong, effective program of regular classroom reading instruction is recognized; reading for meaning is an overriding consideration; intervention instruction is frequent, regular and of sufficient duration to make a difference; pupil to teacher ratio is kept very small; fluency is a major goal; word-learning activities are used to help children become very familiar with print; fluency is a major goal; books are selected and introduced so as to ensure that students are successful in reading them; writing is used to teach, reinforce and extend word identification skills; teacher decision making is required, but within a well-defined sequence of instructional activities; instruction is fast paced; activities completed at home extend student opportunities for reading; assessment is meaningful, practical, efficient and ongoing; teacher training is practical and ongoing; teachers believe in their early intervention program and in their students' ability to learn; pupils build confidence and come to see themselves as readers and authors.
Those common characteristics are found in Reading Recovery. They were also found in the Reading and Writing Immersion and may be found in other programs as yet unidentified to us.
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): I think the question that my colleague the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) had raised at the end of last time was related to the funding of Reading Recovery programs this year, the Estimates for which we are looking. The minister has given us a list of criteria which may be applied to other programs which may apply for funding under that program.
My understanding is that no program has been successful this year in convincing the minister that they are similar enough to Reading Recovery. I wonder if the minister could tell me whether that is the case or not. I am also interested in the allocation of moneys under the Reading Recovery Program. I am sure the minister is aware that there is certainly much discomfort in some parts of the field at the allocation so far only of money to Reading Recovery, when some divisions may feel that they have programs which are relatively appropriate for their own children in ways that perhaps Reading Recovery may or may not be, and they are not eligible to apply because they have not been in Reading Recovery before. So what the current Reading Recovery funding does is to reward those who began early, rather than to deal with the issue on the basis of need across the province.
So I think really there are two concerns that have been expressed to me, and one is that latter, that it is not necessarily looking at need, it is looking at those who are into the program early and rewarding those, and, secondly, it seems to be very difficult for people to demonstrate that their program is anywhere close to Reading Recovery in terms of its methods and some questioning that those methods are not always appropriate for all students.
* (1450)
Mrs. McIntosh: The member is quite right that the success rate, no one at the time we last made a decision on this had shown us a greater success rate than Reading Recovery and Reading and Writing Immersion, and it is the success rate we are looking at.
We can have all kinds of programs appear on paper that sound wonderful in theory. We are looking at the actual success rate. Has this program taken children at risk and turned them into readers? If the answer is yes, then we consider it has a success rate. If the answer is no, then why would we fund it?
So we are looking for results, and we are quite prepared to examine any program that lays forward a claim to have the same success rate and the same results. We currently have four divisions that are exploring other programs, and we have not made decisions on them yet, so it is too early to say what our final decision will be for the year to come, because final decisions as yet have not been made. We have four divisions, as I indicate, exploring other programs that they feel may have a success rate as well, and if that is so, then they could expect to be funded.
Therefore I say to the member that what she is really concerned about is is the department funding programs that have a proven success rate, or is the minister and her department prepared to fund programs even if they do not have a proven track record of success, just to say they have been funding an early literacy program.
I think that the answer is quite clear. We will fund programs that have the demonstrated success rate. Without the extra money we put in this year, nobody would have had extra funding for this, so this will inspire people to either adopt one of the two successful programs or produce a program that also is successful. They may be able to build upon something they are doing that has a limited degree of success and turn it into a successful program, and we will fund it.
The early literacy intervention funding provides support for three program categories in Grade 1. The first is Reading Recovery programs. We say we will fund those automatically. The second, this is in answer to the member's question, are you only funding those two and refusing to look at others? We are saying, first, we will fund Reading Recovery. Secondly, we will fund externally developed early literacy intervention programs that, and I quote, have clearly demonstrated success in increasing the reading and writing proficiency of the lowest students in Grade 1 as shown in the research literature. Thirdly, we will fund internally developed early literacy intervention programs that again, and I quote, have clearly demonstrated success in increasing the reading and writing proficiency of the lowest-achieving students in Grade 1 as shown through the funding application process.
So those are the three categories. One is identified as a known program, and the other two, set down criteria. Any program that can fit those criteria will be funded. So it is not limited to two, and as I say, we have four divisions right now that are exploring other options that they believe have high success rates and will be examining those for final decisions. If they meet the same success rate, and they are able to show conclusively they have taken the lowest-achieving students in Grade 1 and turned them into successful readers within that first period of Grade 1, they too will be granted funding.
Ms. Friesen: I wonder if the minister could be a bit more precise. Success rate, does it mean a 50 percent success rate with lower achieving students in Grade 1? Is it 20 percent, is it 10 percent? First of all, so what is the rate that the minister is looking for that is comparable to Reading Recovery?
Secondly, who determines that rate? Suppose for example a division sent in a proposal which said, yes, we do have this success rate. How does the minister evaluate that or judge that? What kind of documentation is required?
Thirdly, the minister has given examples from Grade 1. Is that the only level at which these programs will be judged, for example, if a program does it between Grade 1 and Grade 2, or does it from kindergarten to Grade 1? I wondered why the minister has particularly stressed Grade 1. Is that the only level at which reading programs will be judged?
Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, Grade 1 is the level because Grade 1 is the earliest level for formal reading programs. That is where we begin funding. Grade 1 is the legal age for beginning of school in Manitoba. We have other programs that are going to be coming in through the Children and Youth Secretariat that will be targeted at early intervention preschool, but for school, which is what the Department of Education is responsible for, we will begin at our beginning point which is Grade 1. It is imperative that we begin at that first stage of our responsibility because if you leave it till Grade 2, as the member has indicated, do we leave it till Grade 2? No, we have lost a year if we do that.
So the early years experience are important, and things are being done there, but in terms of the Department of Education, we begin with our starting measuring point which is Grade 1, and we look for, with a reading recovery rate, a 75 percent success rate. That is measured on students taking the Reading Recovery Program which is about 15 weeks, and at the end of 15 weeks, 75 percent of the students in Reading Recovery are able to return to the Grade 1 classroom and be caught up with their colleagues and able to carry on at the same pace as their colleagues.
We consider that a success rate, that they are up to par and able to function at par after 15 weeks of Reading Recovery sessions, and if somebody else has a program that can take an at-risk underachiever, the lowest-achieving students in Grade 1, and in 15 weeks of a program have a 75 percent success rate, that those students are fully capable of performing at par, at the same level of speed as all the other students in the class, we would consider that an equivalent success rate. But a success rate that says, if you start this program in one grade, Grade 1, by Grade 3 you will be 50 percent caught up is not a strong enough success rate to satisfy the criteria.
The research that we have looked at is all very clear, that you can make the most profound difference for students in Grade 1, and the earlier you capture them in Grade 1, the stronger the reinforcement is, and that is why we begin by just taking the lowest-achieving students in Grade 1.
For those schools that do not have Reading Recovery, we made a decision to fund the most successful programs. For those schools whose programs do not meet the criteria and they wish to find successful programs, this is a stronger incentive for them to look for successful programs, whatever they may be, and this year it did mean that not all divisions would be funded because not all divisions had high success rate programs, but the minute they get them they will be funded.
