[ Page 9527 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On vote 17: minister's office –– 9527

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mr. Jones

Mr. Rose

Mr. Serwa

Ms. A. Hagen

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, time sure flies when you're having a lot of fun. Today marks the eleventh anniversary of the election of the class of '79, so I'd like the House to give a nice round of applause for.... There are only four of us balding, greying veterans left: the member for North Peace River (Hon. Mr. Brummet), the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree), the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), and yours truly.

MR. PERRY: I'd like to introduce to the House a very distinguished visitor in the gallery today, well known to Mr. Speaker, Mr. W.C. "Curly" Chittenden of West Vancouver. The Minister of Education has kindly consented to share in the introduction, because Curly is known to many of us for his efforts on behalf of the Skagit Valley and the ROSS committee. He shared the Minister of Environment's environmental award of achievement in the ROSS committee at the time the Minister of Education was serving in that capacity. I'd like to ask the House to make Curly welcome.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

On vote 17: minister's office, $308,497.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few opening remarks before we get at the discussion of details involved in my estimates.

In introducing my estimates for debate, I'd like to point out what an exciting time this continues to be for education in our province. Overall, the Ministry of Education budget has increased by $397.6 million, bringing the total to $3.02 billion — an increase of 15.2 percent over last year. This amount represents almost 20 percent — in fact, 19.8 percent — of the total 1990-91 provincial government expenditures.

In 1989-90, the Ministry of Education estimates represented 16.5 percent of the total provincial government expenditures. So this government is making education a priority and is putting more of its resources towards education. Government continues to emphasize, through its commitment to funding education, that education is an investment not only in the individual personal development of students, but also in the economic development and future prosperity of the province.

Government is carrying through with its commitment to implement the majority of the recommendations of the 1988 Royal Commission on Education. In continuing consultation with all the major stakeholders, the planned implementation of the ten-year program, now in its second year, is going very well.

The document, "Year 2000: A Framework for Learning, " has now been revised after a very extensive consultation process. The primary program has been finalized and now moves into its optional implementation phase. The draft intermediate and graduation programs will be distributed shortly, and a year of consultation and further development will begin. Thousands of teachers will be voluntarily participating in summer institutes to share further information about the programs and their implementation.

Support for our program directions is coming from all sides in British Columbia, from Canada and from the rest of North America. B.C. is leading the way in ensuring that our education system adapts to the needs of our society now and for the future.

In January 1989, the province committed $1.4 billion over ten years to fund programs stemming from royal commission recommendations. In 1989-90, $43 million was budgeted — and that's above the operating expenditures — for royal commission programs. For this year, 1990-91 — the second year of implementing royal commission programs — my budget includes an allocation of $140 million for the second-year activities, which includes: $84.7 million to be granted directly to public schools in British Columbia to implement and support new programs being introduced into the schools; $19 million to be provided to independent schools to support the 50-percent- funding level for group 1 schools and for the registration of home-schooling students in independent schools; $17.8 million to be provided in grants to native bands supporting local initiatives to preserve native language and culture, to post-secondary institutions for initiatives directed at the teaching profession — expanding the number of graduates from education faculties and recognizing the unique recruitment and retention problems faced in rural areas of the province — and to recognize the Ministries of Health and Social Services and Housing contributions to the recently announced interministry protocol agreement on support services to schools. Another $20.6 million will be spent on the development and implementation of new curriculums for the primary, intermediate and graduation programs, for accountability and reporting initiatives and for governance and gender equity.

My estimates allow for a $350 million 1990-91 capital program: $275 million will be devoted to major construction, and $75 million will be used for minor capital. The royal commission plan called for six-year expenditures of $1.5 billion. The government has already approved a first-year plan of $250 million and, with this year's amount of $350 million, total capital plans approved to implement recommendations made by the royal commission already total $600 million.

These capital plans are aimed at addressing enrolment growth, seismic resistance for buildings, portable classrooms, increased construction costs, and the maintenance and construction backlog at new

[ Page 9528 ]

school site acquisitions. The new primary program and the changes to the intermediate and graduation programs could well mean a new style of organization and construction of classrooms. These capital plans incorporate completion funding for schools that will be testing a new style of school that will be appropriate for the year 2000 and beyond.

In response to the recommendations of the royal commission, the province has introduced a number of changes to the public schools funding system. This includes the block funding system recently announced to school districts.

These changes have been outlined in the School Amendment Act, Bill 11, which was completed yesterday. A number of these revisions to the funding system were recommendations made by the royal commission. Some of the changes have been made to respond to the concerns raised by the taxpayers of the province through the property taxation forums and the "Financing Local Government" study.

Some recommendations were raised by major stakeholders, including school boards, the BCSTA, the BCTF, superintendents, secretary-treasurers and parents. The new finance system ensures a fair, predictable, stable and accountable system for financing education. It ensures ongoing public support of our public education system, and demonstrates the high-level commitment of government in supporting school boards in the delivery of a full range of high-quality education programs for students.

The highlights of the new financing system are.... Overall funding is determined through a block, the block representing an allocation to the school districts to allow them to deliver a quality education system.

The starting point for the block was the 1989-90 school district budget levels. It is important to note that the province recognized all of the 1989-90 costs, including those shareable costs determined by my ministry, and the local supplementary and capital amounts funded through local residential taxation.

The block for the 1989-90 school year was then adjusted according to economic indicators — to allow for inflation and increased enrolment — to produce a 1990-91 block. For comparison, this new block is $2.66 billion. The 1989-90 block was $2.416 billion — an increase of $240 million, or about 10 percent. I believe that this is a very generous increase, an increase that should allow every school district to produce a quality education program for the children of this province.

The block is allocated to school districts based on recognition of relative costs. The provincial average per-pupil block allocation is $5,259 for the operating portion alone. The distribution to school districts based on relative costs ranges all the way from approximately $4,600 to $13,000 per pupil. That is to provide equitable educational opportunity anywhere in this province.

A referendum process has been introduced that allows local taxpayers a say in local spending decisions. School boards wishing to set budgets for extras that exceed their block allocations now require a simple majority approval by their taxpayers before levying these additional residential property taxes.

Finally, the flow of funding has been changed to better state the accountability for residential property taxes. Taxes levied to support the block are set by the provincial government. We are responsible for setting these taxes and we are responsible for fully funding the block. A change has been made to the provincial estimates to allow the ministry to advance the residential taxes levied to support the block and to reflect the collection of these taxes from municipalities and other tax collection authorities. Taxes raised locally and resulting from an approved referendum are the responsibility of the local school district. These taxes will flow directly from the tax collection authority, usually the municipality, to the school district.

For the 1990 tax collection year people will notice a change to their residential property taxation notice. School taxes have been separated to clarify this responsibility. They will see an amount set by the province as their contribution to the block plus an amount that is a local tax resulting from an approved local board referendum where this is applicable.

My estimates also include statutory funding for the homeowner grant program. It has been enhanced to further reduce the burden of local property taxes. We had promised tax relief and we have delivered.

For the 1990 taxation year the homeowner grant is enhanced to cover 25 percent of the block school taxes in excess of the basic grant maximum of $430 and $700 for seniors and handicapped. This supplementary grant is not available to reduce referendum taxes. It is expected that about 500,000 homeowners in the province will benefit to varying extents from this $50 million enhancement of the school tax relief program.

