British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, May 12, 2015

20150512pm-Hansard-v26n4

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709- 1281 (Print) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Tuesday, May 12, 2015 Aft ernoon Sitting Volume 26, Number 4

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Judith Guichon, OBC Fourth Session, 40th Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Linda Reid EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council .............................................................................................................. Hon. Christy Clark Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Gas Development and Minister Responsible for Housing ......................Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon. John Rustad Minister of Advanced Education ............................................................................................................................... Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Minister of Agriculture ........................................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Norm Letnick Minister of Children and Family Development ....................................................................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development ........................................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Minister of Education ..................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Core Review .....................................................................Hon. Bill Bennett Minister of Environment ..........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Minister of Finance .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations......................................................................................Hon. Steve Th omson Minister of Health ............................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Minister of International Trade and Minister Responsible for Asia Pacifi c Strategy and Multiculturalism ..................Hon.

Teresa Wat Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of State for Tourism and Small Business ....................................................................................................Hon. Naomi Y amamoto Minister of Justice ...............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation..............................................................................................Hon. Michelle Stilwell Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services ................................................................................................ Hon. Amrik Virk Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................Hon.

Todd Stone LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Offi cial Opposition ...................................................................................................................................................John Horgan Deputy Speaker .............................................................................................................................................................................Douglas Horne Assistant Deputy Speaker ...............................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ............................................................................................................................................ Pat Pimm Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ................................................................................................................................................... Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees .................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sessional Law Clerk ............................................................................................................................................. Loredana Catalli-Sonier, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Anton, Hon. Suzanne (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Fraserview Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal).....................................................................Penticton Austin, Robin (NDP) ................................................................................ Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP) ....................................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ............................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Bennett, Hon.

Bill (BC Liberal) ...................................................Kootenay East Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) ................................................... Peace River South Bing, Dr. Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Bond, Hon. Shirley (BC Liberal) ........................... Prince George–Valemount Cadieux, Hon. Stephanie (BC Liberal) ................................Surrey-Cloverdale Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) .................................Vancouver–West End Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................

Burnaby-Edmonds Clark, Hon. Christy (BC Liberal) ........................................ Westside-Kelowna Coleman, Hon. Rich (BC Liberal) ...........................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .............................................................. Kootenay West Corrigan, Kathy (NDP) ..................................................... Burnaby–Deer Lake Dalton, Marc (Ind.) ......................................................... Maple Ridge–Mission Darcy, Judy (NDP) ..................................................................New Westminster de Jong, Hon.

Michael, QC (BC Liberal) .............................. Abbotsford West Dix, Adrian (NDP)............................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Doug (NDP) ......................................................................... Stikine Eby, David (NDP) ..........................................................Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP) ................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ............................................................ Port Coquitlam Fassbender, Hon.

Peter (BC Liberal) ................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Fleming, Rob (NDP) .......................................................... Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal) .......................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Scott (NDP) ............................................................Alberni–Pacifi c Rim Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ............................................. Abbotsford-Mission Hamilton, Wm.

Scott (BC Liberal) .................................................Delta North Hammell, Sue (NDP) .................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Heyman, George (NDP) .................................................... Vancouver-Fairview Hogg, Gordon (BC Liberal) ............................................... Surrey–White Rock Holman, Gary (NDP) .......................................Saanich North and the Islands Horgan, John (NDP) .......................................................................

Juan de Fuca Horne, Douglas (BC Liberal) ..............................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ....................................................Surrey-Panorama Huntington, Vicki (Ind.) ..................................................................Delta South James, Carole (NDP) .........................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................Esquimalt–Royal Roads Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) .............................................................

Nanaimo Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Shuswap Lake, Hon. Dr. Terry (BC Liberal) ....................Kamloops–North Th ompson Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .........................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Richard T. (BC Liberal) ......................................................Burnaby North Letnick, Hon.

Norm (BC Liberal) ..............................Kelowna–Lake Country Macdonald, Norm (NDP) ....................................Columbia River–Revelstoke McRae, Don (BC Liberal) ............................................................ Comox Valley Martin, John (BC Liberal) ..................................................................Chilliwack Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ..................................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Michelle (NDP) ..........................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Hon.

Coralee (BC Liberal) .............................................Cariboo North Pimm, Pat (BC Liberal) .........................................................Peace River North Plecas, Dr. Darryl (BC Liberal) .............................................Abbotsford South Polak, Hon. Mary (BC Liberal) .............................................................. Langley Popham, Lana (NDP) ...................................................................Saanich South Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ................................................................ Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon.

Linda (BC Liberal) ..................................................Richmond East Reimer, Linda (BC Liberal) ........................................ Port Moody–Coquitlam Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ........................................................................North Coast Robinson, Selina (NDP) .............................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Routley, Bill (NDP) .................................................................. Cowichan Valley Routley, Doug (NDP) ............................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, Hon.

John (BC Liberal) ................................................ Nechako Lakes Shin, Jane Jae Kyung (NDP) ...............................................Burnaby-Lougheed Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Shane (NDP) ..................................................... Vancouver-Hastings Stilwell, Hon. Michelle (BC Liberal)............................... Parksville-Qualicum Stilwell, Dr. Moira (BC Liberal) ........................................ Vancouver-Langara Stone, Hon. Todd (BC Liberal) .........................

Kamloops–South Th ompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal) ..................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal) ...........................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ..................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ............................................................Fraser-Nicola Th omson, Hon. Steve (BC Liberal) .......................................Kelowna-Mission Th ornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) ..........................

North Vancouver–Seymour Th roness, Laurie (BC Liberal).................................................Chilliwack-Hope Trevena, Claire (NDP) .................................................................... North Island Virk, Hon. Amrik (BC Liberal) ............................................. Surrey-Tynehead Wat, Hon. Teresa (BC Liberal) .............................................. Richmond Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (Ind.) .......................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Hon. Andrew (BC Liberal) ........................ Vancouver-Quilchena Y amamoto, Hon.

Naomi (BC Liberal) ................ North Vancouver–Lonsdale Y ap, John (BC Liberal) ......................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ......................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ..................................................................... Dr. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West ...................................................... Hon. Michael de Jong, QC Alberni–Pacifi c Rim ..........................................................................

Scott Fraser Boundary-Similkameen ................................................................ Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ................................................................... Kathy Corrigan Burnaby-Edmonds ..........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .............................................................Jane Jae Kyung Shin Burnaby North .............................................................................. Richard T.

Lee Cariboo-Chilcotin ........................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ......................................................................................... John Martin Chilliwack-Hope ....................................................................... Laurie Th roness Columbia River–Revelstoke ..................................................

Norm Macdonald Comox Valley.....................................................................................Don McRae Coquitlam–Burke Mountain .....................................................Douglas Horne Coquitlam-Maillardville........................................................... Selina Robinson Cowichan Valley ................................................................................ Bill Routley Delta North .........................................................................Wm.

Scott Hamilton Delta South...............................................................................Vicki Huntington Esquimalt–Royal Roads .....................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ...................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Fraser-Nicola.................................................................................... Jackie Tegart Juan de Fuca .....................................................................................John Horgan Kamloops–North Th ompson ............................................ Hon. Dr.

Terry Lake Kamloops–South Th ompson ..................................................Hon. Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country ..................................................... Hon. Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission .............................................................. Hon. Steve Th omson Kootenay East .......................................................................... Hon. Bill Bennett Kootenay West ............................................................................ Katrine Conroy Langley.......................................................................................Hon.

Mary Polak Maple Ridge–Mission ..................................................................... Marc Dalton Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................................ Dr. Doug Bing Nanaimo ........................................................................... Leonard Eugene Krog Nanaimo–North Cowichan ......................................................... Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ........................................................................ Hon.

John Rustad Nelson-Creston ........................................................................Michelle Mungall New Westminster ............................................................................... Judy Darcy North Coast......................................................................................Jennifer Rice North Island .................................................................................. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ........................................Hon.

Naomi Y amamoto North Vancouver–Seymour ..................................................Jane Th ornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ...................................................... Dr. Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .......................................................Hon. Michelle Stilwell Peace River North ................................................................................ Pat Pimm Peace River South ............................................................................Mike Bernier Penticton............................................................................................

Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam ..........................................................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam ................................................................Linda Reimer Powell River–Sunshine Coast ................................................. Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ............................................................. Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ................................................... Hon. Shirley Bond Richmond Centre ......................................................................Hon.

Teresa Wat Richmond East ..........................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ..............................................................................John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands .................................................... Gary Holman Saanich South ................................................................................

Lana Popham Shuswap ................................................................................................Greg Kyllo Skeena .............................................................................................. Robin Austin Stikine ....................................................................................... Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Fleetwood ........................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton ................................................................................. Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ........................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Tynehead ......................................................................Hon. Amrik Virk Surrey-Whalley..............................................................................

Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ....................................................................... Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Fairview ..................................................................George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek ................................................................... Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview ......................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Vancouver-Hastings ....................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .................................................................Dr. Moira Stilwell Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .........................................

Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey .........................................................................David Eby Vancouver-Quilchena ................................................ Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Vancouver–West End ...............................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee ...............................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill .......................................................................Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake.........................................................................Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................. Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..........................................................Jordan Sturdy Westside-Kelowna ................................................................

Hon. Christy Clark Party Standings: BC Liberal 48; New Democratic 34; Independent 3

CONTENTS Tuesday, May 12, 2015 Aft ernoon Sitting Page Routine Business Introductions by Members ..................................................................................................................................................... 8357 Orders of the Day Committee of the Whole House ............................................................................................................................................ 8357 Bill 11 — Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2015 Hon. P . Fassbender R. Fleming A. Dix V .

Huntington Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 8387 Estimates: Ministry of Justice (continued) Hon. S. Anton L. Krog M. Farnworth C. Trevena S. Hammell B. Ralston H.

Bains Estimates: Other appropriations Estimates: Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services (continued) Proceedings in the Birch Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 8410 Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued) J. Darcy Hon. T. Lake K. Corrigan S. Chandra Herbert M. Karagianis

TUESDAY , MAY 12, 2015 Th e House met at 1:32 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Introductions by Members C. Trevena: In the gallery this afternoon is David Turnbull, the CEO of Hillsborough Resources. I’ve just had a very informative and pleasant lunch with Mr. Turnbull talking about Quinsam Coal and discussing its importance to the province and to Campbell River. I know he’s got meetings with ministers this aft ernoon. I hope that they are fruitful and work for the best interests of the company, the community and the province. I hope the House will make him very welcome. D.