So we see it, in part, as we are putting our money where the most effective use can be made, and we are encouraging divisions at the same time to look for the more highly successful programs to utilize with their students. We are not limiting them to Reading Recovery. It is just that Reading Recovery has such an outstanding, well-known rate of success that it is one that has been picked up by many divisions, but there may be others that are equally successful, and we would embrace them as well.
* (1500)
We have provided advice to school divisions regarding effective approaches they can make to reading, as some of those approaches are other than Reading Recovery, so we have advised them about other effective approaches, not intending to limit them but also recognizing that here is an internationally renowned program that has been noticed, has been observed and is worthy of implementation. Therefore we are encouraging it quite openly.
We also know that Reading Recovery has the infrastructure that will keep the program operating over the long term which is something else that is to be sought after, because programs that end with a particular individual leaving or that are not sustainable will not be able to function well over the long term.
So the sustainability of Reading Recovery is an added feature. It is not one that was required, but it certainly enhances it. However, there are no programs that have been documented that show the long-term success that this particular Reading Recovery Program does.
Ms. Friesen: I asked the minister previously how success is documented. For example, somebody who wants to apply with a different kind of program, how must they document their success? Reading Recovery presumably has a certain type of reporting format. How will the minister know how a different kind of program has established success in the same way, a 75 percent return to class?
Mrs. McIntosh: Basically, Mr. Chairman, we would ask the division to include information on pre- and post-assessment data for the individual student and how this data will be compared to the class average. So you should see in the data, the statistics and the evaluation that comes in on a particular student that they were, in fact, amongst the lowest-achieving students in the class and 15 weeks later were working at the class average with no difficulty.
We would ask for supporting assessment data to confirm both of those. In the application process, school divisions are asked to submit all their outcome data, and a small team of early literacy staff in the department reviews all the data when it is submitted.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, so in order to apply for a grant this year that is not a Reading Recovery one, the division would have had to have collected this data in that format in the past year. Is the minister looking for one year's experience, or is she looking for a longer experience in order to give a grant for something which is not Reading Recovery?
Mrs. McIntosh: It could be a one-year base from that division's own experience or a recognized research base from another jurisdiction. In other words, they would not have had to necessarily have gone through the program in their own division if they had a research base that was proven.
For example, a division could say we are going to have a Reading Recovery Program. They may not have it this year and they are applying for one, but because the research data on Reading Recovery is known and recognized, they would qualify. Similarly, if there is a research base that is credible and valid, that could also be accepted in place of a one-year base of actual experience or a longer base of actual experience in that division.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, could the minister give us the names of recognized research-based programs that would be acceptable to the minister?
Mrs. McIntosh: To date, no one is applying based on a research base. They have all been applying based on locally developed or externally developed programs. You know, we had indicated that they could have internally developed early literacy programs, provided they met the criteria for success, or externally developed programs, but nobody has yet submitted anything with a research base outside of their own ability to develop or some other form of external development that has not yet been made known to us.
So we do not know if any of the names that are going to be submitted will include an outside research database, or, if it does, if those names would be known to us, or if the research credibility was high, we do not know which ones they are going to use.
Ms. Friesen: Well, let me repeat my question to the minister. Which research-based programs would be acceptable to the department?
People in the divisions feel like they are playing Russian roulette here. They do not know what is acceptable. They do not know which research base the minister is going to accept, so it is a--I do not know what the right phrase is, but Catch 22. When the minister set up these criteria, she presumably had in mind that there were other research-based program which would be acceptable. Reading Recovery, obviously, is the favourite one, and it is very effective for some students. What are the other ones that the minister would accept? Could she name them?
Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, I can, Mr. Chairman. I would be interested to know which divisions feel as if they are playing Russian roulette because I could correspond with them directly and let them know the criteria, which I have already read into the record, that would form a research base. I thought the member was asking about particular researchers who had done work on early intervention when she asked her question, but, in terms of the research base, it is quite clear and it has been spelled out.
I wonder, again, if the member could clarify which divisions feel as if they are playing Russian roulette. I will make absolutely certain they get these characteristics because my feedback had led me to believe that divisions understood the criteria upon which they can base a program. If we have failed to alert them all, certainly those who feel they have been playing Russian roulette deserve the correct information, which has been sent apparently to all divisions. Perhaps in her next question she could clarify that so that I can serve the people of Manitoba better, as I know she would like me to do.
* (1510)
We have these characteristics that are common to successful early intervention programs, and it is this body of research against which programs would measure their effectiveness. One is that a dependence on a strong, effective program of regular classroom reading instruction is recognized; reading for meaning is an overriding consideration; intervention instruction is frequent, regular and of sufficient duration to make a difference; pupil-to-teacher ratio is kept very small; fluency is a major goal; word learning activities are used to help children become very familiar and comfortable with print.
I have read these under characteristics. These are research review characteristics common to successful early intervention programs.
I will just finish the list up again for the second time to make sure that people are aware of it: books are selected and introduced so as to ensure that students are successful in reading them; writing is used to teach, reinforce and extend word identification skills; teacher decision making is required, but within a well-defined sequence of instructional activities; instruction is fast paced; activities completed at home extend student opportunities for reading; assessment is meaningful, practical, efficient and ongoing; teacher training is practical and ongoing. This last one I emphasized the other day, as well, as critically important: teachers believe in their early intervention program, and teachers believe in their students' ability to learn, and, in this way, pupils build confidence and come to see themselves as readers and authors.
That last one is so critical to success, and I know it is often not agreed to by members opposite who believe, rather, that a student who is disadvantaged should be seen differently, and teachers should not necessarily have the same hopes and expectations for them. Yet this is a very important part of the program--
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, the minister is again putting words into other people's mouths. They are not true. The minister should stick to what she knows, and she should continue repeating what it is she has already put on the record once on Reading Recovery. I am quite prepared to sit and listen to it, but the minister should recognize that she is repeating.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point of order. This is clearly a dispute over the facts.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, to conclude her remarks.
Mrs. McIntosh: The department would review the information and data that a division would submit. We have not issued a list. Reading Recovery works. We know that. Many divisions are also convinced of this. They have seen the success of youngsters learning to read. Divisions must make decisions regarding which programs they apply for. We have identified Reading Recovery because it has the best track record, and it is sustainable over the long term.
At meetings with superintendents in each region, the majority were enthusiastic about Reading Recovery and indicated their wish to implement this program. It is the one of choice. But in terms of the research, we have twice now provided for the member the research review characteristics common to successful early intervention programs, one of the important considerations being high expectations for students, which is the hallmark of our New Directions which is the guiding principle of Mr. Manness's Blueprint for Education, which is the whole reason behind standards tests that are kept rigorous and relevant for inner city students, ESL students, disadvantaged students, et cetera.
I am delighted that the member has finally acknowledged that she has those high expectations for those so-called disadvantaged students and will expect them to be well prepared for standards exams with no dummying down of the exams for them, because she shares with Mr. Manness and Mrs. McIntosh and the Filmon government high expectations for students. I am thrilled to have that in the record and will quote her far and wide on that because, to date, it has never been acknowledged in this Chamber. So it is a significant thing to have acknowledged.
