Manitoba Committee Hansard — Public Expenditures Committee, Sitting 12 (31st Legislature, 3rd Session)

31-3-pe12

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS Chairman: Mr. J. Wally McKenzie Constituency of Roblin Thursday, October 25, 1979 8:00 P.M. Prmte the Queen's Printer for the Province of Manitoba

Time: 8:00 p.m. Hearing Of The Standing Committee On Privileges and Elections Thursday, October 25, 1979 CHAIRMAN, Mr. J. Wally McKenzie. MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee will come to order. The first matter, I've got a letter from the Clerk, Mr. Reeves, regarding the inquiry from The Pas, and I'll read it into the record. "Authority to hold public hearings outside of the Legislative Building. I have discussed the matter of the standing committee on Privileges and Elections, travelling to The Pas to hear public representations on the matters referred to with the Legislative Counsel. Mr. Tallin states that he agrees with my

interpretation of the situation, and since our rules are silent on the particular problem, the provisions of Beauchesne, Fifth Edition, Citation 599 must obtain. Without the specific authority of the House to sit outside the Legislative Building, the committee has no authority to do so. I pointed out that the last resolution which I could find, 19 75 Journals, Page 249 and 250, contained the phrase, 'to hold such hearings as the committee deems advisable'. Mr. Tallin said that he would regard this to constitute authority for committee to hold public hearings where and when desired." The other matter . . . Mr.

Boyce. MR. J. R. (Bud) BOYCE: Mr. Chairman, just on that point, I would think that the committee has no other alternative but to accept the advice of the Clerk. But nevertheless, it's regrettable that the government resolution precludes, it's their resolution we're dealing with and it hadn't come to my attention before that this rule would apply, so it is regrettable that the government has not put a resolution that would authorize us to have hearings outside the city of Winnipeg. Most regrettable, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: We certainly can look at it in that direction.

My concern was, as the Chairman, to find out if we had the authority to . . . MR. BOVCE: I wasn't questioning the Chair, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further comment? The other matter, that is, adjourning tomorrow at noon. Is that agreeable to the committee? (Agreed) And then we sit again Monda y morning. Proceed then. MR. RONALD McBRYDE: Mr. Chairman, I have a question on the first item that you raised. I'm sorry, I think I was ten or fifteen seconds late and I missed the main part of what you had to say. I wonder if you could repeat the Clerk's .... MR.

CHAIRMAN: Yes, it's the Authority to hold public hearings outside the Legislative Building, Mr. Reeves. "I have discussed the matter of the standing committee on Privileges and Elections, travelling to The Pas, to hear public representations on the matters referred to it with the Legislative Counsel. Mr. Tallin states that he agrees with my

interpretation of the situation, and since our own rules are silent on this particular problem, the provisions of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 599 must obtain. Without the specific authority of the House to sit outside the Legislative Building, the committee has no authority to do so. I pointed out that the last resolution which I could find, 19 75 Journals, Pages 249 and 250, contain the phrase, 'to hold such public hearings as the committee deems advisable'. Mr. Tallin said that he would regard this to constitute authority for the committee to hold public hearings when and where desired." MR. McBRVDE: I'm having trouble interpreting the

interpretation. The

interpretation then says that unless there is wording that says, "as the committee deems advisable," then somehow we are 305

Is that ... Privileges and Elections Thur sday, October 25, 1979 MR. CHAIRMAN: That's the way I interpret it. He said, "without the specific authority of the House to sit outside the Legislature, the committee does not have the authority to do so." MR. McBRYDE: Mr. Chairman, I have the problem of I guess of, as I said earlier, of not being an authority on the legislative procedure and rules.

When I contacted the Minister of Education when the hearings were finally announced, the hearings that we're now going through, his advice was that this committee would decide where the meetings would be held, and I think he gave the same advice to the Member for Churchill on his inquiry; and I think it would rather unfortunate if this - I'm assuming that if it was the will of this committee to meet outside the Legislature that we could probably find a way to do it. But not being an expert on the rules, I don't kno w that's the case.

But I'm assuming that if we wanted to we could probably find a way to do it without much trouble. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I'm not certain either that - you know, the financing , the pay of moving the committee from the House. I'm going to check with the Auditor and maybe we could catch him in the morning and see what his opinion is, if the moneys that would be expendedwould be acceptable to him. to see if ... MR. McBRYDE: Mr. Chairman, I would certainly appreciate it as a committee member if you would explore those other experts, or people, who could give us advice on this matter. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Walding. MR. D.

JAMES WALDING: Mr. Chairman, you quoted a 1975 ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Journal , yes. MR. WALDING: ... something, which apparently authorized a committee to sit wherever and whenever it wanted to. Now was that a special committee or was that a motion setting up the Standing Comm ittees? Perhaps you could advise whether that 19 75 ruling is still in effect, and would affect us? MR. CHAIRMAN: lt was on the motion of the Honourable Mr. Uskiw. "Whereas the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba on the 30th day of May, 19 74, constituted a special committee of the House consisting of Messrs.

Green, Uskiw, Adam, Barrow, Slake, Bostrom, Boyce, Ferguson, Graham, Henderson, Johannson, Johnson, Jorgenson, Shafransky and Walding, to enquire into the matters relating to the property rights and lands within the province, and

Whereas the said committee in its report to the Legislature recommend that the special committee be continued in order to provide the citizens of Manitoba with further opportunity to express their views in matters relating to the use and the ownership of land in the province, TH EFORE

be it resolved that the special committee appointed to enquire into the matters relating to the property rights and lands within the province, on the 30th day of May, 19 74, be reconstituted and reappointed to enquire into matters relating to property rights and agricultural and recreational lands within the province, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this special committee consist of - the names are all there - and be it further resolved that this special committee be authorized to hold such public hearings as the committee deems advisable and to report its findings and recommendations to the House at the next Session of the Legislature." And that was the one that you referred to, Mr.

Walding. MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, that's obviously a special committee that was set up to do a special job and given its own terms of reference. I wonder if there was any reference made in there to the Family Law Hearings, which I believe were dealt with by the Statutory Regulations and Orders Committee, and that committee, I kno w, did travel out of the city to hold hearings. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we can look it up, tonight the Family Law and we can use that for our reference. MR. WALDING: I believe that would have been 19 77 or possibly the end of 19 76, maybe November, 19 76. 306

Privileges and Elections Thursday, October 25, 1979 MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't find any reference to any committees. The Premier appointed the standing committees, which committees shall have, be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things that may be referred to them by this House, and to report from time to time their observations, opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers, documents, and examine witnesses under oath. Privileges and Elections, and members of it. Public Accounts. lt was a special committee, wasn't it? MR. WALDING: I think it was a standing committee. MR.

CHAIRMAN: He appointed them and then it has Privileges and Elections, the members of it, then Public Accounts, then Public Utilities and Natural Resources Committee, Agricultur e and Municipal Affairs, where the Law Amendments, Private Bills, Industrial Relations, tatutory Regulations and Orders, Economic Development - oh yes, a special committee of seven persons, Land Use, Page 22 and 23, a special committee ... prepare the list of the standing committees for the House presented its report . . . that's not the one.

Land ownership report, ombudsman, a special committee re the appointment of the ombudsman, committee of supply, ways and means, condolence. I don't see any special committees in that year. We can check it and we'll proceed with the ... and maybe we can find a reference before we close. MR. BOYCE: Well, Mr. Chairman, it would be expeditious to have the Minister and the Chairman and the Member for Radisson and the Member for The Pas go as a sub-committee of the committee to listen to the briefs. MR. ABE KOVNATS: Mr.

Chairman, it sounds like a wonderful idea but I think that would require further discussion before we decide on such a choosing of personnel. MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it would not expedite the work of the committee to carry on with any hearings that, any briefs that might be here and maybe come back to this when we have some more information. MR. CHAIRMAN: I call Mr. Garwood. No. 42 on the list. MR. JIM GARWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Jim Garwood. I'm a school trustee in St. Boniface School Division.

I'm presenting this paper - I was going to say as an individual - as a concerned trustee and I'm not being supported by hordes of clammering citizens that are behind me here tonight. But at the same time I would like to say that I think I could find a gr eat number of people who would be prepared to come down here and prepare to sign a petition, or whatever, to indicate that there is some deg ree of support for what I have to say in this paper. So I shall proceed. MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed, Mr . Garwood . MR.

GARWOOD: Thank you for this opportunity to add ress you on the subject of the proposed Public Schools Act for Manitoba. The new bill will bring education into the 19 80s and we are not like ly to see much change in legislation in the near future and in fact, probably not for the next decade. lt is important, therefore, that concerns be voiced to the legislators now.

Although the general reorganization of the Act is praiseworthy and although several changes included in the bill need close examination before being adopted by the Legislature, it is my contention that one feature is noticeably absent from the bill. lt is not my intention to review the many sections of Bill 22 but rather to concentrate my remarks on one specific item: Open School Board meetings. And I make reference here to Sections 29 to 40 in which meetings of trustees, for example, are discussed or are elaborated on in the bill.

Freedom of information and open government are relatively new concepts in the Canadian politicat debate. lt was only a few days ago in the Speech from the Throne from Ottawa, that we officially received notice that the federal government would bring in a bill dealing with freedom of information. lt apparently has now been tabled.

Since this subject has not yet had a complete airing in the Manitoba Legislature and since admittedly there are difficulties in implementing such rules for the provincial government, I would like to humbly submit to you that the place to start with openness in government is at the school board level. If Bill 22 were amended to incorporate a 307

Privileges and Elections Thursday, October 25, 1979 requ1rmg that school boards in Manitoba hold all their meetings in public, the experience could well serve as an instructive guide to legislators if and when they were to consider the same subject at a later date for the provincial scene. Present legislation in Manitoba does not prevent school boards from making decisions behind closed doors. The result of closed meetings is that boards debate issues, make decisions and then inform the public of their deliberations. This is not the way to ensure public confidence in democratic institutions.

The central problem regarding secrecy is, of course, that the public suffers. Citizens are unable to hold elected officials accountable for their actions, and representatives in turn, are less response responsive to the needs and the wishes of citizens. The public is thereby denied knowledge and consequently disenfranchised. No wonder secrecy breeds suspicion.

Let me enumerate a few examples from first-hand experience of subjects dealt with at in camera sessions by my own board, and as I list them the school division budget; closing and later reopening a school; administrators' salaries; expansion of the French Immersion program; an official opening of a school addition. In addition to the listed items, of course numerous other ones exist, such as personnel, negotiations and litigation issues.

I might just diverge from that and say that there apparently could be, from my reading and research on the matter, I think very sound grounds to argue in fact that even if one were to make the case that there ought to be restrictions on school boards from having all their meetings in an open session, and usually the argument is made that personnel, negotiation and litigation items would be the ones that you would want to preserve behind closed doors, I would at this point like to make mention of an experience that I had when I lived in Boston for awhile.

At that point, over the radio it was very interesting to hear that the selection of a superintendent in a suburb of Boston was well-known by the citizens of that community, in fact all the candida tes for the position, their names were well known, it was broadcast, and publ icized in the newspapers. And somehow or other, upon reflection on that, I didn't see that that matter was curtailing the development of education in Cambridge.

In fact, the superintendent probably is the key indication of the direction a school division would take, and it strikes me that that being the ultimate of personnel matters should be certainly one that is in the open for the public to be aware of and have some indication of which direction the school division is taking. I think the same with negotiations and litigation items. Again, the American experience is useful to us, because there many of the States have passed sunshine laws. Anyway, to proceed with what I have written here.

Please do not misconstrue my concern from the fact that I present examples from my own experience. With a little research, I could probably provide numerous examples from other boards. I think if any of you have attended school board meetings, you will probably have seen this or realized what was happening, and I'm certain that some of you have. The central point we should keep in mind here is whether any of these subjects mentioned above or any other subjects that are kept in secret, is worthy of that secrecy, not who does it or to what degree.