Plecas: In the House today we have Dee Regala. Dee is a police offi cer from Hunan province in China. She is visiting the precinct this aft ernoon with the Sergeant-at- Arms staff . Will the House please make her feel welcome. Orders of the Day Hon. A. Wilkinson: In this chamber calling commit- tee debate on Bill 11; in Committee A room, continuing estimates of the Ministry of Justice; and in Committee C room, continuing estimates of the Ministry of Health. Committee of the Whole House BILL 11 — EDUCATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 Th e House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 11; D. Horne in the chair. Th e committee met at 1:34 p.m. On

section 1. Th e Chair: Perhaps we’ll start with the minister’s intro- duction of the staff that’s assisting him today. [1335] Hon. P . Fassbender: With me today is Dave Byng, Deputy Minister of Education; Ian Rongve, the assistant deputy minister, knowledge management and account- ability division; and Dave Duerksen, the executive dir- ector of the knowledge management and accountability division. We look forward to committee debate. R. Fleming: I have some specific questions about

section 1. I do have to express some regret that — unlike what we’ve seen with even Bill 20 this morning, where there were some amendments published in the orders of the day — there has been nothing of change throughout the stages of debate so far with Bill 11, even when we have such a universal condemnation from all of the ma- jor stakeholders in public education.

We have the School Trustees Association, for example, representing the 60 districts in British Columbia, spe- cifi cally calling for the minister to withdraw sections of the bill on which they were not consulted — a reminder from those school districts that the minister himself, on December 4, just recently re-ratifi ed a memorandum of understanding which committed, promised, obligated the minister to consult with school districts as co-gov- ernance partners in education on any major “legislative” change. Th at was not done in the case of Bill 11.

I have still not seen the minister show any acknow- ledgment that he violated not only the spirit but the let- ter of the memorandum in that regard. Nothing that has been said so far — and I think this is unfortunate, when you shut people out of debate and fail to consult at the beginning end of the legislative process — has so far had any infl uence on the minister’s thinking. It’s full steam ahead on this bill.

I think it’s really regrettable that we’re at committee stage now without any acknowledgment from the min- ister that his major education partners — be they the teaching profession or the elected trustees who govern the public schools in our great province — have any bear- ing on his legislative agenda. Th ey were excluded from the get-go. When their opinions have been made, they continue to be ignored. We may on this side, during committee debate, make some amendments that allow him the opportunity to respond to the major concerns that have been voiced. We’ll get there. On

section 1, with regards to the Independent School Act, I wanted to ask the minister if he can explain the meaning of this

section change. Th e explanatory notes simply refer to the committee making standards with re- spect to continuing education activities. I wonder if the minister can elaborate on what the rationale and mean- ing of this change to the Independent School Act is. Hon. P . Fassbender: Th is particular change clarifi es the role of the minister and the committee in terms of professional development. It says that the committee will not be making decisions relative to professional develop- ment, that that will be the purview of the ministry and the minister.

Th at is in keeping with the other changes made to the School Act as well. R. Fleming: Knowing that none of the amendments around professional development for public education in this bill came upon the consultation or recommenda- 8357

British Columbia Debates8358 Tuesday, May 12, 2015 tion of the province’s 41,000 professional teachers in the public school system, I’m wondering if the minister can indicate whose, if anyone’s, recommendation the minis- ter received to determine that an amendment like this was needed in this bill. [1340] Hon. P . Fassbender: What’s very clear is this act is intended to provide the framework for moving forward in professional development on both the public and the independent side.

We will be consulting with the public BCTF and we’ll also be consulting with the independ- ent schools in terms of professional development mov- ing forward. R. Fleming: I wonder if I could ask the minister just about the certificate standards committee in the in- dependent schools and, again, about the meaning of this change. Reading the current Independent School Act,

section 5(2)(a), which is amended here in

section 1 of this bill, reads that the “teaching certifi cate standards committee must (

a) establish the standards that are required to be met in order to be issued an independent school teach- ing certifi cate and to maintain an independent school teaching certifi cate. ” Th is amendment here,

section 1, adds text regarding continuing education activities within the meaning of the Teachers Act and changes

section 5(2)(

a) in the manner I’ve just described. I want to ask the minister exactly what that means. Is there a dichotomy being created here between continuing education activities? Th e purpose of it in terms of what the standards committee’s mandate will be — is that be- ing altered in any way? If you could provide more details. Hon. P . Fassbender: Th e purpose of this change is to ensure that there is consistency for all teachers in the province, whether they be in independent or public schools.

Th e change is that the committee will not be hav- ing any work with respect to CPD, but that will be con- sistent, as I said, with all teachers, whether they be in the public system or in the independent system. R. Fleming: Again, though, I’m just asking the min- ister if he could explain the signifi cance of the change. [1345] I don’t understand how we’re moving from something that exists now to something that is substantively diff er- ent around the issuance and maintenance of independ- ent school teaching certifi cates. I wonder if he could just add more detail to his answer in that regard. Hon. P .

Fassbender: Let me try and make it as clear as I can. Th e entire purpose is to have consistency through- out the province in both the public and the independent system to ensure that continuing professional develop- ment is being mandated by the minister and the ministry and that the committee will continue to do the work that it is currently doing. Th e only change is with respect to continuing professional development. R.

Fleming: Can the minister describe what kinds of professional development activities are typical of in- dependent schools today, what professional development looks like in independent schools — just so we can have a better understanding of what it may look like when it’s under ministerial control. Hon. P . Fassbender: As I said at the beginning, one of the roles, moving forward, once the bill is through, is…. We will be consulting with the public system, with the BCTF . We’ll be doing the same with independent teach- ers throughout the province.

Th e real key here — and I’ll use an example — is with the B.C. ed plan and the new curriculum. It is going to be critical in continuing professional development to ensure that all teachers are given the support that they need in order to implement the new curriculum. So again, we’re looking for consistency, whether it be in the independ- ent system or in the public system. R. Fleming: I asked what kind of activities are the re- sponsibility of private schools right now around profes- sional development. I don’t think I heard an answer from the minister about that. Hon. P .

Fassbender: Th e professional development in the independent system is very much the same as it is in the public system. If I can use an example, things like project-based learning, the use of technology…. Th ey will identify those supports that teachers need in any- thing relating to the curriculum. Th ey will have profes- sional development days, and they will bring in leading experts in certain areas. It is very similar to what happens in the public system. R. Fleming: I would ask the minister, then: in the current legislation who determines private school pro- fessional development — the school, the teachers?

I just wanted to make that clear. [1350] Hon. P . Fassbender: Currently under the act, the Independent School Act is silent when it comes to pro- fessional development. It is the independent school au- thorities who determine that along with the schools and with the superintendents of those schools. Th at is done by them and with their teachers. R. Fleming: If the legislation is silent, as the minister has characterized it, on professional development of pri-

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, May 12, 2015 8359 vate school teachers, are there standards or guidelines that exist within the ministry that outline what is ex- pected to be part of professional development for teach- ers who are in the private school system? Hon. P . Fassbender: Th e reality is that within the in- dependent system the curriculum and the learning out- comes that are established by the province and that we inspect are the criteria.

Because we are looking at a trans- formational agenda in education in both systems, both independent and public, the purpose here is to ensure that the ministry can set the guidelines in the future to ensure that it meets the needs, based on our B.C. ed plan. Again, we’re looking for consistency in both the in- dependent and the public systems. R.

Fleming: I’m just wondering if there is anything the minister could point to that shows that the ministry has, for a period of time presumably, been dissatisfi ed with a private school–led, professionally led profession- al development program in the independent school sec- tor that has created a situation which was so urgent, so drastic, so dire that legislative action had to be taken im- mediately in this spring session, with no time to consult with either the independent schools and their boards of trustees or with the owners of those schools or any of the teachers themselves.

I’m just not aware that there was a situation that was so critical that it precluded the minister from having the courtesy to talk about his transformational agenda, part of which apparently is to take local autonomous control from the private school sector and the teachers that they employ, who make those determinations locally — I’m sure I don’t have to tell him that the types and categories of private schools diff er signifi cantly — and to now bring it under ministry control.

Is there a body of information that shows that profes- sional development that was being done by independent schools over the teachers they employ was wholly in- suffi cient and had to be brought within ministry control? Hon. P . Fassbender: Th e answer is no. R. Fleming: Okay. Presumably, it was a satisfactory or maybe even a commendable professional development set of practices that were in the independent schools amongst those teachers employed.

So the question be- comes: why is this now going to go from a system that is determined by those who participate and pay to par- ticipate in these schools and who are employed by these schools to something that is remotely controlled in the Ministry of Education offi ces? [1355] I don’t understand. If there’s no urgency or purpose, nothing motivating it in terms of this professional de- velopment regime failing its constituents that it’s respon- sible to, why would the minister now propose to remove control over its determination and give that determina- tion to himself? Hon. P .

Fassbender: I’m not going to use the language that the member opposite did to characterize the issue. What is very clear is that around the world education is changing. We’ve seen it here in British Columbia. We have one of the best systems in both the public and in- dependent systems. We are looking at, through the B.C. education plan…. Th e member attended a forum in Vancouver where we talked about the future of education and the changes necessary. Th is is all about moving forward. Th is is not about fi xing a problem.

Th is is about creating opportun- ities for learning outcomes for students throughout the province. Th at is the motivation, that is the reason, and that is why we’re going to work with the sector to make sure that we have a clear vision for the future. R. Fleming: I’m glad the minister referenced that conference that his ministry sponsored, because I think it was interesting. We did hear from a number of inter- national experts that were talking about some of the things that innovative jurisdictions hold in common about improving student outcomes.

One of the things that was mentioned by internation- al guest aft er international guest who presented to the British Columbians that were there, from all walks of life and all different sectors…. The common thread was that the jurisdictions that were making the greatest improvements were the ones that had given the teach- ing profession the greatest degree of autonomy over their professional development — something that seems com- pletely at odds with what Bill 11 represents. We’ll come back to that at a later point. I just want to get back to the question that was asked to the minister.

