EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
The fifth recommendation is that the Guidelines for the Tabling of Documents be updated to introduce a requirement that electronic versions of documents that are tabled in the House by the Speaker or ministers in their official capacities also be provided in an electronic format.
One of the current initiatives of the Office of the Legislative Assembly is to make electronic versions of all tabled documents available for downloading by the public from the Legislative Assembly’s website.
This update will help achieve that goal.
The sixth recommendation is that the Legislative Assembly’s recently adopted Guidelines and Protocols for the News Media Respecting Filming, Photography and Other Matters be formally added to our rules as a new appendix.
As members will recall, these guidelines were introduced under the authority of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly in his capacity as Chairperson of the Management and Services Board during the spring 2015 sitting of the House.
The seventh and final recommendation is that the next reprint of the rules corrects a number of typographical errors and terminological inconsistencies that have been identified by the standing committee.
Pursuant to Rule 91, I move that the report of the standing committee be received and adopted by the House, its appendix entered into the record as read and its recommendations for amendments to the Rules of the Legislative Assembly be deemed to have been accepted, effective the first day of the winter 2016 sitting of the Legislative Assembly. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The member has moved that the report of the standing committee be received and adopted by the House, its appendix entered into the record as read and its recommendations for amendments to the Rules of the Legislative Assembly be deemed to have been accepted, effective the first sitting day of the winter 2016 sitting of the Legislative Assembly. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Speaker: Then it’s agreed.
Committee Report 009 – 4(3): Report of the Special Committee to Review the Education Act (Hickes)
I rise today to present the report of the Special Committee to Review the Education Act.
First, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the time and effort staff put in to assist us with this review.
On behalf of all of us, thank you, Siobhan, Karen, and Stephen.
Mr. Speaker, Nunavut’s current Education Act received assent on September 18, 2008 and has come into force in stages.
This special committee was established in order to fulfill section 202.1 and to review the provisions and operation of the Education Act.
Pursuant to Rule 86 of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut, the Special Committee to Review the Education Act was established by a motion in the House on June 9, 2014.
Mr. Speaker, following its establishment, the special committee began the review process immediately and invited key stakeholders, organizations, and members of the public to provide written submissions on Nunavut’s Education Act to the committee.
In June of 2014, the special committee released a number of public service announcements to invite members of the public to make written submissions to the committee on Nunavut’s Education Act.
Mr. Speaker, the special committee was very pleased to receive a significant number of written submissions with respect to Nunavut’s Education Act.
The special committee was impressed with the level of thought and consideration that went into each submission.
Mr. Speaker, the special committee was committed to conducting consultations across Nunavut.
In April and May of 2015, the special committee held public consultation meetings in the communities of Baker Lake, Kugluktuk, Pond Inlet, and Iqaluit.
Mr. Speaker, the special committee also met with representatives from the district education authority in each of the communities that it visited and invited representatives from all those district education authorities that had provided written submissions to meet with the committee to discuss their comments and views.
The special committee would like to acknowledge the high level of commitment and engagement demonstrated by the community members who serve on Nunavut’s local district education authorities.
The special committee held in-depth meetings with all three regional school operations divisions of the Department of Education.
Committee members were extremely impressed with the level of commitment, dedication, and awareness demonstrated by RSO staff.
From May 13 to 14, 2015, the special committee held formal hearings in the Chamber of the Legislative Assembly.
Witnesses were chosen to provide a broad range of views, to represent various sectors of Nunavut’s society, and to explore different perspectives on Nunavut’s education system.
Transcripts from the hearings are available on the Legislative Assembly’s website.
Mr. Speaker, while the special committee did engage with many sectors of Nunavut society, from members of the public to key stakeholders involved in the delivery of Nunavut’s education system, it was noted that the committee could have benefited from the opportunity to seek specific input from students, in particular the first cohort of students who had received their education under the system established by Nunavut’s new Education Act, which saw its first implementation activities begin in 2009.
The special committee recommends that future reviews and consultations on the Education Act seek specific input from Nunavut students and address their insights on how they feel Nunavut’s education system has supported or failed them in achieving their educational goals.
Mr. Speaker, the special committee took the opportunity to scrutinize in detail the Department of Education’s annual reports.
Committee members noted that the annual reports did not address the apparent and ongoing gaps in the implementation of the legislation.
