[ Page 7509 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Assessment Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 48). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 7509

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Education estimates. (Hon. Mr. Brummet)

On vote 16: minister's office –– 7509

Ms. A. Hagen

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Assessment Amendment Act, 1989.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This bill amends the Assessment Act to improve appeal procedures, to introduce a more objective and easily understood method of valuing utility-class property and to deal with the impact of a number of court decisions which have the potential to create property tax instability. It addresses concerns from taxpayers about the inequitable taxation of certain properties under specific limited circumstances occurring late in the year preceding taxation and also deals with several small administrative matters.

Bill 48 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply: Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

On vote 16; minister's office, $224,490 (continued).

MS. A. HAGEN: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to the minister and his officials who are just coming into the House at this time.

This morning I'd like to return to a topic that I had some opportunity to discuss when the minister introduced his estimates last Friday: that is, the matter of student-progress monitoring systems, assessment and accountability and the record-keeping of the ministry. We had a good discussion on this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the members of the House who are having their little caucus meetings would use one of the nearby available rooms, we could hear the address to the minister.

MR. KEMPF: If this is a caucus meeting, my caucus has increased 100 percent.

MS. A. HAGEN: The member from Omineca is in fact expanding his horizons. This morning I heard him discussing quite a number of issues that are important to all of us, like what's going to happen in the next election. Perhaps that's more on our minds than education, but we should get focused. The topic of education is indeed an important one.

I want to return then to the issue of the student-progress monitoring systems that the ministry is proposing to introduce. So that my intentions are quite clear in the discussion we're going to have over the next few minutes, I want to state again that it's my intention to encourage the minister to clarify some questions in the public domain about this whole process. That's one of the opportunities we have through the discussion of his estimates.

The minister talked quite extensively on Friday about this system: that it is in a pilot phase; that it is intended to be very closely allied with the new methods of teaching that are the focus and thrust of the implementation of the royal commission. He noted on several occasions that information will stay with districts and that his intent in gathering this information was primarily to assist teachers in new methods of assessment and to have information available for the ministry in order for him to report, in his annual reports on behalf of his government, about the progress of education. He noted, for example — I think this was his final comment — that individual pupil information stays within the district, and we will get summaries of that. Let me ask for some additional information about what is intended to be gathered in this monitoring system.

On Friday we talked about the basic data that provided information about students, including the obvious information of names, birthdays and so on. It also dealt with their birth language, or the language spoken in the home, the status of native people and information about disabilities. There's other information, but that is the substantial information. It indicated that every student would also have a unique ID number. Let me just ask a couple of questions then about that data to clarify some concerns that have been raised. Could the minister indicate whether the unique ID number will indeed be unique? Will it bear any relationship to another number a child might have, such as a social insurance number or a medical number? Will it be a unique number that is discrete to the Ministry of Education's system?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In answer to the specific question about the ID number, some form of identification has been discussed. It has not yet been established what that number will be or how it will relate to the social insurance number. I don't think too many grade 1 pupils have social insurance numbers, so I think something else will have to be applied.

I want to make absolutely clear that I did say that we would be primarily interested in aggregate information from the districts, but I did say for tracking purposes, etc., we would be getting some information on every individual student, such as names and addresses. To what extent and what will be required in the ministry or through the technological system is still being discussed. I'll stay with my statement that we do have the intent. But I don't want it misunderstood that there will be absolutely no individual

[ Page 7510 ]

pupil information, because even names and addresses would be individual pupil information.

[10:15]

MS. A. HAGEN: That's helpful, Mr. Chairman. I think what I'm trying to get at, at this stage of the game, is a philosophy, a perspective, of the minister in regard to this information. I understand that computers can make it infinitely easier for us to have information readily available about students. I understand too that the minister and the public have a legitimate interest in knowing something about what happens to our students.

Later today I want to talk about the secondary schools. One of the major concerns we've had in this province is that a lot of youngsters don't graduate from high school, but we really don't have very much information about whether they drop out and come back in — whether they don't graduate because they fail to complete a course or two and then come back in the next semester and complete that course.

I wonder if the minister can give us any indication of the kind of information that he feels is important for his ministry to have in a central record. Would it be, for example, the intent of the minister to be the repository of the final, permanent records of students, so that if students wanted to get access to transcripts, something they need to have at various times once they leave the school system, the place they go for that permanent record would be not the school district they last attended but the ministry? Is that one of the possible intents?

Let me just ask a couple of questions of the minister before he responds.

Is it the intent that descriptive information about a student and a student's learning mode, if you like, that is described under the disability of the student would be in the ministry's record, or would it be in the school district record for aggregate purposes, perhaps for budgeting purposes? Is that information about the student's learning mode or learning needs relating to exceptionality be something that would be in the minister's repository of record?

I recognize the system is being piloted and being developed, Mr. Minister, but I think when a system is being developed it's good to have a perspective about what it's for and what might therefore be required to achieve the goals of the system that the ministry has in place. It seems to me the public has a legitimate and important right to know and understand that, and with that knowledge comes understanding and, in fact, support of the system, and valued input, as you say you want and are seeking in order for the system to be in place. This is an opportunity, I think, for you to define that, at least in general terms, so we understand what the goals of the ministry are in gathering this information — what kind of information they think they need for their needs.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: As far as the question about the permanent record, which has been practised here for some time and is necessary so that people who move all over the world have a source where they can get it, the answer is yes. It's primarily some sort of a permanent record of results. As far as descriptive information about the student, I can't see it as feasible. All I can say is it's not likely, and I would prefer to say absolutely no. I don't know everything that might be included under descriptive, but it's certainly not the intent to get detailed descriptions of students on the record. I would like to point out again that it's not so much a pilot situation as a consultation situation. A number of discussions have been held with EPAC and other stakeholders, and this will go on.

As to what factors about a student are necessary for the purposes intended, those purposes are basically to track pupils through the system to determine the dropout problem and so on; to track them perhaps into post-secondary so that we can make some legitimate conclusions about how many students go on into post-secondary, how many drop out, how many go into other careers; and to be able to report annually to the public in general, as I indicated, about the success of the system in giving students the knowledge, skills and attitudes that they require.