I didn’t quite hear an answer. I asked him why it was not at all possible to consult with private schools broadly — and private school teachers specifi cally as well — prior to the introduction of these changes, which will be signifi - cant, over who now controls the content of professional development in private school education in B.C. Hon. P . Fassbender: We have, over the last three years, as we’ve developed the B.C. education plan, had exten- sive discussions with the public and the private systems.

Th ere has been a great deal of work done by ministry staff in the development of the new curriculum and dis- cussions as it was being developed, with input from the public and the private systems as well as post-secondary institutions. Th e reality is that, moving forward, there will be exten- sive discussion with both the independent and the public systems on the development of professional development as it moves forward.

British Columbia Debates8360 Tuesday, May 12, 2015 R. Fleming: Just on that point, then, I would ask the minister: isn’t it a more normal state of aff airs in the law- making process that before you make a signifi cant change like this, which governs the professional development of an entire certifi ed profession in our province, consulta- tion would happen before or at least during the legisla- tive draft ing process?

Here we have a situation where there’s a bill before the House, where there are thousands of people — pri- vate school teachers, tens of thousands of public school teachers — on the outside looking in on changes over who administers their professional development, their partnerships that they have at a school district level in the public school system and at a school-based level in the private school system. [1400] It just seems, to those who have been watching the Bill 11 debate, that this is completely backwards and contrary to a number of commitments that this minister has made time and time again on consulting — even a protocol that became a memorandum to do exactly that.

I would ask him philosophically, I suppose, whether he thinks that getting people’s views, consulting them on a formal and informal basis, is best done at the be- ginning of the law-making process or whether what he’s in fact doing is — making the law, making the change, with a commitment to consult them aft er the fact? Does he understand that that may have the unsettling impact that is indeed happening right now across B.C.? Hon. P .

Fassbender: For the member opposite, I think what’s important here is that this legislation creates a framework for fl exibility, for the ability to change as edu- cation continues to change. It was clear to me in all the discussions I’ve had with other leading experts around the world that the absolute requirement is to be able to move quickly as the world changes. Th is legislation creates a framework for ongoing work with the profession to develop professional development and change professional development as the needs of the system dictate, as the world changes dictate.

Th e sugges- tion that this legislation is limiting — absolutely the op- posite. It is enabling for freedom to change as change is identifi ed, and validated based on learning outcomes for students, because that is in the best interests of those stu- dents and, quite honestly, in the best interests of teachers — to give them the supports they need. R. Fleming: Well, there are a couple of problems I have with that answer.

I don’t mean to be obnoxious here, but the idea that the world is changing so fast — so fast that maybe even since February it’s changed again, when this bill was presumably contemplated in the middle of this current school year and that it has to be in place by the next school year that begins in September — I think is ridiculous. Also, the characterization from the minister I think is problematic.

To say that he’s giving greater fl exibility and control to the teaching profession, when they already have that, and that’s being removed from the legislation into some great unknown where it will now be more and more determined by the ministry, seems to me to be what we’re debating here in these legislative changes. How does it give teachers more self-control over the profession when the ministry will be assuming more re- sponsibilities and rights to determine what professional development looks like in both private schools and pub- lic schools? Hon. P .

Fassbender: It’s very clear — and I’ve said it, and I will say it again — that the work of the ministry is ongoing. Th e communication level between the profession and the ministry has vastly improved over the last num- ber of years, in the development of the B.C. education plan, in the development of the curriculum and in the future modifi cation of those things.

Th is bill allows for that fl ex- ibility, but it also ensures that the standards are consistent across both systems in the province and that we can pro- vide the support in all areas of the province, whether it be in the large urban areas or in the rural districts as well. R. Fleming: I wonder if I can ask the minister how long he contemplates the consultation that will happen aft er the bill becomes law…. [1405] I have heard in a briefi ng that the ministry gave me — and I thank them for that — about this bill that it could be three years.

I’ve heard in the public realm, in media discussions that were based on either quotes or para- phrases of quotes, that the minister has committed to something like a two-year process. Is that sort of the timeline, a two-to-three-year con- sultation process, that aft er this bill becomes law there will be consultation with teachers, presumably both in independent schools and the public school system? Hon. P . Fassbender: What’s very clear is that any time- lines that may be in the public did not come from the minister or the ministry. We will, as I said, work very closely with our partners in education.

Th at includes the Teachers Federation in the public system and the in- dependent teachers organizations. We’ll work with all of our stakeholders to make sure that the consultation is complete and as robust as it possibly can be. I’m not going to put a time frame on the end of that. We have already begun discussions in the development of the new curriculum. Professional development was one of the discussions on the curriculum writing teams, as to what would be required. A fair amount of work has already gone on.

Once the bill is through the House, then we will ramp up that collaboration and discussions in drilling in on

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, May 12, 2015 8361 what we’ve already heard. When we are ready, we will make the appropriate announcements of the steps that are going to take place. R. Fleming: I’m a little puzzled by that answer because there have been so many media articles, both clippings I have from radio and print, that have given an approxi- mate number of a two-year consultation on the regu- lations that will be consulted upon with the teaching profession. I even think that the minister used that term himself when he did a briefi ng on Bill 11 to the media in the press theatre.

I don’t ask him for a quarterly by quarterly timeline for the consultation on professional development, but is up to two years, or potentially even longer, approximate- ly the timeline that he envisages before the professional development regulations for the teaching profession will be completed? Hon. P . Fassbender: Th e two-year comment, I think, was attributed to the president of the B.C. Teachers Federation. Th at is not a comment made by the ministry or by myself in public comments. We will take as long as it’s going to take to get it done. I’m not going to put a time frame on it.

Th ose dates were not ours and are not ours. R. Fleming: Well, perhaps that was the understanding of the president of the B.C. Teachers Federation. I think, by his account, he had a phone call — what? — about 15 minutes before the legislation was tabled, advising the union that represents teachers in the public school sys- tem that Bill 11 was going to be tabled. Is it inaccurate, then…? His description, that the min- ister had made a commitment to consult with the BCTF on behalf of teachers for up to two years — is that an in- accurate characterization of that conversation that he had? [1410] Hon. P .

Fassbender: What is not inaccurate is that I did speak to the president of the B.C. Teachers Federation. I committed to a very extensive consultation process, mov- ing forward. I did not use “two years” in my discussion with him. He did receive a subsequent technical briefi ng on the content of the bill that reinforced what I said to him. But two years — he either heard that or interpreted that, not from our conversation. I was very clear in what I said to him at that time. R. Fleming: So if we could just be a little bit more pre- cise from the minister.

He is disputing that he said two years, but presumably he is not disputing that he com- mitted to a timeline that would be reasonable, that would not be pushed through immediately. Th e assurances he gave both the president of the BCTF and others, through the media, were that there’ d be an extensive consultation aft er the fact. Aft er he uses his majority to ram through Bill 11, there would be a consultation period. I just want an indication of how long that would be.

He’s now getting into the dangerous area where he’s got out there in the public realm that the government envis- ages up to two years of consultation. He’s denying that that’s the case. So we should really have something a lit- tle more precise. Now is a chance for him, on the record, to say what he thinks a reasonable amount of time to ac- complish the work of consulting with the teaching pro- fession might be before those regulations are completed. Hon. P . Fassbender: Let me be as clear as I can for the member opposite. When we spoke with Mr.

Iker — a technical briefi ng was given to him aft er I spoke to him; my conversation was very short — the commitment I made, with the bill coming in, is that there would be deep and robust consultation on the elements, moving forward. In the technical briefi ng, to be fair, it may have seemed to him that there was a time frame put on it, but there was none given by the ministry or myself.

Our commitment was, and remains, to make sure that we work closely with all of the partners, including the BCTF and the independent school system, to ensure that the consultation that moves forward as we develop the framework and the regulations that come out of it are based on good and healthy consultation. As I said during the development of the new curricu- lum and the framework for the educational transform- ation under the ed plan, it was clear that professional development and consistency of professional develop- ment across the province was at the heart of where we need to go.

Our commitment was, is and will remain working closely with our partners to get there. [1415] R. Fleming: I just want to ask the minister, though, about this robust consultation, as he calls it. He’s basic- ally asking all of the education partners — teachers, in particular, but all of them — to take him at his word that there will be a consultation, when we have seen, prior to the tabling of this bill, there was none at all. Th ere is nothing in this bill that obligates the minis- ter to keep his word that he’s had, by his own admission, in telephone conversations just before the introduction of this bill.

Now we have to believe that there’s going to be an extensive, thoughtful, inclusive consultation, when there’s a record that that never has happened be- fore, and there’s nothing in this bill that guarantees that it will happen. I think people are going to need a little bit more out there from the minister. If this is going to be a deep con- sultation that relies upon the judgment and skill of the teaching profession to inform the ministry of what they’re doing with regard to professional development and to work on some goals, how long is that going to take? It’s

British Columbia Debates8362 Tuesday, May 12, 2015 a fairly simple question. Th e minister has to do a budget on a fi scal year. He has to look at curriculum changes on a calendar year. Th e education plan, as well, has an imple- mentation schedule. Th is is really no diff erent. I want to ask him again.

I’m not going to commit him to an exact date, but what is the approximate time- line whereby the teaching profession will be consulted formally and engaged by the Ministry of Education on the changes that are now going to be codifi ed in law as ministry property around professional development in British Columbia? Hon. P . Fassbender: I want to help the member under- stand how we got to where we are today. First of all, I think it would be presumptuous to build a timeline into legislation or even to stand in this House today and give a timeline. But I will tell the member this.

We have been working over the last 3½ to four years with hundreds of teachers provided by the BCTF to work with us very closely on the development of the new curriculum, hour aft er hour committed by these teachers to writing new curriculum for K to 9. We had consultation aft er the fi rst draft . Th e second draft received more input from teachers, opened it up to every teacher in the province to have input, through the process that we established for them to have input on line and so on, to the new curriculum. Th e same thing is going on right now with the 10-to-12 curriculum.