Let me give some of the reasons why I believe open school board meetings should be the rule. 1 will then attempt to explain why it is necessary to legislate this change into the new Public Schools Act. Secret meetings in a democratic society seem to be a contradiction. We should do everything in our power to ensure that the public is well informed about all activities of government, no matter the level of the government. The public not only should be informed but it has a right to know.

Citizens' rights should extend beyond the right to pay taxes, since the public pays the bills. lt has the power or the privilege to be "in the kn ow". Were decisions made at open meetings, trustees would be forced to make logical, coherent and factually accurate statements when discussing issues or be prepared to at least accept the consequences. The political process would be enhanced as a result of open decision-making. Abuse of political power and responsibility is not condoned by anyone. Yet information is power and it should be readily made available to the public.

One way of ensuring that this occurs is to mandate open school board meetings throughout Manitoba. Government belongs to the people and you have the power in your hands to ensure that school boards act as servants of the people rather than as the masters of the people. 1t is said by people like "Jed" Baldwin that the greatest of defenders of government secrecy are the bureaucrats who wish to preserve their own records of infallibili ty. At the school board level this is probably equally true. As you are probably aware there is a gr eat deal of unintentional "role inversion" carried on by school trustees.

That is to say, once elected trustees quickly change from being representatives of the public interest to defenders of the administration's interests. The reason for this inversion is that most trustees are caught in the trap of trying to deal with experts on an 308

Privileges and Elections Thursday, October 25, 1979 equal footing. We become overwhelmed by their kno wledge and succumb to the information they present to us. We then begin to accept their point of view as our own. Therefore, to counteract this development, legislating open school board meetings would serve as a constraint, or a constant reminder on the trus tees' responsibility to the public. This does not mean of course, that boards are necessarily opposed to their administrations. Over the past few years the United States has provided numerous examples of new Sunshine Laws.

Riddl ed with problems relating to those laws - and some of course going to the Supreme Court for a decision - a great number of states have still adopted measures to ensure public access to information. In several instances, board members in the United States can be held liable for prosecution for breaking the rules of open meetings. Admittedly, circumvention of the law is possible, and probably does happen, but despite deficiencies open meeting laws do serve a useful purpose.

With the U.S. experience behind us and armed with the knowledge that the United States public school system has indeed survived open meeting laws, then perhaps it is time to consider an amendment to Bill 22, which would safeguard the public's right to information, through ensuring open school board meetings.

Part 11 of Bill 22, under the heading, "Meeting of Trustees", could be revised to include a

section requiring open school board decision-making. If the proposed legislation, Bill 22, does not come to grips with the issue of open school board meetings, then the present practices will continue, and it is the public, the taxpayers who will continue to suffer. School boards will never willingly shed the cloak of secrecy when it is in their own interests to keep the information to themselves. Board policies cannot be relied upon to remedy this problem since they can so easily be changed or ignored by trustees. I guess that reflects on the position of government versus the position of opposition.

If one is in opposition, one wants as much information as possible and when one is in government, one wants to preserve information as much as possible. This would seem to be a natural tendency, although I'm not accusing anyone of doing that.

Any consideration of openness in local government should include points such as: (1) exceptions to the principle of openness which should be limited and specified in the law; (2) provision for meaningful sanctions such as fines, voidabil ity of laws improperly enacted and perhaps even dismissal of trustees from office; (3) rules to cover all decision-making sessions of boards including committee meetings, so that you don 't circumvent the intent if the law were to be changed. In preparing this presentation, I have deliberately avoided talking on the nu merous aspects of Bill 22.

I have singled out one subject and asked that you give fair thought about the concept of freedom of information as it applies to school boards. We are not dealing with national defence secrets so you need not fear that the move toward sunshine laws in Manitoba will imperil the nation. What I am proposing has proven successful in other jurisdictions, and I, therefore, believe it is a safe course for Manitoba. I urge you, gentlemen, to consider carefully a change to Bill 22 which would help ensure Manitobans rights in a democratic society. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Garwood. Questions? Mr. Walding. MR.

WALDING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr . Garwood , you're the first delegation. that has come before us on this particular topic. Is it a problem just with your own school board, or do you know it to be a general problem? Or is it only a personal problem that you have? MR. GARWOOD: I would like to try and distinguish this matter as clearly as possible from a personal concern and leave it on a general level, because I can go around to other school boards and talk to other board members and find that they do a lot of the things that I see happening in our school division.

The only difference is that perhaps I make it more obvious because I speak out about it. I believe you live in Norwood, and it's common kno wledge, shall I say, that the Norwood School Board has closed meetings to make decisions, and then announces them at a public meeting. That's one example. My own member of the Legislature, probabl y having observed our proceedings, could come to the same conclusion about St. Boniface. I think if you went from board to board you'd find that there is a gr eat deal of similarity in the way that boards operate and keep information to the mselves.

And I also would add to that though, that I have done some research on the matter, and I find that it's not a - I may be the first person here addressing you on this issue, but it's not a secret. 309

Privileges and Elections Thursday, October 25, 1979 it's not an issue that has never come before people before. There's all sorts of literature on it Perhaps Manitoba has been missed out on the subject, but I do have a great deal of researct and I'll leave it at that, I guess. MR. WALDING: I assume that you have spoken out at your own school board about this particula1 topic. What has been the reaction? Do you have any control over the matters that are discussec in camera as against in public? MR. GARWOOD: What I find, Mr.

Chairman, is that although one speaks out against secrecy ir school board meetings, issues seem to surface all the way along and there never seems to be an) deg ree of consistency in what is actually held behind, or what topics are discussed behind closec doors. In fact, shall I say, as crisis depends upon school boards, suddenly the doors close anc school boards then start making those tougher decisions behind closed doors. MR. WALDING: You mentioned committee meetings. Are committee meetings open and public meetings, or are they held in secret? MR.

GARWOOD: Some committee meetings would be open to the public and there wouldn't be any problem. I think my concern in addressing my remarks to that earlier is in terms of not having. say, any open school board meeting, law, that said general sessions were to be open and ther trustees decided to meet in committee and make all decisions at that level. I think you can have established the principle but if it's easily circumvented, then the principle is meaningless. MR. WALDING: Mr. Garwood , you mentioned towards the end of your brief, and I didn't mark it, where you said something about mentioning an opposition.

I was looking to see if I could see where the reference to it was. Maybe it had to do with the Legislature. MR. GARWOOD: lt wasn't in the brief. Perhaps it was just my remarks in between paragraphs. MR. WALDING: Well then, let me ask you, do you see yourself as an opposition member on your own school board? MR. GARWOOD: Not necessarily. I think I speak out on particular issues from time to time that may give me that appearance, but on many other matters, in fact probably if you did a statistical analysis, you'd find that on most issues, board members are unanimous.

There's sort of a consensus conclusion to the deli berations. MR. WALDING: Can I ask you then, if secret meetings of a school board are held, is it still necessary to bring a by-law or something for a decision to an open school board meeting? MR. GARWOOD: My understanding of the present law is that there is no such requirement.

You're required under the present Act to have one regular meeting each month, and school boards, of course have more than one meeting per month. lt may not be entitled "a regular meeting" but it is a meeting, or severseveral meetings, in fact, at which time, if all or a majority of members are assembled, by-laws can be passed. And those meetings need not be open. MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, that comes as a great surprise to me that a school board can meet and pass by-laws in secret. I would have thought at least a by-law would have to have been at the public part of the meeting. MR.

GARWOOD: I think maybe I should just clarify the point. You used the word "by-law". Many items that are dealt with by the school board technically are not by-laws. By-laws are passed three times, a technicality. But most items are not by-laws that are dealt with. They are simply motions that are carried, and therefore action ensues. MR. WALDING: You're telling me that those motions can be passed in private and the public would have no information on them? MR. GARWOOD: Oh, yes. MR. WALDING: If we were to put such a provision in the Act, do you think that it would be respected 310

Privileges and Elections Thursday, October 25, 1979 by school boards, or would they get around it by having sort of a secret meeting, or even a coffee meeting before the meeting started and they would simply have their motions written out and passed one after the other with no discussions so that no one would be lik ely to realize what was happening unless they were very conversant with the issues? MR. GARWOOD: In response to that, I think you could have a system established which, with some deg ree of penalty involved, would ensure that board members don't circumvent the law.

I mean, it's just like the Income Tax Act, you certainly can circumvent it, but if you have enough teeth in the Act, then you don't try and do it, at least the majority of people don't try and do it. The odd board member might very well make a phone call to another board member and to another board member to arrange support for a motion, but by and large from reading about other jurisdictions they had some rather illuminating examples.

I guess one that comes to mind is the situation in North Dakota in which board members are very strictly required to have their meetings held in public and if they do caucus ahead of time, or anything like that, then they are liable to penalty. That is quite an effective way of ensuring that these things don't happen.

In fact, the motions that are passed in open session - if a board in North Dakota has met previously to decide what the motion would and how to handle the matter - can be nullified and that at least allo ws the general public a certain means by which to redress their gr ievances, if school boards are not acting, shall I say, responsibly. MR. WALDING: Can you give us some specific examples of matters that your own school board has dealt with in secret that you felt should have been dealt with in open hearings? MR.

GARWOOD: Well, there's probably a list - and I probably left it at home - but just from memory, such things as discussing the budget, I found is one of the most glaring examples where you spend something between - at least at the time probably is around $13 milli on - how to allot that money and on what programs, what staffing, etc., was discussed behind closed doors. In fact i was a very interesting example because at that prrticular time the newspapers were reporting - or attempted to report - the proceedings of the board and the Chairman and the majority of the board members at that point had them thrown out.

That's one example. Another one that comes to mind perhaps is a simpler one such as having an official opening of a school, because it migh t be controversial you don't discuss it publicly. I don't think it's just the case of certain items, in fact. I can perhaps put it this way, a better example than that is, some of the other boards that I am familiar with literally decide all the issues ahead of time and then make the necessary presentation at the open meeting.

Now all those matters, having been discussed, decided, agreed to, it makes the open meeting less meaningful in a democratic society because then you never know which members support which issue, and that's the virtue of the Legislature.

We as citizens decide our voting outlook by what you say openly, and if board members can sit back and come to some sort of consensus, no one ever knows where people stand; but what they do kno w is the eventual result and they also know that things have been, well, sort of worked out between people with really, perhaps the implication that getting re-elected is the main objective rather than taking a position on a particular issue. MR. WALDING: Can you tell me what communication the school board has with the parents or the voters in that division? MR. GARWOOD: Yes.

I think the schools are the most effective means by which communication goes from the school to the home. The school board - interesting lately, of course - depending on the issue, depending on the crisis in the community - and that applies to all school divisions - if there's something important then there's a lot of communication because people get involved and start turning out to school board meetings. In St. Boniface, in particular of recent time, we've had numerous people turning out to all our meetings for some time because of a particular crisis.

But I think most people identify with the local school more than they do with the school board and its activities, in most cases, and in part that is because what happens at school board meetings is, that if you can avoid the ripples then you don't get people antag onized and they don't show up to meetings. So, therefore, there's sort of a built-in what, desire, to refrain from any controversy and any time you have controversy then you have communication with the home and with the parents, and it's better that it work the other way, that there be less controversy.

I don't know whether I really came to grips with your question, but that comes to mind right off. MR. WALDING: Yes. One other question a little off the topic, if you'll permit me, Mr. Chairman, 311

Privileges and Elections Thur sday, October 25, 1979 it still has to do with education but not the subject of Mr. Garwood's brief. Have you received any communication from the Norwood School Division about the possibility of an amalgamation between those two divisions? MR. GARWOOD: We had a meeting with the trustees of Norwood , oh, several months ago at which that item was discussed. Beyond that nothing has taken place. lt was, literally, one meeting and that was it. MR. WALDING: Was that a public meeting? MR. GARWOOD: That was not a public meeting. That was a secret meeting. MR.

