Congratulation ! So here you are Minister of Education. I am sure you will agree with me that education is one of the most essential institutions of our society and that the position you occupy is therefore of an importance that cannot be underestimated. You have been told a lot, in the media, about the major problems that you (and all of us, by the same token) will be confronted with. The people from the ministry will no doubt tell you about it as well. All this is well known and I will therefore go very quickly, without being able to enumerate everything. Because what I especially want to talk to you about is what I would call the problems of the problems. Finally, I’d like to suggest a way to deal with them, and maybe even solve them.
Let’s start with a real drama: there is a shortage of teachers. This is, among other things, because we do not train enough, but also because too many drop out of training and many leave the profession after only a few years.
In terms of architecture and buildings, it is said that up to six out of ten schools are in poor condition, struggling in particular with cases of dilapidation, mold and poor ventilation.
Worse still: our school system, born in the 1960s from a desire to democratize access to education and promote equal opportunities, is deeply unequal and operates at three speeds: private, public with programs individuals and the general public. The latest results of the ministerial reviews even show that the gap is widening between the public and the private sector.
I pass quickly on the failures of future teachers in the French test and on the data relating to illiteracy, but we all know that all this is worrying. There is also the fact that we do not seem able to provide the services needed by all students with learning and adjustment difficulties, problems that the pandemic and distance learning have probably exacerbated.
There are others. But I come to the essential.
The problems of the problems
To make myself understood, allow me to use an analogy. Suppose I welcome you aboard the education vessel and inform you that the boat is taking on water and that we urgently need to repair serious damage.
Immediately, voices rise.
It’s not damage, say the ship’s designers, just a small, insignificant problem — and some even claim that the ship is in perfect condition and needs to keep moving forward.
It is indeed damage, say mechanics and passengers, much more serious than what you have been led to believe.
Others assure that talking about this damage hides the real and much more serious problem, which is elsewhere, in particular in the non-respect of the new rules of tourism currently in fashion.
In the distance, above all these voices, we even hear stowaways who assure us that, in any case, it is not on a ship that we are sailing.
This is somewhat what you are going to discover in education, an environment crossed by deep disagreements on the state of things, on the means to be favored to solve the problems raised, but also, and to make the situation even worse, on the finalities of the system. This time, we even disagree on the destination of the ship, if at least there is a ship.
These deep quarrels, where ideology and economic interests are often combined, make it very difficult to agree, both on the state of the situation and on the aims to be pursued.
Here are some examples, about topics I was talking about above.
We would like to know the reasons for the abandonment of studies or the profession, and to be able to judge the quality of the training offered. Good luck ! On the one hand, you will have people strongly demanding that faculties of education be abolished and replaced by national teacher training institutes, and on the other, people who reject this idea with equal force.
Some will assert that it is wrong to speak of a three-speed school. Or that it is, but it’s a great thing.
Some will question the fact that we can establish an objective portrait of the situation and will reject the very idea of conclusive data and rigorous monitoring of what has been put in place, which others defend as necessary.
You guessed. Acting, other than to make specific and minor interventions, is in such a context extremely difficult.
To do this, we would need the most objective possible portrait of the situation and know what the broad social consensus is on the aims of education.
In my opinion, there is only one way to proceed to satisfy these two essential requirements: to launch a vast consultation on education, as we did so well in the 1960s.
You may know it: I have been defending this idea for years and call this consultation a Parent 2.0 commission.
I recently rejoiced that the great Guy Rocher, member of the Parent commission, defended the same idea. I quote him: “I think it would be time to do another Parent commission. We do research in a number of places, such as the Conseil supérieur de l’éducation, which is unfortunately not well enough known, but there is no place where all this knowledge is collected and synthesized. We must consult many people and in all regions of Quebec; hold meetings, receive briefs. It will cause a stir in society, like the one that fueled the Parent commission a lot. But this second committee will have to be given time to work. »
Mr. Drainville, would you like to leave a precious legacy in Quebec in education?