4th-36th Vol. 42-Committee of Supply-Education and Training

Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Would the Committee of Supply come to order, please. This section of the Committee of Supply has been dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training. Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber at this time. We are on Resolution 16.2. School Programs (c) Assessment and Evaluation (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.

Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): I thought a question was coming first, so I was sitting waiting for that. But I have some tablings ready that were asked for yesterday. The relocation of the Manitoba School for the Deaf, the actual expenditures that were requested I have available. As well, I have A Thinking Framework: Teaching Thinking Across the Curriculum document, a resource for schools for kindergarten to Senior 4 that was asked for. I have three copies of each for the Chamber.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): Okay, moving on then. Item 16.2.(c) Assessment and Evaluation (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $4,089,500.

* (1440)

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): I have been reading Hansard for yesterday and, I think, probably should formally say that Hansard seems to be doing a stunning job. This is the first time--and I have been a number of years in the Legislature--in which they are keeping up with the legislative committees. Not only that, this year we have three legislative committees, and Hansard is providing us the very next day with, it seems to me, a very full record. I have only found a couple of errors and quite understandable. So I was able to read what the minister had said yesterday. I wanted to come back with a couple of questions on what the minister had said, but I did, first of all, want to congratulate Hansard for what, I think, is really a herculean effort.

The minister has said, in answer to a question from my colleague, that--[interjection] Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the minister about the math curriculum, and I understand she has the right staff at the table today. The minister had said that the math curriculum that was being tested so far was the old math curriculum.

I am curious about that, particularly in the context of the Grade 3 math exams--well, in fact, both; we should really say both--because I had understood that the approach of the new curriculum and the approach of the tests were congruent and that the response and the goals that both the tests and the curriculum had was to stimulate problem solving.

This had not been the case in earlier curriculum. The problem solving is a new kind of way of both teaching and learning mathematics, one that I understand is well supported by people at all levels of the educational system, but I am curious as to why the minister said that it was the old curriculum that was being tested when I understood that especially but not exclusively at the Grade 3 level it was, in fact, a very different kind of testing.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I am really glad we are going to have a chance to clarify that for the member because clearly, then, a lot of the questions she has been asking for the last two sessions have been based upon a faulty assumption. I am really glad we are going to get the chance to clarify this for her, so that her questioning in the future can be based upon something more accurate than a misunderstanding of how this all works. Maybe we can do it here in Estimates, but it may be time that the member received a thorough briefing on what we are doing with tests and standards, so that she has a better understanding than that which has just been revealed here.

I fault myself to have not made her better informed. As critic, I just assumed she knew, and it may explain some of my frustration with the questions I get asked from the member opposite during Question Period. I thought she knew some of these things, and, clearly, her questioning here reveals that I have not provided her with information over time that might have helped her understand better. I just thought with her own research, she discovered these things.

I believe the member would like to interrupt, rather than just heckle, and I am quite willing to have her interrupt if she would like to. I know a few moments ago she expressed dismay that it seemed to be there was some conversation on this side, but if she wishes to put what she is mumbling onto the record, that is fine. I am prepared to pause and let her do that, but I do have some more documents to table and an answer for her question. I am very pleased she asked it, and I am just apologizing that we did not make her aware of these things earlier on the assumption that she knew based upon the way she has been asking questions.

Just before I provide that answer, I have some documents that are here for tabling that the staff has just provided me. They are the documentation on the Grade 3 Mathematics Standards Test; the Senior 4 Language Arts and the Senior 4 Mathematics Provincial Examinations; the Provincial, Division and School Summary Reports; Division and School-by-School Report. I have three copies, and, as well, I have the January 1997 Senior 4 Language Arts and Mathematics Provincial Examinations Division School Results and Summary Packages, and I have three copies for the House. This is information the member requested that staff has put together for her.

In response to the question, first, the member indicates the right staff are here now. They were here for a portion of yesterday. As the member recalls, we went and got the staff yesterday and brought them in for her. The member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) yesterday posed questions to that staff such as where we were taking Senior 2, when, in fact, we were not and are not, but this led to questions about curriculum and a different budget line than assessment, and that caused us to bring into the Chamber not only the curriculum staff but also the assessment staff. So they were introduced yesterday and they were here yesterday. I just did not want the record to show that we did not bring in the appropriate staff at the appropriate time when requested.

But with reference to the issue of new test to old curriculum, with Grade 3, the Grade 3 curriculum that was in use this year is a new curriculum that was built upon a curriculum the previous year and the previous year and the previous year. The new curriculum that was brought in for Grade 3 this year contained in part some of the material from the curriculum in the year before and the year before, but gradually modified and upgraded until it was fully fleshed out as a brand-new curriculum.

It was building incrementally on previous curriculum. We have indicated, and I keep repeating that the new curriculum does not totally discard the old. In mathematics in particular the skills that are there are skills that have been taught for many, many years in our schools, and we build new modules with updated ways of teaching those skills and of bringing in technology, et cetera, but it builds incrementally, so that the children do not go one year and the next have a completely and totally different curriculum unlike anything that any Grade 3 class has seen before.

From the teacher's perspective, the teacher has had experience in many instances. By the time the full, new curriculum is before him or her, the teacher has had experience in various modules of it. But in Grade 3 this year it was a new curriculum completed. The new curriculum was completed this year and all the revisions had been done. As a matter of interest the portion of the curriculum this year which completed the whole new thing was about a 3 to 5 percent difference from the 1992 curriculum.

* (1450)

Revisions were started prior to the western provinces outcome. We here in Manitoba had already begun our work prior to the Western Protocol in the Grade 3 math. Hence it was easy for us to be the first province to have the fully developed new mathematics curriculum for Grade 3 based upon Common Frameworks developed by the Western Protocol. The Common Frameworks for Grade 3 mathematics for the Western Protocol was developed two years ago and, from that, we were able to finalize our curriculum.

So to back up, last year in Grade 3 the students in Manitoba piloted the fully developed new curriculum which was put in place as a permanent structure this year. That "new" curriculum was, in fact, only 5 percent different from the curriculum taught in 1992. The parts that were upgraded were made more rigorous and more relevant, and they are significant, but the member should not believe that the old curricula were as different from the new curricula as chalk is from cheese. That is not the case and we have repeatedly tried to state that for members opposite.

The Senior 4 mathematics test is based on the old curriculum. The test that we took a couple of years back that showed students having trouble with problem solving was based upon the old curriculum. It was not new material the teachers were teaching. It was the same curriculum that they have been teaching for many years in Manitoba.

So the member does a lot of talking about how hard it is for the field to keep up with all these changes. In some instances, the only change is that they are having a standards test on existing curriculum.

New curriculum is being introduced incrementally so that there never is a great shock to the system. The old math curriculum for 40S and 40G, regarding Senior 4 provincial exams; the new curricula for Grade 3 for provincial standards exams; pilots currently in place at Grade 6 and Senior 1 for standards tests; and as we move to completely new curriculum at Senior 4 in the year 2001 and 2002, we will move to Senior 4 standards tests based on the new curriculum. So we are piloting, as the member may have heard yesterday, mathematics standards tests in Senior 1, which is the old Grade 9, and Grade 6. We are off pilot now for new curriculum in Grade 3. We are moving on standards tests at Senior 4 as we introduce the brand-new totally completed curriculum in the year 2001.

The old curriculum in summary, then, remains old until it is revised. When it is revised, obviously it is then new, but it is seldom, if ever, totally different and totally new. We retain much that is still relevant. We retain much that is still appropriate. The "new" aspects are usually in the context of math, and they would revolve around areas such as these: more problem solving, more emphasis on literacy and communication, more integration of the math topics, more connections, for example, between number and problem solving.

So we say that in the traditional curriculum there are many good things. We are not throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but we are taking a look at it to ensure that it is relevant, to ensure that it is rigorous, to ensure that it is current, that it is updated, and that will involve actually changing a percentage of that curriculum. We are also saying that it will be in synch with the Western Protocol, that it will have clearly defined outcomes and goals, not ones that are left to the imagination of any particular school division, but ones that the province says by the end of Grade 3 students should know, and then we will list what they should know. These are our outcomes, and here is a framework within which the four western provinces and the two territories can develop curriculum and modify it to be regional, keeping the best of the old and introducing the benefits of the new.

So the member expresses surprise that some of these new tests are based upon curriculum that is not yet totally new but that has been published. The schedule of these things has been published on many, many occasions, and all educators in the field know this. The timetable and the blueprint for New Directions is really well known, and I would ask if staff has any more information that might help the member be included amongst those who know this. Seeing as she is Education critic for the official opposition, we would feel it would be imperative that she be brought up to date and be given this knowledge.

