Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, too, will support this motion moving forward. In my previous positions working with youth and working in various sectors of governments and community organizations, volunteer groups, concerned citizens at the table, interagency groups who have brought this as a concern for years, literally years we’ve been talking about this and to see a motion as such

brought before the House, to see some action that needs to be taken to address a situation that’s failing our society – not just our students, it’s failing society – I strongly support this motion and I do believe that we will garner a lot of support with this motion from residents across the Northwest Territories, professionals, business sector. We’ll get a lot of support from all avenues across the Northwest Territories. Like I said, it’s something that we’ve been discussing on numerous occasions at interagency groups, local community groups and I’m glad to see such a motion is brought forth.

I commend my colleague Mr. Hawkins for drafting a motion and bringing it before the House. So to see that some action is going to be taken, I strongly support the motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Moses. Speaking to the motion, Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have to confess that I’m quite conflicted by this motion. As a teacher I understand the rationale behind the motion, but I have great difficulty in supporting the motion as it’s written.

I actually lived through the implementation of the Inclusive Schooling Policy many years ago and it was hotly contested at the time. Teachers were not totally in support. It was probably 50/50. At the time we had classrooms where students were pulled out, special students were pulled out and were taught separate from other students. I don’t support that. I think students should be included in with students in regular classrooms, but I think there’s also an opportunity for students to be pulled out and to receive special teaching, whether it be on the lower end of the scale or the upper end of the scale.

I considered early start, late start for my own children and it’s a difficult decision to make. Very often teachers can assist you with that. This policy takes away that flexibility that I think teachers and schools probably should have.

Thanks to modern technology, I’ve had a quick look at the directive and I think the operative part is that it states that students receive their education program in regular instructional settings in their local school with their age peers and the exceptions are only allowed in rare instances. I think that’s part of the problem here. There’s no flexibility on the part of the school or on the part of the teacher to make an exception for some student to stay back or some student to move forward.

It’s a really complex issue for me. It’s not just as simple as saying let’s get rid of social passing. I’m not even sure what social passing means, or peer passing, whatever we want to call it. I think that as the acting deputy minister pointed out, many, many students have an individual education program and they are taught differently from their classmates, but they’re in that classroom and they have the

interaction on a regular basis with kids at their own age level and that’s a good thing. To have, as Mr. Yakeleya said, a 16-year-old in a Grade 5 class, many people consider that not to be the way to go. I wonder how the child is going to feel. It’s not going to make them feel all that great, but there are instances when children should be held back, and in reading this policy it tells me that no we can’t do that.

So I think this needs to be evaluated. I think it’s probably time that we did an extremely thorough, extremely comprehensive review of the Inclusive Schooling Policy or directive. It’s been in place for quite a number of years and I think that the thinking in the education field is changing a bit and I think some people are starting to think that pulling kids out is not the horrible thing that we thought it was about 20 years ago. I would urge the department to look at a really comprehensive evaluation of the policy and do some in-depth analysis of what this is doing. And that means talking to students, it means talking to parents, it means talking to the boards, it means talking to businesspeople. You know, we have to do a full cross-section evaluation of what our residents think about this policy and the impact that it has on them as individuals, as families and as business owners and operators.

That said, I am not going to vote against this motion but I will abstain. I appreciate where my colleagues are coming from. I just don’t feel that this motion speaks to what I think is necessary, so I won’t vote against it but I won’t vote for it. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Again, speaking to the motion, we have Mrs. Groenewegen.

I will not be supporting this motion for quite a number of reasons. I think that as Ms. Bisaro mentioned, we need flexibility. I don’t think that all children mature at the same rate. I think that where a child may have a slow year one year they’ll catch in the next. It’s kind of like when kids are growing, you know, and the same as when they’re developing intellectually. I mean, it comes on.

I don’t think anybody really counts the cost and the effect that it has when a school system labels a child to have failed. If I could just share a personal experience: My oldest brother, who was kind of the leader of our little gang of five in our family, came home from school at the end of Grade 4 and hid behind the rocker on our veranda and cried. I remember that because I was his little sister and I watched that. That affected him for the entire rest of his life. Was he a smart guy? Sure he was. Was he book smart and school smart? No, he wasn’t. Did he become a fully functioning member of society and support himself as a tradesman all his life? Yes, he did, and raised two fine young children into

adulthood. But he was told that day, I’m sorry, you’ve failed. You’re a failure.

