Let’s affirm it from the outset: we welcome the project to create the National Institute of Excellence in Education (INEE). Beyond all the fears evoked by some in recent days, the main argument justifying the establishment of such an organization is the following: one cannot effectively direct the operation of any organization whatsoever without having reliable data on system performance. One cannot rely on impressions or hearsay when it comes to steering a system as important as that of school-based education.
As long as we don’t know anything, as long as we don’t rely on proven facts, we can say anything. This is precisely where the real danger lies. This is what happened during the last education reform: to solve the problem of students in difficulty and that of dropping out, we put forward socio-constructivism and pedagogy by project. It was the fashionable discourse in 2000, but serious empirical research was not at all in this direction, and the effectiveness of these means to deal with these problems was far from being demonstrated. It would have been surprising to hear the Superior Council take issue with this reform, its working arm being the former president!
Some have made criticisms that the state should not get involved in pedagogy. The problem, however, does not lie there. The State can get involved in pedagogy, but it must be adequately informed if it decides to get involved. However, during the last reform, it did not have the wise resources to do so. This is why we believe that the creation of such an institute collecting reliable data, analyzing solid research and producing research syntheses could fill this gap. It could thus allow the State to base itself on credible data and prevent it from navigating blindly. It is fundamental.
In connection with the need to rely on conclusive data, it is also necessary to emphasize the importance for a State of being able to count on a stable, that is to say permanent, research structure. Research groups and centers can produce solid work, but they are always at the mercy of securing funding. As academics, we are familiar with the ritual of grant applications and have witnessed the instability that results from the results of the various competitions. For example, creating an observatory of the teaching profession would require not only the possibility of obtaining precise data, but also that of collecting it on a longitudinal basis. Only a structure such as an Institute can have the means to permanently inform the system of the staff in place, their dropout rate, staff forecasts, etc. This would no doubt have been able to better predict staffing needs and react in time.
That said, since the National Institute has not yet been created, we will later begin the study stage of Bill 23 deciding on its creation. To play its role correctly, the Institute must be able to benefit from complete autonomy from political power. Its existence is justified precisely by this independence, which makes its work and analyzes trustworthy. We see the role of this Institute somewhat like that of Statistics Canada, which produces reliable data on Canadian society while maintaining a distance from political power. In the same way, the Institute produces studies on the education system or produces summaries of research, on education, on initial or continuing training, on dropping out, on assessment or on any other important subject. It can paint a picture of a situation or make recommendations about preferred strategies, but it is ultimately the state that will act on it or not, in the manner it deems appropriate.
However, the State and the INEE will have to ensure that they always maintain a healthy distance from each other and the INEE will absolutely have to maintain this independence from political power to ensure both its credibility and a optimal operation. What mechanisms will need to be put in place to achieve this? This is one of the biggest challenges facing this new organization.