Standards tests are based on--okay, just to sum it up again to make sure I have not misstated in any way, by the early 2000s, all the new curriculum and all the new standards tests will be in place.

In the meantime, we currently have in place the brand new curriculum for Grade 3 mathematics with the standards test that applies to it. We are using tests currently that are being developed as standards tests would be, but they will not be true standards tests until they are actually measured against the new curriculum and have that weight of a grade of percentage mark applied to them. Right now, while they are developed centrally, marked centrally, follow all the format of the standards tests as they will be, we are not classifying them as true standards tests until they are actually based upon the completed new curriculum.

In the meantime, those tests that we apply are based upon the curriculum that has been in place for some time. New curriculum in Grade 9, et cetera, in mathematics, for example, applied math, some places now are piloting curriculum, but it is still at pilot status. It is not the fully implemented new curriculum. I hope that helps. I will try to clarify more as we go on because it is important.

The deputy has just passed me an example that may help the member. This June, for example, we will introduce Grade 6 math and language arts pilot standards tests based on new curriculum, new curriculum pilot test. Concurrently we will have Senior 4 exams on old curricula, and they will not become modified standards tests until that curricula is new.

* (1500)

Ms. Friesen: Perhaps we could look at the Grade 12 test then. As I understand the minister, she is saying that the Grade 12 math test was based upon old curriculum.

Mrs. McIntosh: The Grade 12 science?

Ms. Friesen: Math. The Grade 12 math test was based upon old curriculum, but that what the test is looking for--and this is my assumption that I am looking for clarification on--is more problem solving, a problem-solving approach to the calculations and to the information that has been taught in the Grade 12 curriculum. It is looking for greater literacy and communication, in particular, and these are good things. I think that everybody in the system is looking at as well, and what I was asking the minister was is the test congruent with what has been taught? It seems to me, from what I am hearing from the minister, is that we have old curriculum, but we have a test which is looking to examine literacy and communications and problem solving.

Is that the case, or was the test done in accordance with the kinds of things which have been taught under the old curriculum? That was the question that I asked last time. I do not think the minister perhaps interpreted it appropriately, but that is what I was getting at.

Mrs. McIntosh: The member is asking essentially is our testing curriculum congruent? Absolutely, yes, Mr. Chairman. When I say that we are using a standards test format to test the existing curriculum and these tests will not be bona fide standards tests until they are being based on new curriculum, I am talking about a way of testing, and, absolutely, these are curriculum congruent. That is the very basis of fundamentals for fair assessment. You never test for what you have not taught. That would be grossly unfair.

The current mathematics curriculum has a section on problem solving. When we did our first testing on this, our first testing using a format for central development of a test, central marking for a test, curriculum congruent, we noted that there was trouble with problem solving. So we said the next fall, field, be alerted to the fact that we have noticed that while students do well in calculation, they are having difficulty with problem solving. Therefore when you go through this year's curriculum which has problem solving in it, we would like you to pay special attention to that aspect of the curriculum because it will be given a heavy emphasis on this year's test; this year's test, then, developed centrally, administered and marked centrally, following a standards test format but not yet a full standards test, because it is not yet based on the new curriculum, and it does not yet have the weighting of grade attached to it that they will when the whole system is completely developed. So we say that it is very definitely curriculum congruent that is based upon what is being taught

At the Senior 4 math, the member is specifically asking is it congruent. I guess, I should say it is congruent with the curriculum. You know, if people are not teaching the curriculum, well, then, obviously it is not going to be based upon what has been taught. But on the assumption the curriculum is being taught, which is what I think we should be able to safely assume, the tests are based upon what should have been taught if one had used the existing curriculum because the existing curriculum has problem solving, communications, et cetera, in it. What it does not have that the new curricula will have is more specific illustrative examples of standards of performance and a stronger emphasis on the mechanics of problem solving, et cetera.

That is why at this stage, the centrally developed tests are using the format and the rigorous application of centralized marking but not yet being given the full weighting for grading purposes that they will be once the whole system, new curricula, new frameworks, new standards test, everything in place. At that point, then, the final mark will include that percentile weighting that New Directions calls for.

But all of these things come in stages, and the curriculum is being phased in that way, incrementally, so the impression the member had that one day students are learning a certain kind of math, and the next day it is all thrown out in the garbage and a completely new, different kind of math comes in is wrong. It is a more relevant way of teaching the same skill.

Ms. Friesen: Just for the record, that was not my impression. It is the impression the minister has.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): Is this on a point of order?

Ms. Friesen: Yes, it is a point of order. I think the minister should stick to answering what she knows rather than trying to interpret what she thinks I know. I am interested in her response and I would like to ask her a further question on literacy, but that is not a point of order, I agree.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): On the point of order, it is a dispute over the facts. I would ask the minister to continue, though, with her answer, please.

Mrs. McIntosh: I will complete my answer. It is difficult trying to answer a question if I am not able to interpret the question. The member asked the question. I think she means something by it. I try to answer what she thinks. I appreciate the clarification as to what she is thinking. It helps me focus my answer.

The provincial examinations currently being administered at Senior 4 are curriculum matched with the existing curriculum, which has been used in schools since the early 1980s, since, in fact, the member's government ruled in Manitoba. Simultaneously to the majority of students and teachers at Senior 4 being engaged in teaching and learning related to that 1980s curriculum, Manitoba Education and Training has been developing new senior years curriculum. This new curriculum has been in a pilot phase with some students and teachers on a voluntary basis for the past five years.

So when the member hears about new curriculum and teachers and staff and parents discussing various aspects of new curriculum, critiquing various aspects of new curriculum, saying they like this about the new curriculum or they do not like that about the new curriculum, she should understand that we are talking about pilot curriculum that is done on a voluntary basis and has been for the past five years. The only one off pilot is Grade 3 mathematics and up until Grade 9.

So in the senior years, we are currently working on the development of new curriculum. This new curriculum has been in a pilot stage, as I say, on a voluntary basis for the past five years, and when this new curriculum is implemented system-wide and is being used by all teachers and students as the basis for teaching and learning, standards tests will be administered at that time based on the new curriculum. We will have changes re Senior 2 to 4 new curriculum as compared to the old currently used in every place except where they are piloting 1980s curricula.

* (1510)

The old curricula had two choices for students: 40S, 40G; 40S is a high-level course with an emphasis on preparation for the study of mathematics at university; 40G is basically a watered-down version of the 40S. So you have 40S and a watered-down version of 40S. Both emphasize problem solving using a set problem or more rote methodology. The new curriculum will, of course, have a better way of teaching that and there will be different sets of curriculum. We will have four choices at Senior 4: Applied Math 40S; Precalculus Math 40S; Consumer Math 40S; and Accounting Systems 40S. They will all be 40S, but they will be offering different understandings of math from different perspectives.

The changed emphasis on problem solving will be that it will be investigative in methodology. Communication and literacy will be essential here. Data management, statistics and probability, spacial relations through four different courses for different purposes, all with articulation arrangements worked out with universities, colleges and business, et cetera. So our tests are congruent with existing curricula and, to ensure that we are using fair practices, I have some information on this that I could provide.

Just as a concluding statement on the actual process through which we are going, there are three final reviews done on each test before it is used. Those three final reviews consist of the department curriculum consultants, the test development committee, the independent external review committee or panel, and they are vetted through those people before they are piloted. They are piloted for a very long period of time, but everything we do, whether we are basing the new way of testing on old or new curricula, we use the principles for fair assessment.

I want to thank the member for her question about curriculum congruency because I would like to describe the principles for fair assessment and state for the record unequivocally our very strict adherence to and belief in the principles of fair assessment. If I could just for the record indicate what those are, Mr. Chairman, they are found, I should indicate, under Reporting on Student Progress and Achievement: A Policy Handbook for Teachers, Administrators, and Parents, which we put out for the field under my signature as Minister of Education and Training. Every school in Manitoba has these principles that the Department of Education mandates as essential for proper assessment. You can find this on page 19 in that booklet.

It says that assessment methods should be appropriate for and compatible with the purpose and context of the assessment. Methods should be developed or chosen that directly evaluate the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviours of students so that interference and possible misinterpretations can be minimized. Methods should be clearly related to the learning goals and outcomes and standards and be compatible with the teaching and learning experience. Methods should be comprehensive, systemically applied and an integral part of teaching and learning. When developing or choosing methods, consideration should be given to the consequences of the decisions to be made in light of the obtained information. A wide variety of methods should be used to ensure comprehensive and consistent measurement of student knowledge, attitudes, skills and behaviours.

