HANSARD

and

Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

Mr. David Wilson, Glace Bay (Chairman)

Hon. David Morse

Mr. Alfred MacLeod

Mr. Chuck Porter

Mr. Clarrie MacKinnon

Ms. Joan Massey

Mr. Charles Parker

Mr. Michel Samson

Ms. Diana Whalen

[Mr. Clarrie MacKinnon was replaced by Mr. William Estabrooks.]

[Mr. Michel Samson was replaced in the witness portion by Mr. Leo Glavine.]

[Ms. Diana Whalen was replaced by Mr. Keith Colwell.]

In Attendance:

Mrs. Darlene Henry

Legislative Committee Clerk

Mr. Gordon Hebb

Legislative Counsel

WITNESSES

Tuition Support Program - Parent Representatives

Ms. Anne Forbes

Mrs. Kim Smith

Ms. Janet Crowell

Mrs. Jocelyn Conrad

Mr. and Mrs. Cyril White

Department of Education

Dr. Alan Lowe, Senior Executive Director, Public Schools Branch

Mr. Alex Bruce, Special Education Consultant

Mr. Kevin Finch, Communications Advisor

HALIFAX, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2007

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

9:00 A.M.

CHAIRMAN

Mr. David Wilson (Glace Bay)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We've got a very busy agenda this morning, so first of all we're going to deal with the appointments to the agencies, boards and commissions. Let me start first of all, just for the record, by introducing our members. They can introduce themselves, please.

[The committee members introduced themselves.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We're dealing first of all with the appointments to the Department of Community Services. You have, I believe, everything before you in your folders and the binders that you've received, so let's start please. Mr. Morse.

HON. DAVID MORSE: Mr. Chairman, I so move Marilyn Booth, Katherine Briand, Cheryl Gillett Harawitz and Gary Newcombe as members of the Children and Family Services Advisory Committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

There is one appointment under the Cape Breton Island Housing Authority, Mr. Frank Sutherland.

MR. WILLIAM ESTABROOKS: I so move the appointment of Mr. Sutherland to the Housing Authority in Cape Breton.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Samson.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, I will be opposing this motion for the following reasons. Having done a bit of research, it appears that Mr. Sutherland has currently served two consecutive terms on the Cape Breton Island Housing Authority and if we're to look at the sheet that comes with the appointment, in fact right after the yellow page, you will note it says under the term restrictions, "max. of 2 consecutive, 3-year terms; must sit out a minimum of 1 term before eligible for reappointment."

Mr. Sutherland appears to be an appointment by a minister. I am at a bit of a loss as to why the minister is not respecting the terms set out in the guidelines for these appointments, because it's clear and I have confirmed to the Clerk's Office. In fact it's actually here on his application under Form "A", which shows the number of previous terms served, two, and the number of previous years served, six. So clearly, based on the regulations set out by the minister for these appointments, Mr. Sutherland would not be eligible at this point for reappointment, without having sat out at least for a one-year period for this.

Based on that, and I certainly look forward to any comments that other members would have, but I believe that this position should not go forward, based on the fact it seems to violate the restrictions and regulations set out by the minister and by the committee in regard to this type of appointment.

MR. MORSE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Some years ago, I learned about that restriction when I was responsible for another department and we did have names come forward for a third term, and in some cases more than a third term. It was somewhat of a frustration to the people on those housing authorities to understand why some of their best people were not able to serve again. So I can tell the member that there is precedent for appointing for more than two terms, although I do respect what he has seen in the document. However, I can say that by personal experience I know that it has taken place in the last couple of years.

MR. SAMSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, there is a reason why we have set out the restriction of two consecutive terms and then asking a person to sit out at that point. There's a reason why that was put in - to ensure that there is change that takes place and new faces are brought in. The fact is that there is actually no indication in here from the minister or from the department as to why they would ask us to waive the two term restriction in the case of Mr. Sutherland and if there was a compelling argument to be made, then that's something I believe this committee would look at.

Clearly from this, just looking at it, it's just a reappointment, and the guidelines set out indicate that this is not a valid reappointment because of the restrictions that are put in place. I would further submit that I believe Mr. Sutherland has been adequately compensated for his political affiliations and therefore, unless there is a compelling argument by the minister as to why he should be reappointed contrary to the restrictions, I don't see how this committee could allow this appointment to go forward.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Morse.