WALDING: That was a secret meeting. MR. GARWOOD: So I'm letting you in on the secret. MR. WALDING: Well, I won't ask you what came out of the secret meeting, then. Can I ask you if your school board has any policy on possible amalgamation with the Norwood School Division? MR. GARWOOD: Actually, we do not.

We have invited them to become part of the ... what we have is a teachers' centre which is sort of a training area or bringing people up to date with the latest ideas on education and we happen to have the teachers' centre and the Norwood School Division does co-operate, and their teachers do come over there, and it's sort of like a small step towards amalgamation, a very small step. lt's sort of a co-operation in that area. We also, of course, co-operate in French education because a lot of their students come over to the St. Boniface School Division now.

So it's rather a co-operative venture depending on the needs rather than an overall amalgamation, or shall I say even a re-uniting because at one time, of course, historically the two divisions were one. MR. WALDING: Thank you. No further questions, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . McBryde. MR. McBRYDE: Through you, Mr. Chairperson, to Mr. Garwood. Would you recommend at this stage that we, in Manitoba, go as far as the North Dakota type of legislation, or would you recommend some in-between kind of openness? MR. GARWOOD: I'm not sure that you can have something in-between.

I know that one of the organizations in the United States sent me some information - the National School Boards' Association, in fact - and it gave a chart in which it showed the provisions of the many Acts that have been passed in the American State Legislatures, and each of them of course has variations, but the general intent of most of them is similar and it's a common point of discussion to argue that there have to be meaningful sanctions in the Act, some sort of way of ensuring that it takes place.

I don't think you could have sort of have a half way measure because right now we have a half way measure, School boards do have open meetings. lt isn't as though they have all their meetings in camera. I'm suggesting that many of the important decisions though, are made in secret and that should be ended. MR. McBRYDE: Would you accept a clause in regards to openness that read something like "all school board meetings should be open to the public as far as is possible and practicable"? MR.

GARWOOD: We have a policy under debate in our school board right now in which we have tried itemizing the subjects that could be held in camera. I happen to disagree with the general intent of our policy proposal because it lists so many things at this point, and at the bottom of the policy it says "and any other item that the Chairman so decides".

Well, you're leaving me with the same notion that if you leave it wide open, that by good will, something will happen, and I think we could have a lot of good will and nothing will happen and I would also respond by saying that the Manitoba Legislature and the Government of Canada - the Parliament of Canada - have certain rules to live by, be it the BNA Act or The Manitoba Act or whatever, and I think school boards should live by certain rules as well. And those rules can't be established by the interested party. If they are, then they make the rules to fit themselves, for their own convenience. 312

Privileges and Elections Thursday, October 25, 1979 MR. McBRYDE: Assuming from your answer then that the wording "as far as possible and practicable" would in your mind leave it wide open ... MR. GARWOOD: Yes. MR. McBRYDE: In fact, make it have no effect at all. MR. GARWOOD: Yes. MR. McBRYDE: I have no other questions, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brown. MR. ARNOLD BROWN: Mr . Chairman, quite a few of the questions I was going to ask have been asked already, but I understand that you start all your meetings as open meetings. MR.

GARWOOD: Not necessarily, in fact, other boards as well start their evening by having a closed session and then come into an open meeting. MR. BROWN: Does your public then know when you have an open meeting or not? MR. GARWOOD: We haven't been in the habit of advertising it although interested people can of course phone the school board office and ask when the next open school board meeting is, and generally they would receive - I presume they would receive the information that at 8 o'clock or at 7:30, the open meeting begins.

In our school division that's more or less the practice that it begins at 7:30 and if there is something that has to be dealt with in camera before that, then it's dealt with before or when it's more convenient it's dealt with afterwards, at say, 11 o'clock, so that you try and

schedule your open meeting to be convenient for the people that are at home and come down and don't want to sit there all evening. MR. BROWN: Do you have a fairly good attendance from the public at your open meetings? MR. GARWOOD: Well, in partial response I would say that because of the crisis in our school division of recent times over French education, we've had more than a good audience, literally, hordes of people, and that's gone on for months.

So I don't think it's really a case that I could answer in terms of open meetings versus closed meetings but people that do attend do become a little annoyed if you'v e just had a closed session and the y've come down here tonight and you people are in the other room having a meeting. You know, that's my personal experience. I've gone to other board meetings as well.

I think that if you get an agenda and you see the items before you that they're dealing with, then you feel more comfortable that you did your thing that evening and listened to what was going on and then went home, but if you find that, well, you didn' t quite hear all the important matters, in fact, you didn't hear the important matter of the evening, then you become a little suspicious of how school boards operate. MR. BROWN: Is the news media present at your meetings, the newspaper reporters, your local paper, and so on? MR. GARWOOD: Yes, yes, that's true.

The Winnipeg Free Press and the local Lance have been covering our meetings rather regularly for some time, but as I pointed out earlier, the budget discussion in one instance required that the reporters leave the room. MR. BROWN: Does the news media have access to the minutes of the meeting, even that portion which was held in camera after the meeting? MR. GARWOOD: That's often a debatable point. Sometimes we release that information; sometimes we vote not to, so that some items are not for public distribution. Other items of in camera nature can be made available to the public.

There's a lot of discretion at this point. MR. BROWN: I suppose you would agree that there are certain times when you probably should be in camera, let's say for instance, when you're discussing problems with personnel and things of that nature, when you're in a discussion stage. Do you believe that that should be in camera 313

Privileges and Elections Thur sday, October 25, 1979 or should that be open to the public? MR. GARWOOD: I used the example earlier of the hiring of a superintendent as a very important personnel matter. I think "personnel" again, covers a broad range of subjects, but let's go away from the hiring of a superintendent, to say to the dismissal of a teacher which is probably more relevant to this question. I've gi ven it a lot of thought and what I conclude is that, again from experience as well, I see nothing really wrong with having that discussion in public.

For example, we had one teacher that was dismissed come to us in a closed session and air all her grievances about the administration, a lot of the facts of the case and a lot of the statements that she made were inaccurate, and you could probably make the case that, well, there is a good example of why meetings should be closed.

On the other hand, what you might conclude is that the rights of the individual that's being dismissed, have greater chance of surviving successfully, in other words, the facts of the case may surface more successfully if the meeting were held in public, where the agg rieved individual would make his or her case to a board in an open session and where the board members couldn't start, you know, rambling along and saying all sorts of irrelevancies about the individual either. You see, it works both ways.

If the person coming to us says that the principal of that particular school is, you know, some sort of yo-yo, we might come to the conclusion that we want to have some good evidence if that's the case. Now, if you force the person to make that statement in public, then he or she will think twice about making accusations that have no substance to them, and the same happens to school board members. We can't accuse somebody of something unless we have some deg ree of evidence that that's really the case.

I think if you have these type of meetings such as dismissals and I'm using that as one example, then the best way of def ending the rights of the individual are in an open session and the best way to ensure that trustees look at the evidence is in an open session. Because I know what takes place in a closed session; all sorts of, shall I say convenient rationale comes forward, either why we should dismiss this person or why we should keep this person on staff. So I'm not really convinced at this point that you couldn't hold all your personnel matters in public and make those decisions publicly.

And the same applies I think to students that are, shall I say, removed from the school division for carrying firearms or whatever the case may be. I think they should have a fair hearing before a Board and the decision should be rendered, but by having these things behind closed doors, I am never convinced - for example, you don't have to have the name of the person made public at a public meeting, and if there is thirty people in the audience, who kno ws which student is before you. Nobody even cares. In fact, as a trustee, the least of my concerns is ever the name of the student.

But somehow or other it strikes me that the rights of the individual would be better preserved in an open session, rather than when trustees meet behind closed doors. MR. BROWN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Boyce. MR. BOYCE: Mr. Chairman, in listening to your response to my colleagues, could you clarify for me - you can see no incident, you know, no excuse for meeting in camera, under no circu mstance should a meeting be held in camera. MR. GARWOOD: No, I don't think I have said that in the brief. MR.

BOYCE: No, but in going down a list of meetings which should be held in public, you have excluded very little, so I was just wondering if you see any occasion for mee ting in camera. MR.

GARWOOD: 1 guess my first observation would be that boards generally hold those meetings in camera not for any reason other than convenience, and that seems to me to be the worst of all possible reasons. lt is convenient for me not to have my neighbours know how I voted on a particular issue, because obviously they can get offended at me, so it is in my interest to keep meetings secret, and how I voted and discussed the matter in secret. But there are probably items that would come to mind.

I can imagine if you were trying to draw up an agreement between the City of Winnipeg and a school division over a parcel of land, that it would be a matter of confidence within the school division of what we are prepared to offer and what they are prepared to accept. Let them deal with the matter as they wish to negotiate it and we will negotiate it from our position. So 1 think you could find examples and I would be prepared to find examples where things could 314

Privileges and Elections Thursday, October 25, 1979 be kept confidential. But by the same token I think that has to be specified in the law. I don't think you can have

an Act that is open-ended and has a clause in it that says, "Well, we can have any number of school board meetings and it will be up to somebody's discretion as to which ones will be closed and which will be open." I think it would have to be worked out specifically. The only one that comes to mind is, say, a case of negotiating a parcel of land. That comes to mind first, because the other thing that we are so caught up in, in Manitoba , I guess, has always been secret negotiations with the teachers, and then you make the final announcement as to what the settlement was.

The Board passes a motion to that effect and the teachers ratify the matter, and then it becomes public knowledge. In many of the states in the United States now, of course, these negotiating sessions have been going on in public, and really I don't think the system has really broken down as a result of that. MR. BOYCE: Well, of course, you are dealing with an entirely different system in the United States than you are in Canada as far as law is concerned. The Republican System is based on a written constitution. In Canada it is an entirely different system, but not to go into that.

So in this list of how you include and how you exclude as far as in camera meetings, how should that be written into law. My colleague suggested a couple of ... MR. GARWOOD: I think if you start off with that principle that all meetings be held in public - in fact I would put the period there personally and leave it at that, but if, as your question suggests, there ought to be certain restrictions on that, then those restrictions should be listed shortly thereafter, after you have made that general statement of principle. MR.

BOYCE: There is nothing in the law at the moment which prevents all school boards from having all meetings in public. MR. GARWOOD: Right. MR. BOYCE: So is not the solution to have school board members elected who subscribe to that rather than pass a law which . . . MR. GARWOOD: Well, if that were the case, then open meeting laws would be here today. We would not be discussing this matter tonight, if, in fact - I put it this way.

I think if you went to any public meeting, townhall meeting, during a school board election campaign and asked all the candidates, "Where do you stand on open meetings?" Who would you find that stood up and said, "I believe in closed meetings." Who would say that to the general public? Everybody believes in motherhood at that stage, it is only after you are elected that you close the meetings. MR. BOYCE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I gue ss Mr. Garwood is in the position that we all are, that when writing anything in the law, how do you include and how do you exclude. MR. GARWOOD: Yes. MR. BOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Kovnats. MR. KOVNATS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct a couple of questions to Mr. Garwood with just a little bit of a

preamble. In regard to secret meetings I gu ess the meetings really aren't secret, but there are secrets that are discussed at the meetings. Am I correct in this assumption? The meetings are advertised or they are known to the public. MR. GARWOOD: Well, that may not be the case. An in-camera session may not be known to the public . lt would be known to the trustees because they would receive the notice of the meeting and the agenda. There is no requirement that we tell . everyone that we are having a meeting. MR. KOVNATS: Well, then in effect it is not the secrets at meetings, it is secret meetings. MR.

GARWOOD: Well, by having secret meetings, by having closed meetings, the discussion obviously is then confidential, the public is not aware of it. Therefore, it seems a bit of a circular 315

Privileges and Elections Thur sday, October 25, 1979 problem here that what you discuss in secret quite possibly will remain secret, therefore, it is a secret. MR. KOVNATS: You mentioned "would remain a secret". By what rhyme or reason would it remain a secret? Are you sworn to secrecy when you are installed as a trustee or is it a moral commitment because the meeting is held in camera? MR.