In addition to the funding already mentioned, the ministry will make available third-year funding for the Computers in Education program. This has now been sent to the school boards. It will make available additional funds of $5.8 million to regional correspondence centres so that they will all be regionalized now. We are providing $16 million for public schools, independent schools and technology centres to continue integration of computers into schools across the province. Of this amount, $1 million will be provided through the royal commission accounting initiatives.

There is fourth-year funding of $5 million for the Pacific Rim education initiative, including scholarships, student and teacher exchanges, curriculum development and language programs. I might say that our Pacific Rim initiatives have brought results that far exceeded our expectations, and the process appears to have only started. There is also continued funding of $14.8 million for provincial resource programs for special-needs students.

[10:15]

An indication of the priority that this government places on education is evident in comparisons between British Columbia and other provincial governments of 1990-91 school funding increases. Just

[ Page 9529 ]

on the operating side, British Columbia has increased the budget by 9.9 percent. I won't read all the provinces, but these are just a few comparisons: in Alberta they have increased it by 3.5 percent; Saskatchewan, 3 percent; Manitoba, 4.6 percent; Ontario, the highest, 8.7 percent; New Brunswick, 5.4 percent; Nova Scotia, 3.6 percent; and the province of Quebec recently announced in its budget a 6.4 percent increase. So we are above all of the others.

If you compare the increases over the last few years, last year we increased funding to public schools by 10.5 percent, whereas the Canadian average at that time was 6 percent. In 1988-89, I announced an increase in funding of 8 percent, when the Canadian average was about 4.5 percent. Over the last three years, British Columbia has realized a 28.4 percent increase in funding to public schools, while the Canadian average is at 16 percent.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to recognize the dedication and commitment of the staff of the ministry. Their commitment and support have been an inspiration as we moved through the 1989-90 ministry work plan. I'd also like to acknowledge the work and commitment of all trustees, teachers, superintendents, secretary-treasurers, and school and district administrators, and their interest, cooperation and assistance in continuing the implementation of the details of the royal commission.

Despite a lot of discussion in the media about how much has been coming directly from Victoria, Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that during the interval, literally hundreds of teachers worked on curriculum committees and steering committees, and on developing work plans and new programs. These people have come together and contributed. There's definitely an air of excitement about the possibilities inherent in the focus on learning and about the interest in the needs of students. Determining learning opportunities in the classroom — in other words, moving from guidance of learning activities to active involvement in learning, rather than teaching prepared and, in some cases, outdated material for the sake of seeing what people can assimilate and regurgitate.... The focus will be on learning.

With me are my deputy minister, Wayne Desharnais; my assistant deputy minister, Jack Fleming; and Doug Hibbins, executive director of school finance and facilities.

It is a pleasure to present a budget which expresses such a high level of commitment to the citizens of tomorrow, as we move toward the year 2000. I'd also like to take this opportunity to perhaps make a few suggestions. Yesterday, in the discussion of Bill 11, there was talk about a lack of innovation. My contention is that with the flexibility in the new School Act, there is an unprecedented opportunity for innovative thinking. I think that as we get into innovative programming in the schools, some of that thinking is going to be required in order to provide us with opportunities to assure both a continued quality education program and the recognition that there is not just one way to do things; that is, giving more money for it. There are different ways to do things.

I'd just like to suggest a few things. I have suggested them on occasions, but unfortunately I think our society is driven by what I call the egg-crate philosophy: if you get more eggs, you have to build more crates. Continually, the timetable is God. Yet in the new School Act and the "Year 2000" document, the emphasis is going to be on what students need to accomplish in order to prepare themselves for the next step, rather than on how much time they put in, how many pages of the textbook they read or how many questions they can answer at the end of the chapter.

I would like to suggest that if boards are truly representing the taxpayers and students of this province, they start looking at some different ways. These are not things that can be mandated. It has to be a cooperative effort, with parent advisory committees, school boards and the teachers of this province working together in their best interests, in the best interests of the students and for the representation of the taxpayers.

There are things that could be done within the budget structure. For instance, we cannot possibly keep adding facilities at the rate that people request. I don't know whether we could ever keep up, because every time we build a new school because of increased enrolment, it immediately generates a comparison with the old schools, which were built many years ago. The old schools then become a priority to renovate.

If people in the school system would recognize flexibility, and that there are no longer specific time allotments required for each subject The objective will be what the students need to accomplish, so the timetable does not need to be God. The organization should serve the system, not run it, and serve the needs of the students. For instance, very briefly, we have a mentality in this province that everything that is learned must be learned between nine and three, and nothing can happen beyond that. The standard working day for people is eight to 4:30. If schools, on a modular basis — not by increasing the length of the day for any teacher or any students — had students who came in at eight and left at four, others who came in at nine and left at three, and others who came in at ten and left at four or 4:30, that would mean that the school could accommodate the needs of the learners in that community. It would require the cooperation of the parents in that area, and I think it is possible — instead of saying that the only way we can accommodate 200 more students is to come up with $4 million more. It can be done; it can be timetabled. I know that people who are locked into the status quo of thinking cannot open their minds to any new ideas.

For instance, there is a continuing demand for more and more recreational facilities and opportunities within the school, and that is in communities where there are many recreational facilities available: curling rinks, skating rinks and a variety of other opportunities. Let me suggest that the timetable that we have to subscribe to is no longer a God, or that the bells ringing at a certain time

[ Page 9530 ]

govern all of our activities. It would be possible for any school, one afternoon every two weeks, to schedule all their students into the community facilities and enhance their recreational opportunities at no extra cost. Most of the time during the day, those facilities are standing empty. That could extend to cultural as well as recreational facilities.

Teachers spend a great deal of time in preparing lessons, teaching and in assessment and evaluation of the students. I feel that teachers could make their workload easier if they recognized that in the new directions recommended by Sullivan — the focus on learning — preparation, teaching or the guidance of learning activities, and assessment and evaluation, can be a concurrent exercise; that they don't have to spend so many hours preparing, so many hours laying it on them and so many hours marking tests. It can be a concurrent activity, and I think it can help teachers a great deal.

There is a lot of talk about class size and about it taking a smaller group for a teacher to work effectively in some situations. If the teachers' union could accept the professional autonomy of teachers in the classroom, rather than the inflexibility and rigidity of class numbers, it would be possible — if, say, four teachers were responsible for 100 students, instead of each one responsible for 25 students in their own egg-crate — for those teachers to arrange among themselves for supervision of more students by one teacher when supervision was adequate. That would allow another teacher to work with a very small group. There is a whole range of arrangements, and some of this is being done in the schools.

In some places staff, school districts and principals have worked together on what is sometimes referred to as school-based budgeting, where the school has been told: "This is how much you spent last year, and we told you exactly where to put it last year. Next year you will have that amount of money, and you can arrange it to suit the needs of your school."

Some very interesting and innovative practices have happened in those situations where at the school level, among the teachers, they have decided whether the priority was more books, another staff member or an assistant, and they have, within that budget, worked a much more effective education system for the students. There are many things that could be done to enhance the learning opportunities for students.

In the "Year 2000" document, in the various primary, intermediate — particularly the intermediate — and graduation documents, there is a suggestion that we don't have to do everything at school within the walls of the classroom; that learning can take place from a variety of sources, in a variety of venues — but it can be directed to the school. How does it fit into the educational program of that student?