I'm going to take this opportunity to express my consternation about what became public knowledge earlier this week. I've tried to track this, and in the discussions at EPAC, I guess, and with others there were what sort of things might it be necessary or not necessary to have on the student's records or in the computer. In that discussion things were said like: what about drug abuse? What about teenage pregnancy? What about pregnancy? Are those factors to be considered? Somehow or other, and for whatever reason, that was put out by, as nearly as I can gather, the BCTF executive to say that the ministry's plan is to keep a record of teen-age pregnancies, alcohol and drug abuse, and that sort of thing. At no time has that been the ministry's plan or intent, but it was discussed. The next thing I see is an editorial in the Vancouver Sun blasting us for proposing this sort of thing. I'm used to blasts so I've developed a fairly thick skin, but my concern is that now it goes out into the public to raise anxiety or paranoia about something that was never intended.

I have to wonder about motives behind that type of thing when the people who put it out know exactly what was discussed and what the factors are. You include all factors and reject a bunch of them; then they put out a statement that the ministry's plan is to collect this kind of information, and it is not at all. Then the editorial follows, blasting us for what? "Snoopery 101" was the title. "How dare they impose on us, on our privacy," and that sort of thing, when we never intended it. We have not promoted it. As I say, the blast I can take. I get blamed for a lot of things that I don't do or don't stand for, so I'm used to it. But I'm concerned that parents out there are now saying: "My goodness, what's happening here? State control over our lives." It's not true, and I want to put that on the record.

[ Page 7511 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of State for Vancouver Island-Coast and North Coast requests leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: On behalf of my colleague the first member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) and myself, I wish to introduce some visitors from a school in our constituency of Saanich and the Islands. Visiting the House this morning is a class of grade 11 honours social studies students from Claremont Secondary School, accompanied by their teacher Mr. Colin Ruffles and several other chaperones. Claremont is one of our top schools. I ask the House to make this group of students welcome.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'm sure this is a very appropriate occasion for students to be in the House as we discuss what kind of records we're going to be keeping on students and how they're going to be used. I might note for those students that one of the most valuable kinds of assessment that I think can be done in relation to students' progress is self-assessment. I think students are wonderfully gifted and apt and accurate in knowing how they're doing and being able to chart their strengths and weaknesses and to work with teachers in deciding how to maximize those strengths and to work on those weaknesses. It's one of the best and most productive evaluation systems that one might know. Perhaps the students might be the people who put some information into the computer about their own progress and their own goals in working on areas where they want to achieve even more success than they presently do. That, I think, would be a very progressive and enlightened way for us to deal with assessment. They are the people who really need and want to know how they are doing in the school system and want to be involved with that.

Having said that, let's get on with the kind of information that might be there.

Apropos of the minister's last comment, I'm glad to hear him comment about this whole issue of lifestyles. I heard him say categorically that issues relating to lifestyles are not in any way going to be a part of these records. I hope that that is an unqualified no in respect to the questions I'm asking about what will be on the record.

However, Mr. Minister, I would note that one of the major concerns of parents — and I've heard it expressed for years and years, time and time again — is about the accuracy of information on a child's exceptionality or special needs. I think that there would be real concern if the information that puts a name to a special need of a child — I'll use that instead of saying putting a label on that child — might be in the minister's office. Is it the intent that only aggregate information on special needs will be collected in the minister's office? The appropriate special education programs, services being received, have a long list of names attached to students that relate to their special needs. Does the minister intend to have that specific information about individual students available in his office, or will that be aggregate information that he would be collecting from the school districts?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I don't like to appear rude, but I've answered that question both as to the intent and as to the fact that there is still discussion by the stakeholders as to exactly what will be in. Then you say: "Is that an unqualified no?" I've given you my intent that it is an unqualified no. But do you want me to say that no matter what the consultation process decides should be included, I should dictate that it must not? I have some difficulty. I've given you my intent, my observations.

I'll go along with the member that my idea of pupil assessment would be as a teaching device, not as any surprises later on. Pupils should know how they're progressing at any time, with consultation, and should have access to records that pertain to that.

So to say we want an exam at the end of the year — we need some exams at the end of the year. But most of the testing, assessment and evaluation should be an ongoing process with the involvement of the student: "When I'm wrong, why am I wrong? Can I correct it?" — that sort of thing. To me, that is part of the learning process. That's the type of assessment that would be my ideal. But that is not to say that I can give you an unqualified yes in that regard, because there are a lot of other people out there who have some input into the process. Some of them are quite convinced that the minister doesn't even know what he's talking about.

In other words, I'm willing to accept, where the argument is made or where the case is made, that some things may be included, but I'm not going to keep answering "aggregate, individual, specifically what" and that sort of thing. I've answered it as best I can, and I don't know how many times you want me to say it and how many times you want to just repeat the question. How much time are you supposed to kill?

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I do resent that comment about killing time.

I have asked the minister to state his position. It seems to me that as the major stakeholder in what's going to be in the ministry's office, he has every right to state his position. That position, in fact, is a position that I think would hold. It seems to me that the minister needs to know what he needs to know in his office and that that's a matter of the philosophy of what is maintained in a central registry. I don't think there should be any qualifications about it.

If the minister says at this stage of the game that it's not his intent and his plan to deal with an individual profile in the office but aggregate information, I hope what he's stating is a philosophy that will guide this program. I don't think there's any desire on the part of school districts to have all information on individual students in his office. I can't imagine that that would be the case.

[10:30]

[ Page 7512 ]

Let me move to the student record system that's described under appendix 2 in the ministry circular on student-progress monitoring systems and see if we can get just a little clarification here. This area is very much under discussion, and it's an area that everyone is interested in. The area of student outcome data it's called: data elements reflecting each of intellectual development, human and social development and career development. There is a note that states that the criteria for these will be developed as work on the royal commission implementation proceeds. I understand that these are taken from the main goals of the royal commission; they are the goals of education Mr. Sullivan identified. They are the broad domains in which we want to ensure that the school system and the students in the system achieve progress.

I note that in the minister's last annual report, the statistical supplement has a good deal of information on the goals of education: intellectual development, vocational development, human development and a number of other things such as accessibility, relevance, professionalism, and so on. I gather, looking at the information in this report, which is quite different from earlier reports, that the ministry is moving in this area.

I note, for example, under the area of human development, that the only items this year are student participation and scholarship examinations. I think I might qualify that as intellectual development rather than human development, but perhaps it's a mix of things. Can the minister give us some idea of what indeed he sees as being dealt with in these areas?