GARWOOD: There is no legal requirement that I make information known or for that matter keep it confidential, but I think that is in part diverting from my general concern. lt isn't that information never gets to the public, eventually somebody will know about it, but the information in general would not be available to the public if the newspaper is not able to cover the meeting, if the 30 or 40 people that wanted to come down to the meeting are prevented from entering the room.

These are means by which information is constrained within the confines of a small grou p, and I think by having it that way we are doing a disservice in general to the public as elected representatives. I realize the difference often is made that if you have your in-camera session and then you announce all the results, that should be satisfactory, but if all the decisions are being made in camera, and you announce the results, then the public again has little influence on the way those results are arrived at.

The members on the board decide the matter amongst themselves for a variety of reasons, for a variety of conveniences, and then come to the conclusion and announce it to the public. The public has had no influence on that decision-making. They don't kno w where individuals stand on the matter, because, of course, if you are saying in a secret meeting or a closed meeting that I support this position or that, and then in public turn around and say, "Well, I didn't support that." Then the public really doesn't know where you have stood on the matter. MR. KOVNATS: I know what inner turmoil you are going through, Mr.

Garwood. In effect, I have known Mr. Garwood for quite a few years and have a great respect for his ability and the work that he has done in the community. I would just go a little bit further, we had a delegation from the St. Boniface School District today; did you put the stamp of approval on the presentation that they made to us today? MR. GARWOOD: I believe I wrote it, in fact. MR. KOVNATS: You did vote on it. MR. GARWOOD: I went further than that, yes. MR. KOVNATS: Another question, have you asked your St. Boniface School Division Trustees, your associates at the St.

Boniface School District, to support your recommendation, your brief, tonight? MR. GARWOOD: I did not. I thought it would be more advisable that I present my own brief without the aura of controversy, that if five people sat around discussing it it wouldn't be here tonight. I'm certain it would not be presented, it would be put to a vote and it would be defeated. You would not have people advocating what I've put down here tonight.

By the way, I would really try and empha size the point that I'm trying to remove myself from my individual role as a trustee in a school division and look at it in more general terms as it affects other school divisions as well. As I say, I've looked at it from readings that I've done, probably that are more directed to the United State than elsewhere, but it is not an isola ted concern.

I think if you were to come down to any school board, you know, people are not going to get overly excited and march down to the Legislature here to hear me out on this issue tonight, but if you could go down to any school board people are concerned that, you know, why are you meeting in camera all the time? You're discussing our affairs, it's a very very common concern. MR. KOVNATS: Yes, I have known some groups that were quite disturbed that there were in camera meetings at this school board meeting, and others, and you know I have a feeling for them.

I just say that I listened very openly to your suggestion and I appreciate your coming down here. MR. GARWOOD: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McGill. 316

PriVIleges and EleCtions Thursday, October 25, 1979 MR. EDWARD McGILL: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Garwood how long he has been a member of the St. Boniface School Board? MR. GARWOOD: lt's been five years, going on the sixth year, second term. MR. McGILL: Mr. Chairman, does that pre-date what we might euphemistically describe as the trouble in St. Boniface? MR. GARWOOD: Well, depending on whether I'm the trouble or the issues are the trouble. Would you care to clarify the point on what the trouble is? MR. McGILL: Well, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Garwood referred to a crisis in St.

Boniface, so 1 assume that there has been a developing major problem and without attempting to describe it, would you say that your membership pre-dates that? MR. GARWOOD: Oh, yes, by a long ways. MR. McGILL: Did you campaign on a platform of open meetings, or had this occurred to you at that point. MR. GARWOOD: Oh, yes, in fact, it's interesting because at a town hall meeting that question was asked; and on television, all the candidates were on Cable 13, and again that question was put to the people. I don't recall anybody ever saying, "I believe in secret meetings or in camera sessions ", you know. MR.

McGILL: Mr. Chairman, Mr . Garwood mentioned hordes of people attending meetings open to the public. The descriptive word "hordes" seems to convey to me an unruly group of people. Would hordes of people make it difficult for the chairman to conduct the business? I'm wondering if there is something involved here in this crisis situation that made it difficult to conduct a normal meeting. Groups of people with a certain point of view, perhaps feeling that their point of view would not prevail, might make it difficult. Did you experience that kind of thing? MR.

GARWOOD: I think, if you were to ask various people you'd have various answers. In my estimation the crowds that we've had were, by and large, in the range of 500 to 600 people, at most, and that was dur ing a series of presentations that were being made to the board, so, on average, we don't have 500 people attending our meetings. What we would have is maybe 30 people attending our meetings. So the chance of an unruly group of people disrupting the meeting, and therefore putting an end to the board activities would be rather a rare occasion.

The meetings with 500 people actually took place with one intent, i.e. to hear the general public, and that is what occurred at each of those meetings. MR. McGILL: So you don't attribute the tendency, from time to time, of having closed meetings, to the difficulty of conducting the business of the board with a completely open forum? MR. GARWOOD: No, I do not, because, to use another example from a neighbouring school division, literally all their meetings are held in camera before they come to a public meeting and they have no crisis before them. In fact, quite the reverse, we have a larger crisis in St.

Boniface than our neighbouring school divisions do. Nobody has had 500 or 600 people out to a meeting for ages, in fact, St. James apparently can't even get anybody to come out. I don't think that it is really a problem in that people are being disrupted at board meetings and, therefore, motions can't be made and de bated and passed. In fact, we have probably more open meetings in St. Boniface, even with a French-English controversy going on than neighbouring divisions have without that controversy, without that element of controversy. MR. McGILL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brown. MR.

BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I was just going to pursue one matter just a little bit further. I believe that you are discussing mainly the problems which you are seeing with your own particular school division, but, if we would pass a law, of course, all school divisions would have 317

Privileges and Elections Thur sday, October 25, 1979 to abide by that particular law. Now, some of the communities are rather small communities where you could be discussing a certain situation - let's again take the certain teacher, for instance, and so on, a problem, not naming by name, nobody in St. Boniface would ever kno w who that particular person was. And, if false accusations, or whatever, were made against this person, and so on, everybody would know about it and, of course, possibly at the next meeting the teacher would be asked to come in and defend himself.

But, in a small community, everybody would immediately know who this person was and I think that a great injustice, possibly, could be done through having that portion of the meeting as an open meeting. I would just wonder what your reaction would be to that. MR. GARWOOD: it's probably very common practice to have these type of sessions closed, and I think it often goes without question that they be closed.

And, perhaps only because I happen to have an interest in this particular topic, do I examine it in the other light that maybe the rights of the individual would be better protected at an open session, even in a small community. What I really fear is not that inaccurate information or malicious statements are made about the individual, because I think you have less chance of that happening at an opening meeting. Trustees will think twice about making a statement about someone that they, you know, will question.

I can't get away from that example that we did have with the lady that came before us and made all sorts of accusations about the principal, which we couldn't agree to at all. But we had to listen to her, and if she were forced to have had that hearing in public, she would never have said those things, in fact it made her look worse than ever. If the principal dismissed her for any reason at all, then she defeated her own case by bringing it to the board and having it as a closed meeting and making all these malicious accusations. I can sympathize with your point of view.

I think there probably are circumstances that I have overlooked, that you could have a personnel problem, and you want to deal with it in closed session. I think you might be able to make provision for that. What I am very fearful of, of course is that you use the word "personnel" in such a broad fashion that any and everything could be construed as personnel matters. You know, it affects somebody, so we're going to call it personnel tonig ht. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Brown. Mr. Cosens. HON. KEITH A. COSENS: Mr.

Garwood , I wonder if you are familiar with the legislation under the Municipal Act that applies to municipal councils in this regard? MR. GARWOOD: Offhand, I'll say no. If you would elaborate, I'd appreciate it. MR. COSENS: I wonder if I could read it to you and get your reaction to it. Under 11 4(1) it says, "every council shall hold its meetings openly, including its sittings as a court of revision, and no person shall be excluded or removed from any meeting except for improper conduct." And then under 11 4(2), it says, "meetings of committees may be held in-camera." This is under the Municipal Act.

What is your reaction to that legislation? MR. GARWOOD: I think that would go a long ways to solving the particular problem that I'm trying to add ress here tonight. As long as there is some way of ensuring that committees were not a majority of the board, in fact committee of the whole, for example, where everyone was sitting there and deciding matters. But I think that could be a means by which such a provision could be enacted, yes. MR. COSENS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Garwood . MR. GARWOOD: Thank you, gentlemen. MR. CHAIRMAN: I call Father Klysh. Not present? Evelyn Reese.

Patti Sullivan. Oh, Mrs. Reese is here. MRS. EVELYN REESE: May I ask that both Mr. Ken Karlenzig and myself present both our briefs at the same time. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. 318

Privileges and Elections Thursday, October 25, 1979 MR. KEN KARLENZIG: Thank you very much, members of the committee. If it's okay, I'll be reading Mrs. Reese's brief as well and I will try to make them brief. Thank you. My name is Ken Karlenzig and I will just present my brief first. Members of the committee, I would like at this time to register my objection to the word ing and inference of

Section 78, clause 4, which reads, "any pupil engaged in a work education program of participating in an outdoor education or other program which is conducted off the school premises under the authority of the school board, shall be deemed to be in attendance at school." MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have copies of your brief, sir? Proceed, sir. MR. KARLENZIG: Thank you very much. I had down ''Ladies and Gentlemen". But anyway, Gentlemen: This

section places into the hands of the school complete and total control over the authority of the parents, including the parents' right to opt their child out of activities that they find objectionable and as it reads, allows the

interpretation to become the sole responsibility of the school to dictate terms for compulsory attendance. The implication is this: Parents under that

section as it now reads would have no right to keep a child away from a one week camp outdoor program when such an outdoor activity is part of an education program such as science, physical education, br etc. There are many childr en who, for emotional, physical and behavioural reasons, should not be subjected to prolonged periods away from home. These cases are numerous and up to now at least have been handled on the merits of the individual case, and no child was made, by compulsory legislation, to attend a function that in effect is harmful to the child's well-being.

The laws up to this point, at least have been flexible. There are numerous reasons why this amendment is unsatisfactory. Some main objections I have after reading it: ( 1) No options to exercise the freedom of choice. This is most certainly contrary to the Bill of Rights.

(2) Parents have lost enough authority, and I do not condone any legislation that would severely limit the basic freedoms we have left over our childr en and the right to parent in the best way possible.

(3) Teachers are not the answer to all things, and cannot be expected to be responsible for childr en who, for obvious reasons, would not benefit by a camp or similar experience. The teacher also loses the right - this is a mistake on the page - but loses the right to have a child opted out of a program and the teacher would be very aware for instance, that child would not benefit, could cause upsets in the process of what was going on. So the teacher is locked into this system, equally the same as the students and equally the same as the parents. lt leaves no expression for choice.

(4) Parents should retain the options to select the best educational experience possible for their child. This amendment severely limits any other exercise of options and in my estimation, removes my God-given right as a parent to perform this function.

(5) In subsection 88, the clause pertains to the non-liability of the school for such damages as might result to a child participating in any program in the school and is most certainly applicable to those at a camp or other work experience. I again refer back to the other section, as long as it's part of the physical education program, or the science course, or whatever. lt is plain by the word ing, which has as part of it, "shall be deemed to have accepted the risks ... " incidental to the program of instruction, that on one hand the first clause states that the parents are not given a choice in the matter, in effect, one

section removes the right of choice and the other

section holds the parents responsible for the outcome. In addition this statement add resses itself only to the physical damage or injury, but does not address itself to the problems of emotional, behavioural or other kinds of damage. This seems to be very naive, to me at least, in content. Other questions could be asked about damages to morals, values, ethics and possible religious beliefs, but those I'll just leave unanswered at this particular point because I believe Mrs. Reese has some concerns in her brief around some of these issues.