Mrs. Shirley Render, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair

Methods should be suited to the background, prior experiences, and special needs of students. Content and language that would generally be viewed as sensitive, sexist, or offensive in nature should be avoided. Instruments translated into a second language or transferred from another context or location should be accompanied by evidence that interferences based on these instruments are valid for the intended purpose. All aspects of the assessment process should be open to review and scrutiny.

Then it goes on, and there is another section that lists eight critical points for collecting assessment information. Students should be provided with sufficient opportunity to demonstrate the knowledge and skills being assessed. Students should be told why and how information is being collected and the purpose for which this information will be used, and assessment procedures should be used under conditions suitable to its purpose and form.

Mr. Chairperson in the Chair

In assessments involving observations, check lists or rating skills, the number of characteristics to be assessed at one time should be small enough and concretely described so the observations could be made in an accurate manner. The directions provided to students should be clear, complete and appropriate for the ability, age and grade level of the students. In assessments involving selection items, the directions should encourage students to answer all items without threat of penalty.

When collecting assessment information, interactions with students should be appropriate and consistent. Unanticipated circumstances that interfere with the collection of assessment information should be noted and recorded, and a written policy should guide decisions about the use of alternative procedures for collecting assessment information from students with special needs and students whose proficiency in the language of instruction is inadequate for them to respond verbally or in writing in the anticipated manner. The procedure should be guided by an individual education plan.

Then, to save time, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I will not read the next two pages, but I will indicate the heading of them is Judging or Scoring Student Performance, and this outlines six points; Summarizing and Interpreting Results outlines seven points. These points indicate procedures for judging or scoring student performance as to their appropriateness for the assessment method and how to apply and monitor them consistently. It also outlines procedures for summarizing and interpreting assessment results in a way that should provide accurate and informative representation of a student's performance in relation to the learning goals and outcomes for the reporting period.

Those can be found of pages 21 and 22 of the Reporting on Student Progress and Achievement: A Policy Handbook for Teachers, Administrators and Parents published under my name, the Minister of Education and Training, for Renewing Education: New Directions.

So everybody who teaches in Manitoba has this information. It is in the schools, it is everywhere, and now it is provided for the Education critic of the official opposition so that she too can understand what we mean by fair assessment. I encourage her to read it when she has time.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister to tell us where or to point us in the direction in the old curriculum that was tested at Grade 12, where the emphasis was or where the instruction was on literacy and communication. I can understand the group does not have it here, but if they could forward it next time and perhaps outline the sections that have dealt with that. It is obviously an issue in the summaries, at least at the 40G level, something that is new in emphasis and one area that the evaluations note students need improvement in.

So I am wondering again, since this was testing an old curriculum, where this was emphasized in the old curriculum, how much it was emphasized, essentially trying to look at why students fared badly on that. I think it is in the 40S one. So I am looking at that for next time, perhaps.

* (1520)

I wanted to ask the minister some questions that have been drawn to my attention by people outside of Winnipeg, and that is the relationship of the Copernican system to the testing program. There are some concerns that in some divisions who are perhaps newly adapt to the Copernican system that the exams have come at a time when the full curriculum has not been taught, two weeks, for example, before the end of the course. Possibly 10 percent, 20 percent of the course has not been addressed in the classroom.

Is the minister aware of any situations like that? What kind of responses has she given to schools which have encountered difficulties in that area, and could she tell us what her plans are for the future in that and in enabling schools which have a variety of approaches to timetabling to be treated fairly in the examination system?

Mrs. McIntosh: The member had asked a question about the mathematics curriculum and the literacy and language across the curriculum, and we do have that. I can provide that information now. It does not have to wait until another day because it is just something we are that familiar with because, you know, in working on a fair assessment, of course, these are things that are at the top of our minds, so staff has that information which I can provide her now. Her second question was on the Copernican calendar which I would also address for her.

We began working with schools and school divisions on literacy and language across the curriculum in the '80s. In fact, the department had begun to do that in the mid-'80s prior to us coming to office, and that increased emphasis has built on literacy and language across the curriculum with an increased emphasis on this kind of implementation activity in the late '80s as it became clearer and clearer that literacy and communication would be the emphasis of new curricula and also the new math curriculum.

To indicate how the Math 40S curriculum and exam are broken down, the math curriculum in 40S has these following components: polynomials and rational functions form 25 percent, circular functions and trigonometry form 38 percent, analytical geometry 12 percent, exponents and logs 13 percent, sequences and signs 12 percent. Under the linguistic aspects: for knowledge 5 percent, for comprehension and application 65 percent, for analysis, synthesis and evaluation 30 percent.

For the Math 40G, the core objectives: consumer math 36 percent, algebra 38 percent, trigonometry 13 percent, statistics 13 percent.

Cognitive levels: knowledge 7.5 percent, comprehension and applications 75 percent, analysis, synthesis and evaluation 17.5 percent.

Departmental staff are working with schools as far as the Copernican system is concerned, using the Copernican system for timetabling, and, in fact, they have a meeting coming up with these schools later this month. The Copernican timetabling is a quarter system. The schools that follow it accommodate the test schedule by scheduling the testable subject in the quarter in which the test will be administered. Schools that have not done so are strongly encouraged to do so.

Just to give you an example, in September, the second quarter on the Copernican timetable, the students be encouraged to timetable math and write the provincial exam for the second quarter in January, and similarly, to timetable English language arts and write the provincial test exam in June.

There are only a handful of schools using this type of scheduling: Miami Collegiate, Ashern collegiate, are two that come to mind. But that is how they can get around it, and departmental staff are working with those schools interested in that, interested in going to quarters, to find the most comfortable way of doing this and achieving this for those who are utilizing that calendar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

* (1530)

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, the first part of the question on literacy and communication in mathematics, the minister's answer dealt with literacy and language across the curriculum--fair enough. My question is specifically oriented towards the congruence between the curriculum and the testing. What I was asking the minister is where in the old curriculum is the communication and the literacy of mathematics dealt with? I assumed that the minister did not have the curriculum documents with her.

What I was looking for was some direction as to where that was contained, so that the percentages of knowledge 5 percent, comprehension application 65 percent, really were not answering the question. The question dealt with where in the curriculum is this pinpointed. Again, I am getting back to that issue of congruence. So maybe we can start there, and I do want to come back to Copernican system, because I have had some concerns raised with me from another part of the province.

Mrs. McIntosh: Just with the two questions, just back to the first question, I was, in fact, referring to the use of language in the math exam. I did talk across the curricula, but I was also being specific to the math exam. Just to repeat it, using the 40S exam as an example, I indicated that in addition to the mathematical components which I had identified, we also had in terms of use of language and communication 65 percent based on comprehension.

Ms. Friesen: It is not a point of order, but I want to clarify for the minister. I am not talking about the test. I have used the word "curriculum" over and over again. Where in the curriculum? What page in the curriculum document? What chapter of the curriculum document?

I know that you do not have it here. I assume you do not have it here, and I am quite prepared to look at it next time, but that is what I am looking for is how in the old curriculum were people instructed, encouraged, advised on how to teach. So the testing, while it is interesting, and I understand what the minister is saying, what I am looking for is what the curriculum says.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member was correct. She did not have a point of order.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, to conclude.

Mrs. McIntosh: I appreciate the opportunity to indicate that I am talking about the curriculum here. But if the member is asking, the things that were showing on the test, standards test, is it curriculum congruent? In other words, does the curriculum contain comprehension? Does the curriculum contain the ability to use language to do analysis, synthesis and evaluation? I am saying to the member that 30 percent of the curriculum utilizes the way in which you use language to analyse, to synthesize and to evaluate.

Mr. Chairman, 65 percent of the curriculum deals with the ability to comprehend mathematical language used in problem solving, et cetera. Five percent of the curriculum indicates an ability to use language to express knowledge of some sort. Now I do not have a page number and I would suggest that the curriculum may not have a statement that would say at three o'clock on September 4 everybody will turn page 20 and do this, but if the member wishes to go back and bring more detail then we can do that. But what I am wanting to say to her is that when I explained about those percentages in those areas I was talking about the curriculum and the percentage of emphasis you would find in the curriculum. Inasmuch as all our tests reflect the curriculum and are developed using the curriculum as a base, then I can state that the aspects of the test dealing with mathematical, literacy and communication are a direct reflection of the emphasis placed on this in the curriculum.