I really appreciate that support for the basic principle of New Directions coming from the official opposition. It will make good headlines in the "NDP supports New Directions philosophy" which is very--
Ms. Friesen: I think probably I have two points of order. I think the minister is referring to members of the Chamber by their--what is the word I need?
An Honourable Member: Proper names.
Ms. Friesen: By their proper names, right. Mr. Manness is a past member and that is fair enough, but I think otherwise members are usually referred to by their names.
Secondly, I am always glad for the minister to quote me, particularly when she quotes me accurately.
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe it was a point of order.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I did refer by name, and I should not have. I should have said my predecessor, the previous Minister of Education, in bringing down New Directions, absolutely said basic is high expectations for students which the NDP at that time vigorously fought. We will--
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely wrong. Will the minister stick to what she knows.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Can I clear up the first one? Thank you.
Mrs. McIntosh: Great. This is wonderful support for New Directions. It thrills me--
Mr. Chairperson: Okay, the first point of order was cleared up. The honourable--
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, I just do not see the point of this. It is so stupid, Linda, really.
Mrs. McIntosh: Oh, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Friesen: Stick to the point.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable--
Mrs. McIntosh: I think the member is out of order, Mr. Chair. She has got . . .
Ms. Friesen: Right, I am.
Mr. Chairperson: Would the committee like to take a five-minute recess?
The committee recessed at 3:17 p.m.
The committee resumed at 3:33 p.m.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The committee will come to order. Before we proceed, may I advise members that members posing questions or ministers answering questions do have up to 30 minutes to reply. I would appreciate it, even if we do not always agree with those answers, if we do try to listen to them, and if we do not agree with the questions, we might want to just listen to them and reply later.
Points of order should be raised when there--what do you call that word again? [interjection] A breach of the rules. Not necessarily to clarify a matter that is being brought forward by a member. The honourable minister, to conclude her remarks.
Mrs. McIntosh: I did refer to people by name which was a breach of the rules, and I should refer by position, which I will be careful to do.
In terms of the Reading Recovery, just to conclude that response, not only do we have data about the success of Reading Recovery in other jurisdictions, we have data about success in Manitoba schools. I just would like to indicate some of the schools that have already experienced success with the program, and this is based upon the data that I referred to as prior- and post-assessment data. I should indicate that funding for Reading Recovery is intended to support the salaries of Reading Recovery, to support the costs of the intensive training and implementation of other early literacy intervention programs that have demonstrated success and are targeted at the lowest-achieving Grade 1 students.
But in terms of the schools in Manitoba that have already implemented the Reading Recovery Program in this year, 1997-98, the following schools are participating. In the Brandon School Division we have New Era, Valleyview, George Fitton, Betty Gibson, Kirkcaldy Heights, King George, Meadows, O'Kelly, Riverview, Fleming, Linden Lanes, Alexander, Green Acres, Riverheights, Waverly Park, St. Augustine, J.R. Reed.
In the Turtle Mountain School Division we have Killarney.
We have individual band-operated schools, Sioux Valley and Peguis Central School.
In St. James-Assiniboia we have Assiniboine, Athlone, Bannatyne, Brooklands, Buchanan, Crestview, Heritage, Lakewood, Linwood, Phoenix, Robert Browning, Sansome, Stevenson, Strathmillan, Voyageur.
In the Winnipeg School Division No. 1 we have Brock-Corydon, Faraday, Harrow, LaVerendrye, Queenston, Ralph Brown, Wellington, Fort Rouge.
In the Interlake School Division we have R.W. Bobby Bend, Stony Mountain, Warren, Woodlands, Teulon Elementary.
In Morris-MacDonald we have Rosenort, Starbuck, Oak Bluff, Lowe Farm, J.A. Cuddy, Morris.
In Pembina Valley we have Manitou Elementary.
In Mountain School Division we have St. Claude Elementary.
In the Seine River School Division we have Dawson Trail, Parc La Salle, Ile des Chenes.
In Portage la Prairie we have Crescentview.
In St. Boniface we have Niakwa Place.
In Transcona-Springfield we have Anola Elementary, Bernie Wolfe, Dugald Elementary, École Centrale, Margaret Underhill, Harold Hatcher, Joseph Teres, Oakbank Elementary, Radisson, Wayoata, Westview.
In Lord Selkirk we have Mapleton.
In Agassiz School Division we have Beausejour Elementary.
In Fort Garry School Division we have Bonnycastle, Chancellor, Whyte Ridge, Oakenwald, École Crane, Dalhousie, Ryerson, Bairdmore.
In Assiniboine South we have Dieppe, Pacific Junction, Beaverlodge, Royal, Beaumount, Westgrove, École Tuxedo Park, River West Park, Linden Meadows, Laidlaw, Van Welleghem.
Those are some of the schools that have experience in Reading Recovery and the success rate that we discussed.
Superintendents in some school divisions first heard about Reading Recovery from their teachers or from parents or from the school boards. They heard about the success and the success that we are prepared to build upon. We have not limited those who can demonstrate success with other programs. We do know, however, that here is a program that works, and it works well. It has worked well in Manitoba; it has worked well in Ontario; it has worked well in New Zealand; it has worked well in other parts of the world.
Reading Recovery began with a number of study groups in Brandon and St. James-Assiniboia, began here in Manitoba. These study groups were examining the works of Marie Clay, spelled as if it were Marie, and they began implementing her strategies and found them to be successful and then became interested in the, quote, real, authentic, original Reading Recovery Program as implemented in New Zealand. And they spoke to their principals, student services administrators and superintendents, who, in turn, approached the department.
We have since been to Toronto to meet with the Institute of Reading Recovery for Canada there, have met with the head people there, sat in on some of the train-the-trainer models, watched students at work. I have had the privilege of watching at-risk students go through the one on one through the one-way mirrors that are provided for researchers and observers, and I have personally seen the progress that has been made. We were privileged two years ago to have the Western Institute of Reading Recovery begin here in Manitoba for western Canada, which is a rather significant achievement for this province because it does draw interest from across the west. That has been very helpful for us as leaders in education in the west and has also been very talked about a great deal by ministers of Education and the Council of Ministers of Education when we meet, as we do regularly throughout the year. So the program is spreading as it becomes more well known, as the success rates are published. As the research data is compiled, more and more people are taking a look at this particular program.
Because we have included it does not mean we have automatically excluded others, although, as I indicated to the member opposite, we prefer to fund programs with proven success rates rather than just approving a program for the sake of approving a program. Hence, we are encouraging people to look for programs that meet the criteria I have read into the record, which is the research that shows what needs to be done to ensure success with low-achieving students beginning their schooling career and to bring them rapidly up to pace and up to par with their classmates.
High amongst that, as I said, are high expectations from both students and learners. One way that high expectations are built into the student is for the teacher to share those high expectations with the students.
* (1540)
You often hear Reading Recovery teachers saying I know you can do this. That is one thing you will often hear them say to their students. I have confidence in you. I know you are going to achieve. These do seem to be self-fulfilling statements. It was in that regard that I indicated our particular pleasure with this program because that is the fundamental philosophy behind our whole New Directions, that we do have high expectations for students and that we do not say that something is too hard or the standards too high or that certain students could not possibly be expected to achieve.