If we can accept that, perhaps someone out there in a machine shop can give the hands-on training more effectively and tell us in the schools what we can do that we do so well in the schools — the academic, reading and critical analysis side of it. We could do that more effectively, and they could do some of the other, instead of spending all our money putting in a new machine which we've invested so much money in that we keep it for ten years, even if it's out of date in three.

I think there are so many opportunities if people would be prepared to open their minds — not to say we've got to do something different, but see if there is another way of doing it and accomplishing the purpose. The objective is, as we say in our mandate statement, to provide every student with the opportunity to develop their skills to the maximum of their individual potential, in order to function as an effective citizen in our society.

I think that should be our goal, and there are many different ways of accomplishing it. We have those examples in this province. We have students who have done well from home schooling and on correspondence; we have students who are doing exceptionally well with distance technology education and from their teachers in the classroom.

[10:30]

The teachers in this province do a remarkably fine job. They work very hard at it, and I think many people will recognize the contribution of the teachers to that. Mr. Chairman, I would welcome any questions, and I know my staff is more than willing to assist as we go through my estimates today.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I rise today to bring to the attention of the committee a matter that I think is of serious concern to members here and to many in the province.

I have watched education closely for all my adult life, and because it deals with our most precious natural resource — our children — and because we have had many Social Credit governments, it has become a political matter. There have been protagonists in that debate, and the men and women who serve as the teachers of this province and their representatives have been in the forefront of that debate. Their organization, the B.C. Teachers' Federation, has been a strong advocate for education in the province, and in many instances it has been critical of the government in that dynamic.

As a result, the Minister of Education and his successors, in a very paranoiac manner, have responded to the B.C. Teachers' Federation very critically in response to their criticisms in defending education. However, it has been taken too far in this chamber recently.

On Tuesday in this House, in winding up second reading debate on Bill 11 to do with school referendum, the minister uttered this statement. Speaking of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, the minister said:

"Their agenda was to attack, attack, attack, and of course the opposition certainly goes along with that, because when you've got ... $1.5 million that the BCTF spends in your election campaign and you don't even have to show it as election expenses, it's not bad."

[ Page 9531 ]

Mr. Chairman, that statement is completely false, completely unfair and completely prejudicial to that organization of some 30,000 men and women who provide extremely valuable service to the children in this province.

I would ask the Minister of Education at this time to withdraw that statement and to apologize to this House and to the B.C. Teachers' Federation. If that minister is unwilling to do that, I would suggest that he step outside this chamber and make that same statement publicly to show the moxie that he used to have as Minister of Education when he was standing up for the children of this province — until recently — and not hide behind the protection of this Legislature.

So I would ask the minister to withdraw and to apologize to the chamber and to the B.C. Teachers' Federation, or to step outside and make that same statement publicly.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to withdraw that statement. I don't have the exact figures, but I do know that in the last election campaign and the campaign before that, the B.C. Teachers' Federation as a group put out a terrific amount of anti-Social Credit advertising and anti-Social Credit campaigning. I know that has gone on for some time. I know, too, that not all of the teachers in this province support that political stance, but they don't have a say in it.

Therefore I think it is a correct statement, and I see no need to withdraw it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Langley has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Chairman, in the galleries and in the precincts right now are 180 students from Brookswood Secondary School in Langley. With them are six teachers.

One teacher who deserves special mention is Mr. Cliff Shiskin. This is the seventeenth year that he's brought students over to attend this great assembly, and I certainly think that's worth mentioning.

On behalf of the Minister of Government Management Services (Hon. Mrs. Gran) and myself, I ask the House to please join me in giving them a very warm welcome.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, the minister indicates quite correctly that the men and women who serve the children of this province in the teaching profession are of every political persuasion. That's precisely why the B.C. Teachers' Federation is scrupulous in ensuring that they spend none of the membership dues that those teachers pay on any sort of partisan political activity.

The minister's statement on Tuesday indicated: "...when you've got $1 million or $1.5 million that the BCTF spends in your election campaign...." The only implication that can be drawn from that statement is that the teachers of this province, through that organization, contribute to a partisan political activity and did so in the last election.

As I said, Mr. Chairman, that statement is false, unfair and prejudicial. Those were the words of the minister. Now maybe he meant something a little different. He's talking about something a little different now: about pro-education advertising at election time. But that is not what the minister said on Tuesday.

If the minister means what he said on Tuesday — the only implication can be that there were direct contributions to a political party — then again I would ask him to withdraw, to apologize to the Legislature and to the BCTF, or to make the same public statements outside this House. I challenge the minister to do the honourable thing: either withdraw or make them publicly outside this House now.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, you can see again The point that I was making in my comments was that they do not make these contributions directly to the NDP campaign. I was making the point that in their campaign, during an election against the Social Credit government, they are indirectly contributing to that campaign.

I saw some of the material that went to school staff rooms last election. I saw some of the material; I saw some of the ads. They were certainly.... By not specifically mentioning the NDP, but by going against the Social Credit government in the campaign, I think they were indirectly contributing a fair amount of money to an election campaign.

1 am not saying that the teachers of this province are doing that. I'm saying that they don't have a say in where they put their money politically.

I can well remember, when I was a principal in the system, being told that they were going to campaign against the Social Credit government, and I was required to donate a day's pay to the campaign. I said: "Even if I agreed with you, nobody tells me where I will put my money politically." I defied the BCTF executive at that time. They threatened to lift my certificate and my right to teach in this province. I said: "So be it. Take me to court." Of course, they didn't.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The opposition House Leader.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I haven't started yet. Don't start heckling before I start. You know how nervous it makes me, and how inexperienced I am in these matters.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that the minister made the statement with those implications. He made kind of an apology. He didn't really come out and say: "No, I didn't mean that the BCTF gave the money directly to the NDP campaign."

Does the minister recall, as he mentions the last election, what the teachers in the school system had gone through for four or five years? Three thousand teachers either retired or left the province; educational system gutted; ESL and all that stuff that was

[ Page 9532 ]

normally part and parcel of it — cuts of up to $300 million, 23 percent cut. Naturally there are going to be pro-education ads. If a government instituted those ads, obviously they're going to be against those policies. That's only reasonable and sensible.

What about the Vancouver Stock Exchange? What about your business council? Don't they have advocacy advertising? Does anybody, including the shareholders, have a right to determine whether their funds are used for those purposes? Of course they don't. At least in the situation where you are requested a day's pay, you had a right to say no. I think you should have that right to say....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: But they threatened to lift my certificate.

MR. ROSE: I don't know what stuff you went through, but I've gone through some stuff with teachers too, and it didn't always come from the BCTF. It came from the Kelowna school board, if you want to be specific.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: The members over there are making some comments about my maturity. I wish he had the same amount. He'd be a little more helpful to us here and less Thumper, the rabbit.

