Madam Minister, first of all allow me to congratulate you on your recent appointment. While files are already piling up on your desk, I respectfully allow myself to question you.
Over the past year, I have had the opportunity to work with your predecessor, Ms.me McCann. If certain media have sometimes had harsh words about him, I rather remember his openness, the meticulousness of his work and his determination.
The file for which I had to discuss with her is that of the compulsory history course offered to social sciences students in CEGEPs. Pressed by a large number of speakers and subject to contrary winds, she did not hesitate to slow down the pace before deciding.
You are probably aware that not only did she maintain the Western perspective of the previous course, but she managed to find the funds necessary to proceed with an additional 15 hours of teaching for this course.
If I guess that she had to be supported by her government to release a few million dollars from the Treasury Board, I was however surprised to note that some resistance came from the officials of her department, your department.
The good faith of officials
These same officials, who were going in a direction other than that chosen by the Minister, had previously committed a major methodological error during the consultation process.
What is even more serious is that they continue to pervert the minister’s thinking. The writing skill with which we are preparing to develop lesson plans is not what the minister wanted, neither in spirit nor in letter. The same applies to the title of this course entitled “History of the world from the 15e century to the present day”.
Too powerful officials?
I can only be surprised to see that civil servants enjoy such great freedom or that they allow themselves to distort the decision of an elected official. Quebecers have just re-elected a CAQ government and the names of none of these officials appeared on the ballots.
If Mme McCann was able to correct a mistake made by officials the first time, I can only hope that we can do it again.
Taxpayer money, including the extra millions, has been allocated for a 60-hour course that covers world history from a Western perspective, from antiquity to the present day. Yet the competency statement is convoluted and the title suggests that two of the four major historical periods can be overlooked.
If you ever wish to continue the discussion, several colleagues and I would be available to discuss with you.
As of this writing, publishers are about to finish writing textbooks that rely on an erroneous version of the course title and skill. More importantly, our students will be misled as to the nature and content of this course.