I would be particularly interested in having him begin by talking about how the school system plans to track by some computer process, by some input measures, human and social development. Can the minister expand on how things are going with that and what he has in mind in tracking that outcome data? It's quite different from the usual record of student grades by year which has been the method by which we have looked at outcomes in the past.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, I can't expand on that because many of the criteria — what should be tracked, what is going to be a significant factor — are being worked out through the consultation process. I might read from the statement: "All accountability activities are based on the basic assumption that effective evaluation must take account of the unique context and needs of students, be based on school program objectives, and be used to improve educational services.... Accountability is complex, and should be part of educational practice." As the curriculum and the objectives in each course are developed, the assessment practices and how to measure them will be determined by the process, not by the edict of the minister.

MS. A. HAGEN: In almost all of the work the ministry has done in respect to the implementation of the royal commission, I felt pretty comfortable that what was being done was based on the royal commission and on some solid discussions that have occurred. I must say, Mr. Minister, that I'm unclear about just where we stand in this area. The human and social development aspects are indeed a very fundamental aspect of schooling. I am asking you, as the Minister of Education and the person who must have some philosophical and ministerial responsibility and perspective on this, to at least comment on what you think might be encompassed in this, and to give us some idea....

Let me just give you an example of a circumstance with my own child, who is now a grown young man. One of the issues often talked about in the evaluation of my older son was his social development, because he was a youngster who worked best in small groups. Although he was a very bright youngster, he didn't really want to participate in some of the school activities in the way the school thought he should. There was a lot of pressure on him that his social development be well rounded. There was a lot of pressure on him to participate.

I wonder if social development might have a comment.... I am perhaps leading with this, but I really want you to give me some idea of what you are talking about here. You might have a comment about the fact that this young man did not participate in social activities, that he was a loner. Teachers talked to me about that. I didn't have any problem with teachers talking to me about it; it was a parent-child conference about the nature of this child and his learning mode. But there might have been some concerns of the teacher and something you could push a button on that said something about that child that would be in the record. I want some idea of what you are talking about when you talk about human and social development.

You must be taking something to EPAC, the advisory committee, around the areas you deal with here. You must have some concept of that. If you would be kind enough to give us some idea of the measures you think would let you in the ministry chart that goal of education through some sort of assessment process, I think the public would feel that we have some idea of where the ministry is coming from. The ministry is, in fact, the lead group. You are responsible, if you like, for providing at least a framework for discussions, so you must have some ideas, some perspectives in that regard, that you are taking to the groups with whom you are consulting on how to proceed with this.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I could say that I have some difficulty dealing with all the "what ifs" and the hypothetical type of stuff. But it is not the intent to try to measure the degree of loner-ness or participation.

Perhaps this will help the member. In the policy directions that we put out, which were discussed, which flowed from the Sullivan report and from the consultation process and were hammered out and accepted by government, it says:

[ Page 7513 ]

"Government is responsible for ensuring that all of our youth have the opportunity to obtain high quality schooling that will assist in the development of an educated society. To this end, schools in the province assist in the development of citizens who are thoughtful, able to learn and to think critically and who can communicate information from a broad knowledge base; creative, flexible, self-motivated and who have a positive self image; capable of making independent decisions; skilled and who can contribute to society generally, including the world of work; productive, who gain satisfaction through achievement and who strive for physical well-being; cooperative, principled and respectful of others regardless of differences; aware of the rights and prepared to exercise the responsibilities of an individual within the family, the community, Canada and the world."

That is the general broad statement of the objectives of the educated citizen. The schools will do their best to encompass all of those factors in what they're doing.

For a school to discuss with a parent whether a student is a loner, doesn't seem to mix, doesn't do that sort of thing, I have no problem with that, but to try to quantify that in measurements.... As I said, we don't intend to set up a scale of loner-ness and try and measure that; I don't think so, anyway.

MS. A. HAGEN: Could I ask the minister if that list — which he read from the policy directions of the ministry — might be the list of measures and would be dealt with subjectively? Or is it the intent to have some measures that deal with students' progress or development in those worthy areas?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I don't know how many times I can answer this. The member is continually working on her suggestion or understanding that these are all going to be directions of the ministry. There may be some directions necessary eventually, but those directions are being developed by and through the consultative process.

I don't know how often I can say that we don't intend for me to go into a back room, decide what all is good for education, what all is good for measurement, and then come out with a prescriptive list and require everybody to follow it. What we're trying to do as we develop the process is work out what lists are and aren't necessary. I think that it will develop a much broader system. Those constant references to what the ministry is going to tell them to do.... We're trying to work the consultative process, and therefore I don't have an edict type of answer to your questions.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'll accept the minister's comments and examine another couple of themes.

The student outcome data that we've just been talking about — for which the structure and the methodology is being developed, as the minister says, in consultation — is obviously information that the individual teachers and the schools will want to have as part of their evaluation processes. Looking at the kind of information that the ministry appears to moving toward in its annual report, what information does the minister see himself needing to have for that report coming out of this student outcome data — again, aggregate information, by-district information, by-school information?

I don't think that I would find it acceptable for the minister to say: "I don't know what I need to know." It seems to me that you can't set up an information system without having some understanding or clear statement of what information you in the ministry want to have available. I'm not asking for all the details, but I want to know what you plan to take out of this student record system in the way of information that will then be reported in your annual report — the statistical supplement part of it — to the people of the province.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The type of information that I will need is the data and the information in order to put together an aggregate report. We may want to report, for instance, how many students five years old there are in the system. I can assure the member that I have no intention of putting in the annual report 40,000 students who are in kindergarten and five years old. But in order to put together how many five-year-olds there are or how many six-year-olds there are in the first year of school, we may need to know their individual ages.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I asked the minister not about that kind of data but about the student outcome data that he and a consultative group are working on developing in a provincewide monitoring system. What kind of information out of student-outcome data — which presumably has to do with student progress, the measure of how they're doing in school — does the minister see himself needing for his annual report? Will that information be based on how many students are taking particular courses, on how they are doing in intellectual development, human and social development, career development? Will it be based on district, on schools? What kind of information does the minister need for this?

[10:45]

I understand that the school needs that information. I have no problem at all with the ministry and school districts and teachers working on developing some systems that will make it easier and more efficient for teachers to do the kind of evaluation that they would like to do. But it seems to me that what has happened here is that we maybe have the cart before the horse. We have a whole lot of work going on in taking some records about these people — who are people — and plugging them into the computer. I'm trying to figure out what's going in and what use it has. At this stage of the game, I'm asking the minister: around this business of student-outcome data, is that information the minister is going to use? What kind of information does he see reporting back to the public? It seems to me a fairly straightforward question to ask of the minister, that he give me some idea of what his direction is in this area.