I think it would be presumptuous to come in here and say: “We’re going to put a deadline on ongoing con- sultation moving forward on professional development. ” We are going to work with the teaching profession and other partners to develop that framework. Th at’s what this legislation allows us to do. I am not going to be so presumptuous as to say, “It’s going to take this long, ” or to speculate. We are going to work with them until we know that we have the best framework, moving forward. [1420] R.

Fleming: I think the minister actually gave a great example of how the teaching profession is the pillar of curriculum change and curriculum review in this prov- ince and how he has relied on their expertise, their fi ll- ing up of the committees and their volunteers shaping the K-to-9 curriculum change. Th eir service is critically important. Th ey’ve had an opportunity to work through a couple of draft s. Now, contrast that…. Th e content of the curriculum change is one that is consultative — that necessarily in- volves teachers.

When it comes to the content of profes- sional development, no such courtesy is extended by the minister. We have by his own admission that there was no consultation with the teaching profession about what professional development will look like.

How can he have a curriculum program that is open and reliant upon and respectful of the teaching profes- sion and then, when it comes to the professional de- velopment of teachers — something that they currently determine to a great extent themselves — dramatically change how that is potentially seen in the future of British Columbia without even involving them in that until the law has changed? Hon. P . Fassbender: I understand the member op- posite has trouble grasping the concept of how we got to where we are.

We clearly, in the B.C. education plan, worked with the system, worked with the partners to de- fi ne the goals of the future of education. We developed a framework for curriculum revision. We worked with the BCTF , with teachers throughout the province. We worked with the independent school system as we did that, with post-secondary institutions. We are doing exactly the same thing. And this legislation is creating a framework which will be populated by the professionals working with the team and the ministry to develop professional development that will be consistent throughout the province.

I can say this: the curriculum revisions we have are as good as they are because of the consultation that the ministry did with the profession. We will do exactly the same thing with professional development, so in the end the best interests of the students and the best supports for teachers can be provided. R. Fleming: Th e confusion that the minister attributes to me is broadly shared out there in the rest of British Columbia. I mean, I have a letter here from the Fort Nelson school district, and I’ d like to read it to the min- ister.

It’s is about Bill 11: “To begin with, we are dismayed at the disrespect you and your government have displayed towards trustees in the province, despite repeated public statements and the signing of a memo- randum of understanding in December 2014 committing to col- laboration and a genuine model of co-governance. We continue to see a succession of signifi cant decisions on policy, budget and legislative initiatives which give no evidence of such an approach. ” [1425] Th at’s what the question is from all of the educational partners. Right now we’re discussing a

section that chan- ges the professional development of teachers. Again, no consultation was done. Th e minister insists here again today: “Don ’ t worry . Th ere’ll be extensive consultation aft er this bill becomes law. ” I want to ask him again: what does extensive consul- tation mean? Surely, if he can have a timeline around curriculum change, a timeline around a fi scal year for a budget, a timeline around any initiative he wishes to cite in the ministry around this — even shared services themselves…. We’ll get to that later. Th ere was a Deloitte report that had a calendar.

Give the teaching profession some indication. Right now he’s retracting something that’s on the pub- lic record which committed to up to two years. Give them

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, May 12, 2015 8363 some indication that they will be engaged and be able to decide and shape what professional development looks like in the future. Th ey’ve had no opportunity to com- ment on the transfer of powers over to the ministry from the current situation in the school system. Give them at least some indication as to how long their input will be gathered to make any changes that come in regulation. Hon. P . Fassbender: Well, I’ve responded, and I’ve re- sponded again. I’m not going to repeat myself. R. Fleming: Th e minister hasn’t responded.

He hasn’t answered the basic question. We’re asking for an approxi- mate timeline. It’s in the public realm that he’s committed to up to two years. He’s now disputing that here. Th at’s interesting. He didn’t write a correction to the editor of the Vancouver Sun when he was quoted in that publication. He hasn’t corrected any of the other media sources that have attrib- uted to him that timeline. Let’s ask him here on the rec- ord, in Hansard, what the timeline looks like. Surely, there is one. Th e minister doesn’t want to leave the public with the impression that he’s fl ying blind here, does he?

Th ere must be a plan behind all these signifi - cant changes that are being made. Aft er all, the globe is changing so fast that these changes have to be made now. Th ere must be a timeline to manage the incredible speed of change that is happening in the world that must be re- sponded to by Bill 11. Give people some kind of indication. Th ere’s already an expectation out there of up to two years. Th e minister has got to land on something that’s approximate between zero days and two years’ time. I’ d ask him to do so this aft ernoon at this point in debate. Hon. P .

Fassbender: Well, I’ve answered it the same way each time. It will take as long as we work with the partners and we determine we have the appropriate re- sults — period, full stop. R. Fleming: Th is is interesting. Previously he said he had no time to consult — probably no desire to consult, I think, is fair — any of the education partners in the school system, whether it’s teachers or whether it’s school districts, about the sum total of changes that are in Bill 11.

Th e world was moving too fast. “We had to act legis- latively immediately. ” Didn’t have time to talk to anyone that actually, on a daily basis, will have to live with this legislation. Now we’re hearing that there’s no timeline whatsoever. “We’ll consult as long as it takes. ” We go from the furious pace to the completely undecipherable fog of what comes aft er, in terms of consultation. Not good enough.

So I would ask the minister one more time to give people in the public education system, anyone who has to deal with professional development as it relates to their lives — whether they’re parents, teachers, administrators, principals —— an indication of how long the consulta- tion will take before there are changes in regulation. Th e Chair: While the member may not like the an- swer to the question, I believe the minister has already answered. I’ll ask him to move on, please. Hon. P . Fassbender: I’ve answered it. I’m not going to repeat myself. It’s very clear.

We are going to start the consultation process, which has already been going on for quite a period of time, in the development of the cur- riculum. Th ere are many things that are in that that have been identifi ed. I can tell the member opposite that we will work with the system to make sure that we make the right decisions at the right time, and that will become ob- vious as we move forward. [1430] A. Dix: A couple of questions with respect to

section 1. As the minister will know,

section 1 amends

section 5(2)(

a) of the Independent School Act and addresses two sets of issues the minister emphasized in speaking to this section. Both words begin with the letter “c. ” One is con- sistency, which the minister has used ten times. I guess that’s something that he’s consistent about. He consistent- ly uses the word “consistency. ” Th e second is consultation.

Th e minister has suggested that even though he had no time to consult on the legislation with either public school teachers or anyone else in the public school sys- tem or the independent school system prior to bringing in the legislation, what he is committed to is a process of consultation with respect to the substance of this sec- tion and these issues of consistency and curriculum in the future. I wanted to ask him with respect to that, and I wanted to say just a couple of things by way of background. First, some specifi c questions both with respect to consistency and with respect to consultation.

Th e minister will know, because it’s been widely reported in the public media, that there was an issue with respect to St. Michaels University School and with respect in particular to complaints by students about a set of teachers in the athletics program. Th at’s been the subject of a story on W5. It’s been the subject of other stories in the media. Th ere was a process before the teacher regulation branch — kind of an incon- sistent process, in that it took a very long time. Th ere was a massive delay.

I think even the commissioner described that delay as a “cancer of justice. ” In that case, the com- missioner, I think rightfully, acknowledges that when you have a case where there are complaints of that nature, waiting, with everyone still in the school, for a couple of years is not the appropriate course. Th ere’s no occasion here to debate the substance of that case, but some issues, broader issues from the sys- tem and for this section, come out of that. Th e fi rst is this.

British Columbia Debates8364 Tuesday, May 12, 2015 It appears to me in reading successive annual reports of the commission of the TRB that there is a two-tier sys- tem, of sorts, with respect to private and public school systems, in the nature of discipline in the school system and in protecting students. I’ll tell the minister what I mean specifi cally, because I think he’ll be interested in it. In the 2013 school year, for example, there were 141 complaints referred to the TRB by school boards, but only 14 by independent school authorities.

However, in terms of complaints to the TRB by the public, there were 55 in the public schools and 28 in the independent school sphere. In other words, when the schools are left out of the equation, there is a way higher proportion of com- plaints about independent schools in this year, as there has been over the past three years. So when it was up to parents, there was way more concern about that system than another. Now, those statistics may even out over time. We don’t know, and we’ll see.

But what’s interesting is that in public schools there were 2.8 complaints referred for action for every one made by the public. In independent schools it’s the reverse: two complaints put forward by the parents or the public compared to one put forward by the schools. The duty of those schools to report is the same. I think the minister would acknowledge that. Th at’s con- sistency. But the role of the public school principals and boards seems to be diff erent in the way that they deal with those complaints — very signifi cantly diff erent as you look across the three years.

Th ese are the three years with this system, this model that we have. Th e result has been way more discipline for public school teachers but also, presumably, way more action on the part of public school agencies in defence and in protection of individ- ual students. I guess I wanted to ask the minister: is this not a two- tier system? Doesn’t the substance of it speak to a two- tier system? Both systems are funded by the ministry. Both systems are legally bound by the rules under the School Act and the Independent School Act.

But on the independent school side it’s apparent that the authorities are operating under a diff erent standard, or they appear to be. Is this of concern to the minister, and will this be a subject of the consultation to which he referred? [1435] Hon. P . Fassbender: Well, I was going to ask for a point of order through that speech because I don’t think it has anything to do with professional development. I’m not prepared to get into a discussion while we’re in

section 1 about what the member was asking about. If he wants to ask that question in question period, I’ d be happy to answer. A. Dix: Th e question was very straightforward — and the minister can answer no to it if he wants — whether the issues that I have raised, and I’ll be raising some more, will be the subject of consultation and action by the min- ister. In light of his concern and his emphasis on con- sistency, I was hoping that he would answer that question, but apparently he doesn’t want to, so I’ll ask him another.

Does he think that those sets of issues are issues that are appropriate for the consultation he’s talking about, which is to engage with teachers both in the independ- ent and the public school system about those very issues? Th ese are fundamental, and I can’t imagine issues that are more fundamental to the system. I wanted to ask the minister if he thinks that such issues should be raised in a consultation, either in the consultation he envisions or other consultation. Hon. P .