I hope that this paper indicates the need for a re-run or revision of this particular section. Thank you very much for your time, gentlemen. MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed, Mrs. Reese. MRS. EVELYN REESE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to apologize for the fact that I did not have the time to have typed copies of the brief that I have prepared. As a matter of fact I finished it about half an hour ago. However, I do promise that I'll have this typed and have copies delivered 319

Privileges and Elections Thur sday, October 25, 1979 so that tomorrow you'll have the copies of my brief, in writing. MR. CHAIRMAN: Very good. MRS. REESE: Mr. Karlenzig will read mine also and I'll answer questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed. MR. KARLENZIG: Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I wish to thank you for being given the opportunity to be heard. May I add that it was a pleasure to read the simplified form of The Public Schools Act. However, I was disappointed that the issues surrounding the total question of education in Manitoba had unfortunately been avoided.

By insisting that each issue be treated as something new and particular or as a separate case, one can avoid the whole reality of the entire system of education, its structure, philosophy, teaching methods and techniques, experimentation, evaluation of teachers and students, quality and standards of education, content and range in difficulty levels of programs offered, centralization and decentralization of powers and responsibilities, the passive or active role of parents and students as receivers of services, parental freedom of choice - isn't this a typical woman's brief, she hasn't even got a period in there yet, all in one sentence.

MRS. REESE: They're all semi-colons. MR. KARLENZIG: Okay. The role of the school and of the family in the education of the child; the question of morals and values in the content of core and optional subjects; the question of the pluralistic option to education with both God-oriented and non-God-oriented philosophies of education separately operated with only one offered as a public service; the possibility of including all of these as public services and without hindering one approach while facilitatingenhancing others. The above are only some of the multiple facets of the education which must be considered.

If a government wishes to objectively see the school system successes, failures and patterns of influence, it must be prepared to look for them and not rule these out at the onset as has so sadly been done in the past. When parents, universities and businesses have shown disappointment and pointed out weaknesses, the childr en are the ones who suffer from this kind of antagonistic and defensive approach to dissension or conflicting Views. Are we to believe that there is only one philosophical approach and system of education that can be able to deliver successfully to all the educational services?

Or rather, is it that the advocaters of that system cannot withstand competition and it is too threatened to allow it. Is it because of the genuine interest that they have for the well-being of children, or is it that their own vested interests are at stake, or is it both? Surely then the same may be said for the separate system and its views. In a pluralistic, democratic society, must one be repressed and its survival made difficult in order to strengthen one's position of power at the expense of others in order to promote its own ph ilosophy and techniques without hind rances?

This is openly contravening the Canadian Human Rights Act. Are the .powerful interest groups such as the Manitoba Association of School Superintendents, the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, faculties of education, the Manitoba Teachers' Society, school boards be the only groups to have the genuine welfare of the childr en and therefore the only ones with the advantage, to directly participate in the bargai ning and decision-making process because of their professional and financial resources, which are a visible, political power to be contended with.

Unfortunately, gr ievances on the part of unorgan ized parents who only rally on separate issues lack continuity in the political power visibility, and hence are non-existent for the political decision makers mainly because they do riot have the professional and financial resources and power, which appears necessary, to be included in the process of negotiations and decision-making.

The majority of parents are a captive clientele of the free public school system, for again they cannot afford the only reasonable choice open to them, the private school system. lt is even suggested by a superintendent to remove the least desirable, but only choice that they have within their means, the correspondence courses. Education is the most influential institution next to the family for it has the child for at least nine to twelve years of their life.

Surely it is not too much to ask, in a so-called pluralistic, democratic society, in such an area of importance as education that no one point of view or philosophical approach to education be imposed on the majority who have no other reasonable alternatives to 320

Privileges and Elections Thursday, October 25, 1979 choose from. May I suggest that such an approach is only befitting of communistic control countries or socialistic countries that believe in state control of the child and in repression of the self-determination of its citizens. In conclusion, I suggest that the independent, the present public non-God-oriented school system and the God-oriented systems be offered as public services to all its citizens without prejudice.

May I also suggest that regardless of the systems offered as public services, all have to be flexible and respect the plurality of its populations. lt is only then fitting that responsible parents be allowed to opt out of programs, or parts of programs, that they find objectionable to the well-being of their child so that the plurality of views can be respected for all. I am sure that the childr en can learn to analyze novels and poems without having to choose those which consistently portray or describe sexual deviations and violence and street gu tter language.

May I also read to you the views of the Manitoba Medical Association whose opinion was sought in regard to Building the Pieces Together. The Building the Pieces Together program was a very hot fought issue in just about every school division. The letter that I am about to read is the result of a group of parents getting together and fighting this issue - and I haven't got the letter - have you got it, Evelyn? MR. CHAIRMAN: We have copies of it, sir. MR. KARLENZIG: All right. This is add ressed to Mrs.

Evelyn Reese and it's "Re: Building the Pieces Together." lt says: "No in-depth study of the above mentioned program has been undertaken by the Manitoba Medical Association, to do so would involve many people in various specialties and countless man hours. The program has been reviewed by a number of individual members and the following is an amalgamation of their comments: The program involves emotions and feelings of the childr en in a field of expertise which teachers are not trained or competent to deal with. Content is subject to the

interpretation of the individual teacher, causing wide variations in presentation and emphasis. lt is our understanding that only some three hours orientation is gi ven the teachers prior to its use in the classroom. lt is questionable whether the school, through the teacher, should in any way influence the childr en in the sensitive area of family unit relationships. Of particular concern is the discussion in front of their peers relative to family and parental arguments. In its present form it is therefore considered that a course such as this should have no place in the present school system.

This is particularly so when it received so much opposition by parents. While recognizing that the school boards and the. Department of Education have the responsibility to establish the school curricula, nevertheless the wishes of the parents should be respected regarding such a sociological program, which cannot be deemed to be an "essential" subject for inclusion in the school curriculum." And that was signed by Arni Laxdal, who is the President of the Manitoba Medical Association. Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr . Karlenzig. Questions from the committee?

I thank you kindly for your presentation Mr. Karlenzig and Mrs. Reese. MR. KARLENZIG: Thank you. lt's a pleasure. MR. CHAIRMAN: That gentleman, what's your name? Do you want to make a presentation to the committee? MR. PHIL TROTTIER: Yes, I do. MR. CHAIRMAN: Oka y. Would you come forward , sir? You're Mr. Trottier are you, Phil Trottier? MR. TROTTIER: Yes. Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have a copy of your brief for the committee, sir? MR. TROTTIER: Yes, I have copies. I come as a parent of a special needs student or potential special needs student. 321

Privileges and Elections Thur sday, October 25, 1979 As residents of Manitoba and parents of a potential special needs student, we are concerned with some of the implications surrounding the proposed Bill 22. The intent when drawing up

an Act should be to protect and provide legislated rights for persons covered in the Act. Bill 22 makes no mention of children's rights and we are particularly concerned with

Section 41, subsection 5. As members of our society, our childr en deserve educational rights equal to those of other childr en. This bill does not provide this for students with special needs such as those of our son. Rather it leaves his equal educational opportunities to the benevolence of the school trustees in the division. And unfortunately their concern to provide quality education for all is often overshadowed by a desire to reduce the spending. We would like to see the same rights incorporated into our Act as are in Bill 94 -1 42, The Education for All Handic apped Childr en Act, a U.S.

Federal Statute signed into law which has three basic requirements: The opening of the doors of public education to all handicapped children. The integration of these childr en into regular classrooms to the maximum extent appropriate to their needs. And the development of an individual education program for each handicapped person. There should be a single education system for all children. Separate classes and facilities are not acceptable placements for even the most severely handicapped child.

Bill PL 94-1 42 outlines procedures for evaluating the comprehensive needs of each child and then identifying alternative educational programs. This process assures that each child will receive the educational services that are most suitable. Our new proposed Bill 22 does not outline or provide steps for this process. And we also believe that the places for religious exercises are the Church and the home of students, not in the schools. And we believe that these exercises as they exist, discriminate against anyone who is not of a Judeo Christian Ethic. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr . Trottier. Questions?

We thank you kindl y for your presentation, sir. MR. TROTTIER: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: There are no others? Yes, I have Patti Sullivan for 9 o'clock on here, on the list, and she hasn't showed, and Father Klysh, he was to be here. Committee rise. Mr. McGill. MR. McGILL: Mr. Chairman, was there a matter before the committee in respect to the - or was this discussed prior to my arrival tonight? I was a few minutes late getting here at 8 o'clock. MR. CHAIRMAN: We discussed the matter of moving the committee to The Pas and it is left until tomorrow morning. We'll see if we can discuss it and get more information.

I read the letter into the record, which the Clerk phrased with the help of Mr. Ray Tallin, and we are looking now for incidents in the Journals to see if there is a precedent or some guidelines that we can follow to maybe give us some more information on the subject, so no decision has been made as yet. Committee rise then. 322

Privileges and Elections Thursday, October 25, 1979 BR IEF PR ES ENTE D BUT NOT RE AD : THE MA NIT OBA TE ACHER S ' SOCIET Y TE ACHE R SUR VEY ST UDE NTS WIT H SPECIA L NEEDS JA NUAR Y , 19 78 323

Privileges and Elections Thur sday, October 25, 1979 ACKNOW LE DGE MENT S The Spec ia l Needs Co mmi ttee grate fully ackno wl edge the assist ance and servi ces of Mr . Michael Yakimi shyn and ot her st aff members at the De part me nt of Educatio n Media Servic es Branch and Ms . Eli zabet h Husby who did the co mpu ter progr amming for the st udy . The Com mi ttee wishes to thank Kr is Bre ckman for his expert ise , guid ance and assi st ance to the Com mitt ee . MEMB ER S OF THE SPE CI AL NEEDS COM MI TTEE Doro thy Y. Young , Chair man Dav e Be rtn ick John Best vater Myrna Kl ink Pat Kucey Janet Sc hu bert Kris Bre ck man , St aff Officer 324 Dorot hy y. Young , Cha ir man .

Privileges and Elections Thursday, October 25, 1979 IN TROD UCTION The Pr ovi ncia l Exe cutiv e reque st ed the Spe ci al Needs Com mittee to und ert ake a su rvey of the teachers in th e pr o vince in order to ob tain in fo rma tion concerning it ems , su ch as : 1) the extent of integratio n of sp ecial needs st uden ts , 2) the qu ali ficat ions and ex pe rience of te ach ers wit h sp ecial needs st ude nts , 3) the adeq uacy of teacher train ing , re sou rce s, and screening and place ment pro ce dure s. The su rvey was cond ucted in Novembe r and Dece mber, 19 77.

The result s of the su rvey were analyzed on a provinc ial , divi sional , and regional ba sis . Th is report cOnt a ins pr ovindial data only . Com plet e repo rts in cl uding divis ional and regional in forma ti on have been circulated to Di vis ion Associ atio ns . repo rt are av aila ble on requ est. Co pies of the com plet e The se reports will be a subj ect for disc ussi on at regional me et ings during January and Febru ary . Ho pefully, a nu mber of re co mme ndations will flo w fr om these me eti n gs . 325

Privileges and Elections Thur sday, October 25, 1979 Ma jo r Co ncer ns Ra ised by th e Su rvey Among the many pr ob le ms un cove red by the su rvey of th e curr ent si tuation wi th respect to the educatio n of child ren wit h spe cial needs , th ree st and out and require imme diate attention . 1. The Need for More Spec ial ized Tea cher Train ing The ma jor it y of teachers with special needs st udents ha ve receiv ed inad equate teacher tra ini ng.