[ Page 7514 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess we can be at this all day. What sort of data do you need to measure the intended outcomes? The first thing, of course, that I need is the list of intended outcomes. I have said repeatedly that that list of specific intended outcomes has to be developed through the consultation process, by the teachers, by the parents. When we get that list, we can then ask what we need to know in order to measure whether or not we have reached that intended outcome.

We have stated in general terms that the intended outcomes.... I've listed them off: the educated citizen.... Those are the types of things. But it has to be determined what the specific measuring-posts or signposts will be. Some will be very specific. How tall are pupils? We can measure that very objectively. How sociable are they? It would be almost impossible to measure that, wouldn't it? It's a matter of interpretation. So I think the member should give us credit. We're not going to try to set up 16 items on a checklist to see how friendly students are and then set up some sort of a great monitoring, electronic system to determine degrees of friendliness. I'm trying to use those examples.

How can you decide what data you're going to need until you have the specific list of intended outcomes. I'm sure that that list will vary in many of the curriculum guides that are now in place. For example, the language arts teachers have worked out a curriculum and said: "These are all of the things students should be able to do in order to be considered successful readers or successful communicators." All of these lists vary by grades. When those are in place, how do you know whether a student can read? By what device do you measure it? Those are the sorts of things. The whole process has to work together. Evaluation, monitoring and assessment is an integral part of what you're trying to establish - no trick.

If you want to know how high every student can jump, you can set up objective criteria: on what day, in what year, in which month and according to altitude and pressure at sea level and all those sorts of things. You can get that ridiculous, if you want a specific list of every single item.

I've given you the general intent, and we spelled that out in the education policies. Fleshing that out, putting it together, is what's being done now through the consultative process. May I repeat? Try it again. Two major intents of the data collection are to track pupils through the system and into the world of work and post-secondary education, including drop-outs, drop-ins and that sort of thing, and also to report to the public in general on a provincial basis about the successes of the system in giving students the knowledge, skills and attitudes they require. I've gone into detail on that one.

I'm trying to determine what the member wants to know. What are we going to be measuring in May of 1991? What data are we going to collect to measure the outcomes? We're still working on the list of outcomes.

MS. A. HAGEN: I guess we may come back to this another time, another year — perhaps another set of circumstances.

I find it troubling, in spite of my understanding and acceptance of the evolution of this, that there is in place a movement that seems almost to be superseding the more individual and teacher-student-parent-based approach. Maybe that's not quite fair, and I don't want to be unfair in this process. I genuinely want to understand what is happening at the ministry level. If the minister is assisting in this process of evaluation, that's a fair and legitimate activity for him to be involved in. If we are letting technology and that kind of a system take all our attention, without looking at some of the other measures that need to be there, then that would be troublesome.

Let me just ask the minister a couple of other questions, and then we'll leave this topic. I think we've probably examined it as fully as we're going to be able to with the minister's state of development in it at this time.

Is it the intent that the kind of information which will eventually be documented through these outcomes that are being defined and the record-keeping that is taking place will form the basis of the four or five reports to parents, a sort of fundamental printout? Five is, I think, the suggested number of reports that parents will receive. Is it the intent that once this whole program is in place, this kind of information at the school level will form the basis of the written reports for parents?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I thought everyone understood that the computer is a machine, a very efficient machine, and what it spits out depends on what people put in.

MS. A, HAGEN: Presumably something is going in that has to do with what is called "student outcomes." Is it the expectation of the ministry that the information that's being developed — collectively, if you like, with direction from the ministry in consultation with teachers and parents and others who are concerned — will form the basis of the five reports? Not all of it, I'm not asking that. But the basis for it: what is printed on a piece of paper that goes home with John or Jane to parents, or that is delivered to Mr. and Mrs. Brown when they come to have a consultation with the teacher about how their child is doing in school.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, it would be a joint effort. The teachers will be attempting, as they do now, to convey to parents a message about the progress the student is making, and in what way, and what evidence there is to support that. That's the type of thing they would put in. You ask whether it's going to be strictly a teacher process or in part by the ministry. As I see it, it will be the teacher's report to the parents; that this will be one of the uses of the computer. But if they put in the age of the child and which year the child is in school, we may just work

[ Page 7515 ]

out a disk that feeds into all computers to record age, year of school, district number, things of that nature.

I may be sounding a bit facetious, but it seems that when.... We're making machines available in the school. The software is yet to be developed as to what programs the machines will run. These computers are intended for two purposes. Primarily it's so that teachers and the school can track the progress of pupils. From that, some objective and perhaps even other data will show up as generalized data, such as how many pupils have taken four years to get here or three years to get here. We can pull that out, and if it's useful in reporting in aggregate terms.... Again, in an annual report we're certainly not going to take the 500,000 or so pupils in this province and try to say that Jimmy did this, that and the other thing, but I think we can pull together that so many pupils have progressed to certain levels, based on the assessment that teachers are doing. I'm just wondering why we're belabouring something that we can't determine at this point.

MS. A. HAGEN: It was Mr. Sullivan, I think, who noted what a complex matter assessment and evaluation is and how many factors go into it. I think that's the fundamental reason we're belabouring it. We have 500,000 students in 75 school districts, with a range of needs and characteristics as numerous as almost every school in the province.

I'll try to keep this to two other questions. My intent is to understand the intent and goals of the minister. It's not my intent to belabour the issue; but the sooner you can clarify it, the sooner we'll be out of it, I guess. I understand that the ministry does intend to have a standardized system that measures outcomes. It may not be the only system, but there will be a standardized system right across the province.

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN: Let me just tell you what I understand, Mr. Minister, and you'll have every opportunity to correct that perception.

I want to move from data to outcomes. In my reading of what has been stated, there dearly appears to be an intent around outcomes. There seems to be an intent to have some kind of standard measures agreed upon, presumably by having the people with whom you're consulting accept the process. The outcome of that development process is that at the end there will be standard software in a computer that does some measuring. Is it in fact the case that every school across the province will have some common measurements of the achievements and outcomes of children as they relate to the goals and attributes — which, I think, is the other word used — of a quality school system?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that where the same question needs to be asked and where people agree that the same factor is a factor in determining pupil progress, it makes little sense to say: "But you mustn't use the same question in each district." There will be standardized items and there will be locally developed items. At this point I can't tell you which ones are which, because we have not finished the consultation process; and in a sense, I hope we never finish it.

MS. A. HAGEN: That's certainly an appropriate comment for an Education minister. It certainly will be a constantly evolving process.