Fassbender: What we do know, as part of professional development, is conduct in classrooms and management of classrooms and all of those issues are def- initely going to be part of our ongoing discussions with the independent and the public system. We absolutely believe, without question, that every student should be treated the same way and that learn- ing outcomes, whether it be in the independent system or the public system, are consistent. A. Dix: I think we’re making progress. Th e ruling in this case made a distinction between teacher conduct in the classroom and on the sports fi eld.

I think this is relevant, both to curriculum and to the ap- proach of both teachers and other authorities in educa- tion to those issues. It made a distinction. It suggested, I think, that the na- ture of competitive sports was a justifi cation for conduct that wouldn’t be acceptable in a math class, basically. Y ou see this, by the way, in other rulings by the TRB. I guess I’m asking about those issues because I think the minister has spoken to those issues, the ministry has spoken to those issues, and the TRB has spoken to those issues.

Th ey do relate to curriculum and approaches to education, both in sports, because I think we’ve always taken the view that the sports fi eld is an extension of the classroom…. If we don’t take that view, we ought to take that view, and I’m sure the minister would agree with that. Does he think, given concerns about those issues that are taking place not just in our school system but else- where in North America, that that would be an appropri- ate subject for the consultation he referred to in response to questions about

section 1? Hon. P . Fassbender: Th e answer is yes. R. Fleming: I just wanted to ask the minister some questions about professional development as it current- ly stands in the independent school sector. If he could tell me what the activities currently look like in terms of designated in-service school professional development. I’m just trying to understand the distinction between

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, May 12, 2015 8365 public and private. He’s trying to talk about how there will be consistency across the school sector, both private and public, but my understanding is there are quite sig- nifi cant variations now about the delivery of professional development. I’m wondering if that’s likely to change, to be standard- ized — whether, in eff ect, the private school system will become more like the public school system, in terms of the delivery of professional development, or whether it’s the other way around. [1440] Hon. P .

Fassbender: Again, let me repeat a couple of things that I think are very important. We have curriculum and learning outcomes, which we’ve been doing a lot of work on with the profession, both the independent and the public system. We want to ensure that there is consistency in terms of the defi n- ition of those learning outcomes. We’re doing the same on graduation programs and those kinds of things. We’re looking to ensure that the outcomes and the opportunities for every student are the same across the province.

Th ere are issues of codes of conduct and prac- tices that we want to see consistency in across the system, independent and public. What there is also is the fl exibility for independent schools or public schools, depending on their cultural environment, their geographic issues, the issues in those communities — in the rural communities as compared with urban communities. We are not mandating that everything be done exactly the same, because that is not realistic, nor is it appropriate. We are building in….

Part of the process moving for- ward with this framework is to defi ne those things that should be consistent across the province and those things where independent fl exibility for schools, whether they be in the public system or the independent system, are built into it. Again, that is going to be part of the process in our consultations moving forward. R. Fleming: With indulgence, I will try not to get into another

section of the bill here. But the amendment here to the Independent School Act basically excludes continu- ing education activities from the teaching committees that are in the independent school sector. Th at will be changed. So basically, where they’re allowed to deal with issues of licensing and certifi cate maintenance for the teacher…. Th at will remain, except for continuing education ac- tivities, which are basically professional development.

Th ey will no longer be allowed to discuss or have au- thority over the participation or presentation of train- ing, educational programs, courses or seminars — I’m going by the new defi nition that’s added into this legisla- tion — providing mentoring or participating in a similar learning activity that is relevant to the training or quali- fi cations of certifi cate holders. I just want to make sure that I’m correct, aft er some debate here, that this is the crux of the change.

Th ere is now an exclusion of a whole host of activities that are called continuing education activities — that is profes- sional development, in the common vernacular — that will no longer be permitted to be overseen by these com- mittees in the Independent School Act. Is that correct? Is that the sum total of the changes here? Th ey really will not have any ability…. In fact, they will be precluded, ex- cluded from having any participation in any determina- tion of that broad area of what is commonly known as professional development. [1445] Hon. P .

Fassbender: What is very clear: the change removes the authority of the committee to set those standards, but the committee will, as will the rest of the profession in both the public and the independent sys- tem, be able to provide input as we move forward in de- veloping the regulations. R. Fleming: I’m just trying to understand if there’s any relation between these legislative changes and the budget that’s also before the House. We saw an enrolment in- crease in independent schools this year of 6 percent, but inexplicably, we saw a 10 percent budget lift for the in- dependent school sector.

I’m wondering if the discrepancy between enrolment and the per-pupil funding FTE formula for the diff erent categories of independent schools and the overall budget increase for the entire sector could be explained by some kind of fund here for the professional development of pri- vate school teachers? Hon. P . Fassbender: Th e answer to that is no. R. Fleming: Could the minister give an indication, then — if there’s nothing there for the professional de- velopment of teachers in the private schools — of what the discrepancy is all about? Hon. P . Fassbender: Well, I think it’s a little off this section.

But the bottom line is that the formula hasn’t changed in 25 years. Th e increase in funding to the in- dependent school system is as a result of the increased enrolment, based on that same formula, and there is no other criteria that’s been involved. R. Fleming: Well, it’s not quite true because the for- mula has been amended about four times in the last few years by this government, around distributed learning and in a number of other areas. It’s causing an increase in funding for that sector.

It’s signifi cantly diff erent in public schools, where funding is only increasing by 1.8 percent in this current budget year —10 percent in the private schools, 1.8 percent in the public schools.

British Columbia Debates8366 Tuesday, May 12, 2015 I wanted to ask the minister, though, about a situation where…. I know he said that his legislation is responding to a fast-changing, fast-moving world. Th ere have been some concerns about privately delivered distance learning courses by private entities. I’ve got a list of some of these schools. I don’t know if they’re amongst my papers here. Th ere have been some media reports about grade in- fl ation, essentially. Th ere are concerns about unsuper- vised exams.

I’m just wondering whether the authority to look at what kind of teaching professional standards may have been violated…. Whether these amendments will touch upon the ability to deal with concerns around those practices that have come to light. Th e Chair: If the member could illustrate the relevance to

section 1 to the Chair, that would be of assistance. R. Fleming: Y eah. Th e relevance is that the govern- ance of teaching certifi cates will be changed — the pro- fessional development of teachers, amongst other things. While this is, I appreciate, not the disciplinary committee for any violations, it would presumably change a commit- tee that talks about activities within the private school teaching profession. One of the emerging issues that has come to light is that there have been some inappropriate practices around distance learning courses delivered by private entities. I’m wondering whether anything in this

section of the act would remove from the purview of this committee the ability to discuss issues around this. [1450] Hon. P . Fassbender: Th e answer is no.

Section 1 approved. On

section 2. R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister to explain the meanings of the deletions, to give the rationale for why, from the lexicon of public education, we are going to see the rollback of the great revolution of 2003, when the school system was going to be dramatically changed, where we were heading towards a charter school future of parent-owned and -operated public schools, apparently, or something like that. I’ve been reading some confus- ing speeches, from decades gone by, of the Education Minister at the time, who’s now the Premier. I couldn’t help but notice that many of the deletions in this

section of Bill 11 are really an admission of failure by the government. Th at all these bold, new, largely con- ceptual elements of what was required in the public edu- cation system — achievement contracts that were to be done districtwide annually, district literacy plans, school planning councils that were to exist side by side with par- ent advisory committees…. All of these things, which were part of a bold new era of innovation in public education — accompanied by unconstitutional stripping of negotiated contracts and all the turmoil that followed, I might add….

Th e content that the government was trying to insert upon that time seems to be drift ing away. It seems to be being stripped out here in Bill 11, to be removed. I’m just wondering if the minister can describe why the achievement contracts are being abandoned, why district literacy plans will no longer be required. Th ose defi nitions are being removed from the act — and school planning councils. I’m just trying to understand why the ministry has had a sudden change of direction, when what was heralded not too many years ago is now, ap- parently, being rolled back. Hon. P .

Fassbender: I’ve said it a couple of times, but I’ll repeat it again. Th is legislation is all about moving forward. We’re a long way today from where we were many years ago. What we are doing is we’re recognizing that we need the fl exibility. We need to be able to adapt to an education system that is in transition and that will continue to be, and we want to give that fl exibility. Th at’s what the legislation is all about. [1455] R.

Fleming: I just wanted to ask the minister to de- scribe what, if anything, the school districts and the pub- lic, who were reported to about achievement contracts, might be losing by their deletion in this

section of the bill. Hon. P . Fassbender: Th e question gives me the op- portunity to clearly outline for the member opposite that we have been working very closely with the BCSTA, the BCSSA, the BCCASE, FNESC, the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association, the BCTF , BCASBO, Student Voice and the Ministry of Education. All of these parties have been involved with us in talk- ing about an accountability framework that has the fol- lowing principles.

I’ d like to read these in the record, that they (1) be grounded in the belief that together all edu- cational partners are responsible for student success; (2) create a system-wide focus on student learning and suc- cess, helping to ensure that each student in B.C. achieves his or her full potential; (3) be meaningful, impactful, fl exible, realistic and sustainable; (4) address the diff er- ences in performance among particular groups of stu- dents — most notably, aboriginal students and children in care and students with special needs; (5) be strengths-, support-, evidence- and results-based; (6) refl ect a sys- tem-wide commitment to continuous improvement and lifelong learning; and fi nally, continue to build public confi dence in the B.C. education system.

Th at is at the heart of this. I know that in discussions with the ministry team, there is not one school district that has said: “We want to keep the same reporting pro-

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, May 12, 2015 8367 cesses that we’ve had for years. ” We want to change them so that they are more meaningful, more realistic and meet the student outcomes that we’re trying to achieve. R. Fleming: I am just going back to the debate around the introduction of school planning councils and the views of the then Minister of Education who chided those who were scrutinizing debate at that stage about what purpose the school planning councils would have and whether they would be workable. She said: “I understand why the opposition wants to oppose this.

I under- stand that they will desperately try and concoct any excuse to try and oppose it. Th e fact remains that the accountability contracts will provide far more information and far more useful information. Th ey will be required, and they will be monitored. Th e data will be made public, and parents, most of all, will be included. ” I just want to get a sense from the minister, before we ditch the now Premier’s bold experiment, as to what hap- pened.