The fundamental belief in a student's ability to achieve and the willingness of the trainer to use a wide variety of methods and intensive work with the student to ensure those results are fundamental criteria that the research has shown will lead, along with the other criteria that I listed, to success.
I do not know if staff has anything else they wish to pass on to me here. These are the schools then, Mr. Chairman, and the rest of the schools that are using Reading Recovery right now and the rest of the response that the member had asked for.
Ms. Friesen: I should say, as my colleague for St. James has said before, the issue is not the success of Reading Recovery: fair enough, works well, people are happy with it. The issue is the new funding and how people who have not already been able to, sometimes they believe it is because of finance, but for a number of reasons have not bought into the Reading Recovery Program, feel that they have in a sense been excluded from the second round of funding. That is the concern I was bringing to the minister.
I should say that the term Russian roulette was my term, it was not a term that anybody else used, but I wanted to express the frustration of those divisions who have not been in Reading Recovery before and believe now that they are being excluded from it. That is why I wanted to get from the minister not just the criteria, although I think that is very helpful, the criteria for funding and the means by which that criteria will be evaluated, but I wanted specifically to get from the minister the names of other programs, research-based programs, and there are many. I mean, there are lots of reading programs out there. Some of them have catchy titles. Rat Pack is one that I am familiar with. It is not used in Canada. It, I think, comes out of Australia, and it is used in the United States as well.
So what I was looking for was the names of other programs that would be considered appropriate and would be evaluated well by the department. The minister was not able to do that. I think I made the question quite clear, but my sense is that what the minister is looking for is an individual application from each school division that meets the 15-weeks criteria of Reading Recovery, has all of the other specific ones that she read, and that to give some guidance to school divisions, there is not a way of giving other names, or she is not prepared to give other names for other research-based programs. There are many out there. I mean, I am sure the minister knows some that are in Grade 1; some that deal with the whole elementary programs. I do not seem to be able to get that from the minister, Mr. Chairman, so maybe we could move on to something else.
I wanted to ask the minister about the old math curriculum. She had undertaken, I think last time, to bring forward an indication, the page numbers, the sections of the old math curriculum, where the students are trained in the description of process. It is one of the new elements in the testing. Again, I am going back to the congruence between testing and curriculum. The minister says they have been tested on the old curriculum. My concern is that the tests are emphasizing the ability to define process literacy. The minister's argument in return has been, well, yes, we have talked about and dealt with literacy across the curriculum. Fair enough.
But the issue of being able to specifically address the process by which you have dealt with a particular problem in mathematics is new. It is one that is welcomed by everybody. That is not the issue. The issue is: have students under the old curriculum been trained to deal with the issue of process, to express themselves, and to express their approach to a problem in terms of process. What I am hearing from some of the teachers in the classroom is that that is not the case. What I am seeing in the minister's evaluations of the test is that that is indeed where students are having difficulty. So I would ask the minister to show me, to point me to the sections of the old mathematics curriculum whereby students are taught that.
The minister had undertaken to do so--and we do not have it here with us today--before I left this line, I wanted to be very clear to the minister in what it was I was looking for, just to remind the minister of that and look forward to that at some later date. We are prepared to pass this line.
Mr. Chairperson: Shall the item pass? The item is accordingly passed. Item 16.2.(d)(2) Other Expenditures $2,874,200--pass.
Item 16.2.(e) Program Implementation (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $4,861,500.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask about the At Risk project. The minister last year initiated an At Risk project whereby consultants were hired and some discussions were held with focus groups across the province. Some of the focus groups, I believe, were asked to look at projects for community schools. I wondered if the minister could tell us what the difference is between the community schools project that focus groups were asked to look at and the Saskatchewan community schools program. Is there any difference, or does the minister anticipate that the project will continue to evaluate that same approach?
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, local school divisions have the ability, the right, the opportunity, the responsibility to make decisions on their Students At Risk funding. I am not sure how that compares to what Saskatchewan is doing, but here they can make the determination according to what they believe their students' needs are.
We will take the math question as notice for tomorrow and just for clarification, just to correct a statement that was made about the other programs for Reading Recovery or early intervention for reading, no division has been excluded from the funding. It should be made clear that only two have not yet applied for this year, and they have indicated they will be applying next year. Four have indicated they will be submitting proposals for different programs.
* (1550)
I appreciate her clarifying the remarks about Russian roulette, but she again did not say which divisions believe they are being excluded from funding. Maybe she does not want to state it for the record, but it would be important for us to know which divisions believe they have been excluded from funding because we are not aware of any. She also said there are many other programs like Reading Recovery, and I wonder if she would be willing to share those names of those programs with us because no one has brought any to our attention yet. We would be very interested in knowing which ones they are so we could then make them known to school divisions as well. I think that would be very much appreciated in the interests of students, in a nonpartisan way, if she could tell us what the names of those other programs are and their success rate so we can share them for the benefit of Manitoba students, and if she could tell us which divisions feel they are being excluded so that we can help them in some way with their applications.
Four divisions have applied for locally developed programs, and they have submitted appropriate student outcome data demonstrating success, and that is being analyzed now. They have not been turned down so I am just curious about that. Somebody has obviously told her that, and it is something we need to know to make sure that (a) the record is not incorrect, and (b) that we can do something to assist. We will give the information on the map for her as requested, and as I say, with the other question about Saskatchewan, I do not know what they do there, but I do know that here that is a local decision.
Ms. Friesen: I do not think the minister understood the question I was posing on the At Risk issue. This was the minister's consultant who has been around--I was talking about the At Risk project--who has met with a number of focus groups and has discussed proposals for dealing with at-risk students. One of the proposals, I believe, that was put to the focus groups, was something which looked very similar to the Saskatchewan community schools program. That is what I was asking the minister. Was it intended that Manitobans begin to look at the Saskatchewan program, or did the minister have something different in mind, and is this the direction that the government is planning to go in dealing with the whole At Risk project?
Mrs. McIntosh: I am pleased the member raised this issue because there, I think, needs to be an indication for the record that that report--and we have since received a letter from the researcher who was floored, I might say that is probably an understatement, at the gross misinterpretation of her report by the members of the official opposition.
Her report indicated confirmation of all the thrusts we were taking in New Directions to overcome some of the long-term problems in the field in terms of students at risk. That request was taken to focus groups for community framework and educational context. The researcher has made it very clear that, as a result of the consultation that she did with the focus groups on the community framework, it became abundantly clear through the recommendations and her advice to us that we were absolutely embarked upon the right direction to resolve some longstanding concerns about students at risk. That was a very encouraging letter to receive.
No doubt there will be more said about this report as time goes on, an internal report for use by government employees, very badly misinterpreted by opposition members who did not have access to the mandate provided to the member or to the researcher or the conclusions the researcher drew, which were basically these: everything that these people were able to identify as problems is being addressed through New Directions, and you are absolutely on the right course and must not be dissuaded from it.
That was something that was a valuable thing to note, and, as I indicated in Question Period, this report confirms for us the problems that we thought were out there that resulted in us evolving our Students At Risk Project, and these, indeed, are the very problems that were identified in the focus groups as we suspected they would be. The seven recommendations are, indeed, ones that we are working upon, those being the establishment of something like the Child and Youth Secretariat and so on and so forth. The member is very familiar with them.