One of the recommendations and thrusts of the ministry is that there will be annual reports, not only by the ministry, which we are accustomed to, but.... Every district will do an annual report and possibly every school. What relationship might there be between that information and the annual report that a school or a district would produce? Is the ministry proposing to have some kind of guidelines about what information will be part of the annual report of each school district, or is that something that each school district will determine on its own, with the information resources it has available?

[11:00]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm assuming that if in broad terms the intended outcomes are the intended outcomes for all students in this province, then some of them will be standard procedures. The intent is to follow the recommendations of the Sullivan report, which primarily says, in summary, that school districts have provided financial accountability to the public and to parents, and that in the future they should also provide a form of educational accountability. I'm sure it will vary from one district to another, and I'm sure there will be common factors.

MS. A. HAGEN: Quite frequently in this House the minister acknowledges a special achievement, something we all applaud. At the same time, I think the goal of education, as the minister noted earlier, that every child would have the opportunity for an education to his or her potential, an education that is stimulating and challenging for each and every child in the province.... I sometimes get the feeling that the minister might feel that if we were in fact to have districts or even schools compare themselves with one another, it might have a beneficial effect on the system; an element of competition might occur here. Is there any intent on the part of the ministry to encourage school districts to report the progress of individual schools in the district in respect to the goals and attributes of a quality school system — again using the language of the ministry around goals and attributes?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, it is not our intent to set up a system of comparing schools. The system we're trying to set up is to have schools and districts judge themselves against the measurement of what they are trying to provide in the way of an educational program.

[ Page 7516 ]

MS. A. HAGEN: I think that's a very important point to make. I remember when the provincial learning assessment program was first introduced, there was a lot of discussion about how the information would be used. We don't allow parents to see the permanent record of any of their children without a professional being there to interpret it, if you like. I think it's a requirement in the School Act that those records are the property of the school and that interpretation is required. It seems to me that in every regard, when we're looking at reporting, there is the need for interpretation and understanding of the needs of the school, the needs of individual students and the characteristics of the community in which that school lives, works and serves the community.

It seems to me that there are some fundamental principles that this record-keeping system, or the monitoring system that is being discussed and planned very significantly, has to address. In my mind they would be the privacy of the individual, the right of the child to privacy in respect to his particular schooling, the attributes of the child and the characteristics of the child's family and background. I think it's a fundamental principle in our society that we would all want to ensure was protected. Closely aligned with it is the matter of confidentiality; that where people do maintain those records in the interests of planning for the child's progress, monitoring that progress and making new plans, those records are confidential and are used only for that purpose.

That brings me to the third point: that the records are indeed useful to the child, the teacher and the school. If they are not, I would maintain that they are not useful to the system either. I recognize the need for us to have some broad information about the system, but the primary purpose of those records should be their usefulness. That usefulness can in fact extend to the system but should only be where they help the system to plan. Therefore we really have to look at the appropriateness of those records.

We've had a good discussion about this. I think the minister has given us some indication of the progress of this program. I don't think that he has allayed all the concerns that may be there. They are concerns where people want to know what the ministry's intent is. It's not a question of being Luddites or not wanting to proceed with using technology to help teachers, administrators, school districts and the ministry with their tasks.

I hope that one of the things the minister will ensure that he does as this whole system progresses is to make available from time to time some information on progress. I think it is particularly important for parents. Although parents are a part of the consultative process and far more numerous than any of the other stakeholders in the system, their methods of communicating are less sophisticated than those of teachers, trustees and other discrete sectors. I think parents are fundamentally the people who need to know what records are being kept on their children, what the intent of those records is, how they may know what is on the records and how they may be a part of the evaluation and assessment.

I'd like to make just one final comment in this particular area before I leave it, and it is the important comment I made to the students from Claremont School in Saanich: students themselves should be considered as very active participants in the monitoring process. The minister himself made a useful comment — if I recall; paraphrasing what he said earlier — that if a student can ask what he's having trouble with, have some means of analyzing it and have some direction, that is a very useful tool in respect to a student's learning. That can start from the time a child is in first-year primary — is that what we call it now, rather than kindergarten? That's something that can begin very early on.

My favorite memory of a primary class is one where a little boy who was about grade 1 came up to a teacher in an ungraded classroom — this was back in the 1970s — and said to that teacher, Mrs. Whoever-it-was: "This is wrong. Can you help me to know how to make it right?" That approach to learning is one in which the child understands that when he has a need for assistance and support, he can go to the teacher. If we can use systems in any way to help that child know where he has a need and help him to find out — perhaps through technology as well as the teacher — how he may progress, that's a wonderful aspect of using that technology.

I am going to move on to another topic at this particular time, but I want to thank the minister for our discussion of this issue. I want to urge him in respect to parents and students — perhaps students close to the secondary level for a start, but students at any age where they could be involved — that they would be informed and involved as the system develops, and that the qualifications of privacy, confidentiality, usefulness and appropriateness be demonstrated in the system that is developed.

If not, I am sure that the minister will see other comments like "Snoopery 101," which comes from a concern about the information we keep on our citizens and their rights, in the context of our feeling that we have a right to know and our desire to use systems to make the system work as effectively as it can.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Cowichan-Malahat requests leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BRUCE: I am sure all members have heard of Chemainus, that wonderful little town that did. In the House right at the moment are approximately 30 students from Chemainus Elementary School, along with their teacher Mr. Smith and a number of parents. They have come here today to see what the Legislature and the government process is all about. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I am inclined to agree with and support the recommenda-

[ Page 7517 ]

tions the member has made about confidentiality and the importance of all these measures and the involvement of parents. I would have a little difficulty in giving her full credit for inventing it, because it sounds very much like she was reading it from the draft act that was discussed at EPAC. In fact, I think that's the draft that was out and has been discussed. I agree; I agree; I agree.

The only problem I have is when the member asked if I can alleviate all these concerns. I guess I have to answer no. There will always remain some legitimate concerns, and there will always be people who will foster concerns that don't even exist, so I can't alleviate them in advance.

MS. A. HAGEN: I have an editorial comment before we move on to the next topic. I think the minister is really committed to the improvement of education, and I think he has worked very hard in that regard. I acknowledged that at the start of the session.

I think what he hasn't acknowledged is that some of that criticism may have some legitimate basis, and that is part and parcel of arriving at the very best decisions. At times, I think he is hurt or angry or feels somewhat betrayed if people question either his motives or his actions. We are all noble people, Mr. Minister, and we are all in pursuit of improving education. I want to say that on behalf of those people who may question either your motives or your actions.