I think that if you can't apologize and you can't say it outside the House, you can at least recognize that on both sides of the political fence there's advocacy advertising. If somebody wants to dispute the policies — any group, whether it's the forestry companies or the IWA, or whoever — they have the right to do that in a democracy. I suggest that the minister either clarify what he meant, or else apologize, or else risk a libel suit because he can't back up what he said at the conclusion of that debate the other day.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we continue, hon members, the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. PERRY: I'd like to welcome to the House Ms. H. Kennedy and 15 grade 8 students from Kitsilano Secondary School. Although I can't see them, I understand they are in the gallery, perhaps behind me. I ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The member refers to the restraint period in this province. While teachers' salaries carried on and got 3 percent increases, I was dealing with people in my constituency and all over who didn't have a job at all and were taking pay cuts. I guess that during that period, with everybody else suffering economically, the teachers could not expect to be immune.

[10:45]

During that period of '79 to '83 there was a reduction of something like 45,000 to 50,000 students in this province, and the teachers expected that the number of teachers should remain the same. That was an unrealistic expectation. I realize that nobody likes cutbacks. Let me quote to you from an April 5, 1990, press release by the president of the B.C. Teachers' Federation. Novakowski says: "The Social Credit government is once again doing the bidding of its small circle of business friends instead of meeting its obligations to manage the province in the public interest."

That is not partisan? That is not correct?

MR. JONES: It's freedom of speech.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It continues: "Not only is the Socred idea of the problem wrong, but their solutions are old, worn-out recipes for disaster." And it goes on. I have no problem with the B.C. Teachers' Federation representing the best interests of the students and their teachers. I do have some problem when school kids write me and tell me things that were said, when teachers from a staff room write me and tell me about the junk that is on the wall — that it's a union office, not a professional staff room. Those are the sort of things that teachers should not be into. The teachers in this province don't even have a choice. Their executive determines where they're going to put their money politically. The teacher out there who does support Social Credit is forced to contribute to an anti-Social Credit campaign or lose his certificate. I think there is something wrong with that, and therefore....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Member for Burnaby North, are you standing on a point of order?

MR. JONES: No, I was taking my place, I thought he was finished.

The Minister of Education very clearly has his nose out of joint with the B.C. Teachers' Federation from some incident that happened many years ago. I think it very clearly undermines his ability to perform his duties as the Minister of Education in an even-handed, fair and dispassionpresident of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, Ken Novakowski, at a public meeting: "'I haven't been able ate manner when it comes to the B.C. Teachers' Federation. Very clearly, it's that attitude that spawned the unfair, untruthful and prejudicial statement made in this House last Tuesday which the minister has now sort of changed — not apologized for, but sort of changed. Even a moment ago he continued his vendetta against the teachers of this province. Without naming names, he maligned the 28,000 or 30,000 members of that profession by mentioning incidents that occurred. With a broad brush, he painted the teaching profession in this province as being highly partisan, highly anti-Social Credit and critical of the government — for criticism's sake, not because of a legitimate concern about educational progress.

I find it incredibly hypocritical that this government, which every night on television does advocacy advertising in a partisan, political way with taxpayers' money.... Taxpayers, among whom number 30,000 members of the teaching profession, who contribute substantially to the tax rolls of this province.... It's incredibly hypocritical during the time of an election for him to be concerned about pro-education advertising in order to raise the profile of that issue and to press the government for

[ Page 9533 ]

a reasonable approach to education in this province.

It's incredibly hypocritical, Mr. Chairman, when we see that kind of advertising at the taxpayers' expense, day in, day out and year in, year out. Yet that Minister of Education is concerned when the BCTF does it at election time. He said on Tuesday that $1 million to $1.5 million is contributed by the BCTF in a partisan, political way, implying that it went to the NDP. That's an unfair statement. I am very disappointed that he has not had the courage, as is the tradition in this House, to withdraw that statement.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The member continually, for his own political purposes, tries to distort what I say. As Minister of Education I spent a great deal of time meeting with the BCTF executive, saying: "Let's work together on advocacy for education." I have carried on my advocacy for education and for the best interests of the students of this province, and that represents the teachers in the classroom. Despite all of that, I did not respond to repeated attacks on me by the BCTF executive or to attacks on this government. For three and a half years I tried to avoid the confrontation. I really believe that energy devoted to that is useless in comparison to the energy we could have devoted to working together.

It's the BCTF executive I'm talking about. They have come out against the Sullivan commission recommendations or our implementation of them. They have come out in many ways to say that, while the teachers in this province are out there doing a great job, acting professionally in their classrooms and participating in many committees, I have no vendetta against the teachers of this province.

I think that I, too, have a right.... When the BCTF president stood up at the AGM this spring, his opening remarks to the convention were: "This government has done everything but throw teachers in jail." What a ridiculous, emotional and absolutely ludicrous charge! That was his response to my request to him shortly before that to get on with education and with the royal commission implementation. Those are the things that I could.... If I went back and had nothing to do but research past quotations, I could come up with a lot of evidence to support what I'm saying. I've said it in generalities, round numbers and estimates. It concerns me.

As usual, no matter what we do, the opposition finds some way to play politics. Why are you spending half an hour of my estimates defending the BCTF executive? I have to ask why that is happening. We could get at my estimates. Why is the opposition now coming forth with a political debate during my estimates, when we could be talking about the generous amounts of money that we have been providing to make the teachers' jobs in this province better, to make the job better for students — increases far in excess of what's happening in other provinces. And all you want to do is play politics.

MR. ROSE: I hope that the Minister of Education is not suggesting that we're turning this place into a political arena. I don't think it would be proper of him to do that. He's a very decent fellow, and I think all of us love him very much around here. We like to see him when he gets involved and passionate; that's when he's at his best. But it's not very good for his blood pressure, and he should really try to watch himself. Coupled with some aspects of his lifestyle, I think he should try to avoid the use of Valium when he comes in here for his estimates.

Mr. Chairman, I don't see why the minister feels so affronted because a group of professionals have some concern about the implementation of a very radical new program. Here you are, as Minister of Education, implementing a program, part of which came out of Sullivan, which in our situation — and I've been around education a long time — is a radical departure from what we had in the past. That may be a good thing, because we haven't changed too quickly in education over the years; we've tended to change too slowly. But the Social Credit government likes to brag about how much of the last 25 years — since 1952 — they've been in power. They've had plenty of chances to change. If you suddenly had that conversion on the road to Damascus lately, you can hardly blame professionals who get locked into their habits, in teaching and other ways, the same as anybody else.

You asked why the teachers were upset before the last provincial election. I'll tell you why they were upset. B.C. had the second-highest expenditure per pupil of any province in Canada — Quebec was first, Alberta was third, Saskatchewan was fourth, Ontario was sixth, and the Maritimes were seventh. That's what we had; that's president of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, Ken Novakowski, at a public meeting: "'I haven't been able what we enjoyed. We weren't the only province to experience the downturn in education and in the economy, but we were the only province to take such extreme steps — and you brag about that too — in terms of its educational expenditures. By the time we got to 1985, just before the last election, we were sixth in expenditures per pupil — the third-richest, if not the second-richest province in the whole country. So don't tell us that teachers had nothing to complain about. They couldn't complain so loudly, because there were about 3,000 fewer of them — and I don't know how many of them working in the United States.

What do we have now? In 1989-90, because of the minister and the extra funds that were put in there, we are now up to fifth or sixth. So they are still concerned about educational expenditures. We rank sixth in spending per student across Canada today. So that's why they're upset.