MR. MORSE: Mr. Chairman, on the point that some sort of explanation should perhaps be coming forward from the minister as to why we would consider a third term, I would concur that's a reasonable request to the minister and suggest that we defer Mr. Sutherland's appointment for one meeting, pending comment by the minister as to why she wants to reappoint him for a third term.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Estabrooks.

MR. ESTABROOKS: Ain't politics grand? Sure, I'll let it be deferred.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll defer that then. You were looking for a written explanation from the minister. Do you want the committee to write to the minister asking for a written explanation of why this appointment is being suggested?

MR. SAMSON: Especially in light of the fact that the guidelines for this type of position is restricted to two consecutive terms. There is no explanation as to why the minister is asking us to waive that restriction, and I would further highlight it might be possible that the minister and her staff were not aware of the restriction or did not turn their minds to that when bringing forward Mr. Sutherland's name.

Mr. Chairman, I would further submit that we should indicate to the minister, if there is a need, that it might be possible to amend the current ads that have been put out for positions to include the Cape Breton Island Housing Authority, if there is a need for more applications for that position.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll wait for clarification from the minister to see just how many applications there have been, if any. I don't know, we'll find out, if any. Let's move on.

The South Shore - there is one reappointment. Mr. Porter.

MR. CHUCK PORTER: Mr. Chairman, I so move Mr. Andrew Gow as a member of the South Shore Housing Authority.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

The Department of Economic Development, Film Development Corporation Board of Nova Scotia, there are two names suggested. Mr. Morse.

MR. MORSE: Mr. Chairman, I so move the appointment of Malcolm Bennett and Richard J. Hebb as directors of the Film Development Corporation Board.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

The Department of Education, Nova Scotia College of Art and Design Board of Governors - one name suggested. Mr. Morse.

MR. MORSE: Mr. Chairman, I so move that Michael Donovan be appointed as a member of the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design Board of Governors.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

The next one, with the permission of the committee, can we just skip that and leave it to the end?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is agreed. Minimum Wage Review Committee, there are employee representative appointments, four of them. Mr. Porter.

MR. PORTER: Mr. Chairman, I so move to the Minimum Wage Review Committee as employee representatives, Steven MacPherson, Sandra Rodd, Rick Clarke and Thomas Patterson.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there further comments? Mr. Samson.

MR. SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, just to make clear that two are employer representatives and two are employee representatives, just so the record clearly shows the distinction between the two groups.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're correct, Mr. Samson, I should have read that. Thank you very much.

Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

Department of Justice, Nova Scotia Legal Aid Commission. There are two member appointments. Mr. Morse.

MR. MORSE: Mr. Chairman, I so move the appointments of Shanta Dhir and Vincent Bernard MacDonald as members of the Legal Aid Commission.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, Nova Scotia Real Estate Appraisers Association Board of Directors - two members. Mr. Parker.

MR. CHARLES PARKER: Mr. Chairman, I so move the appointment of Valerie A. Folk and Bernard G. Smith to that board.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

Department of Tourism, Culture and Heritage, Nova Scotia Museum Board of Governors - two members reappointed. Mr. Porter.

MR. PORTER: Mr. Chairman, I so move the appointments of Archibald McCulloch and Sandra Nowlan as members of the Nova Scotia Museum Board of Governors.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

We will move back to the Department of Environment and Labour, which is our 13 reappointments to the Film Classifiers Division. This is an item that has been before this committee now for at least a couple of months, since August. We've received two pieces of correspondence from the minister, and I know that all members have them in their packages. The latest piece of correspondence that we received from the minister was received on October 10^th and it brought to our attention that the delay in reappointing film classifiers is creating a backlog in DVDs that are waiting to be classified. There were, at the time of his writing, 234 DVDs that had to be classified and were in a backlog, and I'm to understand that the number is growing on a daily basis.

The last committee meeting that we had, the NDP caucus was out of town at their out of town caucus and members could not attend. It was the feeling of this committee that, since the question of reappointment was brought into question by the NDP caucus, we would like to have the NDP caucus members here in attendance to participate in that. Mr. Morse.

[9:15 a.m.]

