A string of objections have already been formulated against the creation of a National Institute of Excellence in Education (INEE) which would result from the adoption of the bill recently presented by Minister Bernard Drainville. Let us recall a few of them: presumption of relevance of the means; vagueness of the situation to be resolved; authoritarian approach to change; duplication of structures; thirst for government power; vagueness of the concept of excellence promoted; obstruction of educational and scientific freedom; loss of places for consultation; promotion of a tunnel vision of research; apparent conflicts of interest of the initiative’s standard-bearers; deprofessionalization of teachers… We add one more to the list which is as long as it is incomplete: the naivety of the idea.
The heart of INEE’s mission would be to identify best practices and teaching methods proven effective by scientific research and disseminate them to stakeholders in the education system.
Noble goal. Which, however, is more complicated than it looks.
The handful of people who hum the INEE sirventès in the ear of the Minister of Education believe that there is a definite way to achieve “effective” practices. Yet anyone with basic research training easily disproves this. Rather, there is a variety of research approaches, which are complementary and all necessary, and which generate a plurality of useful and quality results.
Moreover, many of these results are already available. For example, through the Transfer Center for Educational Success in Quebec (CTREQ) as well as journals and conferences of professional associations. So why sink millions of dollars into a new structure? Would troubadours of a single view of science look down on the world from their pedestal to profess what they have chosen to be valid?
There is more…
Between reading that cigarettes are bad for your health and quitting smoking, there are a few steps to take. In other words, access to quality information does not magically lead to a change in practice. Yet it is on such a naive premise that much of the operation of the INEE is based.
Access to relevant information and knowledge is only a favorable condition for change. Donald Ely, a professor who has studied the issue for decades, has identified several others. Unfortunately, these conditions are virtually absent from Minister Drainville’s bill.
Let’s see what.
Dissatisfaction with the current situation. It is important to feel a need to fully engage in a process of change. This need may vary from one school service centre, from one school, from one cycle team, or even from one individual to another. Unfortunately, the prescriptive orientation of the INEE, confirmed by the recent authoritarian remarks made by Minister Drainville, runs counter to this first condition favorable to change.
The availability of resources and time. Change initiatives require resources, otherwise they will stall. Do we need to elaborate on the scarcity of those currently available to support school personnel who want to set up new ways of doing things? To ask the question is unfortunately to answer it.
Incentives. With the exception of the stick and carrot strategy promoted in the section of the bill relating to the intensification of management based on simplistic indicators, nothing positive seems to have been planned to operationalize this crucial condition in change. A dispossession of the agency of school personnel and therefore an increased demobilization is to be expected.
The participation. Change tends to take hold when the people concerned have the opportunity to express themselves and get involved in the process. In this regard, the Minister will be able to dictate to school personnel the research results to be appropriated. This is the antithesis of the recognition of professionalism.
Regarding the reflection on the relevance of the INEE, the only place of participation will be the parliamentary committee of the month of June. A commission that will look like vaudeville since it will be clearly overcrowded by professors who have been promoting an INEE for years and ideas peddling a reductionist vision of “effective” processes for teaching and teaching.
Commitment and leadership. Here, it is above all a question of the attitude of the leaders with regard to the people involved in a process of change. Is she benevolent? Supporting? Inspirational? To each his own answer…
Bill 23, in particular the component on the INEE, is an eloquent example of an initiative which, behind a seductive and virtuous political and scientific discourse, testifies to a profound naivety about the management of change in education.
If we judge that there is a lack of information on a given subject, we should call on the many existing research infrastructures in universities or at the Institut de la statistique du Québec. That we strengthen the capacity of current venues. Real conditions should be put in place so that school personnel can draw inspiration from the diversity of research results and maintain sustained links with the research community.
Parachuting knowledge is one thing. Supporting forums for ongoing consultation and dialogue between practitioners and researchers is another. Certainly more demanding, but more realistic and respectful of the complexity of educational action.
Bill 23 is at odds with educational reality. It is therefore not conclusive and, therefore, should be abandoned.
* Also signed this letter:
Patrick Giroux, University of Quebec at Chicoutimi
Therese Laferriere, Laval University
Stéphane Martineau, University of Quebec at Trois-Rivières
Philippa Parks, University of Sherbrooke
Françoise Armand, University of Montreal
Charles-Antoine Bachand, University of Quebec in Outaouais
Audrey Raynault, Laval University
Geneviève Therriault, University of Quebec at Rimouski
Adriana Morales-Perlaza, University of Montreal
Geneviève Carpentier, University of Montreal
Jean Bernatchez, University of Quebec at Rimouski
Marie-Pierre Baron, University of Quebec at Chicoutimi
Corina Borri-Anadon, University of Quebec at Trois-Rivières
Sivane Hirsch, University of Quebec at Trois-Rivières
Catherine Dumoulin, University of Quebec at Chicoutimi
Catherine Maynard, Laval University
Francisco A. Loila, University of Montreal
Pauline Sirois, Laval University
Hélène Makdissi, Laval University
Claire Beaumont, Laval University
Marc-André Deniger, University of Montreal
Simon Viviers, Laval University
Rola Koubeissy, University of Montreal
Philippe Tremblay, Laval University
Geraldine Heilporn, Laval University
Marie-Claude Larouche, University of Quebec at Trois-Rivières
Catherine Larouche, University of Quebec at Chicoutimi
Geneviève Fournier, Laval University
Frédéric Deschenaux, University of Quebec at Rimouski
Jacques Desautels Laval University
Abdoulaye Anne, Laval University
Michelle Deschênes, University of Quebec at Rimouski
Ann-Louise Davidson, Concordia University
Hassane Squalli, University of Sherbrooke
Marc-André Éthier, University of Montreal
Marie Larochelle, Laval UniversityJean Gabin Ntebutse, University of Sherbrooke
Vincent Richard, Laval University
Stephanie Duval, Laval University
Marie-France Maranda, Laval University
Izabella Oliveira, Laval University
Florian Meyer, University of Sherbrooke
Manon Chamberland, Laval University
Eddy Supeno, University of Sherbrooke
Geneviève Brisson, University of Sherbrooke
Marie-Claude Bernard, Laval University
Yvon Pepin, Laval University
Véronique Fortier, University of Quebec in Montreal
Enrique Correa Molina, University of Sherbrooke
Chantal Leclerc, Laval University
Mathieu Thibault, University of Quebec in Outaouais
Marie Luquette, University of Montreal
Josephine Mukamurera, University of Sherbrooke
Geneviève Barabé, University of Montreal
Laurie Bergeron, University of Quebec in Montreal
David Benoit, University of Quebec in Outaouais
Saidou Segueda, University of Sherbrooke
Claudia Gagnon, University of Sherbrooke
Anick Baribeau, University of Sherbrooke
Emilie Morin, University of Quebec at Rimouski
Andréanne Gagné, University of Sherbrooke
Diane Gauthier, University of Quebec at Chicoutimi
Pascale Thériault, University of Quebec at Chicoutimi
Chantale Beaucher, University of Sherbrooke
Nicole Monney, University of Quebec at Chicoutimi
Denis Savard, Laval University