The minister says he has no vendetta with teachers. He doesn't understand why they might be critical of the Social Credit government. I want to tell the minister that he started out making great yards when he became minister. He was involved in a repair agenda when he started out, and he did very well. I think he did have the support then. But what did he do on May 4? In Comox on May 4 the headline said: "Brummet Slams BCTF." The article quotes the minister — the Education minister took a few hits at president of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, Ken Novakowski, at a public meeting: "'I haven't been able

[ Page 9534 ]

to get away from confrontation in what I've done,' Brummet said of his experiences with the BCTF. 'There seems to be a political agenda there and not an educational agenda.'"

Those are pretty strong words. What we have here is an escalation and inflammatory statements, one on top of the other. Let's get back to it. Let's clear up, Mr. Minister, what you actually did intend here. If they have a political agenda, they have rights, as citizens, to advocate change and improvements in education like any other group in society, including the forest companies or the stock market.

I think the best way is to de-escalate and start working with the group of people. But the very nature of this place — and I guess all of our society — is adversarial. You can't get mad and go off in a snit just because things are perhaps not the way you want them. To shelter yourself in the House and make statements that could be libelous outside the House is not the most courageous act I've ever witnessed.

Because we're such good friends, I think it would be nice if you clarified or apologized. Let's all de-escalate this thing for this morning.

[11:00]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess it's going to be difficult to get to my estimates. I am glad that the member has now acknowledged that the B.C. Teachers' Federation was campaigning against this government in '83. He said they had good reasons to do that.

MR. ROSE: Did I say that?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: He just read from something I said publicly in Courtenay — accurately reported — and he says I am hiding behind the sanctity of this House, that I don't have the courage.

MR. ROSE: Not for that; for what you said the other day.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That's what I said there. Well, if you want to pick out one phrase, when I said $1 million to $1.5 million.... I don't have specific figures. Even in their statement, they show it as public relations or some other thing. I do read some of their financial statements. So I could not come up with an accurate figure; nobody can. But I think my statement is still valid that they do spend more time on political agenda than on actually advocating for education.

I have no difficulty at all with them advocating for education. But I do have difficulty with them obligating all their members, whether or not those members support it, to take a particular political position. I have difficulty with that, and so do many of its members. But if its members go against that and they can't be a member of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, then they cannot teach in British Columbia. That is the unfortunate thing.

In the new School Act, we did say that as for anyone else under the labour code, teachers would have to, by a majority decision, be a member of that group and a contributing member of their local association, because that was where the action was, according to everyone who spoke to me. But it was not a requirement to be a member of the B.C. Teachers' Federation in order to teach in British Columbia.

They have negotiated into the contracts with the school boards the requirement that the teacher, by law, must be a member of the local teachers' union. Fair enough. But then they have negotiated into the contract that the teacher must also be a member of the B.C. Teachers' Federation this June. There are quite a few excellent, experienced teachers in this province who are going to be kicked out of teaching because they refuse.... They have joined their local union, have met those requirements and are paying the local fees, but they have been told: "You join the BCTF and, by its code of ethics, you support its political stance, its stance on social issues, whether you like it or not. If you're not prepared to do that, then you can't teach in British Columbia."

I think that is deplorable. I don't know how many teachers — I know some 40 or 50 — who have said to me: "Why can't I teach? I'm a good teacher; I've got good reports. I'm not required by law in this province to be a member of the B.C. teachers' union. Yet because I insist on my rights as an individual to hold certain moral and political values, I am going to be refused the right to teach in British Columbia." And you don't think that's partisan?

MR. SERWA: It's a real pleasure to get up and speak briefly on the minister's estimates, and I think that's what we were supposed to have been talking about. However, I couldn't help overhearing the hon. members of the opposition and their sensitivity to the statements of the Minister of Education about the B.C. Teachers' Federation. I have a statement by a member of this House, and I would like to read it into the record.

"The issues surrounding education funding continue to be clouded by the B.C. Teacher's Federation. While they widely assert that their actions and statements are strictly non-partisan in motivation, their claims should be evaluated in light of their past and present statements and activities. BCTF's participation in Operation Solidarity, another allegedly non-partisan organization, should also be considered in evaluating their true aims and objectives."

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

I am going to be speaking specifically about the B.C. Teachers' Federation, not about the teachers of British Columbia, and clarifying for the hon. members opposite a bit of the history of the activity of the BCTF.

The members' guide to the BCTF in 1984-85 provides a history lesson covering from 1971-72 to the present and mentions, among other things, the Teachers' Political Action Committee. Following the executive committee's decision, a group of teachers, including most of the executive, formed a voluntary organization called the Teachers' Political Action

[ Page 9535 ]

Committee. The group's objective was to continue the teachers' fight against the Social Credit government. The BCTF and the political action committee were a significant factor in unseating the Social Credit government in 1972. In the British Columbia Teachers' Federation local political action handbook, it asks: "What contributions did the teachers make to the NDP victory?" The handbook states: "On the whole, TPAC was quite successful in carrying out the election plans made by BCTF. They spent $25,000 on an advertising campaign...and gave financial support to 36 candidates" — 32 of whom were elected.

In 1983 Action Committee II was formed, and offered support to candidates opposed to the government." Their handbook continues, with information on becoming a power base or a power-broker in the community, endorsing candidates, getting commitments of teachers and others to endorse candidates, and providing financial and other support to campaign committees.

The British Columbia Teachers' Federation audited reserve fund statement of revenues, expenditures and fund balances for the year ending June 30, 1973, includes the expenditure: "Provincial Election Programs, $195,702." And that was way back in 1973, Mr. Chairman.

In the Vancouver Sun, April 19, 1985, a major columnist writes:

"The B.C. Teachers' Federation has its eye on the spring session of the Legislature. Thursday I met a young man, one Graham Haig, who has been hired for the duration of the session to monitor the proceedings of the House for the BCTF. When I asked Mr. Haig how I could get in touch with him, he told me to try the New Democratic Party's research offices."

In the members' guide to the BCTF, 1984-85, section 2, "Goals of the BCTF, " states that the B.C. Teachers' Federation continues as a member of Operation Solidarity and the Solidarity coalition. What does the coalition stand for? The battle plan and the long term plan of Operation Solidarity is to elect an NDP government.

So while the members opposite may be offended, I think that this brief history lesson should indicate that the basis and the statement of the Minister of Education — an outstanding Minister of Education — is not without substantial substance and is based on reality. I'm offended that these hon. members opposite do not remember the history lesson that they're very much a part of.

MR. JONES: I want to follow my House Leader, because in his usual genteel and articulate way, he provided something very valuable to this House and very valuable to this province. He provided the Minister of Education with an opportunity to steer away from a course that I would think the minister and all in British Columbia want to steer away from.

We very clearly do not want to go back to those black days of education in the mid-eighties, those confrontational days, those bitter, acrimonious days; those days where the politics were predominant, and the education of our children suffered.

The House Leader very graciously didn't ask the minister so much to apologize or withdraw or step outside, as I did; he just asked the minister to clarify his remarks, in a conciliatory way. I am very saddened that the minister did not take advantage of that opportunity; that the minister again went on to attack an organization — probably the most democratic organization in this province — whose activities, whose budget and whose leadership are all determined in an extremely democratic manner.

I'm also disappointed with the first member for Okanagan South (Mr. Serwa). I think he added fuel to getting us back to those black days of confrontation rather than avoiding it.