Th ere was an incredible amount of hype, trumpet playing, that accompanied the introduction of both the achievement contracts and school planning councils as being remarkable innovations in public education. [1500] For them to be just jettisoned in this bill I think re- quires some more understanding. So I would ask the minister, then: what has happened with achievement contracts? What’s the experience here? He didn’t mention any consultation with the B.C. parent advisory councils in the list that he just read out, I would note. But the BCCPAC were big fans of the school planning councils.

Th ey were willing to support that initiative at the time, and it would seem that they haven’t been sig- nifi cantly consulted because I don’t have their views as to their removal at this time. I’ll ask the minister to just characterize the experience over the last ten years. What kind of compliance was there with achievement contracts at the district level? What was the penetration of the school planning coun- cils? Did it become embedded in the typical school cul- ture in British Columbia, or was it an experiment that failed badly?

I think we have to know that before we continue debate on a bill that would remove these enti- ties going forward. Hon. P . Fassbender: Th e reality is that parents have been engaged and need to continue to be engaged. BCCPAC has been part of developing the new framework and have been consulted. Mr. Puddifoot has actually come out publicly and said that he supports the change, because we’re at a place, moving forward, where they want to see more realistic, fl exible frameworks that allow us to deliver on student outcomes. So they are totally supportive of this and have been engaged in the process throughout. R.

Fleming: I want to just describe the consultation, as I understand it, with BCCPAC, because I was up in Nanaimo when BCCPAC had its fi rst engagement oppor- tunity around the potential changes to the accountability framework. By the way, at no time during that consulta- tion was it mentioned that there would be, potentially, legislative changes coming forward. Th ere were three questions that were put up on a slide in the front of the room. I participated at a round table with one of the groups of parents. Was it a well-attended event? Th ere were probably 50 or 60 people there.

Given that there are 550,000 kids in school and however many hundreds of thousands of parents in British Columbia, you could call that a broad consultation if you wish. I’m sure the minister will. I wouldn’t. Th ere were eight round tables of participants, and there was a slide put up. We had a consultation exercise. Th ree questions. Th e fi rst question was: “In terms of education, what is most important to you?” Interesting question. Quite general, I think you would agree, Mr. Chair. Th e second question was: “We” — being the ministry — “want each student in B.C. to be successful.

What does success mean to you?” Again, a fairly general question. I think you’ d agree, Mr. Chair — not really making parents that happen to be in the room understand that they’re in some kind of legislative consultation for changes, I don’t think. I don’t think the fi rst two questions give any clues to that.

Th en the fi nal and third question was: “Based on your answers” — to the above — “what would you like to see, and not see, in our improved K-to-12 accountabil- ity framework?” Th at was the sum total of the consulta- tions as far as I can tell, and the only offi cial one that the BCCPAC has been able to have its delegates participate in. The answers were quite interesting, because they weren’t really about achievement contracts and school planning councils. Th ey were about very specifi c con- cerns within public education, within their lives as par- ents.

Th ere was tremendous concern around individual edu- cation plans and whether those were being developed in a timely fashion for students. Th ere was tremendous concern about scarce resources for special needs learn- ers — the absence of speech pathologists, in particular. Th ere was concern around where IEPs or unfulfi lled IEP requests get recorded. Is there data on the backlog of special needs education assessments? And if so, how do we hold the ministry accountable to that?

Th ose are the kinds of things that parents were asking about. [1505] Th ey were defi nitely interested in accountability — ac- countability of the ministry to live up to the loft y goals that are outlined in the education plan, which, on the ground in the school system in British Columbia in real communities, look quite substantively diff erent than the prose of the education plan. Consultation? Kind of a broad, far-ranging discussion. No indication that it was related to legislative changes

British Columbia Debates8368 Tuesday, May 12, 2015 that were in the minister’s mind. And I’m trying to under- stand now how, with such a limited consultation, it has become instructive to roll back all of the reforms around the golden, new era of school planning councils and par- ent empowerment that the then Minister of Education, now Premier of the province, envisioned. It seems to me that if the minister is going to explain the rationale for why these are being struck from the School Act through Bill 11, he should give an indication of what data was derived over the last several years of experience.

How was it used? Was it incomplete? Which districts participated and which didn’t? Th ose are the kinds of details that I’m looking for that weren’t shared with parents at the consultation that was done that I think need to be aired in the process of look- ing at legislative changes here today. Hon. P . Fassbender: Th ere have been extensive discus- sions with all of the organizations I mentioned, including BCCPAC. All of them, including BCCPAC were part of the co-creation of the guidelines that are presently there. Th ey have been given those in draft form. Th en they were modifi ed, based on feedback.

It was up to each of those organizations to go out to their membership, provide the feedback. But to suggest one meeting was all there was is not correct. Th ere have been extensive discussions, and they continue and will continue as we move forward under this new framework. [1510] R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister, just so we can get an indication of what he’s now proposing to get rid of, what the achievement contract requirement was of districts and how it was tracked by the ministry — when that will be suspended, presuming this bill comes into force. Maybe I’ll just begin there. Hon. P .

Fassbender: I’m sure the member is aware that the achievement contracts and the reports were required to be submitted by districts by July 15. With the passage of this new legislation, that requirement will be removed. R. Fleming: I wonder how many years that…. I’m try- ing to remember. I think it maybe fi rst came into eff ect in ’04. I’m just wondering if there’s a decade — or is it nine, ten, 11 years? — of achievement contracts that were sub- mitted annually by July 15. Th e question is: what is the ministry going to do with the data that was provided in those contracts? Hon. P .

Fassbender: Th e reality is the reports were valuable in helping us to frame where we are today. What we are doing and what is more important are the stu- dent outcomes that we’re working on together. Th e rea- son we’re changing it is the desire on everyone’s part to now, as we develop new curriculum and the new educa- tion plan, move forward in a way where we have a ro- bust opportunity to focus on student outcomes, and that is the goal. R. Fleming: I’m just reading through the

section that’s going to be eliminated around achievement contracts. I just want to ask the minister about what will replace it, in essence, to inform the ministry of how well schools in diff erent regions are performing. Th ere was a requirement for the achievement contract to report on standards for student performance; plans for improving student achievement in the school district; lit- eracy; early learning programs; and, in

section (

e) of this achievement contract, “any other matter ordered by the minister. ” I don’t know what may have accumulated under that subsection over the years, but undoubtedly, there may have been other matters ordered by the minister. I’m trying to understand the standards for student per- formance. If the achievement contract is no longer be- ing required by districts to report out on that, to make it available — that it had to be on line, I think, was an- other requirement — for parents to be able to view, what will essentially replace it?

Y ou had real data here, and I’m wondering what comes thereaft er. [1515] Hon. P . Fassbender: What will be in place is that every district will be developing single multi-year district plans that will replace the district achievement contracts and the district literacy plans. It’ll include specifi c sections related to improving student outcomes for aboriginal learners and children in care, as I mentioned before. Each school will develop a school plan that will be in consulta- tion with local partners, including parents through their PACs.

It will be consistent with the practices in the local district, and the school planning council structures may be used for that purpose. Each school will determine how they do that. Th at will no longer be maintained by the ministry. I think the key is that all the plans must be relevant, understandable and accessible to the local community and use meaningful evidence to increase the understand- ing of student success, to inform the actions moving for- ward and to ensure that there is a culture of continuous improvement in each district and each school. R.

Fleming: I’m just trying to understand the ap- parent dissatisfaction with the achievement contracts. Obviously, they weren’t working. Perhaps they were re- quired too frequently. Th e minister has said they’ve gone to a multi-year format from an annual format. Really, I would like to be able to have more information about how the achievement contract requirement, as it was made under the School Act, was followed by the school districts — the partners in submitting these contracts to the ministry.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, May 12, 2015 8369 What was the compliance rate, in a typical year, of the 60 districts, both submitting the achievement contracts and submitting the achievement contracts on time, by July 15, as was required? [R. Chouhan in the chair.] Hon. P . Fassbender: Th e member, I’m sure, is aware it was a statutory requirement, and we had compliance. R. Fleming: Sorry. I didn’t hear the minister’s answer. Did you say that you had 100 percent compliance every year, for every year that the statute was in eff ect? Hon. P . Fassbender: Y es. R.

Fleming: I’m wondering if the minister can tell me a little bit more about school planning councils. Th is was something where there was a lot of skepticism upon their introduction but a lot of insistence that this was going to deliver something very, very diff erent in schools. Th is was going to be an empowering mechanism for parents and for those that are part of a school community. We have approximately 1,600 schools today. Th at’s down a couple of hundred, of course.

I’m just wonder- ing, for as long as the requirement existed to have school planning councils, what the approximate participation rate was out of, say, 1,600 schools — if you want to use a large, rounded number. What at any given time typical- ly…? How many of those schools actually had a planning council that was functional, in place and met regularly? [1520] Hon. P . Fassbender: While they were a statutory re- quirement, we don’t have the data of how many actually were in place and functioned. But again, the achievement contracts were a requirement. We received compliance on the submission of those.

Y ou have to presume that the districts and the schools had the input through their planning councils in order to present those. R. Fleming: Let me just try and understand this, though, because the

section that’s going to be struck, the law as it exists today, clearly says: “ A board must estab- lish a school planning council for each school, except a Provincial resource program, in its school district. ” It would seem to me that if the ministry wasn’t keep- ing data on something that was a statutory requirement, that’s a problem in and of itself. But you would think that the government would want to know.

Surely there must be some fi gures about how many school planning councils existed in — maybe I’ll just pick a year — 2008 or 2009 or 2010, where the ministry is able to evaluate whether these changes to create a new structure were having any impact or any takeup on the ground. Hon. P . Fassbender: Again, for the member, I’m going to clarify this. School planning councils were put into the legislation to provide input to the local districts, to the local schools. We did not require reporting on how many times they met and how oft en they functioned. Th at was not something we required.

We expected them to work with the planning councils as they developed their plans moving forward. R. Fleming: Th e minister has said that for the chan- ges in this

section of Bill 11, there was consultation done with all of the major stakeholders. I’m just wondering, given that it was a requirement that the principal of the school had to be a standing member of the school plan- ning councils: what did, for example, the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association say in terms of how school planning councils were working out in B.C. ’s edu- cation system? Hon. P .