I may need to get into some more detail about mathematical literacy and communication. Literacy and communication refers to the role that language plays in learning across the curriculum, not just across curricula like language arts and math and science, et cetera, but within a specific curriculum. Language and thinking are inextricably linked. In math, this linkage occurs in two areas. The language of mathematics as a symbol system, and using language, words, numbers, graphs, pictograms, charts, diagrams, all now known as the area of communications, and always have been communications but not understood as such necessarily in years gone by, to demonstrate an understanding of mathematics as both a language and a symbol system.

* (1540)

I am not sure if the member understands the intricate connection between the tests and the curriculum, or maybe does not want to accept that the linkage and the intertwining of curriculum and test are as tight as they are. We will do as we were challenged to do with the aboriginal aspects in math. At the aboriginal one, at a later sitting, we tabled an analysis. We can do this with math, table an analysis of one of the Math 40 courses to demonstrate how the emphasis on mathematical communications is bedded in the curriculum and inextricably intertwined.

So you can bring her back additional information, but I think those aspects of comprehension and analysis that are in the test are also in the curriculum and would not be in the test unless they were in the curriculum. I have given her the percentages you will see in the curriculum, and we will bring back more information for her, using, we will pick one as an example and bring it back to help her understand what we mean there.

Ms. Friesen: I look forward to that, because I do not think we are going very far with this discussion. I wonder if the minister could address the Copernican system.

Mrs. McIntosh: I do believe that the member has raised a couple of points of order already today to ask that the rules be adhered to on the assumption that my answers were not to her liking and in her opinion did not adhere to the rules. Certainly the comment that the member has just made absolutely is against the rules in every way, shape, and form, and I would ask that she withdraw it. She said we are not going anywhere. If we are not going anywhere we might as well all leave.

I am sitting here trying my best to explain to her concepts that seem to be beyond her grasp, and if she feels we are not going anywhere, then let us leave or she could withdraw the statement and we will stay and I will continue trying to explain to her that which she seems to have trouble understanding. If she does not want me to make it clear, I can give short, one-word answers, and then she will complain that I am not giving detail. Let us be honourable members here.

Ms. Friesen: On the point of order, well, it is not a point of order, I guess, the same as others, and I look forward, as I said, to the minister bringing the material to the Legislature, because I do not, and I repeat, I do not think we are going anywhere with this discussion. I am not making myself clear to the minister and I am not getting the answers that help make it clear to me, so I look forward to the material coming and maybe I can look at it and we will take it from there. I do not know what the minister is so concerned about.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.

Ms. Friesen: I want to go back to the Copernican system. The minister indicates that her staff is working with divisions so that they can deal with the issue of the timing of the exams and their ability to cover the whole curriculum. I have heard from schools in the Dauphin area who are new to the Copernican system that the exams for them came early. They were not able to complete the curriculum. Now, has the minister heard that? Has the minister dealt with that issue in specific terms?

Mrs. McIntosh: No.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell us whether she believes that the Copernican system is adaptable to the testing system that is in place at the moment? Are there any adaptations that the minister is looking at making that would help a situation such as has been described to me?

Mrs. McIntosh: Yes and no.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell us what yes refers to and what no refers to. You know, really, the minister is being not very helpful on this. It really does not read very well in Hansard, but that is her choice.

Mrs. McIntosh: The first response is a response to her first question. The second response is a response to her second question. She asked me two questions. I answered both of them in the order in which she asked them.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I am trying to get some information from the minister for the benefit of the citizens of Manitoba who have particularly applied to me and asked this question. I gather that the question has not been raised with the minister but she does feel that some adaptations can be made. Is that the case?

Mrs. McIntosh: No.

Ms. Friesen: I am sure the minister is aware that I will be sending out this Hansard to the people who have raised this issue with me. I wonder if the minister would care to be more specific for those people who have raised the issue?

Mrs. McIntosh: Perhaps the member could ask the questions in such as way that I can give an answer that is more than just a yes or a no.

In the rest of this session, as the member knows, when I have said yes and given an explanation, she has expressed displeasure with the explanation in almost every instance and has asked that we get on with the business. So we are actually going to be more specific. Would she like to ask me--

Ms. Friesen: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the minister is putting on the record that I have expressed dissatisfaction with all of her answers. That is not the case.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, on the same point of order.

Mrs. McIntosh: Well, I am pleased to hear that, Mr .Chairman. It sounded like that, the sarcasm, the tone, whatever, but--

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member did not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.

If the member wants to go back and review Hansard or Question Period, you will find many occasions when the member has said: would the minister please stop giving detail and just answer with a simple yes or no. There are many times in Hansard the member has insisted that I answer with just a straightforward yes or no; yet, when I do it, I am criticized for not providing detail. When I provide the detail, I am criticized because she does not like the detail.

The answer to this question--I am going to give some detail and hope the member will not object to me doing this. My staff will be meeting--as I told the member in an earlier answer today, less than an hour ago--this month with the schools that use this system. It is just a couple of schools to help them with their scheduling, so that the schools will be able to write provincial exams. I answered that question less than an hour ago with that information to this member, and I am now repeating it because maybe she was engaged in conversation or something and did not hear my answer earlier.

Schools using the Copernican system have written the Senior 4 math and language examinations in the past two years. We believe that with the current testing schedule, the scheduling is possible for the handful of schools using this. The schools have been communicating with my staff, and they are aware of some of the things that need to be addressed in order for this to be accomplished--and I did state this same information, as I say, less than an hour ago. If the member has a different question on this topic, I would be pleased to answer it.

Ms. Friesen: The minister mentioned two schools, Miami and Ashern. Are there are other schools that her staff will be meeting with in this system?

* (1550)

Mrs. McIntosh: As I indicated, the staff is in constant communication with schools using the Copernican system, and there are many advantages to the Copernican system that schools have found to their liking. No system, of course, is perfect. Some prefer a double semester, like fall and spring, and some prefer nonsemester. So the Copernican system is fairly new, but then the member has been in communication with all of them, so she will know that.

Now, the member I presume knows the schools--

Ms. Friesen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would not want the minister to put false information on the record. I have not been in touch with all of them. I am asking the minister who she will be meeting with, or who her staff will be meeting with in this?

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member did not have a point of order, just a clarification.

Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, I did not mean anything by that. The member had said the schools had been contacting her. I did not mean to imply that she had been reaching out to them. The Copernican schools have contacted the member as she indicated, and she will be forwarding this Hansard to them, and through this Hansard I greet them and hope that all is going well with them, especially places where they are using distance education--Miami, et cetera. So hi Miami, hi Ashern, through Hansard to you at the expense of the member for Wolseley who can afford to mail out this stuff.

I just want to state for the record--I do not mean to tease--that those schools have adopted a particular form of timetabling known as the Copernican system. This was a local decision and was done for administrative reasons or timetabling reasons that they thought would be of maximum benefit to their students, and we respect and appreciate that and acknowledge the benefits of this system for some people.

In developing timetabling, divisions need to also bear in mind the context of the requirements of exam administration, and to do otherwise requires the province to be the one to change the exam scheduling that is suited to the overwhelming majority for a few, or else to create separate exams and sittings for the few, which as the member has repeatedly said is costly, and the member is feeling that we spend far too much money on exams as it is. So I know--and I am not imputing anything here, because the member has categorically stated it very clearly that we spend too much money on the exams. The member has said that very clearly on numerous occasions. I can assume, I think safely from that, that she would not want us spending yet more money to develop a set of exams for a few.

Having said that, we do believe that by scheduling, for example, in the second quarter the math exam to be written, scheduling math for the second quarter so the exam can be written in January or scheduling LA for the fourth quarter so the exam can be written in June, will coincide with the completion of the course and the provincial exam. As I have said twice now, my staff will be meeting with these schools later this month, and the member has asked for the names of these schools, although since they have communicated with her, I think she must know them. Nonetheless, I am pleased to state for the record: Norway House, Ashern, Miami--

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, if I could make the same point of order that I made last time, I did not indicate anywhere that all these schools had communicated with me, nor did I say that I had communicated with them.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member did not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts, I guess.

Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the member, I was certain, earlier today said that schools operating on the Copernican system had expressed concern to her about the scheduling of exams. [interjection] Oh, a school. Okay, the impression we gained here was that there were many schools. So I am grateful to have that clarified. The member now wishes to have the names of the other schools, which I am pleased to provide her: Norway House, Ashern, Miami, Dauphin, Gimli. These are people who have confirmed their attendance at the meeting with my staff. Only Norway House has yet to confirm. The others have confirmed that they will be meeting with the staff to work out a schedule that will be mutually acceptable without having to incur the cost of extra exams and meet the needs of the students and the divisional staff.