Let me move on to a totally different area. It's an area that may have had the elements of being a local school board concern until the last two or three years. It is now, I think, very much a provincial concern, and that is multiculturalism and the teaching of English as a second language.

Over the last number of years there have been some amazing developments in our school population. I think this is true not only in Vancouver, which has a very large number of students — quantified at half of the students who attend school — who have English as a second language in their homes, either as their birth language or as a language that they know simultaneously with the learning of English.

Not only is that now a characteristic of the Vancouver school system, but more and more we are seeing the changes in the makeup of our society in other parts of the province. In Prince George, in the Okanagan and in the greater Vancouver area — people who come from other cultures and other backgrounds live in every community of our province.

[11:15]

I've become extremely interested in this area, because I think it is an emerging characteristic of our school system that we haven't caught up with yet. It has a lot to teach us, and we need to be working very hard to respond to the nature of a multicultural school community, rather than a school community that tends to come from a relatively homogeneous culture. It's interesting too that that ESL, that multicultural population, in many instances represents not people who are new Canadians but children who are born in Canada.

The other night as I was walking into my house, I ran into a neighbour of mine, the mother of a little child about two. I can't remember whether she's Finnish or Danish. The language that that child is learning as his birth language, as his home language, is Danish. So that child will be a bilingual child from the very beginning.

We're seeing that parents value the ability to speak a second language. That's something they want to pass on to their children, so that they will be enriched by the knowledge of a second language, so that they will be able to communicate with grandparents and extended family, so that their education will, from the very beginning, start out as an enriched education. I think that that particular approach is an admirable one. It's very different from the approach of my husband's parents, for example, who were Norwegian, where the oldest child in the family did learn Norwegian but the younger members of the family — my husband is one of those younger members — know just a few words, because at that time, in the thirties, it wasn't thought to be a good thing to encourage your children to know that second language as well as English. First of all, I think the approach of the families who teach their children, converse and have their children learn the language of their culture as a birth language is a very commendable approach, and it will indeed enrich our society greatly.

I think, too, that we will learn, in ways that we in North America, in Canada, have been slow to learn, about the teaching of language, as a result of the experiences of these children. There's an article in the May 31 UBC Reports, which has the headline, "Students of ESL Blessing in Disguise, Say UBC Researchers." These children's experiences "can be an opportunity to learn more about how we all learn languages." That is indeed a very important learning that we can gain from working with children who come from another culture than strictly a Canadian culture, even from another culture which in fact is very much rooted in Canada but where parents have a second language. Those children can help us all know and understand how people do learn language.

The other aspect of this that I think we don't always keep in perspective is the close relationship between language and culture. It is a very profound relationship, one we are just really beginning to pay attention to. Our former Minister of Culture, the Minister of Tourism and Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Reid), made a comment to the annual general meeting of AMSSA — the Affiliation of Multicultural Societies and Service Agencies of B.C. — that represents the more narrow view which is too broadly afoot and shows some of our lack of understanding. I quote from the November 1988 Cultures West of AMSSA, which is reporting on a speech of the hon. Provincial Secretary to their annual meeting, in which he's quoted as saying, referring to the multicultural community: "...they want to be called multicultural before they are called Canadian."

[ Page 7518 ]

My experience with the multicultural community is that they have a profound love of their adopted country. That love is being expressed often by our Lieutenant-Governor, who is very much a new Canadian, a person from another culture, who has adopted and speaks to and for Canadians in his role as our Lieutenant-Governor, but who comes from that multicultural perspective and addresses it.

These are some of the factors that come into our whole looking at how we in the education system respond to the needs of a very significant number of children for language training, for an understanding of their culture, and also for a recognition of the relationship between culture and language.

One of the aspects of the education policy advisory committee's work that really delighted me was the fact that it took the multiculturalism recommendations of the royal commission and expanded them almost threefold. There were four recommendations in the commission's report. As a result of consultation with EPAC, the recommendations that went to the minister were greatly enhanced. I think that came about as a result of extensive consultation within the multicultural community, which was in fact the body that developed those recommendations for their representative on EPAC.

It perhaps helps, to some extent, to at least give more focus to this issue, because one of the great disappointments of the royal commission report was that there was so little recognition of English-as-a-second-language needs and multiculturalism. I state that as a perspective that has come to me from a large number of people who felt that in this area the commissioner failed to recognize an emerging need and failed to really address it in a way that provided direction for the minister.

I therefore want to explore with the minister some of his intentions in respect to this very important area. It's my perspective that this government sees the education of children from other cultures and with other languages spoken in the home as primarily a federal responsibility. Certainly there has been considerable emphasis on federal involvement as a major means of providing the financial resources for programs for these children. In my view, these are our children; and education is a provincial responsibility. Though we should involve the federal government in support of those services, we need to plan and fund in our own right for the needs of our children.

I would note that even in the area of immigrant settlement services we have the most abysmal record of any of the major receiving provinces. This is a province that is encouraging immigration; a province that needs immigration, as we do in Canada in order to have the human resources to keep our economy healthy and buoyant. In B.C. the provincial government spends $8.76 per immigrant, which is a very low amount compared with provinces such as Alberta. The record states that British Columbia is "outspokenly reluctant to fund services which they argue fall under federal jurisdiction," and that's a quote from the federal report called, "After the Door Has Been Opened" — a review of the kinds of services available to immigrants.

Let me begin some discussion on this with the minister by asking him what his view is of the role of the provincial government vis-à-vis the federal government in providing the financial resources for the education of English-as-a-second-language students within our school system.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, we have had 13 minutes to get to one question. I guess I commend the member for wanting to record for posterity her impressions, her views on a whole range of other matters and other views of multiculturalism, to try and get onto the record her great concern for multiculturalism, her family history and things of that nature. It's all recorded for posterity now, and I guess I hope that someone will read it and be impressed by your depth of research and your astute observations as to how the Sullivan commission operated and came to its conclusions. For your sake, I hope somebody does read it and is impressed.

Let me try and bring it back to the budget. We consider we have a provincial responsibility for multiculturalism, for ESL, and we have taken on that responsibility. We fund almost $54 million in shared budgets for ESL, $33 million of it in the Vancouver system. In the fiscal framework we provide one teacher for every 21 pupils identified as receiving a program. We work closely with officials of the Vancouver School Board and other districts to ensure that programs are being developed to cope with the rapid increases.