I could go through them all with her. I do not have the document here, but would be pleased to read those seven recommendations and show exactly what we are doing on each of them and how the researcher was able to show that those recommendations, which are all things we are currently doing, were indicated by the field as being the recommendations that would address the problems they identified.
So they identified a whole series of concerns and said that the way you need to address these concerns is to do the seven following things, all of which we were in the process of doing. Confirmation that we had identified the right problems. Confirmation that our solutions were, in fact, the right ones and that the recommendations confirmed were on the right course. The community framework that we sent out, this is the conceptual framework that we used, and it was developed by our staff. We did look at other models across North America, including, I understand from staff, the province of Saskatchewan.
But we had, within that community framework, depicted the components of a community school framework. Taken together, these components provide the comprehensive range of supports and approaches that are proven to meet the needs of at-risk and struggling learners, and they have various components. They have advisory councils for school leadership or parent councils. They have school effectiveness strategies with parent and community involvement. They have process for ongoing renewal, school plans, affirming school culture and climate, the school team.
Inside that, there is yet another circle of groups: integrated services; community development; the learning program which would include the prevention and early intervention programming at all levels; collaborative, responsible and flexible programming and systems; relevant curricular instruction and assessment practices; parent and community involvement, again, the parent-community partnerships; leadership development; shared use of facilities, which we now have in our pilot program at Polson School; and our side-by-side initiative.
We have a sort of wheel with wheels within wheels that we have drawn out as a model. In the centre, of course, are children and youth, family coming next, community context and educational context, branching all the way out to child and family services, support services, health, justice, et cetera.
In the community school framework, the student is at the centre surrounded by the four key components of the school program, and, very quickly, to repeat: the learning program, the parent and community involvement, integrated services, and community development are the four. These components are planned and evaluated by the school staff and the Advisory Council for School Leadership. They are supported by school effectiveness strategies that include the development of an effective team, creation of a supportive and affirming school culture and climate, and management of a dynamic process for ongoing renewal. That community framework was what was taken to the focus groups and discussed by them in terms of: what can you identify as ongoing problems or long-term problems? Do you think these things we are doing are on the right track? Would you recommend such vehicles as the way to go?
* (1600)
Indeed, they did just that which is most encouraging. Far from a condemnation of education, as the member is wont to interpret, this is a confirmation that we have identified problems that were long neglected in the educational field and have put in place corrective measures that are currently already underway, not just visioned but functioning in the field. I think that is a good thing. I am very pleased about it and conclude my answer for that portion of the question for now.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, well, if the answer to that study is that we are already doing these things, could the minister tell us if any further action is contemplated?
Mrs. McIntosh: Indeed, Mr. Chairman, much further action is contemplated. Through the Children and Youth Secretariat, we have already seen a number of announcements just within the last month, and that will continue. We have BabyFirst; we have Earlystart. These may not sound like educational programs, but we have benefited from many seminars, workshops, et cetera, talking about the early childhood brain development.
Just a few weeks ago, to give one example, we had Dr. Steinhauser, a leading child psychiatrist from the Toronto area, in to speak to the Children and Youth Secretariat. We have had many such speakers. He talked about the actual brain development in the child from the age of birth to two years. He also discussed the brain-wave activity in the developing fetus, for those who do believe that there is some life prior to birth. That was a very interesting indication as to the care that must be taken of the unborn child for educational purposes six years down the road. So the first two years are key in terms of the development of the brain, and what happens in that period will impact when the student begins to learn.
The ChildrenFirst Strategic Plan, which we developed in March of 1997, has led to things such as BabyFirst, which is working with the mother and the child to ensure the child is stimulated properly, has proper nutrition, et cetera. The Earlystart is for young people a little older that again builds upon their natural developmental patterns and taking advantage of the most important periods of time for brain development, for learning, et cetera. Those are all being done through the Children and Youth Secretariat, and many of them are being done as part of an educational strategy but funded through Health and Family Services and other agencies. They will impact upon education, and the Education department has worked hard with the Secretariat in that regard.
The ChildrenFirst Strategic Plan articulates the vision for the healthy development and well-being of all our children. It identified three priority areas of policy direction: co-ordinated service delivery, and again I mentioned what we just announced recently, the side-by-side project, the first example being seen in Polson School, community ownership, responsibility and resourcing. We are seeing that through the implementation of advisory councils for school leadership, over 300 now. Where they are functioning well, they are functioning extremely well indeed; amazing things happening.
Where there is resistance, they are getting a little slower to start and we are helping them, and they will soon be--when I say there is resistance, by the school hierarchy, not by the parents. They are all enthusiastic and ready to go and they are after all the children's prime educator and have a vested interest in the success of those children.
The third is structures developed around the needs of the child. The secretariat that we formed, which was one of the recommendations put forward by the focus groups--or they recommended that we indeed should have something like that--has really begun, particularly in the last six months, in a very efficient way to facilitate a co-ordinated and integrated system of services for children, youth, and their families.
Where the needs of children and youth cross departmental mandates and resources, we have seen a number of things. For example, recently Family Services, Justice, and Education provided funding to the Army Cadet League to establish two aboriginal cadet corps in the inner city, the marvellous initiative that will really help to replace the gang mentality and give young people positive activities that will build good characteristics and fill the need to belong to a peer group and have some structure and some organization. We are most enthused about this, and we compliment everyone from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor, who is a patron for this, to everybody else involved with this initiative that is being funded in part by the Children and Youth Secretariat, again a very effective way to offset the lure of gang activity for adolescent and teen children.
Those are holistic approaches of prevention and treatment, and they occur at every age and every stage. It is very important that we work together again with Justice, the urban sports camps, and all of these things that we are building upon strengths of the past and bringing in new initiatives as well for the future. So we are keeping the baby and not throwing the baby out with the bathwater as we bring in cross-jurisdictional services.
The school links services initiative, our department, in collaboration with the Children and Youth Secretariat and the Provincial Co-ordination of Services Committee is developing a provincial plan to expand Schooling Services to high-risk areas in the province. These services can either take the form of full-service schools, which is just locating all services within a school, or school links services, which is linking community services with a school or shared service agreements having schools and service systems jointly hire personnel.
Any one of those three approaches will work, depending on the area, and we are in the process of doing that. We have brought in our FAS policy and, again, through the Children and Youth Secretariat, in terms of school planning, Continuous Process for Effective Education is a document that provides schools with the process of addressing the unique needs and challenges of struggling learners. We no longer call them children without hope. We no longer have low expectations for them. They are struggling learners. They will need extra support and help and more time, but they can achieve. We do have high expectations for them, the basis of our foundation for New Directions.
I am pleased to hear support for high expectations from the member opposite. I was unaware that they have always had those. As stated by the member, statements earlier that said the expectations were too high led me to believe to the contrary. I really do appreciate having that clarified. As far as I am concerned, it will nullify any other statement about the tests are too hard, the standards are too high, you cannot expect children to learn to this level. Those statements I now wipe out from my memory and hear only that the opposition supports high standards for all students, including struggling learners.