We can provide the member with names of those school divisions for her mail out if she would like them, so that she can send them the Hansard because we do have those mailing addresses in our office for her information. Mind you, they know that information already, but she may wish to have them note that it was discussed here in the Chamber.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the minister about a comparison of results for those students who are on the semester system and those who are on the full-year system. It has, I think, been a common commentary in the national exams that those students who work on a semester system are not--I think I have it right--doing as well in examinations as those students who are on the full-year system. Has the minister conducted an evaluation of her own exams along the lines of that comparison?

Mrs. McIntosh: No.

* (1600)

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I understand the minister is saying, no, there has been no evaluation comparing students who worked on the semester system compared with those who were on the full year. Is that correct?

Mrs. McIntosh: That is correct. The answer is no.

Ms. Friesen: Can the minister explain why, given the analysis of national tests, such an evaluation has not been done? Is it because there are not enough results yet of both types to be statistically valid? Is it something that the minister intends to do in the future? Does the minister have a position on looking at those comparisons between semester students and full-year students?

Mrs. McIntosh: There are several questions there. I will try to answer each of them clearly and briefly. We do not collect the data by type of school. Schools would be analyzing their results and consider many different factors with respect to their results. We are looking at only one factor here which could be limiting the analysis. As the member indicates, we are also looking at an indicators project that would put a whole series of things into context such as semestering, et cetera.

At the present time, we do not have that nor do we consider it our place to tell divisions what kind of timetabling to do. The school divisions have the authority and the ability to make decisions regarding timetabling. It is called local autonomy. We support it very much. We will provide well-researched, well-developed, well-prepared examinations that are curriculum congruent. We will provide good curriculum which is in the process of being developed and, in some cases, is complete or nearly complete. We will ultimately have a series of indicators that we can publish along with test results. At the current time, we do not have a lot of the indicators nor, in some cases, do we feel that it would be our place to attempt to change any of those indicators by virtue of dictating to school divisions how to timetable their subjects.

The literature and the research to date on the Copernican system has had mixed reviews. I am sure that the Manitoba schools are looking to enhance the strength that they have been cited in that. So schools on this system, or any other system, would be responsible to analyze their own data on our exams to see whether there is a cause and effect relationship between the exam results on a school-by-school basis and the type of scheduling scheme or any other factors that may, in their opinion, influence test results.

Then they can plan accordingly after they get--we will provide, as I say, the high quality, world class standards tests. We will provide the best marking schemes possible. We will base it on curriculum, we will send back school-by-school profiles. The divisions can then assess their social demographics, their timetables, their teaching ability, their ethnocentric makeup, all of those things, and decide which of those are impacting their test results and put in place school plans which we have said they must do to try to change the results, if they wish to change the results and we presume that divisions would always seek to improve.

SAIP is an indicator's program, and that is good. Our provincial testing program has a student achievement focus, and that is good. We will ultimately have an indicator's criteria for ourselves, which will be good. The student achievement focus in and of itself is good. We will not, at least at this stage, we have no intention of interfering with school divisions' ability to set their own schedule as far as semesters are concerned. That will be up to them and they will have to weigh whether or not they feel it has a positive or negative impact on their examination results.

Ms. Friesen: I wanted to pick up one other thing from yesterday's Hansard, because I think it left perhaps a misunderstanding on the record. The minister said--and I am on page 2561 at the bottom, if the minister has it there. She left the impression, I think, that Year One, the new Year One at the University of Manitoba is a remedial program. I can quote: "we have year one in place at the University of Manitoba, because this problem was not addressed years ago. Everybody knows it and everybody is challenged by it." Did the minister mean to leave that impression that Year One is a remedial program?

Mrs. McIntosh: We are off topic a little bit, but I was talking at that point about the types of things that have occurred because the standards in high school were not good. Year One at the University of Manitoba is not a remedial program per se, although it does certainly help address the remedial aspect that the university currently has in place.

* (1610)

The University of Manitoba, as you know, has had to put in remedial courses in English and maths for first-year students at the university. Those have been in place for some time. The member also knows that the university for some time has been talking about having to bring in remedial programs for first-year students. Many people refer to Year One mistakenly as the remedial year, but the fact is that Year One does cover off the problems that would not have been addressed had they not had Year One.

You just have to look at how Year One works to know that its existence has done a lot of really good things for the university and, in addition to all of that, in an incidental way has provided a solution to the problem of those students who required remedial work, although the university still has the remedial courses available for Grade 12 students who are not able to do the first-year work. But Year One is not a remedial program. Many people believe it is a remedial program because, for the better part of a decade or longer, the university has talked about the need to do something like have a remedial year.

An Honourable Member: Actually, several hundred years it has been talking about it--[interjection]

Mrs. McIntosh: Well, certainly since the demise of provincial exams because--[interjection] When I was--

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I hate to interrupt the honourable ladies, but could I ask members to wait until one is finished before entering into the debate. We might get the answer's conclusion that way. The honourable minister, to conclude.

Mrs. McIntosh: When I was a student, we had to take provincial exams in high school to go into university. There was not the same concern about people not being ready to take first-year university that there was in years after the provincial exams were dropped. You could see that change quite dramatically over the last couple of decades, because to pass a provincial exam you had to have a certain standard. They were 100 percent pass-fail exams. To pass them you had to have a certain amount of knowledge which was a prerequisite for first-year university. Once that was lost, there began a steady decline, culminating in universities saying we need remedial courses in English, we need remedial courses in math, and they put those remedial courses in place.

There then followed many years of discussions at the university and in the general public, where people were saying you know, really what we need to do with these kids is just take them in and have them repeat their whole Grade 12. We need a whole remedial first year.

When Year One came in, a lot of people initially thought this is finally the remedial year that the university has long threatened to bring in or long said that it needed. It is not, of course. It is an attempt to provide a base year, out of which other disciplines can flow. So it is a base year, and from that, you can then enter in many cases into second year of certain other disciplines. At the same time, however, it does give tremendous assistance to those who come in who need extra work in language arts or math. They are forced to take those before they can proceed on to other disciplines, and it gives them some extra time on task on those subject areas to ensure a better performance in second, third, and fourth year.

So, no, I did not mean to imply that it was a remedial year. What I did mean to imply--and I maybe did not state it clearly--but I did definitely mean to indicate that discussions about having that were in place for a long time, and there are many who still believe that Year One is a remedial year or was put in place to address the perception of meeting the needs for remedial work at the university, and that is a fact.

Ms. Friesen: Well, Mr. Chairman, I gather you are suggesting a recess, and perhaps it would be better if we came back to this when we get to the post-secondary education area, because the minister is right that there is a perception that this is a remedial year. It is not a remedial year, and I would have hoped that the minister would have been able to clarify that. Perhaps when we get to the post-secondary area we can clarify that more precisely.

It is my understanding that University One has not begun yet, that it begins this fall. The minister was, I think, switching tenses, so I am not sure if she meant to or whether she wanted to clarify that.

The issue of universities being dissatisfied with the quality of their students on entrance I think is an age-old one. It goes back hundreds of years. I do not think you can open a book on this subject without finding an introduction that talks about the 17th Century and professors saying the same thing about the lack of preparation.

I think the minister also might want to feed into her discussion the impact of mature students upon the universities and mature students who come in quite often without recent educational experience and for whom the universities generally across Canada--I am not speaking here particularly about University of Manitoba--but universities have made a tremendous effort, particularly since the 1940s, to welcome mature students, to welcome returning students and to welcome students who have not necessarily had the formal requirements for universities. All of those have had an impact upon the nature of the universities, and it is certainly a change from the 1920s and does require some remedial efforts in some areas.

As the minister said, yes, there are still and will I believe into the next century be university professors who will not be satisfied with the preparation level of their incoming students in some or perhaps all disciplines.

So my intent in asking this question was to try to clarify what University One was. The minister has really given both perspectives. She is giving the one that I think is a common one and I think a misleading one, and she is also saying, yes, it is one that leads into second year, it is one that is not a remedial one. So it seems to me that her response has simply muddied the waters a little more. I was simply looking for the minister to make a clear statement. Perhaps it is better done in the post-secondary area when we have got a longer time to discuss this.

Mrs. McIntosh: I agree, but I think it is important for the record to note before we go off this topic that the answer I just provided, I do not know how much clearer I can make it than saying it is absolutely not a remedial year. I stated in two or three different ways, this is not a remedial year, it is not a remedial year, it is not a remedial year, and then the member says she hopes that soon I can clarify that it is not a remedial year. I do not know how much more clear I can make it. It is not a remedial year. I have said it now about 10 times, and I hope the member will not come back and say she is going to ask me again to clarify what I mean by it is not a remedial year.

