Inclusion Report: CUPE Representatives Meeting - Question Period
MS. CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development. During debates on Bill No. 72, the minister assured us that his government is completely committed to inclusion. We've all been hoping to see evidence of that. An inclusive thing to do - and I would say a basic thing to do, when preparing to respond to a report on inclusive education - would be to meet with the representatives of the 4,000 educational assistants, teaching assistants, and community outreach workers who are on the front lines of inclusion in our classrooms.
Sadly, we learned yesterday that the minister cancelled his meeting with CUPE representatives at the very last minute. Does the minister think that the implementation of the inclusion report can be valid or successful without the participation and expertise of educational assistants, community outreach workers, and teaching assistants?
HON. ZACH CHURCHILL « » : Mr. Speaker, in fact, that meeting was scheduled weeks in advance of the release of the inclusion commission. It wasn't about the report on inclusive education. That was not part of the agenda that was submitted to the department. We have indicated to all of those union leaders that we will follow up and reschedule that meeting, there was a scheduling conflict. When it comes to meeting with those front-line workers, we're actually going to be getting out on the road and meeting with them directly in each and every region of this province, and talk about this report and the impacts that it's going to have on the lives of our teachers and, more importantly, our students.
MS. CHENDER « » : Mr. Speaker, the meeting was scheduled for March 20th, and if it wasn't on the agenda to talk about inclusion, it should have been. When justifying the Glaze recommendations, at first the government said they would create cost savings. When they had to admit that there weren't a lot of savings, they said it was to make improvements in the classroom. Finally, when they couldn't explain to us how calling principals "managers" was going to improve classroom conditions, they argued it was a necessary step to implementing the recommendations of the inclusion report, and now we have that report.
I would like to ask the minister, can he point out for us precisely which inclusion recommendations required destroying our collegial teaching model and eliminating elected school boards?
MR. CHURCHILL « » : Mr. Speaker, I'll actually point the member's attention to several pages in the report - Pages 9, 11, 12, 16, 23, 43, and 90 - and I'll read one of those quotes. All of these are very similar. "One obstacle to progress is the lack of clarity and consistency in how inclusive education is defined and implemented in Nova Scotia. For many years, the policies, procedures, and terminology for inclusive education have been interpreted and applied differently from school to school and region to region."
This is in the inclusion report: "In addition, inconsistency in how the program planning process is implemented across the province creates confusion and frustration for students, parents, and teachers." This inclusion report has actually validated the concerns that we've had in our fractured system so thank goodness we moved on those, because we would not be in a place to execute on this report in September had we not.
Published by Order of the Legislature by Hansard Reporting Services and printed by the Queen's Printer.
Available on INTERNET at http://nslegislature.ca/legislative-business/hansard-debates/