The special committee recommends that the Minister of Education’s annual reports, as required under section 126 (1) of the current Education Act, include specific and comprehensive information on the department’s progress to administer and implement the Education Act.
Mr. Speaker, the 2013 report of the Auditor General of Canada on education in Nunavut was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on November 19, 2013.
The Legislative Assembly’s Standing Committee on Oversight of Government Operations and Public Accounts held hearings on the Auditor General’s report in April of 2014.
Representatives from the Department of Education appeared as witnesses during these hearings and provided copies of the department’s five-year work plan, which outlined its short-term, medium-term, and long-term objectives to address issues raised in the Auditor General’s report.
Mr. Speaker, the special committee noted that an updated version of the department’s work plan could have provided additional insight into the Department of Education’s progress or lack of progress towards implementing certain aspects of Nunavut’s Education Act.
The special committee recommends that the Minister of Education table in the Legislative Assembly an update on the Department of Education’s “Education Act Implementation Work Plan,” which was developed to address the observations and recommendations in the 2013 report of the Auditor General of Canada on education in Nunavut on an annual basis.
Mr. Speaker, the special committee’s review of Nunavut’s Education Act addressed many broad and specific issues.
Members of the standing committee thoroughly considered all input to identify key factors that are currently impacting the administration and implementation of the Education Act, the effectiveness of its provisions, and the achievement of its objectives.
Mr. Speaker, the special committee wishes to emphasize that the delivery of an education system is too important to be driven primarily by political idealism.
The standing committee is of the view that the objectives of an education system must be practical, realistic, and attainable.
Despite tremendous effort and dedication, as well as significant investments of time, money, and resources, it has become apparent that the delivery of Nunavut’s education system under the current Education Act has fallen short of a number of its objectives.
Mr. Speaker, in many respects, the potential for the success of Nunavut’s education system has been weakened by an overly ambitious agenda that was, to some extent, entrenched within the legislation itself.
It is important to acknowledge that changes must be made to the provisions of the current legislation with a view to improving and standardizing the delivery of Nunavut’s education system.
Mr. Speaker, a number of contributions to the special committee’s review process expressed the need for a defined, overall goal or vision statement for Nunavut’s education system.
The need for consistency within the educational system was echoed by many contributors across Nunavut.
The special committee fully supports the concept of focusing resources and effort into the standardized delivery of programs with a view to setting and reaching consistent program delivery for all students across the territory.
The special committee recommends that Nunavut’s education system and its legislation focus on providing and implementing a consistent, standardized program and curriculum across all regions and communities of Nunavut to prepare youth, from early childhood education through high school graduation, for further levels of education and future employment.
My colleagues, the Hon. Paul Quassa will proceed from here.
There is no question that Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit is a valid and compelling force within Nunavut’s government and that the delivery of related programs and activities affect the daily lives of Nunavummiut.
A significant number of participants in the special committee’s review process voiced strong opinions in support of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit as being the source of the guiding principles for Nunavut’s education system.
At the same time, however, the special committee heard a number of comments and concerns regarding the difficulties inherent in trying to enforce the implementation of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit.
To date, Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit in the government is a broadly interpreted and conceptual approach, which is difficult to incorporate into legislation and implement in daily operations.
It was noted that formal legislation has its roots in western culture and often takes on a highly defined and prescriptive structure. A number of contributors argued that the effectiveness of the legislation was compromised by attempts to integrate Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit within specific sections of the Education Act.
Mr. Speaker, it was pointed out that requiring the incorporation of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit within specific legislative contexts in the Education Act without clear and precise definitions, activities, or measurements to assess the success of that implementation was impractical and ineffective.
The special committee concurred fully with this point.
The special committee recommends that specific references to the incorporation of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit in Nunavut’s education system within the Education Act be removed from the legislation.
The special committee supports the position that the principles and concepts of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit provide a critical context for the administration and delivery of Nunavut’s education system.
The special committee recognizes the ongoing efforts of the Department of Education in this area.
The special committee noted that Inuit societal values, including language, culture, and history, could be addressed as distinct subjects within Nunavut’s curriculum.
It was felt that the role of elders could be significantly enhanced and expanded with a renewed focus on providing core subjects within the curriculum that are based on Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and Inuit societal values.
The special committee recommends that Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit be incorporated as core program or curriculum subjects within Nunavut’s education system at all school levels.