It is a sad day for this chamber that the minister did not take advantage of an opportunity to steer us back on a course that he was on for a while. He seems to have very clearly been sidetracked. I look forward to the day we get back to the positive education agenda, and not back onto school wars.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I think it is unfortunate that in the opening discussions in today's debate, a commitment to the rights of democratic organizations to have and express their views has been questioned by statements of the minister and defended by statements of one of his colleagues.

In this country we do have many different views about what is right, proper and good for children of the province. We have those views on other issues as well. I believe that the right and the role of organizations to democratically decide on issues important to them — and to speak to those — is something that we would all want to guard.

I want to move on now to a discussion of some very specific items that come under the Ministry of Education. I want to note at this stage that some of the issues I will be talking about have been presented to me by teachers in my own riding, and with whom I — like the minister — am in direct contact.

One of the very interesting aspects of tracking the issues that are of concern to teachers is how often and how effectively their organization helps them to present those views to government. That's an important role that their organization plays in representing its teachers.

I want to start where school begins — with the primary program. Particularly, I want to raise some questions around a new policy which will be fully implemented this year within our schools. That is a policy of dual entry, where some five-year-old children will be entering school in January, as well as those children who normally enter the system in September.

I've had more correspondence and more teacher concern on this issue than on most issues. I think it's because the implementation of this new policy is now upon us. As I listened to the minister's early comments today, I was thinking about his plea for flexibility and for innovation, which are perspectives that I think, from my conversations with teachers, they very solidly support.

[11:15]

[ Page 9536 ]

In spite of the fact that this new program is a change, there's a tremendous amount of very real concern about how it's going to be implemented. It falls into two categories. One is a predictable category, and that is, how boards and individual schools are going to organize and administer for that entry. The second is on the value of this particular decision, which does not come out of the royal commission.

It's interesting that one of the very first major innovations is a decision that has come from the ministry. The royal commission did make some reference to developmental age, but it has certainly been defined very specifically in terms of the dual entry. For parents whose kids are going into schools, and teachers who are going to be receiving those youngsters, this is the transition year.

Let me raise some of the issues that are on people's minds. First of all, let me talk about issues that relate to the kids themselves.

Teachers are, understandably, not entirely comfortable about how these youngsters are going to be integrated into their schools. As I talked to kindergarten teachers, one of the innovations they have introduced over the last number of years — it's certainly a practice in my own district — is that when kindergarten children come into the school system, they come in on a gradual entry basis.

It may take up to three weeks for all the children coming into the school to be there full-time. The kindergarten teachers visit the home. There are discussions with the parents. The children come for orientation. They come in in small groups so that they can be integrated well into a large group setting. That procedure has worked very well. It's possible to do that kind of gradual entry at the start of a year.

All of a sudden, now we're going to be having any number of children — it could be as few as one or two, or it could be half a class — who are going to be coming into the system in January. That particular integration is one that will not be able to be accomplished with that same sort of gradual entry, because the teacher is now involved with full-time teaching of the children who are already there; or if it is to be done, there is a significant cost to the district in order to be able to accomplish that.

There is concern on the part of teachers about the integration of the children at this time into their group. School districts are asking questions about holding places for children who are entering in January rather than reorganizing classes. If they do that, it's going to mean that we have some significant space that won't be used September through December but will then be fully used. Are they going to reorganize those classes that were established in September when those youngsters come in January? What's going to happen to those youngsters who come into the system at that time in terms of their continuous progress, when they go to a full day after starting as half-day children? Are the January children going to have six months before some of them move to a full day? Is there any flexibility within this system? Quite a number of parents whose children have been in preschools have been orienting their entry to the old system, in which if children were five before the end of December they could start school in September. Quite a number of those parents are really concerned about their children being caught in that particular situation and there being no consideration of it being optional whether their children go to school in September rather than in January.

Some districts have allowed for that option, probably at their own cost. I believe that a couple of lower mainland districts are making some exceptions this year and are allowing children whose birthdays are in November and December to enter school in September. Other districts, for a variety of reasons, are not exercising that option. There are parents who are genuinely concerned about that lack of flexibility.

I believe that the dual-entry system has some merit in the sense of there being opportunities for youngsters to go into school closer to a developmental age. But at the present time — with the half-day kindergarten, with schools not having the space and the teachers to allow for that integration without a fair amount of reorganization of classes, and without there being some clear pattern for when those children become full-day children in the system — there are more questions than answers in the implementation. That's unfortunate for the children involved, for the teachers who want to be sure that those children have a good entry and a good first year, and for the parents who are looking for the most appropriate time of entry.

There have been, I understand, some suggestions to the minister about a couple of other options. One is that the fifth birthday be the age of entitlement for a child to enter school. I understand that a district in fact offered to pilot that program to see how such a program might work. It would have been a very interesting pilot. That wouldn't mean that children had to go to school on their fifth birthday; parents could still have the option to wait a month or so, depending on the developmental age of the child; they could have an option in terms of when that fifth birthday occurred. But it would allow for a more continuous entry and for there to be opportunities for teachers to integrate into the classroom not a huge number of children, but one or two children a month, on a continuous progress basis.

There have also been discussions, in fact, that we go to a full day immediately. I think that has some merit as well. It of course means that we would need more teachers and space. If you were taking 40 youngsters and putting them in one classroom with one teacher — 20 in the morning and 20 in the afternoon — it's literally doubling the cost in space and teachers in order to achieve that. If we're really looking at a continuous primary progress where, when children get into a group — especially if it's a multi-age group of children — they stay with that group over a period of time, it has a considerable amount of merit.

We're into dual entry. Many of the questions have been raised. Many of the problems — organizationally, administratively, integration-wise, continuous progress of children — have been raised. The minister's

[ Page 9537 ]

response has been: "We've decided to do this; it's up to the school districts to find out the ways."

We agree. It is up to the school districts to find the ways. But I think it's also incumbent on the minister when a new program is introduced, when it is mandated — in this case by law — because this is a part of the School Act.

At this stage of the game we still don't have in the hands of school districts the information about the dollars that they are going to have available for the implementation of that program because, according to the minister's own information, some of the royal commission money that is coming for school districts is intended to apply to dual entry.

I think we have a little bit of an example here of some of the challenges that are faced when a new program is introduced, when that program has some rigidity built into it by statute and by ministry policy and when the implementation of that program is to a degree hamstrung by a lack of information about the resources that will be available to school districts.

I believe that the introduction of this program is probably a little bit of a symbol of how we are going to manage with the many changes being proposed under the royal commission in education. They are therefore an example of some of the challenges and issues where communication, flexibility, transitioning and perhaps some variety and innovation around other options than just the dual-entry proposal might very well assist the process.

It needs to work well, as we all know, because the introduction to school for these children and their entitlement to a kindergarten year is vital to their progress in the system. I might add just one other issue that is a concern to people, and that is the very fact that we've lost the word "kindergarten." These children are now P-1 children. They're not going into a children's garden; they're not leaving home to enter a place that in organizational, intellectual, social, emotional and supportive terms provides them with a very nurturing environment by its very name.

We have children who are fitting into the cogs that the ministry has designed and the minister has mandated. Whether that's seen to be pedagogically and organizationally sound for those youngsters, or whether it is a system that teachers fully support and buy into, it's required by this minister.

So this particular issue....

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, hon. member, your time under standing orders has expired.