Fassbender: What is clear is that the princi- pals and the vice-principals, in their engagement in de- veloping the new framework, are fully supportive of the shift to the new framework because they believe that that will provide a clear focus in the schools, in the districts and in the province on learning outcomes. [1525] R. Fleming: I have no doubt that the principals and the vice-principals told the minister and the ministry to dump this requirement because it wasn’t working in schools. But I want to go back to the achievement con- tracts that were required by the districts.

Th ere were a lot of performance indicators, if you want to call them that, that were required by districts. Th e idea from the government at the time was that this was going to open up a new era of accountability, that parents in a district would be able to read about the performance and bring pressure on the district to create a culture of con- tinuous improvement, I think, to paraphrase the minister. I’m just wondering how it all worked. How many types of information were required under a typical achieve- ment contract? All of that.

Th ere was a body of, I think — I just can’t remember when it came into eff ect — data that is at least a decade long, and I’m wondering if the minister can describe what kinds of things were required in those contracts. Who is aggregating all of that activity for the years in which the ministry collected it? How will it be used in the future? Or whether it will be disposed of? Hon. P . Fassbender: Th e data was collected. It is stored by the ministry. We know that various researchers from time to time have come to take a look at some of that data. We will continue to maintain that.

More importantly, the reason that we’re moving forward is, again, focusing on learner outcomes in the future and having a more fl exible and robust system. Th at is what we’re focused on.

British Columbia Debates8370 Tuesday, May 12, 2015 With that, Mr. Chair, I would ask that we take a 15-minute recess, if that is appropriate. The Chair: The committee will be recessed for 15 minutes. Th e committee recessed from 3:28 p.m.to 3:44 p.m. [R. Chouhan in the chair.] R. Fleming: I just want to get back to the idea about the specifi cs of the achievement contract, some of the things that were contained in there and what will come aft er. We discussed the school planning councils a little bit.

We may come back to that. [1545] Th e achievement contracts around the standards for student performance — there was a great deal of interest in that when it was introduced by the government. Th ere was a lot of fanfare and promise. Part of it was an assur- ance that parents, no matter where they lived in British Columbia, would be able to get the same kind of baseline comparisons between districts around British Columbia, that it was going to lift up the standards of each district and improve student achievement in those districts that were not doing as well as others. Th at was the promise.

I want to sort of get the minister’s opinion here of what is going to replace the legislative requirement for an achievement contract. Th is requirement will be dropped. By July 15 this year there will be no further achievement contracts submitted to this government. What comes aft er that? What kind of performance standard regime or performance measurements are going to be available for parents in my school district, district 61, or for any other parent in a given district around B.C.? Hon. P . Fassbender: I already answered the question in terms of the plans that are going to be developed.

I’m not going to repeat that. What is important in all of this — what’s going to be replaced has been agreed to by all of the stakeholders — is meaningful and eff ective com- munication of evidence. Th at will be based on student outcomes. Th e districts will identify and use multiple dif- ferent forms of evidence, that they and their education partners know are meaningful and relevant, in their plan- ning, communication and improvement eff orts. R. Fleming: A multitude of meaningful and effect- ive outcomes. I’m just wondering if we can get a little bit more specifi c about that.

One would have thought that the achievement contracts covered what you might character- ize as meaningful and eff ective outcomes around student performance. I’m trying to understand the diff erence and whether we’re losing something here in the legislation. I’m sure the minister can understand the need for dili- gence on a

section like this. When achievement contracts are no longer going to be required, there needs to be an assurance that something improved is going to replace it. Again, a request for some details about what these outcomes might look like. If they’re going on an exercise to create something new, why didn’t they consider re- forming the achievement contracts that already exist, as opposed to eliminating them? Hon. P . Fassbender: I’ve said it already.

In consulta- tion with all the stakeholders, some of the keys were to have the fl exibility to be able to adapt those, based on agreed-to learning outcomes, based on the new curricu- lum. Each of the districts, in terms of their annual plans, will be reporting out to their stakeholders and will be reporting on how they’re doing on student achievement. On an annual basis, they will be updating those, based on what has transpired in the year before. R.

Fleming: I’m just wondering if the 2015-16 school year will essentially be a skip year, if there’s going to be something developed that will replace the achievement contract era that we are now leaving behind, and whether there will be consultation done in time to create a set of indicators and meaningful and eff ective outcome meas- urements, as the minister has described them, for the coming school year. Hon. P . Fassbender: Th ere is discussion right now, and there has been, with the stakeholders.

We are planning to have guidelines out by the end of June that will be distrib- uted to all of the districts and to the schools and that will be communicated to their various stakeholders in their communities. We’re not skipping anything. We’re actually moving ahead in a very meaningful way. [1550] R.

Fleming: I’m just wondering if the minister can de- scribe what happens aft er the guidelines are distributed to school districts — how long they will have to reply to them and whether there is going to be in regulation or on a voluntary basis some kind of requirement that there be a new reporting regime, whatever it is going to be called. I don’t know if there’s a working title on the set of guide- lines that’s being developed — just some indication that a collection of statistics, a set of measurable classroom and school objectives in a district are going to be captured.

Of course, you can’t begin to measure the data if you have already begun. Y ou could risk losing the ability to gather eff ective data once a new cohort of students has been admitted this year. I’m wondering what the timeline might be for the minister’s replacement of the achieve- ment contract. Hon. P . Fassbender: Th e guidelines will be out by the end of June, as I mentioned. Th ere will be a ministerial order that will then follow that, roughly at the same time.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, May 12, 2015 8371 Th en we’re expecting that further into the 2015-16 school year, there will be a reporting out. Th ose details are be- ing worked out with our education partners as we speak. R. Fleming: I’m just trying to get a sense of the big pic- ture that is being receded all at once here. We had school planning councils, achievement contracts. We’re getting to superintendents of achievement, as well, in this section.

Th is was sort of the infrastructure of trying to create a new accountability system in B.C. education, and here it is, wholesale, being put on the chopping block, no longer a statutory requirement. It came in with a tremendous amount of fanfare, as I mentioned, by the government, and now it’s being dismantled. I’m just wondering. Th ere has to be a reason why the government is doing such a dramatic climb-down. Th is was the favourite of the government around ’02, ’03, and now it’s being shunted out. I’m wondering why.

Th ere must have been an evaluation that suggested that none of these ideas, combined or in part, were working very well. Or was there some kind of record of greater accountability introduced into the education system? If that is the case, why would the minister get rid of it now? I’m just trying to understand. Th ere might be something behind the amendments that are contained here in the legislation that the public may not understand too well. [1555] Hon. P . Fassbender: I know the member opposite is well aware of what a great system we have currently and how well we perform on the world scale.

We have done some amazing things over the years. What we also rec- ognize is that moving forward…. Again, the consulta- tion with all of the partners that have been involved in this new framework has said that we now need to look to the future. W e need to have the fl exibility and have meaningful output and input in order to be sure that we meet the needs of every single learner in our education system. Th ere are classic examples where, today, what we have available through technology, through distributed learn- ing, through other mechanisms….

We need to be more fl exible than we have, perhaps, in the past, but the bot- tom line here is this is all about the future. R. Fleming: Let me just go back to the past for a second. When this was being introduced, around the achieve- ment contracts, here’s what the Minister of Education had to say. She was basically explaining why the minister was going to a mandatory, standardized process around achievement contracts for each district. “The legislation requires every district to sign one, and the purpose of that is to require districts to publicly set goals for improvement.

I think it’s probably fair to say that some districts haven’t consistently set goals for improvement, and many that have haven’t been public about those goals.

I think everyone’s interest is served when we set goals for improvement as government at any level, and then we make those goals public so that we can be held accountable for whether or not we’ve met them. “Th at’s a fundamental way of approaching management of any large enterprise, whether that’s a public enterprise or a private enterprise…. ” Th e opposition critic at the time asked the minister: “why legislate it?” I suppose here we are, more than ten years later, and my question is, really, why take it out of legislation if the government was so adamant that it was correct to have a common set of reportables for every district and to make it mandatory?

We’re now moving to a system that appears to be voluntary and appears to not be standardized at all. Again, I would ask the minister whether he fi nds it odd that on the one hand, he’s taking over control of pro- fessional development — the minister and the ministry will take control over that — in the interest of standard- ization across districts, but on the issue of accountabil- ity, he’s reducing the standardization of what were called achievement contracts or the set of reporting require- ments of districts. Th ere just seems to be quite a dichotomy here.

I’m wondering why that glaring inconsistency — because we’ve heard the word consistency used all aft ernoon — is so apparent here in this

section of the bill. [1600] Hon. P . Fassbender: I will repeat myself again, and I’ll try and do it in a way that the member opposite can understand. Th e consultation with all the stakeholder groups has come to the place where they say we want consistency and goals that are focused on learner outcomes.

We also want the fl exibility, because of the diversity of this prov- ince, the diversity of cultures in various communities, to have the ability within the districts, and within schools even, to be able to meet those goals and outcomes — which will be agreed to, and they are required under the legislation — and to do it in a way that recognizes some of the diff erences. Th ose are not incompatible. Th ey are not in any way, shape or form inconsistent with our goals for ensur- ing that student outcomes are at the heart of everything we’re doing. R. Fleming: Just following up on the minister’s answer there, then.

Would he describe the current achievement contracts as being too infl exible and too unable to meas- ure the diff erences between the regions of our province and, therefore, the priorities or the challenges that each district is grappling with? Is that the problem, that we had a cookie-cutter approach that never worked, that the ministry was told would never work, and that’s why it’s being done away with? I’m just trying to get a straightforward answer as to why something that was once a shining jewel in the gov- ernment’s legislative agenda around public education is

British Columbia Debates8372 Tuesday, May 12, 2015 being discarded in this bill. I think I’ve got an acknow- ledgment from him, in a roundabout way, that it simply didn’t work. It didn’t account for the diff erences that we have in the school districts around British Columbia. Maybe if he could round out that answer a little bit and provide some more details. Hon. P . Fassbender: I think what is really clear is we have great outcomes in this province.