MR. MORSE: Mr. Chairman, I will accept responsibility for moving that motion last month to defer the decision to today, because I did feel it was only appropriate that the NDP have a chance to comment after hearing from the minister. I would suggest now that in view of the backlog this is creating in the classification of DVDs and movies, and other items classified by the committee, that we move forward on these appointments today. I think the minister has explained why he has chosen these candidates and I would be pleased to move them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Massey.

MS. JOAN MASSEY: I do see that there is one piece of correspondence, but did you say there were two pieces of correspondence that we received?

MR. CHAIRMAN: There was a previous piece of correspondence from September 17^th, where the minister outlined - it all went to your caucus offices - employment status and other pertinent facts about the people who were being reappointed, including their age when known, because that was what was brought into question at first was the diversity of the group. So that was provided to your office and it was received here on September 17^th and it was provided to your office shortly afterward, I believe. Ms. Massey, do you have any further comments?

MS. MASSEY: Well, I do apologize, I haven't seen that letter previous to just now. What I could comment on was that I did read the comments that our member for Halifax Chebucto had made, because I think he was filling in for me - I was away. I do understand where he was going with that and after going through the list of 14 last night, myself, again,

I do understand where he was coming from and I do see in the letter they had tried to address that.

One thing that I would like to point out - and I don't know if it was pointed out - when I went through them last night, I think there was only one mentioned in the resumés or the letter saying that the person wanted to get on this film classifiers group. There was only one comment in relation to anything to do with arts and culture, so I don't know if that was brought up at the previous meeting.

Also, just the criteria for being on this, basically you have to be able to be desensitized. There's no mention in the criteria to be on this committee that you have to have any background in film culture or arts background. So I guess just a little comment from me, certainly all those people had very long backgrounds and they've served their communities well and the province. So I just wanted to make those comments, and who am I to hold up 234 DVDs? There might be something there that I want to see. It's hard to believe there's a backlog that big already.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Samson, then Mr. Estabrooks, then Mr. Morse.

MR. SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like clarification on an issue. When this matter was last raised with a motion by the Minister of Natural Resources, I believe in the press scrum that followed he indicated that the NDP caucus had communicated or provided some correspondence to the government requesting that the delay take place at the last meeting. I'm wondering if either the minister or the members of the NDP caucus could confirm whether that's in fact accurate and if they can provide us with a copy of such a request for an additional delay that took place at the last meeting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll deal with that once I get to Mr. Morse.

Mr. Estabrooks.

MR. ESTABROOKS: I can respond to the member for Richmond. If there is that correspondence available, we'll get it over to your office today.

A couple of points. The member for Halifax Chebucto asked the question revolving around age and appropriateness of these people and their candidacy aside. Is it out of style these days, Mr. Chairman, to ask someone their age? I see the report here and if anybody wants to know how old I am, when I was born, I'd tell them. I don't have to say "59 estimated". I'm either 59 or I'm not 59.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, I missed that, Mr. Estabrooks, what did you . . . .

MR. ESTABROOKS: You weren't paying attention again, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I was in another conversation, I apologize.

MR. ESTABROOKS: If I can remember what I said - Hansard will reflect this. Is it now out of style to ask someone how old they are? If we want to know if we're 59 or 58 or 60, we give the age. Now it says here, person after person on this list, the third candidate from Bridgetown, "Female, 50 estimated". Sorry to be picky about it and sorry to hold it up again, because I know that those DVDs are of crucial importance and there's a lot of popcorn to be eaten to watch those. But if we want someone's age, why can't we just get the age?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd have to check further but to the best of my knowledge, I don't think we're allowed to ask someone their age, because it would be one of those things that would perhaps be discriminatory.

MR. ESTABROOKS: Well, slap my wrist.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You want a legal opinion? We'll ask our . . .

MR. ESTABROOKS: No, forget it, I don't want to hear that stuff.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Estabrooks. Mr. Morse.

MR. MORSE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The member for Dartmouth East talked about the arts and culture background of the various candidates, which is sometimes difficult to discern from their application. While it is certainly commendable to have that kind of background, this is a classification board. They do not do artistic reviews of the material, they classify it as to its age appropriateness. Therefore, I would suggest that their arts and culture background may not necessarily be as significant as perhaps their maturity and ability to properly evaluate the material that they're given.