* (1610)
I very much appreciate that support. It will help us. I will recall those words to the member, I am sure, in the future. The government of Manitoba presented a vision for education in two documents: New Directions, Renewing Education: A Blueprint for Action; and New Directions, Renewing Education: The Action Plan. The vision was built on the following needs assumptions: to ensure that Manitoba has a solid educational system, because the secure future of our children and our province requires it; education is the passport to our future; education is what will prepare our children and youth to compete successfully in today's competitive world.
The education received by children and youth from kindergarten through senior years is what will determine each student's ability to prosper at post-secondary education and training or in the workforce, including through self-employment. Entrepreneurship is a new facet of the education system that is being emphasized and is an extremely exciting initiative. There are many things going on. Adriano Magnifico over at River East Collegiate--I should not single out a particular teacher, but having visited with him not that long ago and seeing what he is doing with entrepreneurial education is absolutely thrilling. The opportunities for students that in years past were never mentioned are suddenly there.
Renewing education is necessary if our students are to be prepared for the future, and the quality of life for all Manitobans depends upon what happens in our schools. The vision was communicated to Manitobans through six priority areas: essential learning, which is results-based curriculum with outcomes and standards, and in subject areas from kindergarten to Senior 4, for the vast majority of students who would be expected and supported to learn in ways that have not previously occurred in Manitoba, thereby ensuring that greater numbers of students are prepared for a successful future.
Results, that is, student achievement performance, would be the indicator of success and graduation rather than just seat time. Rather than just saying, okay, you have been in school 12 years, time for you to graduate, we would say: regardless of how long you have been here, have you reached the indicators of success? If so, you will now graduate.
School effectiveness. Results are required in classrooms and schools; hence, improvements must be centred in schools.
Parental and community involvement. Children whose parents are involved in their education achieve better results. We all know that. The research on that is mammoth and beyond dispute.
Distance Education and Technology, and I think we have talked about that.
Teacher Education. We are looking--now we have John Didyk, head of Policy and Planning, and research over at the University of Manitoba in the Faculty of Education, I understand, actually teaching some of the components of New Directions, so that student teachers now have the benefit of knowing the new way of things in the schools. This is going to be a great help to new graduates.
The vision of the government of Manitoba has been articulated clearly in all Manitoba Education and Training documents released since A Blueprint for Action. Students who have been socially passed for one or more years do not have all the knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary to function within a system grounded in the vision of results and accountability. Social passing keeps a student with a peer group but does not guarantee success, nor does it guarantee self-esteem if they are kept with the peer group and are the underachiever in the peer group.
The educational system has struggled for over 100 years unsuccessfully with these kinds of students and youth. If the vision of the Government of Manitoba is to be realized, this is the cohort of students who from the greater numbers referenced in my comments earlier must come. The economic well-being of our province rests on being successful and educating the students the system has in the past continually failed to educate.
In a Canadian and international context, it has been well documented that aboriginal or indigenous communities and their children have faced barriers resulting from both individual and systemic forms of prejudice and discrimination. It is imperative that all partners in the education system acknowledge the importance of creating more inclusive school environments, curricula, programming, instructional approaches and other practices that respond to the reality of prejudice and discrimination. This necessitates that we examine closely the educational experiences of aboriginal children and all children to develop strategies that will allow aboriginal students to realize their full potential and will help all students develop an appreciation and respect for aboriginal cultures and cultural diversity.
It is equally important to realize this will require ongoing effort and commitment and underscores again the importance of high expectations for all. We do no favour to these historically disadvantaged people to allow them to graduate at a lesser standard because we have had lower expectations for them. That has not done them a favour in the past and it will only increase their disadvantage in the years to come. That is why I am especially pleased to hear the member coming on board with support for high expectations for all students, including our traditionally disadvantaged. This is a thrilling thing for me to hear.
We will create this inclusive school environment. We have put in some changes that will help with that. We have made a commitment in a Foundation for Excellence to develop new criteria that integrates aboriginal perspectives, reflects the diverse multiculture of Canada and the world, takes an antiracist approach and is gender fair, has knowledge of, and experience in, aboriginal education. That knowledge and experience is one of the criteria upon which teachers are selected for participation in curriculum project teams, reaction panels and other activities. Learning Resources selection process screens all these for new curricula, screens all the resources for bias and inclusiveness, as well as the ongoing staff development of Manitoba Education and Training in School Programs Division.
We have four interrelated and complementary beliefs or values about education and its relevance to the common good. These can be conceptualized as being the belief that all students can learn is the most important guiding principle in all aspects of educational programming and in any school- or classroom-improvement initiative; schools are the locus of change; schools must improve parents in the community to strengthen the education of their children; we must prepare them for the 21st Century.
These are four belief statements in New Directions. The "all students can learn" one is controversial. It has been the subject of dispute here in the House. It has been the subject of dispute amongst some educators in the field. Despite that opposition by the official opposition and others, we do believe that all students can learn and we will focus attention on students, how they learn with the intended developing curricula, programming, school environments, and structural strategies, that latter being most important, and learning resources that respond to the diversity of students in our schools. That leads us to a learner-centred focus in education and school improvement.
We have had to ask ourselves a lot of questions to have schools be the locus of change if we believe that all students can learn. It follows that we must also see to clearly define the essential learning that all students should experience and have opportunities to master, which means we have outcomes-based or results-based education playing a very important role in defining and clarifying our concept of essential learning.
I am going to pause there in case the member has another question and, if I am on topic, I will carry on.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I was not aware that it worked on the basis of carrying on. I assumed that the opposition asked questions and that the minister answered them.
I wondered if the minister would agree to table four of the reports that she mentioned in the early part of her response. The first one was a strategic plan for children at risk. The second was I think in conjunction with the Children and Youth Secretariat, a provincial plan for school links. The third was an FAS policy that was, I believe, interdepartmental. And fourth was a document which gave advice or had supports for, I am quoting the minister's terminology, struggling learners.
So could the minister agree to table those reports and perhaps we could just confirm that, in fact, I was picking out actual reports rather than perhaps titles or plans to have a report.
* (1620)
Mrs. McIntosh: What was the last one the member mentioned? She mentioned four.
Ms. Friesen: Three was a fetal alcohol syndrome policy or policy document. Fourth was, I could not tell whether it was a document or not, but it was support for struggling learners, and I thought that the minister had indicated that there was a document or a handbook or something for the field.
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, yes, we will bring in information on those four. Just to make sure we have got them correctly now, the FAS initiative, information on how we are dealing with struggling learners. The first two, the ChildrenFirst Strategic Plan, Schooling Services. Schooling Services is actually a group, not a document, and we can bring you information on it.
We will bring those, and I did want to indicate that I simply paused because my answer was getting fairly long. I still have much to say, and sometimes I will give a fairly, what I think is a long, detailed answer which I think is in response to the question, and when I am finished the member says you did not answer the question I asked, so I just paused, but she has indicated to carry on, so I will, just in response to her question on what other things are we going to be doing and why.
Ms. Friesen: Unfortunately, it is not really a point of order, but I wanted to clarify that first document for the minister, because the minister responded with ChildrenFirst, and what I had taken down as notes from her original statement was children at risk strategic plan. My understanding is the ChildrenFirst plan comes from the Children and Youth Secretariat?
Mrs. McIntosh: Yes.