We are negotiating with the federal government regarding the rapid increase. The immigration policy of the federal government affects the amount of demand on our system, at what time and at what sudden rate - as we experienced last year. I guess I have to commend the system - both the Vancouver School District and the people in my ministry - for how well that was dealt with despite the fact that we had no warning that people were coming. We are negotiating with the federal government, and we think that the immigration policy affects the funding that we have to come up with and that therefore they should contribute to it.

I don't like the impression the member was trying to leave that we are trying to foist it all onto the federal government. That is not true, it is not correct, and I think I've given some of the facts. When you put in $60 million for ESL plus a lot of effort and work towards that, and when the districts and other people in this province are putting in a lot more to make that happen, then let's not try and leave the impression that we are trying to absolve ourselves of the responsibility by putting it all on the federal government.

[11:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, the Chairman does appreciate your remarks, and the Chair has been very lenient with both the member and the minister this morning with questions and answers. I will

[ Page 7519 ]

remind both the minister and the member that Erskine May says that in committee of supply debate on an amendment must be restricted to the principle of appropriation. I realize that the member does need a bit of leeway in order to frame her questions, but we are not here really to discuss the philosophy of education; we're here to discuss the estimates on education. If the member could possibly abbreviate her framing and put her question, maybe the minister could operate in the same manner and the estimates will move on. Will the member please proceed.

MS. A. HAGEN: Thank you for your advice, Mr. Chairman. I must note that the philosophy of education is perhaps the most fundamental aspect of the system, and it would be very difficult to discuss the estimates of the minister without paying some attention to that philosophy.

I want to move on to some specific questions to the minister regarding the funding and support of English as a second language. I want to ask the minister if, in his mind, there is a difference in migration from other provinces and migration in the form of immigration as far as children coming into the system is concerned. Does it make any difference where the kids come from, as far as our responsibility for them is concerned — whether they come from Ontario or Quebec? If a child comes from Quebec, for example, is that something that makes any difference to us? Or from Newfoundland instead of from Vietnam or Hong Kong, in respect to how we view our responsibility for that child in the system?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: If they are citizens or landed immigrants — in other words, meet the legal qualification requirements — then we treat them the same. The only difference — I'm trying to connect this with the previous topic — is in ESL. I guess if they come from another province and can speak and handle English, then we don't have an ESL situation. In that respect they differ. But if they meet the same criteria for language, then they may or may not differ.

MS. A. HAGEN: The minister noted that they're shared funds within the fiscal framework. I gather that that means it's in the shareable part that ESL is covered not in the fundamental grant. Could I ask the minister some specific questions about what may be included in the formula for the fiscal framework — for example, the class size? He has responded that the class size is one teacher per 21 pupils. I presume it is a full-time equivalent pupil. Is there, in the framework, support for multicultural workers in the school — people who are able to communicate with the home where only the language of the culture may be spoken? Does it provide for staff support to the teacher of that class of 21, presuming there is a class of that size? Does it provide for transportation, which in some instances may be required because of students moving outside of their own home community? Does it provide for the initial assessment and placement of a student? For what number of years is a student eligible for ESL? Is there a time-frame in which a student might qualify? Does it include primary children — children who are under nine — or is this funding available only for those students who are beyond the primary grades?

There are a number of questions there. I would be happy to repeat any of them if the minister hasn't been able to track them as I've gone through this.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would imagine that transportation and some of the other items would fall under standard transportation. There's no special transportation allowance for each category of pupils. It's all under the transportation budget.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

There is, I believe, a half-time aide for every 21 pupils. Maybe the best thing is to read it for the member. This is for English as a second language:

"For the first 12 pupils, one teaching unit for every 12 pupils."

Maybe I'd better explain "teaching unit." A teaching unit is the base on which much of the funding is based, if I may repeat the word.

"For the next 84 pupils, one teaching unit plus half a teaching assistant for every 21 pupils; plus, for the next 7,500 pupils, one teaching unit for every 22 pupils, plus half a teaching assistant for every 22 pupils; plus for the remaining pupils, one teaching unit for every 23 pupils, plus half a teaching assistant for every 23 pupils — where pupils are head-count enrolment in English as a second language."

MS. A. HAGEN: A repeat of a couple of questions. Is there, included in the funding for English as a second language, funding for multicultural workers? They would be people who would work directly with the home, communicate with the home on behalf of the school, and help to interpret school policy, school programs and school placement.

A second question: is there a recognition of the need for both initial and ongoing assessment that may be specific and special for English-as-a-second-language students as distinct from the assessment that happens with all pupils?

Thirdly, is there a time-frame in which it is deemed that a student becomes sufficiently proficient to not require English-as-a-second-language training any longer?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The teaching units generate an amount of funding which seems to be considerably more generous than for regular classes. What name the school district wants to put to the teaching assistants or how they want to distribute that money or in what way they want to hire is at their discretion.

MS. A. HAGEN: Could the minister advise us if he currently has requests from the Vancouver School District regarding educational second-language needs and something of the nature of those requests — the deficiencies, if any, that he's aware of?

[ Page 7520 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: There has been over time a number of requests for more and more English-as-a second-language from the Vancouver School District. What we do is say, "Give us your enrolment count," and automatically the formula drives the funding up on this generous basis.

MS. A. HAGEN: The Vancouver School Board is interested in having a reception centre for children which would be an initial contact with the system and an opportunity to assess and place children. It's a system that has worked extremely well in Toronto. Would that kind of an initiative be supported by the provincial government, or would the provincial government be seeking federal support for that particular initiative as part of the federal government's responsibility for the initial reception and placement of children coming into the country as new citizens?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The Vancouver School Board has the right to set up their program the way they wish. If they want a reception centre separate from the schools they have the autonomy to do so.

MS. A. HAGEN: The education policy advisory committee, in its final recommendations to the minister following the consultation process, made a number of recommendations and the ministry did some costing of those recommendations. One of them had to do with additional support for English-as-a-second-language programs through shared funding. The investment required — this is noted in the November 17 discussion report of EPAC — for additional support for ESL was $10 million.

Could the minister advise the House if there has been any increase in the funding available for ESL in this current year and, if so, perhaps give us some pattern of the number of dollars that are made available for this initiative from the provincial funding process?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In the budget for this year, the funding for ESL has gone up, partly driven by enrolment increases and partly by other factors.