As to the member for Richmond's question, I know that he's not questioning my word when I come forward and say that I was asked to hold this up for a month. As I understand, it was a request that came from the NDP caucus and I'm sure he's not questioning what I brought forward after the meeting last time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen. No one's questioning that at all, Mr. Morse, I don't believe. I'm not answering on behalf of Mr. Samson, but Mr. Samson has simply asked for a copy of the correspondence and Mr. Estabrooks has stated that correspondence is available, is that correct?

MR. ESTABROOKS: I'll make it available.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we leave it at that? Thank you, gentlemen.

Can we move on and perhaps put a motion on the floor from someone then, to deal with this question of film classifiers. Mr. Morse.

MR. MORSE: Mr. Chairman, I so move the appointments of Victor Amirault, Claudia Clarke, Ulysse Cottreau, Theresa Emberly, George Fraser, Wayne Hyson, Mary Irene MacInnis, Mary MacLeod, Irma Mullen, Alf Nielsen, Carman Rafuse, Charles Richard, Harold Sanford and Katia Younger as film classifiers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

I believe that brings us to the end of our session involving appointments to agencies, boards and commissions. Mr. Samson.

MR. SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, at this point I will be relinquishing my seat to my colleague - the Education Critic - Leo Glavine, from our caucus for the next presentation, which is something that he has followed very closely along with my colleague, Mr. Colwell, from Preston. Therefore, I will be allowing our Education Critic to take my place at this time for the next section of the presentation to this committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Samson. We will have approximately - we've made today's session longer for the purpose of fitting in as many people as possible. We will have approximately two hours to hear.

I think as a committee we've decided that if we can possibly limit the presentations to about 10 minutes each, but I'm not going to sit here with an evil eye and make you cut off your presentation at 10 minutes. Maybe at 10 minutes and 30 seconds I'll do that, but I'll wait until the 30-second mark. Our purpose here today is to hear from as many people as possible and to make sure that you're heard.

So just before we do start with our presenters, our members did get a package before them today that's from Deputy Minister Dennis Cochrane from the Department of Education. The reason that you're receiving that at this late moment is that it was just received by the Committees Office and our clerk yesterday at the last minute. So that package is before you from the department.

There is also an additional letter before you this morning from Sterling Belliveau, the MLA for Shelburne. It's concerning a letter from Ardith Van Buskirk, I think is the name. You have that before you as well today - that will be tabled here. She could not make today's committee meeting, so she wanted to make sure that she made some sort of a presentation - it's in writing. I would ask that perhaps one of the members of the NDP caucus would table this today, or is that necessary?

The expert on my left tells me that's not necessary, so let's move ahead. Our first presenter today, if you're here, would be Mr. Stephen Forbes.

MS. ANNE FORBES: Stephen is not here but I am, I'm speaking on behalf of our family. My name is Anne Forbes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Anne, thank you very much.

MS. FORBES: Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today. I'm the parent of an 18-year-old son who is in Grade 12 and has experienced the public system and the private system, and I just want to share a little bit of our journey and our observations. I would have to say that I would really summarize our experience in this way.

We really did spend far too much time obtaining documentation and assessments in order to get our son the educational help he needed. In so doing, we truly sacrificed our son's well-being. In this process, we allowed our son to remain in an educational environment far too long where his peers regarded him as a social pariah while he fell behind academically. This was the outcome, even with caring teachers who did their best.

Our son started in the usual way in Grade Primary. We realized he was hyperactive and we believed at that early age that he did have some challenges to overcome. As a family, we truly started in the public system with the greatest optimism. We were fully involved in the school committees, my husband served on the school advisory committee for many years. We were active in Home and School, I taught Reading Recovery. I thought I could volunteer my way out of this particular dilemma.

I sincerely regret that we were so slow in realizing that our efforts were misplaced and it is through hindsight that we can clearly see we were wrong to believe that the public education system was equipped to deal with our son's learning needs. In our experience, obtaining tuition support involved a large investment of time and resources in pursuing consultations, assessments and attending case conferences to establish that our son had a variety of learning challenges.

In addition to the huge investment of time, our son was subjected to the humiliation of being constantly reminded of his deficits through the testing process. Imagine, if you will, the thing that you hate to do most of all and then being told to do it again and again and yet

again. Sooner or later, you get the message - there are lots of things I can't do. So the emphasis is always on what the student can't do.

