Kilabuk responds to IDEA concerns

PATRICIA D’SOUZA

Education Minister Peter Kilabuk rose on a point of privilege in the legislative assembly last week to respond to concerns raised by the Iqaluit district education authority about the proposed Education Act, and to “clarify some misunderstandings on several sections of Bill 1.”

Earlier this month, the IDEA sent a letter to parents and students in Iqaluit. That letter was tabled in the house last Tuesday by Iqaluit Centre MLA Hunter Tootoo.

It contained a list of concerns about the new act, saying, among other things, the act removed the option of French as a second language and required students to be in school from ages five to 18.

“The letter rightly states that the second language to be taught is English, Inuktitut or Inuinnaqtun,” Kilabuk said, “depending on the language of instruction of the school.”

He added that the proposed act provides for French to be taught as a third language. “Section 71 of the act also provides for French language education consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

He said the decision to lower the school age to five from six and to require attendance until age 18 was made on the recommendation of the working group reviewing the act.

“We know the vital importance of early childhood education. The joint working group felt it was important to ensure that every child receives an early start in school. Similarly, the joint working group believed that all students should have the opportunity to graduate from high school. Allowing youth to drop out at age 16 undermines that goal.”

A change in wording to “age group” from “peer group” suggested to the IDEA that the notion of social promotion would be introduced to Nunavut schools.

Kilabuk said this is not the case. Instead, it “clarifies, for instance, that having a 16-year-old student in an elementary school is not appropriate, regardless of the program the student is taking.”

And the concern that the use of school facilities for community events would be at the discretion of the minister is also untrue, Kilabuk said.

The act “only provides authority for the minister to set overall policies regarding use of schools. This is appropriate as school buildings are the property of the government. District education authorities still determine community use.”

However, Kilabuk did not address the IDEA’s main concern, that the changes to the act have not been clearly identified.

Despite repeated requests in the house from Tootoo to provide an outline of changes, the department of education still has not provided it.