Ms. Friesen: It does, okay. That one I have seen, and that is why I thought when I took down children at risk strategic plan, that there was another document. So I have certainly seen the ChildrenFirst one, so we do not need to talk at cross purposes there.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member was quite correct. She did not have a point of order.
Ms. Friesen: I wanted to ask the minister about the GED qualifications that this section of the department administers. There always arises, it seems to me, each year from somebody who contacts me about the nature of the GED qualification itself as to whether it is still a widely accepted qualification, whether it is the direction the government wants to continue with, whether it is still accepted at Red River, for example, or other community colleges for admission and what the general policy and plan of the department is, and I am thinking now in that movement from secondary to post-secondary education where the GED fits.
I hear from people who are very uncertain as to whether to take a GED qualification because they are not sure as to where it is going to be accepted. Is there a departmental policy paper on this? Is there some congruence between the GED qualification and the admission requirements of community colleges or of other post-secondary institutions, and I am including in that Apprenticeship.
Mrs. McIntosh: Just to complete the previous answer and then I will provide the answer to this most recent question, I had indicated that we have a belief that all students can learn and I had gotten to the point where I had indicated that if we believe that, then we have to define what essential learning is all about, and I was talking about outcomes-based or results-based education playing an important role in defining and clarifying our concept of what is the essential learning that all students should experience.
The definition of essential learning that all students should experience defines the foundation upon which career and lifelong learning will be built; hence, it is very important.
The development of a common set of standards that can be used for the assessment of student learning provides an important means and tool for gathering consistent information on student achievement that helps schools and teachers to identify areas of strength and areas of weaknesses. This information is a critical element in driving classroom and school improvement actions. It signals a shift to an educational system that seeks to answer why some students are not succeeding and to look for ways in which schools and teachers can continuously reduce the number of students who experience failure.
By failure, I mean not learning. Failure is traditionally perceived as being the mark on the paper, but I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that many students have been getting A's on their papers and been failing to learn. So it is the true failure that we are discussing here, not the paper pass or the paper failure. We have, for too long, seen passing marks for students who had failed to learn. What a terrible thing we did to them in the education system by doing that, essentially lying to them, giving them false perceptions and unfair, most unfair.
* (1630)
The belief that all students can learn requires educators to examine more closely how students learn and important differences in the student body that are relevant to the learning process. The recognition of student diversity in terms of culture, gender, intelligence, linguistic origins, learning styles, physical characteristics and other factors is a starting point for the development of instructional strategies and school-based approaches that respond to student needs. It is also an extremely important aspect of curriculum design.
Curriculum development processes and approaches must respond to a student diversity and result in a more inclusive curricula, and we have to include the integration of those items I have mentioned earlier to make the belief that all students can learn a reality. Furthermore, this belief helps us focus our attention on specific groups of students that have historically tended to not experience success in schools, and we have had to ask important questions such as: What are the essential factors that must be addressed in improving opportunities in schools, improving opportunities for success? What are the changes that must be made in school environments, classroom instruction and other elements that respond to the needs of students? How can parents and the community in general help to develop more effective practices and contribute to the improvement of the educational experience?
In a Manitoba context, this suggests that aboriginal education has to be a priority in our efforts to improve all education, because we have so many struggling learners identified in that particular group. Our cumulative experience in looking at schools as the locus for change, our cumulative experience in effecting systemic improvements in education, has highlighted the importance of school-based action.
School-based collaborative change processes that help focus commitment and efforts are at the heart of any systemic change process. This knowledge moves us to look for ways in which schools can be supported in developing and implementing effective school-based change models. School-based planning models that are collaborative and engage teachers and parents in addressing the needs of their students in the community are essential. They provide a means for the identification of strengths and weaknesses, the identification of priorities, and the development of short-term and long-term plans for achieving the desired classroom and school improvements.
Collaborative, school-based staff development approaches are an essential component of school-based change processes and the implementation of school plans. School-based staff development that is informed by the belief that all students can learn suggests that staff development must be oriented to improve and institute learning and achievement. They also provide a basis for teachers to learn from their students and their colleagues. School-based staff development approaches are key to building the local capacity to improve classroom and school experiences.
Equally important is to recognize that if schools are the locus of change, then principals and administrators must play an important role in facilitating positive school change. Leadership in this context means facilitating school improvement initiatives and building collaborative school cultures and processes. This means a shift from administrators being the managers of schools to being facilitators of learning and collaboration.
The ideal school, the ideal setting, is one in which teachers, students and parents form a learning community that values collaboration. We have said a lot about parental and community involvement. I do not think I need to go through some of the principles there again except that we do know that parents and guardians are a child's first and lifelong teachers, and their involvement has been proven to ensure greater success. Schools where students, where parents are excluded, do not have the same degree of support than those where they are included. That also goes for community members who, where the advisory councils have been embraced, have made wonderful contributions to their schools.
I am preparing students for the 21st Century. All partners in education, regardless of perspective, recognize that the future challenges in the workplace are critical. We are preparing students for careers that in many places do not exist yet. They have not yet been invented, and we have to prepare students to go out into that workforce and function. So we must teach them certain fundamental skills that are transferable, that enable them to adapt, that enable them to be flexible, that enable them to embrace change and move from one career to another because that is undoubtedly what will happen when they graduate, so sustainability is important. Sustainable development, ideas and practices are important.
Students need to be able to learn how to learn so that their learning can be lifelong because it will be constant in ways that it never was in the past. They have to be innovative. The schools preparing students for the new millennium have to reflect a diversity, have to allow students to move freely. We have to be conscious of the ability for centres of excellence to be created, not just in K to 12 but in post-secondary education, and the knocking down of school boundaries through permeating them, through driving holes in them, through merging functions, through schools of choice which will encourage students to find places where their needs can best be met, the need to develop critical thinking skills to take charge of their learning are also very, very important.
I could go on at some length, but I think I have already said a fair bit. I will just conclude with one final statement on it. We will continue to work with Manitoba teachers to build a strong curricula. For those who criticize curricula, curriculum, curricular changes, remember they are criticizing some of Manitoba's best teachers. I know it is very fashionable for people who oppose the government of Manitoba and who do not like this particular party to say a pox on your curricula, it is terrible. They forget they are really criticizing the master teachers who write the curricula, so if they have a quarrel with the curriculum, they have a quarrel with the teachers, not with the government.
The government supports those teachers. We believe in their abilities. We think they are doing a wonderful job developing curricula, and we hope that the opposition will concur that they have done a good job, they are master teachers in their field. The math curricula, for example, being prepared on an ongoing basis by master teachers, practicing mathematics teachers in Manitoba, and they deserve credit for the fine work they are doing.
If the opposition or others--I do not mean the official opposition, but those who oppose the new curricula--are opposing it because they do not like this government, better they should direct their criticism to something that does not include the unjust criticism of innocent participants.
We will continue focusing our professional development support to the divisions and areas that are identified as priorities. We will problem solve with divisions to develop innovative approaches for things like Students At Risk. We will take the leadership role, along with the Child and Youth Secretariat, to implement school-linked services, full-service schools or shared-service schools. We will examine our categorical grants to ensure that children benefit from our resources.