Fr om 55 to 58 percent of pri mary , int er mediate and ju nior hi gh teachers and 34 percent of hig h sch ool teachers re ported tha t they have sp eci al need s st udents in the ir class es . Howeye r, 62 percent of th ese teachers indi cated th at they hav e rece ived no sp ecial iz ed tr aining. The need for improved training pr og rams and increased op port un ities for teachers to

part ici pate in su ch progr ams is immed iat e . 2. The Si ze of Classes mu st be Re duced Clas �es wit h sp eci al needs st udents are generally too large for teachers to give all st udents the individ ual at tent ion they requi re . Over hal f of all the teachers wit h sp eci al needs st udents re pc�ted class sizes of 24 or gre at er. Ap pr oxi ma tely one fi fth of th ese classes had 29 st udents or more . The su rvey in di cates that in mo st cases class si ze has not been reduced in order to ac co mmodate sp ecia l needs st udents . 3.

The Need for More Re sour ces and In for ma ti on Current reso ur ce s, both human and financial are in su fficien t to meet the requi reme nts for the education of sp ecial needs st udents . The supply of spe ci al eq ui pm ent was cons idered ins uffici ent or min imal by 75 percent of the teacher s wit h special needs st uden ts ; 43 percent and 63 pe rcent gave si milar ratings to th e av aila bilit y of profess ional and non-pro fess ional support pers onne l, respectiv ely . In add iti on , 326

Privileges and Elections Thursday, October 25, 1979 in forma tion on the li mited funds and services currentl y av ai la ble is genera ll y inad equate . Teach ers are not awa re of wh at is av aila ble , wh ere it is located or ho w it is obtain ed. The resul ts of th is survey clearl y point out the probl ems of in adeq uate traini ng , clas s sizes tha t are too lar ge and ina dequate fun din g for the educatio n of sp ecial needs stud ents . The Soc iet y is concerned th at un less these probl ems receiv e imme diate attention , sp ecial needs st udents will not get the qua lit y ed ucati on they req uire .

The Societ y's po li cy states th at the Pr ov incial Governme nt sh ould provide the neces sary funding . 327

Pnv11eges and Elections Thur sday, October 25, 1979 OBSER VAT IONS Fol lowing are so me obse rvations and inferences based on the infor mation generated by th e st udy : 1) The que stio nnaire was co mpl eted by 5, 744 teachers - sl ightly less than one-h alf of the teaching force . Ap proxim ately the sa me propo rtion of pri mary , inter me diat e , ju ni or hig h and se condary teachers re sponded to the survey . (T able 1) 2) The res pondents inc luded a re pres ent ative sample of resource teache rs , and teach ers of E. M. H., T.M.H. and O. E.C. st udents .

The 350 res po nses in the "other" ca teg or y co ns isted ma inl y of teac hers who we re in spe cial educa tion pr ograms descr ibed by titles th at weren 't list ed in th e sur vey - e. g. , dev e lopm ental edu catio n or Eng lis h as a Sec ond Language , plus a few "s pecia list " teache rs who ap parently felt that they wer e cl osel y associ ated wi th spe cial ed uca tion - e. g. , a teacher in a vo cational sc ho ol . (T able 2) 3) Of the 29 percent of re spon di ng teachers tha t had rece ived so me spe cial training to teach st udents with spe ci al needs , 26 percent had been in vo lved in in formal progra ms on ly .

Th is data demon st rates the need for additi onal tra ining for teach ers . (T able 3) 4) App ro xi mate ly the sa me percent ag e of teachers (55 to 58 percent) at the pri mary , int er me diat e and ju nior hig h levels repo rt th at they have st udents wit h special needs .

At the hig h sc hool le ve l 34 percent of teachers repo rt having sp ecial needs st udents . (T ab le 4) 5) Wit h the re lat ively lo w percent age of re spons es (49 pe rce n t) , the re is a danger of bias be cause of the natural tendency for teachers wit h spe ci al needs st udents in the ir clas ses to re spo nd, and tho se wi thout such st udents to ignore the su rv ey . Th us , if one assu me s 328

Privileges ana t:1ec110ns Thursday, October 25, 1979 that the res po nse inclu ded mo st of th e teachers wit h special needs st uden ts the perce ntage of teachers wit h special needs st udents would be app roxim ately 30 to 35 percent rat her than 55 to 58 perce nt . 6 ) At each lev el, pri mary to se cond ary , appro xim a tely 20 pe rcent of teac hers wit h spe ci al needs st udents have taught less than three yea rs . The large st propo rt ion of teachers wit h spe cial needs st ud ents (35 to 43 pe rc ent) hav e had fro m 7 to 15 years ex p erience .

Wh ile in general ex perienced teachers hav e mo st ass ig nm ents wi th spe ci al needs st udent s, there are many inex perienced tea c�ers wit h su ch respons ibiliti es . (T able 5) 7) The ma jo rit y of teachers with sp eci al needs st udents - 62 percent - hav e not rece ived sp ecialized tra ining . Ei ghte en percent of the teachers that re spon ded do not have spe ci al needs st udents .

Th is infor ma tion illu strates the need for add iti onal teacher trai n in g, and also shows that so me potential teacher reso urces are not bei ng used . (T ab le 6) 8) Ap proxi ma tely 40 percent of the re spon ding teachers indicat ed that they have sp ec ial needs st udents that were previously in se gregated clas ses. This data giv e s some indic ation of the trend towa rd the integration of spe cial needs st ud ents . Ho wev e r, the ma jor it y of teach ers , 70 pe rcent, id entif y as sp ecial needs st udents , st udents who had not prev iousl y been in seg regated class es .

Re spon den ts could check mo re than one it e� in this cat e gory , th eref ore perce nt ages do not total 1 0 0. (T ab le 8) 9) Many teache rs who re sponded to th e qu es tion naire did not indicate the nu mber of special needs st udents in th eir class (es) . Howeve r, of tho se re sponding 36 pe rcent in dicat ed th at they hav e from 1 to 4 spe ci al needs st uden ts . Th irteen per cent , pre sumabl y spec ial educa tion and oc cu patio nal en trance course teache rs , indic ated that they ha ve fro m 7 to 15 sp eci al needs st udents in the ir cl as ses . Mo st of the teachers 329

Privileges and Elections Thursday, October 25, 1979 rep orting thi s inf ormation were at the pri mary or inter me diat e lev els . 10 ) Ap proxim ate ly SO percent of spe cia l ed ucati on teachers have bet ween 1 and 12 st udents in the ir class es . The grou p of 54 teachers who indi cat ed that they deal wit h fro m 36 to 98 st ud ents is made up pri marily of re source teach ers . (T able 1 0) 11) Over half of the cla sses with sp ec ial needs that were ide nti fied by pri mary teachers have class sizes of 24 or great er; of the se, 10 percent or 10 0 classe s, ha ve class siz es greater than 29 . (T able 11

A) Si milar ana lysis of Ta bles 11 B, C and D shows that 71 percent of inter mediate classe s, 56 pe rcent of ju nior hig h classe s, and 45 percent of senior hig h classes re por ted by teachers wit h sp ecia l need s st ude nts have class si zes of 24 or gre at er. (T ab les 11 B, C and D) 12) The ma jo rit y of teachers wit h special need s st udents in the ir classes ha ve 1 - 2 sp ecial needs st ude nts in the ir clas ses and spend less than 1/3 of a da y wit h the m . Th is data su gg est s that mo st spe ci al needs students are incl uded in depa rt ment al iz ed classes .

In contra st, 25 percent of the teachers wit h one or tw o spe cial need s st ude nts in the ir cl asses have them for mo st of the school day . (T able 12 ) 13 ) Teachers rated the ade qua cy of the list ed resou rces fro m 'i nsu ff ic ient ' to 'm inimal '. Great e st con cer n exist s reg arding the av aila bilit y of in formation on finan c ial resou rces and the supply of spe ci al eq ui p- ment .

Grea test sati sf acti on , alt houg h only minim al , was indicat ed for the availa bilit y of profes si onal suppo rt and the adequacy of scr een ing proced ures . (T able 13 ) 14) Re sou r ce teachers are th e mo st com mo nly cit ed suppo rt pe rso nnel ; 68 percent of th e 1, 8 77 teachers ind icat ing th at serv ices of res ource tea chers are av ai la b le to th em indicated that they are us ing the ser vice s. (T able 14 ) 330

· Privileges and Elections Thursday, October 25, 1979 15 ) In the ma jo rit y of cases re spondents indicated tha t eit her teachers or pri nci pals or a comb ination of pri nci pals and teachers had the mos t in fluence regarding placement of spe ci al needs st ud ents . (T ab le 16 ) 16 ) Of the 2,6 23 teac hers wit h sp eci al needs st uden ts , 78 percent co nsid ered th at the ir wo rkload had eit her increased or increased greatl y as a res ult of the inclusion of sp ec ial needs st udents in the ir class es . (T ab le 17 ) Fu rther anal ysis of the ef fect of sp eci al needs st udents on teacher workload has been mo st evident at the ele mentary an d ju nior hig h lev els . (T able 18 ) 331

Privileges and Elections Thur sday, October 25, 1979 S E C T I 0 N A P R 0 V I N C I A L 332 D A T A

SECTIO N A PR OV INCIA L DATA Privileges and Elections Thursday, October 25, 1979 TAB LE 1 -- Re sponden ts to the Spe cial Needs Que sti onnaire Pr imar y 14 92 TAB LE 2 - - Sp ecial Teaching or Admi ns trativ e Assig nment In ter mediate 115 9 Educ at ion Jun ior Hig h 11 63 Teachers Se nior Hig h 13 97 Total Pri nci p al Ot her Re sp onses 176 357 5744 Re sp ondin g to the Que st ion naire Total Percent Re so urce T.M.H. E. M.H. O.E.C. Sp.

Ed. of Teac her Teacher Teac her Teacher Other Teachers Re spondents 202 46 77 10 4 350 779 Tab le 3 -- Extent of Special Training Re ported by Teachers (Act ual Nu mbers Sh own in Brack ets) 13. 56 Num ber Wit h Percent Level at Which Special Traini ng Received of Special To tal Training Re sp . 16 68 29 . 04 Inf or mal Univ ersit y Un iver sit y M. Ed. Pr ograms First Degree Sec ond Degree or Hi gher 26 .5 6 (443) 26. 86 (4 48) 37 .8 3 (6 31) 6. 65 ( 111 ) 333

SECT ION A PR OVINCIA L DATA Privileges and Elections Thursday, October 25, 1979 TAB LE 4 -- Perce nt age of Teachers at Ea ch Level wit h Spe cial Needs St udents (Act ual Num bers Sh own in Br acke ts) Pr imary Int er mediate Juni<Jr Hig h Seni or Hig h P rincipal Wit h and S. N.

Ot her St uds . 56 .4 (842) 58 .2 (674) 54 .9 (6 38) 34 .4( 4 80) 48.6 (259) ( 2893) TAB LE 5 - - Dist ribution of Teachers with Spec ial Needs St udents 0 - 3 4 - 6 7 - 1 5 by Years of Exp er ience and Level of Ins truction Eac h Cell Sh ows Teachers wit h Special Needs St udents as a Perce ntag e of all Responding Teachers in that Cell (A ctual Num bers Sh own in Bracket � Pr imary Inter mediate Ju nior Hi gh Se nior High Years 23.5 4 ( 19 8) 18.5 5 ( 1 25) 23 .90 (15 2) 19.0 4 (91 ) Years 21 0 64 ( 1 82) 21 .8 1 ( 14 7) 16.5 1 ( 1 05) 15 0 27 ( 7 3) Years 35.4 3 ( 298) 37 .2 4 ( 25 1) 37 .5 8 ( 2 39) 43 .10 (2 06) 16 + Ye ars 19 0 38 ( 1 63) 22 .40 ( 151) 22 .01 ( 1 40) 22. 5 9 (10 8) Total 1 00% (8 41 ) 10 0% ( 674) 10 0% (6 36) 10 0% (478) % of Total Res ps . 50. 37 Total 21 0 53 (5 66) 19.2 8 (5 07) 37.81 (9 94) 21 0 38 (5 62) 10 0% ( 2629) TAB LE 6 - - An al ysis of Spec ial Training of Teachers Wit h and Wi thout Spec ial Needs St udents (Act ual Number s Sh own in Brac kets ) Teachers Wit h Spe cial Needs St udents Teachers Wit hout Sp eci al Needs St udents Teachers Wit h Sp ec ialized Training 38. 2% (113 3) 18.5 % ( 535) 334 Teachers Wit hout Sp ecialized Training 61 .8 % (1 834) 81 0 5% (2351 )

SECTIO N A Privileges and Elections Thursday, October 25, 1979 PR OVINCIAL DATA TABLE 7 -- Det aile d An al ysis of Sp ecial Training of Teachers Wit h and Wi thout Special Needs St udents (P ercent ages Sh own in Row 1 are of all Teachers With Sp ecial Needs St ude nts . Pe rcentages Sh own in Row 2 are of all Teachers Wit hout Special Needs St ud ents . Actual Nu mbers Sh own in Br ackets) Wit hout Sp ecial ized Training Univers ity First Degree Univ ersit y M. Ed .