I think there needs to be some discretionary latitude for parents and teachers to look at different situations. Every child is different. Every scenario is different. If you want to talk about how we’re turning students out at the end of Grade 12 and what they’re equipped to do, let’s look at are we funding inclusive schooling properly, not to distract the teacher completely with children with special needs. That’s a question we should be asking ourselves. Let’s look at whether we’re teaching the basics in the curriculum that equips people for basic tasks in life. That’s a question we need to ask ourselves.

Members on the committee get tired of me talking about it, but I was not a great student, but I’ll tell you, even not being the top of the class student, I left high school with the ability to perform mathematical tasks and speak, and I knew about grammar, and it was all based on a very old-fashioned form of teaching. You know, phonetic spelling. Not new English. Not new math. Not all this new-fangled stuff that people try. But, you know, I guess that’s the education system and where it’s gone.

I can tell you from many experiences, both of my boys – I shouldn’t talk about them in public – they were held back at Grade 1 level. They were not mature enough to go on. I thank those teachers for doing that. That’s fine. But when my son Jeffrey got to about Grade 4, we had him diagnosed with developmental dyslexia. Did he move on with his peers? He surely did, on a modified program. And I was shocked when I sat in this Legislature when he was in Grade 12 and saw the Minister of Education, Jake Ootes, stand up and say that Jeffrey Groenewegen had won the departmental top mark for the Northwest Territories in Social Studies for the Alberta departmentals. I went, like, wow! That’s the kid that in Grade 9 could barely read but he was on a modified program. He got advanced with his peers, and by the time he hit Grade 12 he was functioning at a normal level. He is a tradesman today, a qualified tradesman.

I don’t know. I think we need some discretionary latitude. I don’t think we can make a policy that just is carte blanche and that’s the way it is. I think parents have a role to play in that. But can I say that although I’m not trying to discredit academic achievement, I think it’s a wonderful thing. I encourage it for anybody that wants to proceed down that path, but everything about a person’s self-worth, their value, I’m sorry, cannot be numbered, and how smart they are cannot be calculated on a bottom line on a report card. There’s a lot more to life than what’s on that report card and somehow we have to look at the whole person and we need to have some discretionary latitude within our education system to make

decisions about holding back or passing students to continue on in school with their peers.

Like I say, and if you want to talk about the quality of the outcome at the end of Grade 12, let’s have a serious discussion about what’s going into the curriculum these days and let’s talk about what’s going into the classroom in terms of financial support for inclusive schooling. Because I can tell you of educators that are almost ready to throw in the towel because of the stress that they experience. Inclusive schooling is a wonderful idea. It’s a wonderful concept, but not if it’s underfunded. Not if there’s no classroom assistant there to help. Not if a teacher is being pulled in every direction because we’ve got students with every kind of aptitude from A to Z. You’ve got the gifted in with the kids that need that extra time and attention.

Anyway, we’re all individual. I can’t support the motion because I want to, and I’ve seen some of the value of social passing. That doesn’t mean I think we should compromise on our standard, but I think we need the discretion in the system. That’s my opinion and that’s why I don’t support the motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Speaking to the motion we have Mr. Nadli.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I myself will be abstaining from the motion simply because of the fact that I think this motion, we need to have a further study in terms of the analysis so that we have a mainstream academic focus in terms of ensuring that we have one class and not two separate classes. For those reasons, I feel, like my colleagues that previously spoke before me, conflicted on this matter. Therefore, I feel that I will be abstaining from this motion.

Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Speaking to the motion we have Mr. Bouchard.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Some of my colleagues have indicated that they’re in turmoil with this decision or this motion. I’m at the same point. I understand that we have a lot of issues with the current education system and some of the graduation levels. However, I’m not certain that with the changing of this motion would alleviate all those problems. I think we need to look at what the impacts of this would do. The department’s indicated that they wish to continue to use it, and before we make a rash change, I think we should assess what the values are. I would be agreeable to discussing this more, and more agreeable to this motion at a later date, but currently, the way it stands, I won’t be supporting the motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. Speaking to the motion, Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I will be voting in favour of this motion because I am looking for some change and re-evaluation, and even though the motion seems extreme to some Members, that I believe it’s a statement from Members of this side of this House that we cannot go on with the status quo and it should be at least re-evaluated working with our committee system and have a good look at just how we’re doing business. It is a concern in my communities and in my riding, as well, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Speaking to the motion we have Minister Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, have some difficulty with the motion. I think the social passing has a negative connotation when you’re dealing with students, students in the class. I think the phrase is referred to as peer placement. This is the practice of the department to do peer placement. The alternative is to have, as an example, a 10 year old sitting in a class with six year olds in Grade 2 if that’s the level that they’ve achieved. Alternatively, they move with their peers and they’re placed with their peers, and you support that individual and the teachers are essentially teaching multiple grades with the students that are the same age.