MS. A. HAGEN: This issue is an important one, and I look forward to the minister's response. We'll have some further questions.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask leave to make introductions, please.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. PARKER: We have visitors today from Lord Alexander School in Kemano, and they're up in the gallery here. Kemano is a three-hour boat ride from Kitimat, then a one-hour bus ride to the airport, then an hour-and-a-half flight to get down to Vancouver, and then of course you have to get across here. So these folks have come a long way to watch the proceedings today.

Some of the fellows in the more remote areas of the province understand the travel problems.

In the gallery today are two teachers from Lord Alexander School in Kemano: Ken Allison, who teaches grades 7 and 8; and Jeannine Rowsell, who teaches grades 5 and 6. They've brought six students from Kemano to watch the proceedings today: Eliza Straw, Jason Cannon, Aaron Riis, Tim Kent, R.J. Magee and Jason Card. Would the House make them welcome, please.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, it's rather interesting that the recommendation in the Sullivan commission report that we get away from one entry date per year came as a result of many representations from teachers that it was unrealistic to bring in students only once a year, up to a year apart. Mr. Sullivan and the commission accepted that and recommended not specifically what to do, but that developmental criteria rather than chronological age should be the determinant for school entry. They also recommended continuous progress.

[11:30]

In the discussions with EAC — the provincial Education Advisory Committee — at that time, and the discussions in the ministry.... How do we make that? In my tour around the province for three months, people were concerned, because that means that if children are ready at three, they should enter school; but if they are not ready until age ten, they should not enter school. I think, educationally, we all agreed that we did not want to have the equivalent of an entrance examination for students. So some relationship to age, because social factors as well as educational development enter into it.... Physical, social, psychological and emotional development, as well as academic capability, should be factors.

Yes, we looked at continuous entry, which, by definition, is that on their fifth birthday, they come in. It's possible. If the purpose of the school is to have the organization serve the needs of the students, then continuous progress was pretty well accepted by anyone. Strangely enough, the critics — not the people in the system who are doing it — are saying that continuous progress can only start at one point in the year, because that is how the organization is structured. There is some difficulty with that. The critics say they have some concerns about dual entry; that's completely understandable. It's new, it's different. It's not that we start in September, therefore kids have to start in September. I can understand the concerns. But if we look at the interests of the students, it can be....

What happened is that in that discussion, in the finalization and in the School Act.... The previous act said that if you turn five by or on December 31, you may enter in September; if you turn five on January 2, you are three days too young and you will have to wait at least nine months in order to enter school. The decision was made at that time to break it

[ Page 9538 ]

down to no more than six months apart rather than up to a year apart. It fitted in with continuous progress, so we put it into the School Act. Under the old School Act, students anywhere in this province had the right to enter an educational program in the district if they met that age criterion.

Some of the critics are suggesting that it's okay to do it every six months, but parents should only have that right where it suits the school or the district. I think that even my education critic would recognize that when a right was established under the old system, it was a right. I used to get all kinds of letters: my daughter or son was born on January 5 or January 15 and is ready to go to school — why are you so rigid? What is the cutoff date? You have to have some sort of system. Some school boards said: "Oh no, we'll take them in early." I guess that's their prerogative — except that we will fund students, we will pay the bill, only if they qualify.

Some districts have now said: "If we're going to take students in January, you have to pay the teachers who are needed in January from September to December." I think that's a bit unrealistic. What we have said in the initiation process is that if the students show up in January, we don't expect them to find out that day. Most districts register students: they know the ages and enrolment projections. They have a very good idea of how many of those students there are.

In the first year it was optional. I might point out that 33 districts in this province availed themselves of that option. Where it has worked, people are satisfied with it. That information has been put together and is being distributed to all the other districts, to say: "Here is how this district did it." There are some differences. One district did it one way; another district did it another way. But if their objective was to accommodate these students, they did.

We said it was optional this year. Wherever people reside in this province, they should have the rights accorded to them under the School Act. I guess the member is still arguing that the School Act should have said no. But no one suggested to me that the School Act should revert to only-once-a-year entry. When I say that it is now incumbent upon districts, based on all of the experience that we have, it is incumbent upon districts to accord the rights provided to those students wherever they are in the province.

We said in the optional year, and we have said this year, that when the students show up, and you need more staff, more staff will be funded. You need more space; more space will be funded. You need more supplies; those supplies will be funded. The member says: "Well, you didn't tell them how much." Until they tell me how many students, it's pretty difficult for me to say how much. Until I know, or my ministry knows, whether those students need another classroom, or whether in a half-day kindergarten they can be accommodated in the other half of the day and don't need space.... If there's an odd number of kindergarten classes, there's room in effect for one more class to enter without any additional space. We've done everything that's possible to make the job easy, to fund it in addition to what they were doing. The money is there, and the funds are there. The member even asked: "Do the school boards have the right to hold the places?" You take in the students who are eligible in September and accommodate those. You make plans. Most school districts register those students. They know how many are going to be there; they know how many exist.

For the first year that you do this in a district, you have another input in January. We said that will be funded. Next September, the ones who came in January don't show up again as new students. They're already there; they're funded as an FTE — half-time or full-time depending on what the situation is. The next September 30, the teachers are perfectly capable of deciding whether this student, on a continuous-progress basis, carries on in the kindergarten program or in first-year primary; or whether that student is well enough advanced to move into what we would call second-year primary — or maybe that the student just stays with his or her peer group but picks up the learning according to his or her ability. It might be different in math, it might be different in reading, or it might be different in something else. In the primary program, as the member should know if she doesn't, the programs are fairly well blended. With the integration we're talking about, focus is on the learner not on the time allotment for subjects. Primary teachers have been doing this for years anyway.

As I have said somewhat facetiously in some of the meetings that I have gone to, primary teachers are sneaky. I've gone in and watched, and you can't tell when they switch from one subject to another. That's a compliment. You can't tell when they switch from music to arithmetic to reading to something else. They do it effectively, and they do it very well.

I think it's incumbent on the schools to concern themselves with how they can accommodate the students, not whether or not the organization can handle it. Of course the organization can handle it if the will is there. In 33 school districts last year they did it, either partially or totally, and it worked out very well.

Flexibility? Lots of flexibility there. Surely even my critics aren't suggesting that we go back to the lock-step system. As the member knows, full-day kindergarten is optional, and it was a sincere attempt on our part to say that if it's beneficial to the student in the opinion of the professional teachers who can make those judgments.... I don't know, as minister, whether it is good for a kid to be full-day or half-day, but if in the professional judgment of the teachers in that school, together with the principal and the parent, it is felt it would be beneficial for students to enhance their learning situation by attending a full day, you tell us and those students will be funded at full-day.

Last year we announced that the money would be available as needed. This year, since it's a requirement to accept them in January, we have said that they will be funded at six-tenths of the FTE equivalent in the budget, because they will be there six

[ Page 9539 ]

months of this year. Next fall, of course, if they're already there, they are counted as FTEs and become regularly funded students.

I was just reading an article from one of yesterday's papers — unfortunately I don't have it with me — about a teacher who wrote in about the full day. She had all of the concerns and apprehensions that other people are talking about, and found out that when she adjusted the program to the students, it was rewarding for them and for her. That's what we're getting back from teachers all over the place. When they realize the autonomy that's involved — more than they've ever had, because, thank goodness, nobody tells them that this student has to be on page such-and-such on a certain day.... If anybody had told primary teachers that in the past, they would have ignored it, because they knew better.