My colleague, Ms. Angnakak, will proceed from here.
Ms. Angnakak: Mr. Speaker, Nunavut’s Education Act provides that citizens between the ages of 5 and 21 are entitled to attend a school and have access to the educational program in a regular instructional setting.
The special committee heard a number of concerns with respect to the needs of younger Nunavummiut as well as considerations with respect to older students.
Mr. Speaker, many contributors spoke passionately about the importance of early childhood education and its role in preparing children for success in the school system.
It has been well-established that early childhood is a critical phase that can determine the quality of health, well-being, learning, and behaviour of individuals later on in life.
Mr. Speaker, a number of contributors also noted that kindergarten programs across the territory are currently delivered on a half-day basis and proposed that full-day kindergarten be considered in addition to ensuring that an integrated kindergarten curriculum or program is provided for within the legislation.
The special committee agreed that early childhood education is an important aspect of educational success.
The special committee recommends that the Education Act be amended to require that the minister provide the necessary resources and training to ensure early childhood education programs are made available and provided in every Nunavut community.
The special committee further recommends that the Department of Education explore options to develop full-day kindergarten, taking into consideration space availability, costs of programming and resources, and the impact of increasing the number of instructional hours at the kindergarten level.
Mr. Speaker, some contributors raised concerns regarding the inclusion of adult education in the legislation.
It was noted that there are a number of alternative learning opportunities for adults outside of the school system.
Other contributors focused on the merits and potential problems associated with permitting adult students over the age of 21 to participate in school-based programming.
The special committee was of the view that this topic should be given further consideration.
Mr. Speaker, on a personal note, I returned to high school as an adult student and I was 24 years old, even though I had two children at the time.
For me, it proved an invaluable experience to earn my High School Diploma in that setting.
Mr. Speaker, consistency in policy areas was identified as a necessary focus within the legislation.
Standardized approaches to such issues as attendance, registration, and discipline across all schools would ensure that all students in Nunavut had the same responsibilities and obligations regardless of the community in which they lived.
The special committee recognizes that attendance is a major issue across the territory.
My colleague, Mr. Mikkungwak, will proceed from here.
The importance of protecting and promoting the Inuit language across Nunavut was reflected in the significant number of comments and opinions that were brought forward to the committee concerning the language of instruction provisions in the Education Act.
Currently, the Language of Instruction Regulations of the Education Act establish three distinct models of bilingual language instruction.
Given the limited number of bilingual educators in any given community, the special committee recognizes that delivering three different education models across the territory becomes complex and difficult to manage.
This, in turn, compromises the success of the education system as a whole.
The special committee recommends that the legislation be amended to ensure that Nunavut’s education system delivers bilingual education according to a single, standardized model for all schools across the territory.
Mr. Speaker, many contributors argued passionately for the preservation and promotion of community and regional dialects.
The special committee acknowledges the importance of recognizing and supporting unique dialectal variation at the community level.
The special committee further recommends that accommodations be made within the legislation to enable district education authorities to request and receive necessary resources and support to the deliver additional language programs that take into account regional, community, or dialectal interests and also allow for the delivery of multilingual education, including the Inuit language, French, and English.
Mr. Speaker, the special committee recognizes that section 28 of the Education Act establishes a timeline for the delivery of bilingual education, with the final deadline for this provision to be implemented at all grade levels in the 2019-2020 school year.
Many contributors acknowledged that the targeted dates for meeting these provisions are unrealistic and unattainable.
The special committee recommends that the deadlines for the implementation of language of instruction requirements that are currently included in the legislation be revised and amended or deleted at the earliest opportunity.
Given the limited capacity to deliver bilingual education in Nunavut’s schools, the special committee further recommends that the Government of Nunavut renew its efforts to promote, recruit, and retain teachers and educators trained to deliver a bilingual education in the Inuit language and English.
My colleague, Joe Savikataaq, will continue from here.
A number of submissions and comments reviewed by the special committee addressed concerns regarding social promotion, which relates to students who are passed or ‘promoted’ from grade to grade with their peers without having mastered the required competencies at each grade and without having a learning plan in place which supports their individual academic needs and growth.
Part 6 of Nunavut’s Education Act establishes inclusive education within the school system.