What I mean by that is it is not a remedial year, but, and this where the member takes exception, it also has the advantage of ensuring that students who come to university without good grounding in English, for example, will take an English or first-year English before they go off into some other discipline. I do not mean just a first-year English, but they will take some courses that they might not otherwise have taken that serve to enhance skills that may have been somewhat lacking. That is not the purpose that it is there for, but it does provide that good grounding and it does address concerns about students coming without a thorough grounding in the basics before they go off into their specialties.

It is not a remedial year, but it has more functions than just one. It is a multifunctional initiative and, like any initiative, it has side effects that are of great benefit that the member maybe does not want it identified that this could be really helpful for students who might otherwise have had to take a remedial course in something. I do not see why she is afraid to acknowledge that. It has nothing to do with whether or not Year One--

* (1620)

Ms. Friesen: Afraid to acknowledge what? Ridiculous.

Mrs. McIntosh: You know, Mr. Chairman, I hope that the member will never again make any reference to me interrupting after the kinds of displays I have been getting this afternoon. I am tired of them, and maybe it is time for a recess because the flinging of the hands and the great dramatic thrusting of the hair and the muttered comments we really do not need in this Chamber from someone who purports to be a dignified person. It is perhaps time for a recess. Let her catch her breath and pull herself together and come back and we can have some--

Ms. Friesen: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, my response was because the minister was again putting words into my mouth. She was putting on the record things which I have not said, I have not expressed. I have tried to do it fairly consistently.

I have tried also to correct the member when she has put statements on the record that I have not said. I have tried to do it calmly and coolly. The minister continues with that kind of argument. It is quite unwarranted. It is unnecessary and, yes, it does lead to frustration. So maybe, Mr. Chairman, it is time we took a break.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member did not have a point of order, and I do believe it is time we take a 10-minute break.

Mr. Chairperson: Oh, the honourable minister, to conclude.

Mrs. McIntosh: Just to very quickly conclude the answer here. The university, in conclusion, University One is not a remedial year. It is, in fact, an approach to give a more common initial foundation without causing delay in the overall granting of a degree and its entry to later faculties of choice into, in many cases, second year or some other level. I am supportive of the leadership of the University of Manitoba. I want that to go on the record as well, as they strive to change and alter approaches to their administration and governance.

University One may not be appropriate for all universities, but I do know that it is an approach that seems bold and I think will be sound for the University of Manitoba. Some of the public do interpret it as a remedial year. It is not, but it will help people having to take remedial courses. That is a side effect that maybe was not intended but one that I see as beneficial. That is my response to that until we get to Post-Secondary.

Mr. Chairperson: Maybe we will take a 10-minute recess.

The committee recessed at 4:23 p.m.

The committee resumed at 4:42 p.m.

Ms. Friesen: I wanted to ask about the SAIP tests, the Achievement Indicator Program. There has been certainly at least the mathematics one in Manitoba in the last year, I think with results in January, and the results were not that different than they were in the previous test. I wonder if the minister had an explanation for that.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, the member is asking about the SAIP tests, and why the incomes are similar and what thoughts we might have on it. We have taken a look at that, and there are several factors that spring to mind. None of these things will be totally conclusive because much of it is subjective in nature, but we take a look at the fact that the tests were administered four years apart, one in 1993, and then again in 1997, and they are testing 13-year-olds and 16-year-olds.

We may discover that with the 13-year-olds, for example, that with our New Directions coming into being around 1995 that the 13-year-olds will have had the benefit of one year of new curriculum. Some 16-year-olds, because it is on a pilot status still, may have had one year of new curriculum, not long enough to really judge the full impact the way that we will be able to judge once we are administering SAIP tests to students who have had the benefit of those first three years of learning, building a really solid foundation.

One thing that we do know is that where the first three years of learning have been really strong and rigorous and relevant that over time they will do, in a cumulative way, better and better. These students have not yet had that benefit. We may see some changes in future SAIP tests. We are expecting to. It is too soon to be conclusive because, as I say, it is hypothetical at this point, but they have not had that extensive exposure to new curriculum that we hope will affect changes in the results.

* (1650)

The others, of course, will be who writes the test, what is the sampling, et cetera. We do know that the test results were slightly different but, as the member has said, similar. In '97, for example, 59 percent of 13-year-olds in Canada, right across the nation, were able to perform at Level II or above, but in Manitoba 52 percent of the English program students and 62 percent of French Immersion and Francais students performed at this level.

The proportions are slightly higher for Manitoba students than in 1993. In 1993 we saw that 64 percent of 13-year-olds in Canada achieved that, 48 percent of English program Manitoba students, and 61 percent of French Immersion and Francais. So we see that the Manitoba students had improved slightly but, again, the comparison to Canada falls short.

In the mathematics problem solving--that was the math content that I have just been referring to--for 13-year-olds we saw some different statistics emerging. Mr. Chairman, 45 percent of the English program students and 52 percent of French Immersion and Francais were able to perform at Level II or above. That level was attained by 52 percent of 13-year-olds across Canada.

But because only four problem-solving questions were common to '93 and '97, it is not a direct comparison. The questions were different. The 1997 SAIP mathematics II assessment does not provide the data necessary for comparing student problem-solving abilities to the 1993 levels of achievement at the provincial level.

They only had four problem-solving questions that were common to those two exams and there was a four-year gap between them, so there we cannot do the same kind of direct comparison that we could with the content, for example, where you can achieve a more direct comparison. So those are some facts that we have taken a look at and we know that we have to continue, as we have been, emphasizing the problem solving and making sure that people understand the rationale and the reasoning for emphasizing those various aspects of problem solving.

As good, solid bases are built, and we believe you will see these test results begin to move upwards, but we do not yet have a track record of students who have begun New Directions and moved through right up to the age 13. Everything is still new.

Ms. Friesen: Saskatchewan had somewhat similar results to Manitoba, and the minister in Saskatchewan, I believe, planned to initiate some research on it. I wondered if the minister had done the same, or whether the material that was put out at the same time as the press release, some of which the minister has repeated here, is the basic analysis that has been done or is intended to be done on these tests, the comparison between the two.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, yes, Minister Atkinson has expressed concern about testing, the SAIP tests in particular, and has some questions about them, particularly as they apply to small schools. She is asking that they take a look at that component for Saskatchewan, and I respect her desire to do that.

We, as ministers of Education across Canada, through the council support the SAIP tests, notwithstanding that a particular minister at a given point may wish to question aspects of the test and analyse their impact for her particular province, which is her right and her responsibility if she has concerns.

We do not share those same concerns. The other ministers and the minister from Saskatchewan, as well, are constantly, through the council, asking the council to ensure the integrity of the SAIP tests and the samplings that are done. I am sure that Minister Atkinson, in asking for her sampling, will bring that information back to the council, if she feels it validates any of the concerns that she has expressed as they apply to Saskatchewan. We support her in that, although, as I say, we do not share the same concerns that she has.

We do not have the technical data yet from the last go around, so the analysis is not yet possible. But we will be interested in what Minister Atkinson discovers, if anything. I am sure she will share those ideas and thoughts with council. I know the deputy ministers across the provinces meet regularly, as do the assistant deputy ministers. They share thoughts on these issues as well, and information, particularly, information that they think might have national relevancy or relevancy to provinces other than their own.

So we will be continuing our program of bringing in relevant and rigorous curricula with standards exams and expect that over time we will see our own provincial results on the SAIP tests show improvement. We are grateful for the opportunity to participate in the SAIP tests and believe that they are very useful for us, and we do not share concerns about their validity with Saskatchewan. We rather are supporting this concept along with the other ministers in council.

* (1700)

Ms. Friesen: I would like to ask some questions again about Desktop Services. In this section 16.2. (c), there is $79,000 allocated for Desktop Services, and yet we have employees numbering eventually 61.5. Now, if I look at the other, $79,000 for 61 employees is a much lower ratio, much lower per desktop, I assume, charge than we are finding elsewhere. For example, in Human Resource Services there was $26,000 allocated for 12 people, leaving aside, let us leave aside the whole issue of the School for the Deaf one. That seems to me rather low, and I wondered why. Are there not desktop services being used in assessment, or is some other system being used?

Mrs. McIntosh: We are going back, and the staff that was here at the time is no longer here, but I can indicate to the member this one very simple, clear fact that I think should make it clear, and that is that an annual per-seat or per-workstation basic cost of $2,385 was calculated for the desktop management initiative. That basic cost includes core services for school program divisions, workstations to be transitioned into the managed environment, the standard office software suite and the provincial data network, and that is the cost. It is the same percent as the per cost was before. The total is as the member indicates, and those are correct figures.

