Thank you, Ms. Green. Motion is in order and being distributed. To the motion, Ms. Green.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I am going to refer to the memorandum of understanding that was agreed between the Northwest Territories Teachers' Association and the Government of the Northwest Territories on Strengthening Teacher Instructional Practise, and I am going to quote a segment of the MOU here. It says, and I quote, "During the life of this collective agreement, the association and the employer agree to work together to explore a range of evidence-based possibilities that may have a positive impact on teacher effectiveness and improved student outcomes. This could include changes to the Education Act and the implementation and subsequent evaluation of structured pilot projects. These pilot projects would include a focus on redirecting up to 100 instructional hours per school year." End of the section that I am quoting there.
Mr. Chair, this is not what happened. We, as a group of MLAs, were not given a range of options. We were given one option, which is Bill 16, the bill in front of us. What we learned through this process is that this initiative does not come from the education renewal initiative. In fact, it is more likely that it came out of negotiations, and that it was an add-on to satisfy legitimate, and I am going to repeat that, legitimate concerns teachers have about their own wellness. We, of course, want teachers to be well and to be ready to do the innumerable tasks which we now require of them in the classroom. But, as I said earlier, we were not presented a range of options. We were given our marching orders, and we were expected to comply with them.
What we need here is more teachers, simply put. We, as I have already said, expect a tremendous amount from our teachers. The classroom has become a much more complex place than it was when I graduated almost 40 years ago. Teachers are required to take into account so many more student needs and to accommodate them in ways that certainly were not acknowledged in my era, and that is not a bad thing, but there is a limit to what they can do. I want to say that we have had a tremendous amount of input from the teachers on the student instructional practice. I would like to correct the record in saying that there were 27 submissions rather than 230 formal submissions on this bill, but I also have to say that I received at least as many personal e-mails from both teachers and parents on this issue, and I know that many of my colleagues did as well. The people who were least heard from were the parents, and even less than them, the students. They seemed to be running behind afterwards because they did not have the communication in a proactive way, whether that is the responsibility of the school boards or whether that was the responsibility of the department.
Not surprisingly, they were very concerned about the parity of the high school diploma granted by the NWT with that granted by Alberta as the two jurisdictions share a common curriculum as we all know. The Yellowknife Catholic Schools responded to this question about providing certainty to parents by passing a motion at its February board meeting saying that they would not reduce hours at St. Patrick High School here in Yellowknife lower than 1,000 in order to maintain that parity. Their argument was that the students all write the same exams, and that they needed to have equal access to preparation. The comparison with Alberta is really the only one that matters here because we teach the same curriculum. The comparison to other jurisdictions in Canada is not relevant. When the department came to brief the standing committee on this bill in February, the deputy minister confirmed that parity was an important issue, and she pledged that it would be in place. In an attempt to find a middle ground between ensuring that teachers are not only well, but they have the time to collaborate and to engage in professional development, and that parents have the certainty that their children in high school will receive the same number of instructional hours as children in Alberta. My proposal is to reduce the instructional hours, not by 100 but by 45. The original act says 1045. I am suggesting 1000. That gives teachers an additional 45 hours to spend on ways to improve their own health and their outcomes, and it would provide certainty for parents that there is parity with Alberta.
Now, this MOU is not the collective agreement. It is a pilot project. What the department has done is just moved directly into legislating this change. I do not think that is the right thing to do. I think that we should maintain parity with Alberta for high school, and we should evaluate, and I know the department is coming forward with an evaluation plan. Evaluate how this is rolling out before we reduce the hours any further. We also need to keep in mind that Alberta is going through this exercise as well. They may also decide that they want the change in their current mandatory minimums, and so that may prompt changes further in the future.
Just to summarize, the intention of this motion is to find a middle ground between the certainty that parents told us they wanted for their children's education, and the wellness that the teachers' said that they need in order to find their work satisfying, and the outcomes for their students satisfying as well. For that reason, I am putting forward this motion. I have already had significant consultation on this motion with my colleagues. It is my understanding that they will not be supporting it, but I think it is important that we acknowledge that we also heard from parents that they have this issue, that it is a valid issue, that we have heard them, and in the case of this motion by me, that I support them in wanting to have this standard of education for their children. Those are my comments, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Green. To the motion, Mr. Thompson.