I know that when I was in the school system, the kids that were held back didn’t finish school. In a small community, when somebody fails, the whole town knew about it. And that somebody was in Grade 2 for a second and third time, they never finished Grade 2. And kids that achieved Grade 5 by the time they hit puberty, didn’t continue on in school. This is what this motion is saying they want to go back to.

This motion doesn’t fix the problem of students not achieving Grade 12 and not being at a Grade 12 level when they achieve Grade 12. This motion doesn’t achieve students that will be at the Alberta curriculum level when they graduate. What this motion does is it holds back students. Older students will be mixed in with young kids. That’s what will happen with this motion. If we don’t peer place students, then you’re going to have to deal with the parents. The parents who are sending their kids to Grade 5 who are 10 years old, want to know why there’s a 15 or 16-year-old student in that class as well. Those are the things that we have to contemplate when we’re doing something like this.

There are systems built in where you have education assistance designed to address this specific issue, designed to address that the students that are operating at a lower grade function but they are all the same age. These education assistants are supporting and are able to help these students to try to achieve that level

without sticking out like a sore thumb. There are only two options with this: If we don’t have peer placement, then we hold the student back. It’s not a third option here. There are two options. Either he remains in Grade 2 or he advances to Grade 3 with the rest of the students and he continues doing Grade 2 work in Grade 3 so that student doesn’t stick out like a sore thumb.

We have to watch out. We have to care for our students. We have to make sure that we’re protecting the students as well. And the parents. The parents that want to send their children to school and expect that if they have a 10-year-old going to Grade 5 that they’re going to be in school with others in the classroom that are 10 years old also, not students that are 16.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Speaking to the motion we have Mr. Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. I’ve already committed to some of the Members that we are reviewing the inclusive schooling program dollars that are going to the school boards. This is an area that needs more detailed discussion, as Mr. Beaulieu alluded to. Those are areas that we need to have with the school boards, the parents, the teachers, the leaders, our department and various NGO departments as well.

It’s not an easy said and done. This involves a lot of discussion that needs to take place.

I’m also in agreement with Mrs. Groenewegen about what she has stated where individuals being left behind not successfully achieving things in life. Mr. Beaulieu did address that as well. We’ve all experienced that. Not all students are the same. Very true. There are different needs for each student. We have to take all those into perspective on individual needs. Mrs. Groenewegen did talk about that need to assess what the values are in the school system and assist those individuals. That’s what I’ve committed to already, that we need to review the inclusive schooling, the programming that’s out there, and if it needs to be a comprehensive, overall review, that may be the topic of discussion that we need to have.

I did commit that we’re going to review this inclusive schooling. We did address it at the Cabinet level and now we’re here. My department’s willing to pursue that as well, to review the inclusive schooling. I just wanted to relay that message that I did commit in this House.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. I will give opportunity to the mover of the motion for wrap-up. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll just be really quick. I want to thank the Members who are voting in favour of it. I want to thank those just a

little bit less who will be abstaining, and certainly those – darn it – I wish we could have persuaded those who are voting against it. But in all seriousness, this is a very important subject and I want to say that I do recognize and respect those that feel strongly that they have to vote against it. Of course, in this business you can’t hold those as grudges. You have to realize that’s how they feel and you have to respect it. I recognize and respect those who aren’t voting in favour.

The ASA Committee recognizes that social passing is an issue in our education system and I think it’s important. The frustrating part, of course, is everyone here is… I shouldn’t say everyone. It’s not meant to be a broad stroke. The examples that we heard here about the 15-year-old still being in Grade 5, that’s an absolute extreme example. That’s why we would have an Inclusive Schooling Policy, to find some way to get them going along. We’re talking about social passing and that’s really where we’re at.

At this time I’ll ask for a recorded vote and, of course, I will plead to our Cabinet friends that now is your chance for a free vote without the Premier here. The Premier’s not here tonight, nor the stalwart…is anyone else. No one will tell, of course. That’s all I have to say on this particular subject.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the motion.

I’ll ask those opposed to stand.

I’ll ask those to stand who are abstaining.