They're going on with the program. As they develop the program, it will become much more interesting for teachers and students and much more beneficial for students than the lockstep method. I don't know what the concerns are.

Yes, suggestions have come in: would you consider continuous progress or continuous entry on their fifth birthday? My answer was, partly facetiously, that philosophically, I think I could accept that much more easily than the system could. The system — or many of the teachers — has been objecting to going to entry twice a year from entry once a year. Yes, I could accept that; I could accept anything that will benefit the students.

When I was in the school system, if a student came in from another province or from somewhere else in the middle of February, I didn't say to him: "Go away, kid. We only take kids in September." We took the student in and did our best, along with the teachers, to accommodate that student and to provide the learning opportunities that the student needed to progress with their educational program. I think that out in the field, where teachers are working at it, they're doing it. They don't have as much trouble with it as we do at meetings, where we discuss it ad infinitum.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, can I ask leave of the House to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. CLARK: On behalf of the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) and myself, I'd like to welcome 35 grade 10 and 11 students from Templeton Secondary School and their teacher, Ms. L. Wilmink. I know they're finding the debate riveting and exciting We all welcome them to Victoria. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I think we do have some consistent views on both sides of the House on this issue. I am pleased to hear the minister is open to the idea of a fifth-year entitlement. That might well be a better system.

We have now had some experience with full-day kindergarten, and I agree with you that it has worked well. I visited a classroom in my riding, at Queen Elizabeth School, where there is such a full-day kindergarten with two half-day groups of children. The teacher is very concerned about the dual entry, but she's very supportive of the full day.

I think the time has come when we do need to be looking at the full day. I think it would solve a lot of problems in relation to the continuous progress that the minister speaks about, and also the continuous climate for students in one class.

[11:45]

There are going to be difficulties next September. Those kids are going to be in the system, and the teacher — I gather from what the minister says — is going to decide whether the youngster who came in in January now becomes a full-time student in September, or whether that student continues as a halftime student. Some of those Solomon-like decisions, I think, are going to be quite difficult for teachers. They're going to produce some reaction on the part of parents as well: "Why is my child not going in September for a full day?" One of the medium-term agendas that we should certainly be looking at is whether that full-day kindergarten is something that we should be piloting, not just for students with special needs but for students entering school at that time.

I'd like to ask the minister one question, a very significant educational question centered on an organizational problem. When a class of youngsters has to accommodate a new group of students in January, there are two basic ways a school can do that. One way is to hold the anticipated spaces for those students, so that they come in; then there is a complete class of an appropriate size for kindergarten or first year.

The other way to deal with it is to set up a class in September of whatever number of students — let's say 20 — and then, when we have a new group of students come into that class, to have to reorganize the system. I know that districts have the right to do age groupings, multi-age groupings and a whole range of organizational patterns. But the cost of the first option, which is to set up the group of children and to leave space for the new children who are going to be coming in, so that they stay with the class — the group of children and the teacher they're presumably going to be with — is a cost to the district. That cost is going to come out of the block, but it's going to come out of the block for kids who aren't there — if you like — and for which that school is not being funded.

I'd be interested to know whether the ministry is prepared to do any kind of financial accommodation around those issues, so that schools do have funding for the flexible program they might need, in order to have continuous progress and the kind of grouping and teacher contact with a group of students that they decide is the best way for them to organize their primary class. It's going to be an administrative and organizational challenge, and part of that challenge is constrained by the dollars that school districts have to implement. Because the use of royal commission

[ Page 9540 ]

dollars is to implement change, I'd be interested to know what response the minister is giving to school districts that want the option of providing for a stable classroom situation into which new children come, rather than a reorganized classroom when the kids arrive in January.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I guess the member mustn't have been paying attention when I was making my previous comments, because I said that we will be funding those students who come in in January at six-tenths of the full-time equivalent, because they are there for six-tenths of the year. How a board or a school organizes this is in the realm of local autonomy and flexibility. If there is a class of 16 kindergarten students, and two come in in January, what's the additional cost, Madam Member? But that student will generate six-tenths of a full year's funding. It's my contention that with that, the school districts have money — but they can't have it both ways.

I guess the member is representing the BCTF position: if they're going to make us take in some other kids during the year, see if you can talk the minister into getting us extra money to pay teachers for four months, when there's no requirement for those teachers. That's basically it. What happens the next year, when only half of the students come in in the fall? So it's there. It can be done. It was done in 33 districts last year; it can be done this year. How it's done is their decision.

I'm saying that we are not going to provide funding in this school year for students who don't come in until the next school year. Similarly, we're not going to provide funding in September for students who don't arrive until January in this program. It's quite simple. How they want to do it is up to them.

In my opening comments, I suggested that there's so much flexibility that if people would start asking what the best way is to serve the best interests of the students, there is all kinds of room for them to do that and do it effectively.

If they look at it as another egg, you've got to increase the size of the egg-crate. If that is their only solution, another student, whether or not that student generates a requirement for more space or more staffing.... As I said, I used the example — and it may be extreme — of 16 students in a class and two come in in January, or four come in in January. It doesn't require another classroom or another teacher, so why would we pay for another four-tenths of a teacher in September if another teacher weren't even required in January?

That's how you get yourself trapped into this. The money is there — ten-month students get ten-tenths funding; six-month students get six-tenths funding. It's up to the local system to distribute it. If they asked the teachers a bit more about the best way to accommodate those students, they would probably get much more imaginative ideas than what we're getting in the House here.

MS. A. HAGEN: I really find the gratuitous remarks about where my information comes from quite insulting. The minister seems to feel that there is one track on this side of the House, and he takes every opportunity to suggest that questions that are asked here come from that one track. It's simply an unacceptable perspective from the minister.

Let me just tell you some of the tracks from which these questions have come, Mr. Minister: chairpeople of school boards, teachers who are working in dual-entry classrooms and people who are working in the field. Your comments that suggest that our questions here are simply some kind of pipeline from an organization that you take every opportunity to malign is not acceptable to this member of the Legislature. It is not acceptable, and we will do a lot better in this discussion as a constructive minister and as a constructive critic if those gratuitous remarks are not a part of any further statements that you might like to make in the course of this discussion.

There are issues in dual entry: the organization, the administration, the introduction and the funding of those programs. Those are legitimate concerns out in the field. They are concerns of people who are, as the primary teachers of this province have been, probably best exemplars of the kind of innovation and enlightened philosophy that that group of teachers has brought to bear on the early education of youngsters.

I've raised some of those issues. It's clear that boards are going to have to make organizational and administrative changes — there are large numbers of children involved — that may or may not be in the best interests of the youngsters. I'm sure that boards will be doing everything humanly possible to make those changes in ways that are in the best interests of children.

I think that there are some changes that the ministry is prepared to look at. They are changes that would be costly, but ones that very early in the game we would need to look at, around changing the time children spend in school when they first come, and that entitlement. At some time outside this House, I'll look forward to having that discussion in a round table where probably — because it may be a little less political from the minister's point of view — we can simply deal with the issue.

Mr. Chairman, I could move to a new issue at this time, but I think, with the agreement of the House, I would like to ask that 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. Reynolds moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.