Teach ers Wi th In fo rma l Prog rams Sec ond or Degree Hi gher Sp eci al Needs St udents 63 .3 9 (1 834) 14. 10 (40 8) 10.13 (2 93) 12.3 7(3 58) 1 .80 (5 2) Teachers Wi tho ut Special Needs St udents 82 .4 6 (2351 ) 6. 5 9 (18 8) 5.12 (14 6) 5.6 1 (16 0) 0.9 8(2 8) TABLE 8 -- Teachers wit h Pr eviously Se greg ate d/Non -Se gregated St udents Pe rcentages of Total Num ber of Teachers Wit h Special Needs St udents in the Divi si on (Act ual Numbers are Sh own in Brack ets) Teachers Wit h Pr eviousl y Se gregated Special Needs St udents 38.7 8 (112 2) Teachers With Pr evio usl y Non Se gregated Special Needs Students 69 .7 2 (20 17 ) Teachers With Bot h Segr egated / Non -Segreg at ed Special Needs St udents 24.71 (715 ) !ABLE 9 -- Perce ntage of Teachers Wit h Special Needs St udents By Nu mber of Sp ecial Needs St udents Taught (Exc ludes Special Ed ucation Teac hers ) (A ctual Numbers Sh own in Brack ets) Total Number of Special Needs Stu dents in all Cl asses All Responding Teachers Pri mary Inter mediat e Junior Hig h Seni or Hig h 1 - 2 3 - 4 5 - 6 7 - 1 5 over 1 5 22 .8 8( 6 62) 13.0 0 (3 76) 8.6 ·1 (2 49) 13.0 3 (3 77) 4. 7 4(13 7) 11.0 6(3 20) 5. 6 0( 16 2) 3. 66 (106 ) 3.9 8(115 ) 0.7 3( 21) 7.50( 217 ) 4. 5 6(1 32) 2.6 6( 77) 4. 1 5 ( 1 2 0) 0.9 7( 28) 4. 04 ( 117 ) 2.5 6( 74) 2. 21 ( 64) 4.7 0(13 6) 3. 01 ( 87) 0. 07 ( 2) 0. 00 ( 0) 0. 0 0 ( 0) 0. 0 0 ( 0) 0. 03 ( 1) 335

SE CTION A PR OVINC IA L DATA t"nvneges ana l:leCtlons Thursday, October 25, 1979 TABLE 10 -- Dis tri bution of Sp eci al Edu cati on Teachers According to th e Number of Sp ecial Needs St uden ts Ta ught (A ct ual Nu mb ers Sho wn in Br acke ts) Total Num ber of Sp ecial Needs St udents in all Classe s 1 - 12 13 -35 36 - 65 66-98 99+ 7.6 4 (2 21) 5.0 1 (1 45) 1.4 2 (41 ) 0.4 5 (13 ) 0. 00 ( 0) TABLE 11 -- Pr ovi ncial Analys is Sh ow ing Brea kdown of Repo rted Classes Wi th Spe cial Needs St udents According to Class Siz e and Nu mber of Special Needs St udents (Ex cludes Spe ci al Ed ucatio n Te ache rs) Total Number of St ud ents in Class 11 A -- Pr imary Num ber of S p ecial Needs St udents Under 1 5 16 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 28 29 + Total - 2 86 90 11 7 224 54 571 3 - 4 27 45 45 93 18 228 5 - 6 6 10 19 62 19 11 6 7 - 1 0 5 5 16 35 7 68 11 - 15 2 0 1 12 2 17 16 + 0 4 0 6 Total 12 6 15 4 19 9 427 10 0 10 06 Percentage of To tal 12. 52 15. 31 19.7 8 42 .4 5 9.9 4 Total Number of St udents in Class 11 B -- Inter mediate Nu mb er of Spe cial Needs St udents Under 1 5 16 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 28 29 + Total 1 - 2 43 62 52 252 1 31 540 3 - 4 18 29 39 11 3 77 276 5 - 6 1 6 1 3 54 19 93 7 - 1 0 0 2 8 29 1 7 56 11 - 1 5 0 6 7 15 16 + 0 4 7 Total 63 1 0 1 11 3 455 255 987 Perce ntage of Total 6.3 8 10.2 3 11.4 5 46. 10 25.8 4 336

SECTIO N A PR OV INCIA L DATA 11 C -- Junior Hi gh Numb er of Privileges and Elections Thursday, October 25, 1979 Total Nu mber of St udents in Class Sp ecial Needs St udents Under 15 16 - 20 21 - 23 24 - 28 29 + Total - 2 3 - 4 5 - 6 ,7 - 1 0 11 - 15 16 + Total Pe rcenta ge of Total 11 D - - Senior Hi gh Number of S p ecial Needs St udents 1 - 2 3 - 4 5 - 6 7 - 1 0 11 - 1 5 16 + Total Perce ntag e of To tal 71 75 33 40 19 11 24 9 16 9 21 16 4 16 5 15.9 4 16. 0 3 Total Num ber of Under 1 5 16 - 20 63 69 15 18 14 6 24 9 17 2 2 6 13 5 11 0 22 .4 6 18. 30 57 13 8 1 31 27 92 70 17 39 45 9 19 32 1 2 6 9 5 12 0 295 285 11 .6 6 28 .6 7 27.7 0 St udents in Cl ass 21 - 23 24 - 28 29 + 41 87 64 18 34 29 1 0 1 0 19 4 1 5 9 2 2 6 1 2 3 76 15 0 13 0 12.6 5 24 .9 6 21 .6 3 TABLE 12 -- Ti me Spent Wit h Classes With Spec ial Needs St uden ts By Num ber of Special Need s St udents in Class Num ber of Responding Teache rs 472 262 1 31 93 34 37 10 29 Tot al 324 11 4 59 61 29 14 601 Note Tha t a Teacher May Ha ve More Than One Class in Ea ch Cat egory Numb er of Sp ecial Needs St udents In Class - 2 3 - 4 5 - 6 7 - 10 11 - 15 16 + Total Part of Day Spent wit h Class One Third One Third to Or Less Two Thirds 13 14 298 607 125 300 61 277 56 13 0 50 11 5 59 2743 649 337 More Than TWO Thirds 509 25 4 11 7 1 32 65 48 1125

SECT ION A PR OV INCIA L DATA Privileges and Elections Thursday, October 25, 1979 TABLE 13 -- Teacher Respon ses Re garding Adequacy of Su ppo rt for Sp ecial Needs Pr ogra ms Percen tage of Re spondents to Question Abov e Insuff - Ave rage/ Aver/ N.A / Total Don't No .o f ici ent Minimal Suff. Su pe r. Know Re sp. Mean Pr eparation Re cei ved Inf o .R e. Fi na ncial Assist ance Su pp ly of Mat erials Av ail . Profess ional Su ppo rt Ava il .N on- Pro fe ss.Su pp ort Su pp ly of Sp ecial Eq uip .

Sc reeni ng Pr oc edures Ph ysical St ruct ure of Sc hool ( 1 J (2 J ( 3 J (4) 31 .3 4 38 .1 4 23.5 1 5. 1 0 38 .7 8 2 6. 16 15.6 1 2. 3 3 22 .01 30 .6 1 34 .78 6.17 15 .7 6 28.4 3 39.5 9 14. 06 36. 16 27 .6 1 23.8 7 5. 32 29.85 24.6 7 20. 0 6 3.16 19. 18 25. 10 40 .3 8 6.8 6 31 .8 8 29.2 9 27.7 9 5.3 4 1. 91 1 7. 11 6.4 2 2.16 7.0 5 22 .2 6 8.4 9 5.7 0 TAB LE 14 -- Perce ntage of Teachers Usi ng Available Su pp ort Services Type of Su ppo rt Pe rsonnel Teacher Aide Volunteer Re source Teache r Speech Thera pist Ps ycholo gist Reading Spec ial ist Sc hool Social Worker Ot he r No . of Teachers Re porti ng Se rvice Ava ilable 920 789 18 77 1 671 19 66 10 98 12 71 329 Perce nt age (Nu mber) of Teachers Re porting Se rv ices Used 55. 76 ( 51 3 J 56 .40 ( 445) 67 .93 ( 1 27 5) 45. 12 ( 7 54) 4 7. 10 ( 926) 42 .17 ( 463) 45. 16 ( 574) 75.38 ( 248) 2824 2741 2803 2824 27 82 2687 27 69 27 89 TABLE 15 -- Pe rc entage of Responde nts Indicating That Each Ca tegory Had The Most In fluence Re garding Pl acement of Sp ecial Needs St udents Teac h .

Spec . 1. 99 1. 47 2. 12 2.4 8 1. 84 1 . 52 2. 18 1. 95 Parents Teac hs . Princ . & Pr. Ed. Ps ych . Su pt . Bd. Other Total 6.80 13 .6 3 15.4 6 30 .4 5 5.2 5 1.1 5 338 1. 7 9 2.3 8 23. 09 2516

SECTIO N A PROVINC IA L DAT A Privileges and Elections Thur sday, October 25, 1979 'ABLE 16 -- Perce ntage of Resp ondents Indicating That Eac h Categ ory Had The Mo st Inf luence Regard ing Pl ac ement of Special Needs St uden ts, By Le vel Teach . Spec . Parents Teachs Pri nc . & Pr. Ed. Ps ych . Su pt. Bd .

Ot her >ri mary (K - 3) 8. 0 7 16.5 5 12.4 5 32 .9 7 3. 1 5 1. 78 1. 78 1. 50 21 .8 9 :n ter ·media te (4 - 6) 7.2 5 1 5. 03 15.7 2 33.8 5 4. 15 0.5 2 1. 04 1. 21 21 .2 4 runior Hi gh 5. 41 11 .9 4 19.4 0 31. 90 3.73 0.9 3 2.2 4 2. os 22 .3 9 ;eni or Hi gh 6.5 3 1 0. 55 19. 10 21 .61 8.5 4 0.5 0 2.7 6 6.53 23.8 7 >rinc . or Vi ce-Pr. 5. 00 0. 00 1 0. 00 20 .0 0 30.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0. 00 35 .00 lt her 4.4 7 11 .17 8.9 4 25. 14 11 • 1 7 2.2 3 1. 12 2.2 3 33. 52 rABLE 17 - - Anal ysis of Eff ect of the Ad dition of a Special Needs St udents on Teacher Workload Percent age s in eac h Categ ory are of all Respond in g Teachers Wi th Special Needs St udents None Minimal Increased 4. 50 17.4 6 55. 28 Inc reased Greatly 22 .7 6 Total Num ber of Resp ondents 2623 rABLE 18 -- An al ysis of Ef fect of the Ad dition of Spec ia l Needs St ud ents on Teac her Workload (P erce ntage of all Respon ding Tea che rs Wi th Special Needs St udents Tea chi ng Ass ignm ents 1 to 5 Exc lude Spe ci al Ed ucation Teach ers) None ?rimary (K -3) 1.9 9 [nt er mediate (4 - 6) 1. 89 Ju 4. 78 Se nior Hi gh 8.5 0 Jt her 9.7 6 Re source Tea cher 10.2 6 T.M.H. 15.3 8 LM.H. 1 6. 67 J.E.C. 4.41 Jt her Special Ed . 3.7 7 Total 4. 22 Min imal Increased 16.0 6 58 . 10 13.9 9 59 .3 6 18.9 0 56 .4 6 24 . 83 51 . 02 19.5 1 60.9 8 6.41 55. 1 3 23.0 8 38.4 6 13.8 9 30 .5 6 11 .76 61 .76 14.4 7 50.9 4 16 .6 7 56. 18 339 Increased Greatly 23 .8 5 24. 76 19.8 6 15.6 5 9.7 6 28. 21 23.0 8 38 .89 22. 06 30.8 2 22 .9 3 Total Re spon ses 654) 529) 418 ) 294) 41) 78) 13 ) 36) 68 ) ( 15 9) (2 298) Tot- al 731 579 536 398 20 179

Privileges and Elections Thur sday, October 25, 1979 S E C T I 0 N B C 0 M M E N T S 340

SE CTION B Co mments Pnvneges ana 1:.1ect1ons Thursday, October 25, 1979 SP EC IAL NEEDS SUR VEY RE PORT Respondents were invited to add the ir own comme nts regardin g the ed ucatio n of spe ci al needs st ude nts . The comme nts were classif ied un der eight general headin gs : Working Conditions Philo sophy /Attitude De finitio n Su pport Se rvices/R esources In tegration Im plem entation Per sonal Ex periences Sp ec ial Needs of Child ren The chart on the fol lowing pag e shows the nu mber and perc e ntage of co mments rela ted to eac h it em and to each cat egory of ite ms .