Ms. Friesen: So it seems to me a considerable portion of this section of the department will not be covered under the Systemhouse contract. Will they have e-mail addresses? Will they be having computer services? I mean, at $2,000 per station we are not coming close to covering 61 employees.

Mrs. McIntosh: I never said that. I told her what the cost was, and that includes e-mail and training and costs. That is the basic cost per unit. It is not high cost. It is $2,385, and that is the cost. I never said they were going to have e-mail or any of that.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, the point I was making was that the $80,000--let us call it $80,000, the line actually says $79.6. It is $2,000 per desktop, though we are not actually covering the 61 people that the department is estimating will be in place at the end of this year. So I am wondering if the other staff are covered in some other way for services like e-mail, et cetera, and for other desktop services.

* (1710)

Mrs. McIntosh: All of the existing 45.5 assessment staff that are currently there are covered for e-mail, for training, et cetera, out of that $79.6, and so will the 16 new staff be. But in addition, new equipment will be bought for the 16 staff out of the capital line. So ultimately then, the 61 people will be receiving e-mail, training, et cetera, out of that $79.6, and they will have equipment as well but the equipment will come out of the capital line for the 16 new people.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell me whether the 16 new computers are part of the Systemhouse contract, and if she could, could she tell me how many in total new computers will be provided under the Systemhouse contract?

Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, I have some information here that I can provide. We are going back to an area that was already covered, and the appropriate staff, our systems person is no longer with us. We had Mr. Greg Baylis here as you recall the other day to answer questions on this line. So he is our systems person. That subject was concluded. He left, and we now are back to answering questions about it. So we will not have the same detail as we would have when we were actually doing this line with the appropriate staff person here.

Nonetheless, the Assessment people know what they will be receiving, and we can provide that to the member. We may have to go back and recall our systems person to get specific answers. I have to emphasize, as well, that this contract does not rest with the Department of Education. It rests with Government Services. This is a Government Services contract, not an Education contract.

So the details of it are probably better asked in the department which is responsible for it, which is--[interjection] Well, I would hope, if that is the case, then we are not playing games here. The member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) has just informed us that the Education critic already has the details in her possession, in which case, why is she asking the question? I presume he is making a joke, I would hope. Otherwise it is a terrible abuse of the $10,000 a day the taxpayers spend to run this Assembly on a daily basis.

The member asked why do we not get informed, from his seat, and I say to you that I brought the proper staff here when we were doing this line. This line has been passed. We are going back over it for additional information with that staffperson not here. Now, I can take him away from his duties again and bring him here, but I remind the member that if he is playing games, this is most inappropriate. It does cost many thousands of dollars to run this Assembly every day. We are not here to play games. We are here to provide what information we can and, given that we are off line and that we are actually talking about a contract held in another department, the member's witticisms are ill placed. He would be well advised, if he is here to observe, to simply observe and not to be interjecting, as you have cautioned us not to, these extraneous comments.

I can provide this information to the member in answer to her question, and it is this, that all 61.5 staff will have a computer; 41.5 of them have one now that were purchased previously, and we will now be purchasing 16 new computers, which will be made available. We believe they will be via Systemhouse, but we will need to confirm that with our systems person or with Government Services. But the computers will be there and we are fairly positive that the 16 computers would be provided as part of the SHL contract, since to our knowledge the only exception outside of that contract is the Manitoba School for the Deaf, as we

indicated the other day. We need Mr. Baylis here to confirm that since that falls under his duties and his expertise. What we have here with us right now are the assessment people.

* (1720)

Ms. Friesen: I may have missed this in an earlier response, but are those 16 computers being paid for out of this line Desktop Services, or are they coming out of a different capital line?

Mrs. McIntosh: They are coming out of the capital--they are part of that $354,600, line 6.

Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair

Ms. Friesen: Then I am still a little puzzled. They are coming out of that capital line, but they may well be part of the Systemhouse contract, as I understand the minister to say, and she may want to confirm that later, and I understand she does not have the appropriate staff here. If that is the case, then what I had assumed earlier, that the line Desktop Services applied to all of the Systemhouse contract, it is not only that line which applies to the Systemhouse contract, so that in each section of the department we should be looking at other lines which are also part of the Systemhouse contract.

Mrs. McIntosh: Perhaps we could pause and we will bring Mr. Baylis back. We can go through the systems right across the whole department. It would have been appreciated if we could have done that while we had him here rather than this leaping back and forth, so we will, yes, we do not have the--

An Honourable Member: E-mail him.

Mrs. McIntosh: Well, if that is how you wish us to contact him, then we can do that. Is that how the opposition wishes us to contact him? We had been thinking of phoning.

Ms. Friesen: I am not quite sure how to proceed. I would be happy to wait until Mr. Baylis was here or whenever is convenient tomorrow or whenever we can make that appointment. But then I will need to go back over a variety of lines. We do have a formal process of passing individual lines, so whichever is most convenient.

I would suggest for the purposes of this afternoon that we continue with this line, move away from Systemhouse but come back to it. The minister can advise me whether we will be dealing with it with Mr. Baylis on Thursday--which I think is the next time we meet--or whether next week is more convenient. But I would reserve the need to come back to individual sections of, for example, in this case, a line that we may well have passed by then.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I think that would be more conducive to being able to provide the information the member wants because, as I say, the people who are here today are program experts. They know what services they are going to be receiving. They know, for example, they are all going to be getting computers, but that is not their area of expertise. They spend 60 hours a week or more on programming. So, if we could bring Mr. Baylis back, and if we could get all of the systems questions to him while he is here, because it is very hard having staff running back and forth. I am sure the member appreciates that. The impact on the department of prolonged periods away from assigned duties is quite dramatic.

So if we could bring Mr. Baylis back on Thursday, he can answer a lot of these questions. But I still wish to indicate, because the contract does not rest with Education, there will be components of that contract that are being done by Government Services people, not by the various departments. So he may not be able to give all the answers. The contract is properly addressed through Government Services. Mr. Baylis knows the impact of that on Education. We would be quite pleased to bring him back to provide detailed information for the member on those aspects that pertain directly to Education, with which Mr. Baylis is familiar. We could maybe carry on with something else in the meantime, understanding that the member wishes to reserve judgment on certain aspects of this other question until Mr. Baylis can be here to assist us.

Ms. Friesen: I would like to ask some questions, then, on one other area of Other Expenditures, and that is the almost the doubling of professional fees in this section of the department. It goes from $995,000 to $1.931 thousand. Normally, professional fees, I think, are for contracts. This is an area of the department which is also having a doubling and tripling of staff eventually, so I am wondering in this particular year what is the function, what is the intention of the doubling of professional fees?

Mrs. McIntosh: We have increased a number of projects from three to seven.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell me what the seven projects will be, what the fee associated with each one is, and who is contracted to do them if the minister has those names yet?

Mrs. McIntosh: I just need to make a quick correction. It is actually from three to eight--miscounted here. The increase in professional fees includes payments for contract writers, for assessment designers, report writers, information technology contractors, fee-for-service costs for test development committee members for Grades 3, 6 and Senior 1 mathematics and language arts standards test of $370,000--I just want to check this figure; just a minute--for the Senior 4 inclement weather exams of $164,000, and $293,000 for increased precision in marking the Senior 4 provincial exams.

The new projects are Senior 1 mathematics, Senior 1 language arts, six mathematics and six language arts and three language arts.

* (1730)

Ms. Friesen: I am not sure the last part made sense to me. The new projects are Senior 1 math and Senior 1 language arts. When the minister says project in that context, what does she mean? The last part, I did not understand at all, six math and three language arts? Six math what? Three language arts what? Is there something missing there?

Mrs. McIntosh: Sorry, Mr. Chairman, it was six is Grade 6, three is Grade 3. I apologize for not making that clearer.

Ms. Friesen: I am still not clear about that latter part. Those are the new projects. Those are the new things that the minister will be doing in this area of the department. The actual contracts though were the areas that she indicated earlier, the assessment, the recording, the fee-for-service costs, language arts standards and $293,000 for increased precision in language arts marking. Is that what she meant?

I wonder if the minister could either table a list of the eight contracts, if that is what it is she means by this, the eight contracts in this section of the department, with a table that shows the amount of the contract, what its purpose is for, and who will be undertaking that contract?

Mrs. McIntosh: I am not quite sure what it is the member does not understand, and I am wondering if she could clarify. I am looking at the figures here. There is an increase in professional fees, and in amongst that are monies for paying contract people to do assessment design, to write reports, to do information technology contracts, fee for service costs, test development and standards exam, like back-up exams, and increased precision. I am not quite sure how else to explain it, or am I missing something in the question?

