Since its announcement, Minister Bernard Drainville’s Bill 23 has sparked fierce controversy throughout the education network. Just about everyone agrees that it doesn’t tackle real problems and even creates new ones. In addition, although virulent criticism also comes from the academic world, the Minister of Higher Education is very discreet. However, a critical mass of professors believe that this project goes against the conclusions of an important report that his own government commissioned a few years ago.
In 2020, the Minister of Higher Education at the time entrusted the Chief Scientist of Quebec with the mandate to reflect on the future of the university. A working group representative of academia was formed and extensive consultation took place.
A dozen recommendations resulted from this and three essential conditions for the fulfillment of the mission of universities were reiterated: academic freedom, institutional autonomy and appropriate funding.
A few weeks ago, one-third of university professors in education in Quebec signed a letter addressed to the Chief Scientist1 to inform him that the Drainville bill jeopardized the conclusions of his report published in 2021. As a courtesy, Minister Pascale Déry was copied.
In addition to highlighting the risks surrounding the creation of a National Institute for Educational Excellence (INEE), signatories raised concerns about the over-centralization of Bill 23, its design of scientific research, of its naive representation of the transfer of knowledge (which confines it to a simple dissemination of information), of the danger of an important orientation of research funding, of the potential amputation of collaborations between researchers and practitioners in schools and a trend towards homogenization of research and intervention practices.
Risky abolition
In addition, it should be added that the abolition of the Committee for the Accreditation of Teacher Training Programs (CAPFE), a neutral body made up of a variety of actors involved in teacher training, carries its risks. It should be remembered that this body is responsible for the periodic evaluation of the programs. Its disappearance, combined with the centralization of powers in the hands of the minister as well as the tasks of certification of programs and training which would fall to the INEE, would create a major precedent. The situation would be the prelude to a dispossession of the universities from the control of the programs.
In short, the Drainville bill strikes head-on at the heart of the universities’ mission: training and research.
However, how is it that the Minister of Higher Education does not seem to be interested in the file? Is she concerned about the possible consequences of her colleague’s bill on the functioning of universities? Why are the latter not challenged other than by the majority and almost monolithic point of view repeated by a handful of colleagues in the parliamentary committee?
Considering the Minister’s mission, which is to “support the student community and educational institutions, promote higher education in order to contribute, in a sustainable manner, to the economic, social and cultural development of Quebec” , would it not be necessary for it to contribute by ensuring that multiple voices are taken into account with respect to the orientations and potential impacts of Bill 23? With this in mind, wouldn’t his responsibility be to ask Minister Drainville to withdraw the bill so that their departments can work together and, above all, coordinate a broader public consultation?
Because how do we think we can succeed in implementing the orientations of this law if a significant part of the school and university actors simply reject it?