Follo wing the chart are a num ber of sa mp le co mments that reflect the concer ns that were being ex pres sed . 341

Privileges and Elections Thursday, October 25, 1979 ANA LYSIS OF COMM ENTS MADE ON THE ST UDENTS WITH SPEC IAL NEEDS SUR VEY WOR KING CO NDI TIONS PR I MARY INT . JR. HI SR.

HI TO TAL Class size 111 ( 19. 9) 55 ( 12. 9) 45 ( 3. 1) 24 (8.2) 235 ( 14. 5) More time (t eac her) for spe cial needs child 52 9. 3) so ( 11. 7) 22 (6.4 ) 20 (6. 9) 14 4 8. 9) Pr ep- time req uir ed 9 1. 6) 12 ( 2. 8) 6 ( 1. 7) 5 ( 1 • 7) 32 1. 9) Added pressures 7 1. 3) 1 0 ( 2. 3) ( 0. 3) 4 ( 1. 4) 22 1 • 3) Cop ing wi th specia l needs st udents 9 1. 6 ) 5 1. 2) 3 ( 0. 9) 2 ( 0. 7) 19 1. 2) Pay ment fo r ext ra time 2 0.4 ) 0. 2) ( 0. 3) 5 ( 1. 7) 9 0. 5) Sub Total 461 ( 2 8. 4 7) PHILOSOPHY/ATTI TUDE In favour of mains trea ming 43 ( 7. 7) 31 7. 3) 28 ( 8. 2) 28 (9. 6) 1 30 8. 0) Opp os it ion of mains trea m- ing 26 (4.7 ) 32 7. 5) 36 ( 1 0. 5) 22 (7. 5) 11 6 7.2) In favour of m. st. wit h adequate resources 21 ( 3. 8) 20 4.7 ) 14 4. 1) 1 3 (4. 5) 68 4. 2) Inter pret at ion of 11main- str eaming1 1 3 ( 0. 5) 8 1. 9) 5 1. 5) 6 ( 2. 1) 22 1. 3) Sub Total 336 ( 2 0. 7 5) DEFINI TION Too broa d 4 ( 0. 7) 8 1. 9) 9 2. 6) 3 ( 1 • 0) 24 1. 5) Too res trictive ( 0. 2) 5 1. 2) 7 2. 0) 2 ( 0. 7) 15 0. 9) Sub To tal 39 2. 40) SU PPOR T SER VICES /R ES OURCE S More re so ur ces required 85 ( 15 .2) 48 ( 11. 3) 35 ( 1 0. 2) 25 (8. 6) 19 3 ( 11. 9) Mate ria l/Equipment required 1 7 3. 0) 10 2. 3) 8 2. 3) 8 ( 2. 7) 43 2. 6) Little hel p from S.S. outs ide of sc hool 8 1. 4) 4 0. 9) 5 1 • 5) 4 ( 1. 4) 21 1. 3) Coun sellors not inclu ded 0 0 3 0. 9) ( 0. 3) 4 0. 2) Su b Total 261 ( 16 . 1 2) INTEGR ATIO N What about regular ki ds? 29 5. 2) 28 6. 6) 16 4. 7) 11 (3 . 8) 84 5. 1) Special classes ad van tag- eo us 18 3. 2) 23 5.4 ) 21 6. 1) 14 (4. 8) 77 4.8) All st udents should not be integrated 1 2 2. 2) 9 2. 1) 9 2. 6) 6 ( 2. 1) 36 2. 2) Inc lu de gifted 4 0. 7) 0.2 ) 4 1. 2) ( 0. 3) 1 0 0. 6) Su b Total 207 ( 1 2. 79) 342

Privileges and Elections Thur sday, October 25, 1979 ANA LYSIS OF COMM ENTS MADE ON THE ST UDENTS WIT H SPE CIAL NEEDS SUR VEY cont 'd IM PLEM ENTATION PRIM ARY IN T. JR. HI SR. HI TOTAL In ad equate training 45 ( 8. 1) 37 8. 7) 33 9. 6) 32 ( 11. 0) 14 7 9.1) Scre eni ng 9 ( 1. 6) 5 1. 2) 3 0. 9) 6 ( 2. 1) 23 1. 4) Go sl owly ( 0. 2) 2 0. 5) 5 1. 5) 3 ( 1. 0) 11 0. 7) Su b Total 181 ( 11. 18) PER SO NAL EX PE RIEN CES Fa voura b le descri ptio n 27 ( 4. 8) 13 3. 1) 7 2. 0) 11 3. 8) 58 3. 6) Negative descri ption 7 ( 1. 3) 4 0. 9) 5 1 • 5) 4 1. 4) 20 1. 2) Su b Total 78 (4. 82) SPEC IA L NEEDS OF CHILD REN E.S.

L. 8 ( 1 .4) 5 ( 1. 2) 7 2. 0) 12 4. 1) 32 1. 9) Special diff iculties at H.S. level 0 0 5 1 • 5) 19 6. 5) 24 1. 5) Sub Total 56 3. 45) TOTAL 558 426 343 292 1619 * * The total includes princ ipal s and "ot hers1 1 343

Privileges and Elections Thursday, October 25, 1979 COM MENTS 1) "I am con cerned ab out su ch integrat ion when it occurs in a hig h sc hoo l wit h individual ti me ta bles . In this si tuation the st udent has many teachers who see the st udent briefly rat her than a few teachers see ing the st udent for large blocks of ti me . For some sp ecial needs st uden ts th is could cause probl ems due to the teac her 's la ck of time for flexibi lit y in de al ing wit h the st ude nt .1 1 2 ) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7 ) 8) 9) 1 0) "T he integration of special needs st udents int o classes of average (or large

r) siz e cuts down on the effec tive ness of the teache r, with the result that no student recei ve s the kin d of attenti on he/she should have ." "T he ph ysical size of the cl as s is detri mental to my efficiency and mental healt h." "T here see ms to be a need for more spe cialists who are trained to ac tu ally work wit h th ese ch ild ren rather than ju st tell a tea cher wha t he or she should be doing - there just is n't time when you are work ing with so many ot hers who als o have demanding problems in certain are as .

We do n't need more ad vice - we need people to do it ." "Si nce the beginning of the sch ool year I ha ve felt that I am ina dequately provi ding for the spe cial needs st udents in my class and yet I go home ea ch evening exha usted . The future do es not look very br ight th is year : Tod ay an other st udent regi stered wh ich will make en rol lment 30." "Wi ll not work unl ess su pport staf f is ac tively and regularly inv olved wi th the child . Teacher has to be willi ng to take spe ci al needs children -- so me are better eq ui pp ed to work with the se chil dren .

Certi ficate training le aves you totally un prepared for spe cia l needs childr en . Mo st teachers can ju st barely cope ." "Class si ze is the bi gge st single probl em. " "M ore su ppo rt per son ne l, mate rial s, and ti me needed to prepare spe cial needs curriculae ." "U nless teachers are to be given better training and better back-u p se rvi ces , th en sp eci al needs st udents will contin ue to be special needs st uden ts - that is - their needs will not be met ." "We have in our sc hoo l st udents in regular cl asses who requ ire special assist ance wh ich we cannot provide .

There fore we are not able to me et the se needs even though we can see wha t needs to be do ne . Giv e us the re sourc es and we 'l l do the jo b." --- 344

Privileges and Elections Thursday, October 25, 1979 11 ) "We need fina ncial assist ance and much more sp ecial ized train ing . We also need more su ppo rt people for classr oom teachers - e. g. , resource , rem edi al, reading cl inic ia ns , psycho lo gists ." 12 ) "I have not found the time (wit h no prep ti me during the teaching day) , the materia ls, nor the pers �nel to suffic iently me et the needs of the special needs st ud en ts. I am frustrated at my own ig norance and inabil ity to do ju stice to my special needs st udents ." 13 ) "Let 's not kid ourselv es.

The averag e teacher 's workload and training does not allo w for the integ rat ion of sp ecial needs st uden ts . Teachers will try the ir best but if we do not get suffic ient su ppo rt these st udents will sim ply be lef t to ve ge tate in th e classr oom. " 14 ) "R ecent ly need ed reso urce tim e in ou r sc hool has been cut down . This seems to me to be contrad ict ory to the who le concept of Bill 58.

If the government is going to provide us wit h hel p for in coming chil dren wit h special needs why the n are they taking away the re sources th at we al re ady have to cope wit h the ch ild ren wit h spec ial needs tha t are now in our sc hools? " 15) "I bel ieve an ori entation for the te ache r, su pport by training staff - not only vo lunteers - to ma intai n a ben efici al program are nec ess ar y. Eq uipm en t , inst ruction in the use of it, and hel p wit h the cho ice of equipment and teaching materials ar e also esse ntial ." 16 ) "T he re is no provi si on for ex tra ti me to work wit h the stude nt .

Classes rema in the sa me si ze , and there is li ttle hel p in pre par ing mate ri als . How eve r, I do think integration (f or the st udents I know) is a good th ing ." 17 ) "P lac ement of spe cia l needs st udents should be ha ndled very carefu lly , wit h care ful con si deration of the st ud en t's needs fi rst and forem os t." 18) "P re paration and su ppo rt for the blind st udent by th e Department of Ed ucation C.D.S. has been excell ent ." 19) "Special needs st udents definitel y bel ong wit h the ir peers .

The classr oom teach er alone is at time s overw hel med wit h the responsib ilit y of me et ing all the st ude nts ' needs . Help is needed and should be av aila ble." 20) "I have no train ing in how to handle spe cial needs st ude nts . They are ju st here . I have no resou rce s, no hel p , no time , no skills . They just sit there and keep qui et, or else :" 21) "C ommuni cation bet ween the sc hool and the Departm ent of Hea lth an d Social Deve lopment regarding services for som e of the se problems is inade quate .

We of ten rece ive ch i ldren from other ot he r sch ools who requir e spe ci al pro grams to deve lop academic 345

Privileges and Elections Thursday, October 25, 1979 skill s. Record keeping is woe fully mi ssing from files as to skills and programs . We need to be sure th is inf or ma tion reaches a receiving sc hool as soon as pos si ble to assist the child in adjus ting to a new sc hool ." 22) "HELP!!" End of Bri ef. 346

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-3-pe12
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 3rd hansardpdf pe12.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	423e424b9aa645941760c6f9076e7057b2d281fc

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).