MS. A. HAGEN: Could the minister advise us by how much it has gone up, and whether there has been an absolute increase or whether the increase is simply a product of increased enrolment?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I believe last year there was $53.9 million. It has gone up to $57.3 million. We don't know exactly how much it will go up until we know the enrolment, because it is enrolment-driven. If I do the arithmetic, that is absolutely correct.

MS. A. HAGEN: If I do the arithmetic — and I'm not all that quick at percentages, Mr. Minister — it looks to me as if that's gone up a little over $3 million, something like 6 or 7 percent, which would suggest that it has gone up less than the percentage increase that you have accorded across the board in other areas. I guess I might presume from that, unless you can enlighten me differently, that there has been no absolute increase in the dollars available; that the increase, when you consider the increase in enrolment, may not even keep pace with inflation, let alone add any extra dollars for English as a second language. That's how I would interpret those figures. I'll give you an opportunity to interpret them differently if you'd like to.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's so hard to earmark every dollar according to — what? For instance, we have also provided for some money — we won't know how much until we know how many districts take advantage of it — for full-day kindergarten for ESL students. I can't give you the exact numbers on that. Some of it is in the general funding formula, but what about teacher's salaries? Is that included? Is that inflationary or is it not inflationary? Is it absolute? You can play games with these numbers all you like. I gave you the formula. I read it fairly quickly, but it's available in printed form if you like, the basis on which we fund, which is more generous than how we fund the regular classes. That funding is then driven by the number of students there are, and so it goes up according to that. The budget each year goes up. We've certainly put into the shareable formula almost three times the inflation rate, and we keep getting requests like your saying that we didn't put enough dollars here or enough there. The member then brings in: "Does that include transportation?" If the total budget goes up by 10 percent, there is provision in there for all the factors in that budget.

[11:45]

MS. A. HAGEN: The funding for English-as-a-second-language students comes under special education funding, as I read the minister's way of organizing this in the annual report. Most of the time when we are looking at special needs students, we look at the need for smaller class sizes. I know that one of the recommendations is that the class size for English-as-a-second-language students be set at 15. Indeed, there are a whole lot of things that have to be considered in how best to provide students with the need for English as a second language. Would the minister agree that the one in 21 or 22 is significantly higher than the usual pupil-teacher class-size ratio that we would be looking at for other special needs students? There seems to be some difference in approach here in how we factor how many teachers we need to help these students learn the language that they need to learn well. There are some different criteria used for these special needs students as distinct from most other special needs students within the system.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, we always have arguments about what size classes should be. I don't think it will ever get settled. The Sullivan commission looked at it for a long time and couldn't come up with any conclusions that established anything. What I've given you are the service levels, and the service levels include a teaching unit plus half a teaching assistant for X number of students. From

[ Page 7521 ]

within that structure the school district can determine whether one class is larger or smaller than another.

MS. A. HAGEN: Does the ministry have any guidelines around how long a child qualifies to be called an English-as-a-second-language-student? I understand there's a kind of rule of thumb that it takes one to three years for a student to actually understand a language in terms of being able to converse in it and be what we might call functional. But those who work with people learning our language and integrating into our country say it takes up to five years, maybe even longer, for a student to be really able to work with the language in a way that enables a child to progress to their full academic potential.

An article that I saw recently quoted a brilliant young man who was graduating in science from high school: "It's English that's going to do me in at university." He recognized that although he was brilliant in the sciences — which have an international language, I guess — when it came down to actually being able to deal with the language of the country, he still didn't have the kind of proficiency he knew he would need in order to progress academically.

I'm trying to get at some knowledge of whether the ministry has any guidelines that go to the Vancouver School Board or the Richmond School Board or the Delta School Board that say: "A child may be classified as English-as-a-second-language if the child is nine years or over and hasn't been in the system for longer than three years." Do those guidelines exist, or is it up to the school district to inform the ministry how many students are English-as-a-second-language students?

MRS. GRAN: May I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MRS. GRAN: Seated in the House today are 14 grade 7 students from Langley Prairie Elementary School and their teacher, Mr. Thielmann. Would the House please make them welcome.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I thought the purpose of questions generally was to seek information, and I would suspect that the member has — as she has a lot of other things that are out there — the guidelines that the ministry has set out before she asks the questions.

The ministry generally suggests that within three years, students in special ESL programs should be ready to be integrated into the regular programs. That does not mean their learning in English is complete, but the idea is not to put them into a separate group and keep them in ESL forever. The idea is to prepare them, and we feel that three years is adequate as a guideline. We do not make an age distinction or a grade distinction on that. If a school board or a district makes a case that a student, for some unknown reason, requires more time, we don't tell them to throw that student out if they're counted. But we ask them to be accountable for who they're counting in the special funding programs.

MS. A. HAGEN: Let me move to the broader issue of multicultural needs, both for the children who come from a variety of cultural backgrounds and also from the perspective of our understanding, awareness and openness to the cultures that now make up our society. As I noted earlier, the education policy advisory committee did make a number of recommendations in this regard.

A very small amount of money has been committed for the implementation of those initiatives — the smallest amount of any amount in the budget allocations for royal commission implementation; $900,000 in all. That sum is proposed to be expended in the next two years. I want to ask the minister what that sum of $900,000 is intended to accomplish, and also whether the minister is working with other ministries on this whole issue of multicultural education, understanding among peoples of different backgrounds and the development of community perspectives. It might be consistent for the ministry to be doing that, because yesterday we were talking about a protocol with some of the ministries that have more direct involvement with children — Social Services, Health, Attorney-General — for shared responsibility and development. I would like the minister to comment on what he plans to do with that very modest sum of $900,000 to be spent in the next fiscal year and the year following, and whether there is a broader agenda that the ministry may be looking at around the needs for multicultural education that he would be working on cooperatively with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, under the multicultural recommendations in the Sullivan report, we have come up with a policy directive that, I guess, outlines our intent in the implementation plan within the context that multiculturalism must be viewed within the framework of British Columbia's and Canada's history and cultural roots. So we feel that there are two objectives: people coming from these other countries must come to understand Canada's founding cultures and institutions; and, at the same time, they can and should preserve their cultural background and language.

The $900,000 allotted in the first two years is our estimate of what it will take to put together some multicultural materials and programs, which from then on will be integrated into the curriculum rather than separated out. There is a lot of multiculturalism going on now. This is special funding for providing an incentive or a means by which we can deal with that. Some of it may go to people meeting and

[ Page 7522 ]

deciding just what it should be, and some of it may be for materials.

MS. A. HAGEN: I note the hour and also my preparedness to change topics, so I would like to move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.