Under the inclusive education mandate, students are entitled to receive an education program which is modified to their specific learning needs and which adjusts the expectations of their achievements under the curriculum as they progress according to their individual capacities.
This approach is intended to enable students to remain in classes with students of their own age group while allowing them to advance continuously from kindergarten to grade 12 at their own individual rate of learning.
The special committee did not hear any arguments against inclusive education.
Indeed, the intent of this approach seemed well supported by educators and educational administrators.
However, as pointed out by several contributors, the lack of resources, specialized training, and support staff as well as specialists to provide professional assessments and advice on how to develop modifications and accommodations for individual students has led to many students not receiving the supports they need while continuing to pass from grade to grade.
Ineffective implementation of inclusive education leads to social promotion.
The lack of training, tools, resources, and professional supports to implement inclusive education impacts the successful delivery of Nunavut’s educational system.
The special committee notes that student attendance must also be considered within the context of inclusive education.
In the interest of ensuring the most effective and efficient use of resources, committee members were of the view that the lack of academic achievement on the part of non-attendance should not be addressed through the means of individual student support plans.
For non-attenders who are being reintegrated into the education system, alternative options for remediation, retention, and promotion must be considered.
The special committee recommends that Part 6 of the Education Act, Inclusive Education, be amended to clarify in detail the conditions under which a student may be entitled to receive a student support program, the provisions that must be included in a student support program, the professional services that will be made available for the development of student support programs, and the process for determining and implementing amendments to student support programs.
My colleague, Mr. Hickes, will proceed from here.
Mr. Hickes: Thank you, Mr. Savikataaq.
Mr. Speaker, Nunavut’s Education Act establishes a series of partnerships between the ministry, school administrators, school staff, students and parents, district education authorities, and the Commission scolaire francophone du Nunavut.
Throughout the special committee’s review, it became clear that the distribution of roles and responsibilities between these various partners is problematic and, in many circumstances, dysfunctional or unbalanced.
With the introduction of the Education Act in 2008, it was anticipated by many that local decision-making in schools would reflect the unique character of the communities in which they were based.
Mr. Speaker, the special committee recognized that the legislated emphasis on local control of education and the widely varying abilities of DEAs to exercise that control has created inequalities in the delivery of education across Nunavut’s communities.
As a result, Nunavut’s education system is not being delivered consistently across the territory.
The special committee is of the view that steps must be taken to re-establish consistency across all communities.
Therefore, the special committee recommends that the minister undertake a comprehensive review of the current roles and responsibilities of Nunavut’s district education authorities and make amendments to the legislation which will establish a standardized set of duties and responsibilities for all district education authorities that reflects their common capacity to meet the mandated obligations.
The special committee further recommends that the minister put a greater emphasis on communicating the roles and responsibilities of district education authorities, school administrators, and regional school operations to each respective entity.
Mr. Speaker, at the time of the special committee’s review, the operations and management of the French school commission, CSFN, were in some disarray.
The special committee received limited input with respect to the role of CSFN as established under the legislation.
While the special committee fully appreciates that compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms must be taken into account when considering any amendments to the legislation in this area, it was clear to members that revisions are necessary to clarify roles, responsibilities, rights, and accountabilities with respect to French language minority rights in Nunavut.
The special committee recommends that the legislation be amended to clarify and strengthen the relationship and distribution of responsibilities between the minister, the Department of Education, and CSFN.
The special committee recommends that the rights and obligations of minority language rights-holders with respect to minority language education in Nunavut be clarified within the legislation.
The special committee further recommends that the legislation be amended to provide greater clarity and accountability with respect to the status of education staff under CSFN.
Mr. Speaker, it was also apparent that there are significant disparities between the roles and responsibilities assigned to CSFN as compared to those assigned to district education authorities.
The special committee is of the view that there needs to be more consistency in the roles of entities governing education across Nunavut to ensure equal rights to education for all residents.
The special committee recommends that the legislation be amended to ensure that the Minister of Education’s authority with respect to educational programming in Nunavut’s schools is consistent across Nunavut.
Mr. Speaker, as Nunavut’s new education legislation was being developed, the DEA coalition established itself as an advocacy group for district education authorities, which, in the absence of regional school boards, had lost an avenue to voice and share concerns or best practices.
The role of the DEA coalition was acknowledged under Nunavut’s Education Act, which establishes it as a legislated entity.