Skip to main content

Replacing school boards with Community School Councils will likely mean the students who need the most help will get the least help

 On Wednesday  April 7, I raised, in Question  Period, my concerns with the  government's  plan to  eliminate school boards and put in place Community School Councils (essentially Parent Councils under a slightly different  name).   A considerable problem  with the  Pallister Conservative government's approach is that the schools where the most help  is needed will likely have the least help.  My question and the Premier's response are below.  While the Premier may say he wants to help children who are less well off, his plan is likely to achieve the opposite.  

Schools in Low-Income Areas - Parental Engagement Concerns

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Madam Speaker, the government wants to eliminate school boards. The government wants to use school boards as the scapegoat for their own failures in education. To improve school performance, the government needs to provide most help to students who are struggling the most to improve.

      A major problem with the government's proposal is that the very schools which are located in low-income areas where children are struggling the most are the very schools where engagement of parents and effective community school councils will be the least likely.

      Why is the government going to implement in Bill 64 a system in which those children who need the most help will receive the least help?

Hon. Brian Pallister (Premier): Unlike the members opposite, Madam Speaker–and this member just personified it with his comments–ill-advised comments at best–we won't give up on the parents of this province, nor will we give up on children who live in poverty.

      Madam Speaker, these reforms are designed to assist and uplift what is the greatest opportunity for equality in our society: the public school system, which the Leader of the Opposition has never been part of and refuses to support now with his own decisions.

      So, Madam Speaker, we will not give up on the public school system. We will not give up on the teachers in it. And we will most certainly not give up on the parents who live in poverty in this province.

      Our reforms are designed to assist most of all this group of children and these people.


Popular posts from this blog

Comparison between Manitoba and South Dakota shows dramatic impact of Physical Distancing

Manitoba implemented physical distancing measures in mid-March.  South Dakota has still not made physical distancing mandatory.   The result is a dramatic difference in the incidence of covid-19 viral infections between the two jurisdictions.   This graph shows the number of people with Covid-19 infections from March 27 to April 14.  Manitoba ( red line )  started leveling off about April 4 and has seen only a small increase in Covid-19 infections since then.   South Dakota ( blue line )   has seen a dramatic increase in Covid-19 infections since April 4.  Those who are skeptical of the impact of physical distancing in Manitoba should look at this graph! Data are from the Johns Hopkins daily tabulations

Standing up for Seniors

Yesterday in the Legislature I  asked the Minister of Health questions about the care of seniors in personal care homes in Manitoba.   I specfically called for the Minister to increase the training and staffing requirements for personal care homes in Manitoba to bring them up to date.   My questions, the Minister's comments and the Speaker's interjection are below:  Personal-Care-Home  Improvements - Need for Upgrades to Standards and Training Hon. Jon  Gerrard   (River Heights): Madam Speaker, we're very concerned this government is not adapting to the reality of caring for seniors who are living longer. Seniors living in our personal-care homes today have much more challenging health-care conditions than those who were in similar homes even five years ago, and yet the staffing formula, or minimal personnel requirement, is over 20 years old. Too few care aides and nurses are adequately trained to look after residents with dementia and multiple chronic health conditi

I cried today when I heard the report on the Maples Care Home disaster

Today the Pallister  government released the report on the tragedy which occurred at the Maples personal care home in October  to December 2020.   There were far too many people infected with COVID-19 (73 staff and 157 residents) and far too many deaths (56).  It did not have to be this way.  The central finding of the report was: "The review found that while pandemic plans had  been prepared and were in place, the site was not prepared for the significant reduction in available staff once they had been  exposed to COVID-19  and were required to self-isolate.  In addition, the urgency of requests for additional on-site staffing supports were not  fully understood until the situation became critical.   While additional staff were brought in, many were not skilled in providing long-term care services and  lacked training in infection prevention and control and specialized housekeeping skills."    Five  months before, Manitoba Liberals had warned the Premier three times that pre