Sorry, to me, or to Minister Moses? Sorry, confusion here.
To the motion, Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. When we looked at this motion and looked at it, I went out and did some research. I talked to a number of people including Mr. Oliver and some of the people on the committee. Basically, from my understanding in talking with the people there is that it is a minimum of 945, but a majority, except for maybe one school presently has over 1000 hours in senior high from 10 to 12. This group, this committee is looking at it and saying that there is a minimum 945.
As my friend from Yellowknife Centre talked about, we do need more teachers. I love what Alberta has done. They have taken it and put 907 hours but they still have their instructional hours there, so that means there has to be more teachers in there. Unfortunately, that was not part of the bill. That was not part of what we were trying to get at. The comments about the standards, our education system, we do not require hours. It is course load. You actually don't even have to graduate to attend university. You need to have the equivalence of the courses to attend which basically means that if you have the courses and the marks, and you may be entered into the program if accepted. The one big requirement is the English 30-1 and 30-2, and that is the same. That is what we have to require for it. At this point in time, I understand. I have heard from the parents. I have heard from the teachers. I have heard. I have gone out. I have looked at it, and unfortunately, I cannot support this bill, and I will be voting against it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The amendment, sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. To the motion, Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just like to thank my Honourable friend, the member for Nahendeh, for laying out some of these considerations. I, too, have consulted with some people on this issue. The crux of it is, the NWT students graduate with an NWT senior secondary diploma, and not an Alberta education diploma; and although there are some course equivalencies through the NWT senior secondary diploma such as the Alberta 30-1 or 30-2 language arts course, ultimately, the NWT's diploma is standalone. Universities do not require 1,000 hours when they are considering the NWT's senior secondary diploma. Whether an NWT student has 1,000 hours of instruction per year for grades 10 to 12 has nothing to do with whether or not they will be accepted to post-secondary institutions.
I appreciate where the mover is coming from, and she clearly laid out her case for why compromise is preferable to something imperfect, however, in this case, I think the diploma speaks for itself, and how those diplomas are considered by post-secondary institutions, and as a result, I will not be supporting this amendment. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. To the motion. Minister Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the Member for bringing forward this proposed amendment. As Minister responsible for Education, I believe that the NWT superintendents, principals, and teachers know their students best. They want their students to be successful as do all of us here in this House and to have a variety of options available to them upon completion of their high school program.
Schools will schedule the appropriate hours of instructions that they believe their students require to successfully complete their coursework. I think it is important for all Members to remember that the proposed 945 hours of instruction represents the minimum hours of instruction, not the maximum hours of instruction. Therefore, schools will still be able to schedule more than 945 hours if they feel it best meets the needs of their students. Mr. Chair, schools will inevitably make the best decisions for scheduling the appropriate hours of instruction for their students to require successful completion of their high school programs. Therefore, Cabinet is not in a position to support this motion before us. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister Moses. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. First off, I'd like to thank my colleague from Yellowknife Centre for bringing forward the motion. I think I heard many of the same concerns from parents that she has. I think this was an attempt to try to find some middle ground or some kind of a compromise here and ensure Alberta equivalency and I commend her for bringing it forward. It's very important that the public hear the debate and discussion around this matter because it's still a live concern with many parents. I can agree with my colleague from Yellowknife Centre to a certain point. She said many of the same things that I said in my opening remarks on the bill itself that the change in instructional hours was not found in the education renewal. This was driven by the fiscal strategy of Cabinet, the compromise that was reached at the negotiating table, and I believe we need to get back to the education renewal initiative as the way of bringing forward further change to our educational system.
I agree that we need to invest more in our school system. Unfortunately, this bill has only given us one way of dealing with the issue of teachers being overworked and that's reducing instructional hours. I guess I can vaguely remember back to my time in the 1970s when I applied for university. The thing that you submit when you want to get into colleague and university is your transcript, the courses you took, and the marks that you got in them. That's the basis on which universities and colleges accept students. There's nothing in there about instructional hours. I'm not convinced that this amendment will change in any way the ability of our students to gain entry into universities or colleges.