That’s because of the commitment of this government, of teachers throughout the province over the history of education in British Columbia, to achieve and be recognized as the third-best jurisdiction in the world. Th at’s based on learning outcomes. I’m sure that the member opposite likes to drive his car looking out the rearview mirror. We like to look out of the front and move us forward to a new paradigm in education, because we’ve seen the world is changing. Y et we are one of the best performing districts because of the good work that’s been done up to now. R.

Fleming: I’ d like the ask the minister just about the

section that removes the references to the defi nition of “district literacy plan. ” Th is was a requirement of each school district to look at that and to submit a plan on improving outcomes, measurements of literacy. I think it was inclusive of not only current students but gradu- ated adults as well. What’s going to replace the literacy plan? Is there now an overarching provincial plan that will incorporate what formerly were district-based literacy plans?

Again, just trying to understand — to those who may read the bill and erroneously think that the govern- ment that once had a goal to make B.C. the most literate jurisdiction in North America is now completely aban- doning that by reducing requirements to have district literacy plans. [1605] Hon. P . Fassbender: Literacy is absolutely at the foun- dation of our education plan. When we talk about indi- vidual student outcomes in individualized learning, we recognize, as we do with aboriginal learners and special needs learners, that literacy is at the foundation of every- thing we need to do for them.

We are developing an ongoing commitment to literacy. We fund signifi cantly outside of the school districts in some of our early literacy programs, in working with other partner agencies. Th ere is absolutely no sugges- tion whatsoever that there is any less focus on literacy. It is still a foundational element of our education plan and of our individual student learning outcomes. R.

Fleming: I’m just trying to understand whether the public library system, which receives its provincial contributions through the Education Ministry, was part of, typically, the district literacy plans and, since schools are no longer going to be required to have this type of plan, whether that’s a partnership that will be, presum- ably, wound down in diff erent parts of B.C. Hon. P . Fassbender: I’m not sure it’s relevant to this

section — the question. But the reality is that our fund- ing for libraries remains consistent. We see them as an important part of the overall community impact on a number of fronts, including literacy. R. Fleming: I just wanted to go back and ask…. Without district literacy plans, if I heard the minister correctly, there will now be a provincewide literacy plan that is coordinated through the Ministry of Education, presumably. I’m just wondering how diff erent parts of British Columbia will feed into that, if they don’t have their own locally based plans. Hon. P .

Fassbender: Th e member is probably aware that the ministry funds millions of dollars to other com- munity agencies that work with the school districts and communities on literacy, dependent on the needs of that community — if they have a higher percentage of English-as-a-second-language people because of immi- gration and other factors. [1610] Th e provincial literacy strategy that is being developed will be mirrored by school districts based on a number of elements, but the foundational element of literacy will remain consistent. R. Fleming: I’m just going back to the achievement contracts.

Th ere was a contention or a commitment, I think, by government that the data set would improve over time, that achievement contracts would be expan- sive. There was even a suggestion by the Minister of Education at that time that things like police reports where there were incidents involving schools or students would become a part of the feedback that informed the data of the achievement contracts.

I’m just wondering, again, because I didn’t clearly hear it: where is the data that was promised to be gathered and that was in fact gathered going to be housed, and what will it be used for, for the future planning around public education in the years to come? Hon. P . Fassbender: Th e Ministry of Education over the years has collected data of various types through vari- ous functions.

Part of the restructuring in the new frame- work for learning improvement for students is the ability to access information, whether it’s based on a province- wide basis, regionally, by districts or even school by school. [1615] We are going to continue to access that information so that we have the ability to use that as we continue to move

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, May 12, 2015 8373 forward in redesigning and looking at student outcomes and achievements — in all categories, as I mentioned, with our aboriginal students and special needs students — and through all of the various aspects of the system. R. Fleming: I can’t help but wonder how much of this was not possible because we had the BCeSIS system that simply didn’t work very well in terms of how data was gathered and managed in government. We’ll be talking about data systems later in this bill as it relates to student privacy, so I’ll save any questions until that time. I wanted to ask again, in

section 2 here, about super- intendents of achievement. I think it was probably one of the most perplexing bureaucratic titles ever created in the history of this government. Nevertheless, there was such a thing as a superintendent of achievement for a long time. Th e

section that is going to be amended here will re- move the title and the description of that position from the School Act. It clearly outlines that the minister had the power, by order, to appoint one or more superintend- ents of achievement. I’m just wondering: what was the largest number of superintendents of achievement British Columbia had at one time? [1620] Hon. P .

Fassbender: Because we are changing the framework on the accountability contracts, what we are doing is setting up a new structure to deal with that and to make it more fl exible and responsive to the system’s needs — and with the new education plan and also with the new curriculum, having the ministry team work with districts as they move forward. Th e need for those particular positions is no longer relevant with the new framework moving forward. R. Fleming: I’m just trying to understand, again, what is being given up here, what the changes represent.

Th e question was very simply: how many superintendents of achievement does B.C. have currently, and what is the greatest number it’s had in previous years? Hon. P . Fassbender: I think the largest number we had was four. We have none presently, because it is a permis- sive part of the current act. And again, as we’ve evolved and we’ve seen the changes that are necessary, it has be- come clear to us that that particular position is not rel- evant with the new framework that we’re developing. As I said, we will be doing a diff erent process as we establish the standards moving forward. R.

Fleming: I appreciate the minister’s comments. I think that’s the point that we were trying to make, which was that this accountability framework, which apparent- ly satisfi ed no one and is being discarded by the govern- ment, was very, very expansive in addition to being not incredibly useful to government. It didn’t live up to its promise, and now it’s being quietly disposed of.

I think what the public needs to know is that these changes represent an investment of millions and millions of dollars, thousands and thousands — tens of thousands — of hours of accountability achievement contracts that were then overseen by superintendents of achievement. Th is vast structure that was contemplated in legislative changes over a decade ago is now being wound down and thrown out. I think it’s reasonable to try and understand what the sunk costs are, what the investment that has been made was. A superintendent of achievement, including salary and benefi ts….

We’re probably talking about a quarter of a million dollars a year. I’m not sure. It seems to me…. I recall that the highest expense account of any bureau- crat of the entire public service of British Columbia at one time was held by a superintendent of achievement, if I’m not mistaken. So I’m just trying to understand. Th e minister said there were at one time four superintendents of achieve- ment in government. What was the cost of having four — all in, in terms of salary, benefi ts and expenses — to oversee a system that is now being dismantled? Hon. P .

Fassbender: I think the member is going into areas that are, quite honestly, irrelevant to what’s before us. What is before us is: we are moving ahead. But if you look at the history of where we are today…. Th e achieve- ments of this province in the educational world are seen as the third best performing and the result of a lot of ef- fort and time put into a system that has got us to where we are today. What we’re talking about is now moving to where we need to be in the future. Th at is why this bill is here. Th at is why the changes are being made. But to suggest that we have not achieved that….

Th e record does not say that. Th e record is clear. British Columbia is one of the best performing educa- tion systems in the world, and we’re going to continue to be that because of our forward thinking and the moves that we’re making. R. Fleming: I wonder if I could ask the minister what the typical salary and pay for a superintendent of achieve- ment was in his ministry service plan. Hon. P . Fassbender: I’ d ask the Chair to rule whether that’s relevant to the

section that is in front of us. [1625] Th e Chair: Members, I think the question is relevant. Th e member has the right to ask questions about the pos- ition being deleted or any similar position being created — how much the government has saved and how much it could cost.

British Columbia Debates8374 Tuesday, May 12, 2015 Hon. P . Fassbender: I’m sure the critic might have been able to ask that in estimates. We don’t have the fi g- ures here. We’re happy to provide them at the end of this. R. Fleming: I think it would be appreciated, and im- portant to the debate, to have those numbers. I’m sure that the resources of the ministry can provide that in this stage of debate. I just want to read through the job description, as it is under the School Act, for the superintendent of achieve- ment. Under the

section it says: “ A superintendent of achievement assigned to a school dis- trict or francophone school district (

a) must review (

i) student achievement and early learning programs in the school district or francophone school district, and (ii) the district literacy plan or francophone district literacy plan, as the case may be…, (

b) may make recommendations for improvement of student achieve- ment, early learning programs and literacy in the school district or francophone school district to the board…, as the case may be, (

c) at the minister’s request and on or before the date established by the minister, must submit to the minister a report on the superintendent of achievement’s fi ndings and recommendations for improvement…, and (

d) perform other duties the minister may assign…. ” I’m just wondering. Where are those functions going to go from? I know that the defi nitions and the required reporting that are being deleted in this

section are one aspect. But in terms of that supervision — in terms of the ministry oversight of diff erent regions of the province, where the ministry had four of these superintendents of achievement at one time — who is going to absorb those responsibilities in the ministry? Presumably, these positions weren’t useless. Th ey per- formed some function that was recognized as valuable by government. Th e work that was done by those positions, which will no longer exist, will have to be redistributed somewhere to other staff in the ministry. I’m just won- dering where that may go, where that work may fl ow to. Hon.

P . Fassbender: Approximately a year ago a new accountability branch was established within the min- istry, led by a director. Th e responsibility of the direc- tor and the branch is to review the new framework and the elements as they are developed. Th ey will be doing that and working with the districts and the other min- istry team to ensure that, again, the learning outcomes that have been established under the new framework are being met. [1630] R. Fleming: I wonder if the minister has an answer now to the cost of each superintendent of achievement in previous years to the ministry. Hon. P .

Fassbender: No, we don’t have that yet. R. Fleming: I’m trying to understand what functions the superintendent of appeals will assume from the for- mer four positions of superintendent of achievement. Certainly, the title suggests a narrowing of the job de- scription. Th ere are not a lot of details here about a fulsome def- inition of the superintendent of appeals.

Could the min- ister outline the sort of primary responsibilities that will fall to this new position, the superintendent of appeals, and which of those responsibilities, job performance re- sponsibilities, may overlap with the former position of superintendent of achievement? Hon. P . Fassbender: With the restructuring and the elimination of the superintendents of achievement — who had a fairly broad responsibility, including student appeals — the new superintendent of appeals’s respon- sibilit

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20150512pm-Hansard-v26n4
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20150512pm Hansard v26n4
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	d71003efe99c71e5be95c9f3f5b57e3de94b43c7

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