A member had asked about GED. That was an opportunity--or those who may not be aware reading Hansard, it was a GED testing program that provided adults, who did not have a high school diploma and they required some type of certification for employment or training purposes, an opportunity to gain a high school equivalency diploma quickly.
* (1640)
In 1997, which is the year we just completed, 1,195 GED candidates were tested. All the candidates wrote the English version of the GED test batteries, and of those tested 961 candidates completed the test battery for the first time; 203 had written the test battery in previous years but did not qualify for the diploma and therefore were retested; 31candidates did not complete the entire test battery. So of the 1,195 candidates, 787 achieved test scores high enough to qualify for the high school equivalency diploma. This was the GED introduced in Manitoba in 1972, and with the exception of two years, August '91 to July '93 by the Evergreen School Division, it has been administered by the Distance Delivery Unit in the Education department.
The GED testing program falls under an agreement with the Manitoba Education and Training and the GED Testing Service in Washington, D.C. American, but the member supports it, so even though it is American, some things are all right in the States, I guess.
GED provides Manitoba residents who qualify--
Ms. Friesen: It has been quite a long time since I posed this question. I wonder if the minister remembered what the question was. It is not an issue of whether I support it, whether it is American or not American, how many people were in the program, or how many were not. What I asked was--they were questions about where, in fact, it was being recognized. People who are taking the GED or considering taking the GED have questions about where it will be recognized.
My questions dealt very specifically with the transition from secondary to post-secondary and what the department's plan was, what their concerns were about whether or not this program was recognized or would continue to be recognized.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member did not have a point of order; more or less a clarification.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, to conclude her remarks.
Mrs. McIntosh: The GED, as I say, falls under an agreement between Manitoba and Washington, D.C. The GED provides Manitoba residents who qualify under the regulations an opportunity to obtain a Grade 12 equivalency diploma. It is commonly accepted by post-secondary institutions such as community colleges, adult learning centres, employment training centres, employers such as police and fire departments, manufacturing companies and businesses in the private sector; they will hire GED graduates for employment.
It currently operates, through the Distance Delivery Unit, 14 regular GED testing sites throughout Manitoba. It can also arrange for special testing locations as needed, and the intended plan is to continue offering GED testing throughout Manitoba as long as the demand for it is there. We have no intention of disbanding it, and I do not think we have ever indicated that we were. The member's question comes as a bit of a surprise because we have never said that an equivalency diploma was to be removed. But just as a conclusion, the majority of clients who take the GED equivalency tests are adults looking for opportunities to work or for future training.
As mature students, the GED provides them with an avenue to access training programs or college and university entry level opportunities. Since the GED students are generally native students, the vast majority of them, their entry to university is usually under the mature student entry route. So it has proven to be most helpful. We have always stated that. We have never given any indication whatsoever that it would not be continued, just as we know that we have and will continue to have people entering university as mature students. They are not all necessarily native, it is just they are a large component. But at university level, many students will enter university as mature students. They will have a year to test themselves.
We are also looking at prior learning assessment for students, and we have a person now assigned to prior learning assessment in the post-secondary branch to identify students whose life experience would qualify them for admittance to certain types of learning experiences. Again, as with the GED students, they are generally mature students, and that is being built upon not taken away from. We are building upon it with the establishment of a prior learning assessment officer. I thank the member for the question and the opportunity to clarify this.
Ms. Friesen: I want to clarify specifically whether the minister believes that the GED is recognized as an admission qualification at each of the community colleges in Manitoba.
Mrs. McIntosh: I can provide details to that when we are on the post-secondary side, and I have the colleges and university people here. I can indicate that for many courses the GED would be seen as, as would our prior learning assessment, eligible for admission, but for all courses and all diplomas, I am not sure, I think not, but that we will have to check with the admissions people. As the member knows that colleges and universities can set standards for admissions. It was one of the things that we said was important for the post-secondary institutions to be able to do. So I can provide that for her when we get to that section of the department.
Ms. Friesen: Well, that was, of course, the crux of the question is the department continues to provide this, and that is fair enough, but the issue is: how many institutions are still continuing to recognize it? I am given to understand that not all Manitoba institutions are recognizing it, and that leaves questions in people's minds as to whether this is the direction they should go. Should they go with prior learning assessment, should they go with a simple Grade 12 and go back to school? People have some confusion as to which would be the best direction for them to take. I wonder if the minister could tell us the cost of the GED testing on the lines that we are looking at in 16.2.(e).
* (1650)
Mrs. McIntosh: I indicated, quite clearly I thought, to the member. She maybe did not hear all my answer, but I did indicate that it is commonly accepted by post-secondary institutions such as community colleges, adult learning centres, employment training centres. I am not able to say if it is for each and every course, but I know that for many of these training institutions, a GED diploma is accepted for certain of their training experiences. I said that. I said it quite clearly. In fact, if she will check Hansard, she will see that I did.
I also indicated that employers such as police and fire departments look for either the high school or this GED diploma for people to have for hiring purposes. As well, I believe, I indicated that many employers look for that. This is an indication to an employer that the person has the equivalent understanding in terms of literacy and computation and general knowledge and life experience that a high school graduate would have. Many employers seek that information. They want to be assured that the person they are about to hire has reached those levels of competency.
The only thing I cannot tell the member right now is if it is always accepted by each post-secondary institution for all their training experiences. For that I would have to have with me the post-secondary side, because the member herself fought valiantly and hard in the Universities Grants Commission to ensure that we upheld the principle of universities in particular having standards that they could set, and that would include admissions, et cetera.
We offer GED to those Manitobans who want to have it. The fee that is charged and covers the cost of the assessment and the administrative costs are in the range of $28,000, but that is in total and that would be in line 6.(2) Professional Fees. There is still a use for GED, if that is what the member is asking, quite an extensive use for it. Whether the specialized use for certain kinds of post-secondary education that she has identified are there, I cannot answer at this sitting without talking to those doing admissions at colleges and universities.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, the minister indicated that the GED came out of the Professional Services, is it? I am not quite sure which line she was talking about, but I think she meant Professional Services. Could she tell us what portion of that line is for GED?
Mrs. McIntosh: Sorry, Mr. Chairman, line 6.2 Professional Fees. I am having a little trouble hearing the member. I do not know if it is a microphone thing or--
Mr. Chairperson: We will crank it up a little bit.
Mrs. McIntosh: Okay, thanks. Professional Services it is, I am sorry.
Mr. Chairperson: Yes, the next line.
Ms. Friesen: Yes, and I was asking the minister: what portion of that is allocated to GED?
Mrs. McIntosh: $28,500.
Mr. Chairperson: Could we have the members in the loge to keep it down just a little bit or entertain their thoughts out in the hallway?
Ms. Friesen: We can pass this line.
Mr. Chairperson: Item 16.2.(e)(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $4,861,500--pass; 16.2.(e)(2) Other Expenditures $3,170,400--pass; 16.2(f) Student Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,824,100--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $704,700--pass.
Resolution 16.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $28,740,100 for Education and Training, School Programs, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1999.
We will now be moving on to Resolution 16.3. Bureau de l'éducation française (a) Division Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $136,400.
Did the honourable members want to call it a day, or are we going to try and bring the staff down here? Let us call it a day.
Order, please. The hour now being five o'clock, time for private members' hour. Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.
* (1700)