The last thing, I guess, I wish to say is that as I understand it, the Alberta system – their high school level there – instructional hours are in a state of flux themselves. I think it's very difficult to specify what exactly Alberta equivalency is at this point in time let alone probably any point in time. For those reasons, I don't think I can support – I will not be supporting the motion but I do sincerely thank my colleague for bringing this matter forward for the debate and discussion on the floor today. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. To the motion. Seeing no further comments, I will turn to Ms. Green to close debate on this motion. Ms. Green.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Of course, when one applies to university, nobody is interested in how many hours you spend in a classroom. What they're interested in is what your marks are and I continue to believe that in order for NWT students to be competitive in departmental exams and have the best chance to compete with Alberta students for post-secondary education that they need the mandatory minimum instructional hours in high school to be set at 1,000.
Thank you, Ms. Green. The Member has requested a recorded vote. To all those in favour, please stand.
Ms. Green.
All those opposed, please stand.
Mr. Nadli, Mr. Nakimayak, Mr. Moses, Ms. Cochrane, Mr. Abernethy, Mr. McLeod - Yellowknife South, Mr. McLeod - Inuvik Twin Lakes, Mr. Schumann, Mr. Sebert, Mr. Blake, Mr. McNeely, Mr. Vanthuyne, Mr. Testart, Mr. Thompson, Mr. O' Reilly.
All those abstaining, please stand. The results of the recorded vote are one in favour; 15 opposed; zero abstentions. The motion is defeated.
---Defeated
Clause 4. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that Bill 60 be amended by adding the following after clause 4. The following is added after subsection 126, subsection 4, subsection 5, the Legislative Assembly or committee of the Legislative Assembly designated or established by it shall review the hours of instruction prescribed under subsection 4 at the next sitting following July 1, 2020.
Subsection 6, the review shall include an examination of the hours of the instruction in effect of those hours of instruction on students and teachers and may include any recommendations for change to the hours of instruction.
Subsection 7, the Minister shall provide a reasonable assistance to the Legislative Assembly or committee of that it is designated or established for the purpose of this section. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. There's a motion on the floor. The motion has been distributed and is in order. To the motion. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I said previously, I did contact a number of people in the union and in the department and spoke about this. The union agrees. We need to do an evaluation and move forward and so has the department talked about their evaluation. What committee has done is remodeled our – modeled after the statuary requirement to review the Official Language Act, established options to formally engage a committee, the Legislative Assembly in reviewing of its items or significant changed interest.
We also picked the date of saying we wanted the sitting as of July 1st, which normally will be September or October sitting, so this will be reviewed at that time. Review of the bill or this amendment would need to cover hours of instruction and their effects on the students' achievements and its teachers while we're looking at how it's impacting not just the teachers but also the students, seeing how it works on it.
Finally, through this whole process, the reviewing committee may make formal recommendations to the government coming out of the review. In other words, we'll make formal reviews. It won't be a tabled document. This is the reason the committee moved forward. As we said previously, we have talked to everybody and this is something that we feel would be a good amendment to the bill to make it more operational, functional, and, I guess, a good piece of legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. To the motion. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I will be supporting this amendment to the bill. If you look at the memorandum of understanding, this change in instructional hours was clearly characterized as a pilot project, which means that it is going to be evaluated at the end of it. This was not meant to be a permanent change necessarily, but the way the bill was drafted, this was going to be a permanent change in instructional hours. We had this drawn to our attention by some parents. I noticed it when I first read the bill. This is a permanent change. Where is the review of this?
I believe that this amendment to make the mandatory review is completely consistent with the pilot project nature of the change in instructional hours. The issue of evaluation reporting of the changes in instructional hours and student outcomes and teacher wellness has been a source of concern for parents and MLAs. While there is greater clarity than when we started the review of this bill, I do not feel confident or comfortable leaving such a review in the control of the Minister or his department. I am also concerned about our ability to actually measure meaningful changes in teacher wellness and student outcomes on an annual basis or even after three years, something other jurisdictions do not seem to be able to do.
Given the very poor communications from the Minister and his department around these changes, the evaluation should be done by an independent party or a standing committee of this Assembly, while recognizing that the Minister will make the final decisions at the end of the day, and I am sure he would consult with it Northwest Territories Teachers' Association and the superintendents.