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, well, maybe a simple way of putting the question is: could the minister table a list of the contracts that will be issued under this line Professional Fees, their purposes, the people who will be doing them, if the minister knows that, and the expected results, the cost of the contract in each case?

Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, I think it hit upon the difference here. The member apparently made reference to eight contracts. I am sorry I did not hear her say that. I had referred to eight projects, and I think there is a miscommunication here. When I say eight projects, that is not eight contracts. The projects, and I listed some for her, are for Senior 1 Mathematics, Senior 1 Language Arts, Grade 6 Math, Grade 6 Language Arts, Grade 3 Language Arts. Those are five of the new projects. Each of those will require some contract people to work. There are probably more than eight, but we have not let those contracts yet. That is for the future. That is what we are expecting to spend.

We can indicate to the member that we can provide her with a proposed list of the types of contracts we expect to enter into to account for the total of $1.9 million, but we cannot table the contracts because they do not exist yet. As I say, they are not eight contracts. We do not know the exact number. The professional services include a larger number of services. Contracts are awarded for such things as test design, procuring data files, pilot testing, preparing the French language components, serving as marking leaders, writers to edit test forms, and so on and so forth. If it would help, we can provide a proposed list of the types of contracts we expect under this line in spending that money. If she would like, we could do that.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, yes, I can understand that at this point not everything has been decided upon. Perhaps, by way of comparison and looking ahead to next year, can the minister table a list of the contracts that were conducted last year under the nine hundred and whatever it was--$995,000--a list of the contracts, the fees and the people who conducted the work?

Mrs. McIntosh: Sure, we can do that. That is no problem.

Ms. Friesen: Under the Activity Identification in 16.2.(c) is also listed the special education review, so I am wondering where the fees for that particular contract which obviously go over more than one fiscal year, where one would find that.

Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, the proactive information services contract for 1998-99 would be funded out of the $1.9 million total allocated.

Ms. Friesen: Again, I wonder if the minister could explain. I asked where one would find in the budget the allocation for the special needs review, the proactive contract. The minister told me it is $1.9 million. I assume that means the total. Could the minister tell me where that total is, or how it is divided between years, and which line in the budget is it?

Mrs. McIntosh: I indicated that the proactive information services contract for '98-99 would be funded out of the $1.9 million total allocated for professional fees, and the proactive information services contract would not be anywhere near close to $1.9 million. They are out of that line, however, for professional fees, probably more in the neighbourhood of $75,000, something like that, would be their portion. The line that it is on is 4.2. under Other Expenditures.

We can table at the next setting the contract that the member referred to. The total between the two years would be less than $150,000.

* (1740)

Ms. Friesen: The $150,000 approximate total that the minister is speaking of comes out of last year and this year. Are we looking at a subsequent year as well? No. Okay.

Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, to confirm what the member--yes, in answer to her question.

Mr. Chairperson in the Chair

Ms. Friesen: I wanted to ask about the Expected Results section of 16.2.(c) which says "Appropriate data will be collected to evaluate the special education policies and programs." Now, I assume that is--and I have not got last year's Estimates books with me--a version of what is normally put into this section of the department.

I wonder where that fits with the new guidelines that the minister has recently released in her 60-page document, update to the divisions, where it talks about ADAPs, and the fact that ADAPs may not be required anymore. It seemed to me that ADAPs were the main means by which the department collected and evaluated or certainly collected information on special education policies. I am curious as to how the department is going to be collecting that information if it is not going to be collecting ADAPs anymore. So maybe the minister could clarify what the intention is there.

Mrs. McIntosh: ADAPs provide a descriptive information about programs. As the new, streamlined administration process is introduced and a new program audit is introduced, the ADAPs will no longer be required by the department. The audit process will give individual divisions information about their policies, programs, growth, progress, and program changes that the local jurisdictions are pursuing.

Just to take a minute to say the difference between the ADAPs and data, the ADAPs will be a description of the programs. There is no data provided with them. They will simply describe the programs. It is like if you said, what are you going to do on your summer holidays and you described the type of vacation you are going to have, that would be an ADAP. If you asked, how much would it cost, and how much gasoline would you use, that would be data. We are talking about an ADAP which is a description, not hard data. They are different things, and sometimes they are confused, but our intention is to reduce the administrative processes, try to provide more time to focus on programming and making decisions about instruction, et cetera. I think that is where we need to focus in order to ensure more timely and correct intervention for the students.

Ms. Friesen: Can the minister then tell me a little more about how the data are to be collected? Who is going to collect it? Where does it get distributed to? I think the minister, in introducing this, talked about audit. Did I hear correctly? How is the audit to be done? Who is to do the audit? Is it annual, is it biennial? Could we have some more details on that?

* (1750)

Mrs. McIntosh: The means to collect appropriate data were not and will not be ADAPs. ADAPs are for different purposes. We will collect data via the special education review, and this will not involve data collection from every school and division. Rather, it is sampled. The uses of the data are to inform the special education review, to write a report and give advice to government about special education, circumstances, practices, funding, et cetera, and they will be the members of that particular review committee to provide us with data.

I stress the ADAPs are for a much different purpose, and the audit that was referred to by the member and, in my remarks to her, that she is seeking some information on, that was in reference to the new streamlined administrative processes, those processes for division applications for receipts of Level 2 and Level 3.

We will be auditing there just to ensure that everything is in order, and we will do that every three years. It will be done by department staff, who will have divisions and districts participating in an audit of their special needs programs for Level 2 and Level 3 students once every three years. We will begin that process in '98 and '99, in that school year. As divisions and districts complete the audit process, submissions of the annual divisional action plans, which we call ADAPs, to the Department of Education and Training will no longer be required at that point.

The audit process is intended to support divisions in developing local program information to look at continuous improvement initiatives, to support divisions in identifying strengths and areas that they want to focus on for program improvements. We believe that as we streamline, we can speed up the process, so that the services for students will be able to flow more swiftly and not be paused, checked and double-checked, and triple-checked and quadruple-checked all through the system until a whole year has gone by.

The audit process, as I say, will be conducted by the department. Some divisions have already volunteered for this. We have had some people saying: could you please pick us to be a sample department here in the first year? So we will be looking to pilot a process that is helpful and useful to divisions. As I say, we have some volunteers all ready to assist us through the first year.

I think that probably provides a response. There may be more detail the member wishes, and I am available for attempting to answer those additional details.

Ms. Friesen: I wonder if the minister could tell me how this process of audit will differ from the old process of inspection. I am sure to some people it sounds like inspection, and there are varying views on that. Some people like the old system of inspection; others do not, so I am not asking this in a judgmental way. I want to be able to explain to people. Is it the same? Is it different? In what ways is it different or the same?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could get some clarification from the member. When she refers to the old system of inspections, I am not certain. Is she meaning like the review of the ADAP-type review or is she referring to the system of we used to have inspectors going out to schools not that long ago? I am not quite sure which one she is referring to, just for clarification.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, well, the audit system--I am talking specifically about the audit--the new system that the minister is going to put in place, which requires people to go out from the central office, from the department, to look on a rotating basis at some kind of evaluation program, some kind of audit of programs.

So I am asking how different is this from the old system of inspection where people went out from a central bureau, reported back, evaluated programs, evaluated in some cases teachers, evaluated schools? Obviously, this is more narrowly defined, but how is it different? Or is it not? Is it intended to look at the same kinds of issues?

Mrs. McIntosh: This is quite different in both degree and in kind from the old inspector system. The old inspector system would have a single individual going out, taking a whirlwind tour through the division, dropping in at schools unannounced, no defined process, no collaboration. The audit process is definitely not an inspection process of that nature. It differs, as I said, in both degree and in kind. It is a completely different thing.

We have had six divisions, I understand, who volunteered to participate in the audit process. An audit process could include identifying an audit team comprised of managers from the Regional Teams Unit, staff of Administration and Finance, field representatives. It could involve an audit of each division--well, it will every three years--or district, identification of special education programs and services and how they respond to the needs of students and best practices, focusing on student outcomes, examination of the division or district's special education policies, their practices and procedures, assessing the quality and cost-effectiveness of special education programs, ensuring that there is a process which, in turn, ensures that funds to support special education programs and services are used appropriately and effectively, examining intersectoral planning in relation to special education.

Those are the types of items that we talk about when we talk about introducing an audit process. It is a far cry from the old inspector thing that was discarded for a reason some years ago. I hope that clarifies.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The hour now being 6 p.m., committee rise. Call in the Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Marcel Laurendeau): The hour now being past 6 p.m., this House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until tomorrow (Wednesday) at 1:30 p.m.