I also want to speak to the scope of the review that is suggested in this amendment. The scope of the review is focused on student achievement, which we have heard is the main purpose of this portion of the bill, and teacher wellness. I think that sets out the scope of the evaluation, the review that would be carried out, perfectly clear. That would be done by an independent party, by a standing committee. I support that as well. I will be voting in support of this amendment. I believe this was a reasonable compromise that was put forward by the standing committee. I heard most of their deliberations and discussion on this, and I strongly support this. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Next, Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think it is more than reasonable to have an expectation of independent oversight over the pilot project by the Legislative Assembly after there has been so much confusion leading up to this place. Although Honourable Members may have a better handle on it as anyone listening to the debate today can clearly hear, there are still many unanswered questions and many concerns raised by both parents and teachers. This amendment will allow for that independent oversight that would go alongside the internal department evaluation, and I think it is an excellent measure to allow both the department to do its work and for the Legislative Assembly to ensure that this pilot project is meeting the needs of both teachers and students. For that reason, I support it. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. Minister Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the Member for bringing forward the proposed amendments. I also believe that a detailed thorough evaluation of the STIP pilot project is critical to ensuring it is successful in achieving our goals of improved students outcomes by providing teachers with time to focus on developing their instructional practices. This is why I publicly committed to share the evaluation framework with Standing Committee on Social Development before the end of the school year and to continue working with the committee over the source of the three-year pilot.
I have also committed to providing regular public updates on the implementation, monitoring, and outcomes of STIP. This evaluation will not be conducted by the Department on its own. Instead, it will be jointly conducted by the STIP committee made up of residents from the NWT Superintendents' Association, the NWT Teachers' Association, and the Department of Culture, Education, and Employment. The STIP committee is an unprecedented collaboration between government, school board, and the teachers' association and collectively represents the education experts of our territory.
As we look to go forward with implementing STIP, we anticipate having all 49 NWT schools taking part and trialling their own unique school calendars. Already, each proposed calendar has been carefully vetted by the STIP committee before approval. We are under no illusions that all calendars will be equally successful. We will learn from each example, and schools will actively share their success and areas for improvement.
Mr. Chair, given the complexity of this initiative and the many ways it will evolve over the next three years, I strongly believe that STIP committee is in the best position to review this initiative, and as a result, Cabinet is not in a position to support this motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister Moses. Seeing no one further on my list, I will return to the mover of the motion to close debate. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. A recorded vote has been requested. All those in favour, please stand.
Mr. Thompson, Mr. O'Reilly, Ms. Green, Mr. Testart.
All those opposed, please stand.
Mr. Nadli, Mr. Nakimayak, Mr. Moses, Ms. Cochrane, Mr. Abernethy, Mr. McLeod – Yellowknife South, Mr. McLeod – Inuvik Twin Lakes, Mr. Schumann, Mr. Sebert, Mr. Blake, Mr. McNeely, Mr. Vanthuyne.
All those abstaining, please stand. The results of the recorded vote are four in favour, 12 opposed, zero abstentions. The motion is defeated.
---Defeated
Clause 4. Mr. Testart.
Merci, Monsieur le President. I move that Bill 16 be amended by adding the following after clause 4:
4.1. The following is added after subsection 126(4):
(5) The Department of Education, Culture and Employment shall review the hours of instruction prescribed under subsection (4) within six months following the conclusion of the 2019-2020 academic year.
(6) The review shall consist of an examination of the hours of instruction, the effectiveness of the administration and implementation of the hours of instruction, and the achievement of the objectives behind the hours of instruction.
(7) The Minister shall consult with the Legislative Assembly, or a committee of the Legislative Assembly designated or established by it, in the review referred to in subsection (5).
(8) The Minister shall table a report in the Legislative Assembly detailing the outcome of the review referred to in subsection (5)
(a) at the sitting of the Legislative Assembly during which the report is completed; or
(b) at the next sitting of the Legislative Assembly, if the Legislative Assembly is not sitting when the report is completed.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess we will try this again with different language. The intention here is to ensure that there is a mandatory review of this pilot project that is enshrined in legislation. It is very clear that the many concerns that have led us to such an extensive debate around these issues are well reflected once the pilot project has run its course.
This amendment will enshrine the process that the Minister of Education has laid out in numerous public statements into the act itself and will allow both the government and the committee to work together to ensure that the objectives of the STIP hours are well-understood after the pilot runs its course. I appreciate that the Minister has laid out his case for working with the STIP committee, and this work will now go, if this amendment is passed, that work will go on with full partnership with the standing committee. Furthermore, this amendment can be found in other examples of legislation that this government is bound by, and is a good way to ensure sober second thought to major issues of important public policy. As we know, parents and teachers have a vested interest in ensuring this project is successful. For that reason, I would ask my colleagues, the honourable Members of this Chamber to support this amendment moving forward. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. To the motion, Minister Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and as stated in my previous comments, we are committed to giving updates on the implementation, monitoring the outcomes of STIP, as well as continuing to work with our STIP committee, and with the standing committee on social programs, to give them updates as well. The motion that was brought before us, currently in front of us here, is one that Cabinet can support, and we will also be supporting this motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. I see no further comments. Oh, Mr. Vanthuyne. To the motion.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and yes, I think that this sort of reaffirms what the department has been articulating all along, and something that I believe, and that is that ultimately, the Department of Education is wholly responsible for education in the NWT; and the language in this amendment ties the department to that responsibility, and still allows us and Regular Members to have a fairly strong level of, call it, contribution that will hold the department to account.
The language now starts to include the Department of Education, Culture and Employment. It refers to the Minister, and that he shall consult with a committee of the Legislative Assembly, and it also indicates that the Minister shall table a report detailing the outcomes of the review. This is the kind of amendment that I can find myself in support of. Frankly, with all due respect, the prior amendment that was trying to kind of attain the same objectives, really didn't put the department out there for being accountable. It was putting, in my view, the standing committee or the Legislative Assembly committee of whatever sort to be more accountable on the review. I believe now that we are putting that onus back on the Department of Education where it ought to be, and I will be in support of the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. To the motion. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I think it's important to understand that this only came in response to the work of the standing committee, and this was a hard fought battle to try to get a mandatory review period. I guess the other thing I want to mention, I think this is a poor cousin compared to the previous amendment but I cannot speak to that again. There are two areas that concern me greatly with the amendment that is proposed. The first is this idea of consulting with the committee. I think I have been here for almost, getting close to two years, and kind of consultation I have seen from my Cabinet colleagues with standing committees has left a lot to be desired. I am very concerned about what sort of consultation the Minister, it is probably going to be the Minister over there, would undertake with the standing committee. If the Minister wishes to speak to that, I would appreciate hearing from him on what sort of consultation, if he was to continue, you would expect with the standing committee as part of this review. That is one of my major concerns.
The second one is the scope of the review that is proposed in this amendment. The scope of the review is…I must read this out because I am not sure everybody has really read this. "The effectiveness of the administration and implementation of the hours of instruction." What does that got to do with student outcomes or teacher wellness? And then, "the achievement of the objectives behind the hours of instruction," I'm not clear what the objectives are right from the start. There seems to be a shifting target here. If the Minister can convince me that the objectives of this review includes student achievement and teacher wellness, I would much appreciate that. I see the five bullets from his statement introducing the bill today here. We have got teacher satisfaction. Teacher human resource stats such as sick days. Use of professional development time, student attendance and student course completions. I am looking for something a bit more holistic like student outcomes. Are more students passing than before? Are they getting better grades and so on? Those are far more, I think, important indicators of student achievement. I am looking for some reassurance from the Minister that the scope of the review is actually going to deal with student achievement and student wellness, and I don't get that from what I see in the amendment before us. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. I will remind you that the amendment was moved by Mr. Testart, not by the Minister, and the Minister is on the witness seat and under no responsibility, or under no obligation to answer questions. I see no further comments or questions. I will return to the mover to close debate. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. As with all things we do in this great institution of democracy, compromise is essential to ensuring we make good decisions for our people, and I am very thankful to have the support of Cabinet on this amendment. I am also thankful to the honourable Member for Yellowknife North for showing his support, and to the concerns raised by the honourable Member for Frame Lake.