We worked and were successful in obtaining an IPP, an individual program plan, which was needed for his acceptance into the Tuition Support Program, together with obtaining a diagnosis of attention deficit disorder and dyscalculia. For those uninitiated, dyscalculia means that you're extremely challenged in some aspects of mathematics. Success in this process meant that our son had dropped at least two grade levels behind his peers in math before he qualified for an IPP. You can see there's a bit of a paradoxical effect there - success means failure, really, in this system.

[9:30 a.m.]

We believe that our son's well-being was sacrificed and had we responded to our son's educational needs instead of satisfying a process, we would have sent him to a designated school far sooner than we did. We were so dependent on the large pile of reports and specialist letters that we were collecting that if the house had caught on fire, those files would have been rescued first instead of the family photo albums. We truly believed that our salvation rested in those assessments and that if only anyone could read that thick file, they would say that, absolutely, this child deserves some consideration, some special options. I think at some point we will have a sacrificial burning of those reports, because I don't want him ever to know what the psychologist said about him, that he would never learn to read, that he would always require some sort of special supports to get on in life. Happily, that is not true, but I digress.

This process that began in Primary for our son really started with seeking the early diagnosis and then having our son being removed for these series of tests. Through this process, he was growing very self-conscious about his learning challenges and his peers were starting to notice. He didn't have the terminology or the confidence to answer the questions, why do you have to go to so many appointments, Andrew? Is there something wrong with you?

Having learning disabilities is not a fashionable disability. I think that children do get and understand cerebral palsy or Down's syndrome or some of the other challenges. They just do not have the capacity to understand when children act differently and are falling behind and are perhaps disrupting the class.

Through this, he was becoming very socially isolated and he was getting more and more humiliated. So really we were between struggling with math and writing, and going to school is not a joyful experience but, to our son's credit, he went to school every day. I don't know how he stood it, but I acknowledge that his teachers were most supportive and helpful. They really were caught in the bind of knowing that he needed more, the classes were large,

and that they were quietly encouraging us - if we could beg, steal or borrow the money - to send him to private school at this point in time.

So we applied to the Department of Education for tuition assistance in 2000, but got nowhere. We were advised by parents in similar circumstances that the department had an application process, but no one had been successful to their knowledge in securing the educational support funding. By the end of Grade 6, we thought we had an airtight case that would at least secure the services of a part-time itinerant disability specialist from the Halifax Regional School Board, who would meet with our son for one hour every two weeks when he began junior high. We were so misguided that we thought this was really something special if we got that kind of assistance. At the end of the year, we were advised this service was denied, and even the principal was floored that the large pile of documents we were so proud of had failed to impress the Special Education Department.

We immediately called Churchill Academy and registered our son. We had finally accepted that the public education system was more adept at identifying problems than seeking solutions. In his first year at Churchill, our son made friends and for the first time he was experiencing sustained success in learning, including math. After two years at Churchill, we finally were successful in obtaining tuition support, but for this our family had paid dearly. We have spent $50,500 in tuition fees over and above the tuition support we receive from the Department of Education to ensure our son had a basic education.

Our son is now in Grade 12, and he has maintained an average of in excess of 80 per cent since his enrolment in Churchill Academy. His particular journey is coming to an end and we are growing weary of sharing our experiences. I'm very sorry that our son and other children with his learning profile are continuing to encounter roadblocks in the pursuit of education.

Despite his challenges, our son is a confident young man - an accomplished sailor with a love of history. He has resilience, but he will struggle all his life with his learning difficulties. He has finally gained insight into what his gifts are and with hard work and persistence, he will succeed. He wanted to attend this meeting today but I wanted to speak frankly about this process, so he is in class where he should be. I don't want him to really understand the impact that this has had on our lives - he is not an only child. We have spent an awful lot of time and resources in trying to get through this short first period of his life.

He did have the opportunity to meet His Royal Highness, Prince Edward, the Earl of Wessex, during his recent visit to Halifax. The Prince asked him about his school. Andrew proudly told him it was Churchill Academy and it was named for one of his heroes. The Prince thought it was a great name and he correctly concluded that you needed to be brave and strong to go there. Well, how little he knew of what our son and the other students went through before going to that particular school. Strong and brave are precisely the qualities

one requires to survive a basic education in Nova Scotia if you are someone with learning difficulties.

You can see that there are many opportunities for students to go off the rails in this process. Many kids don't make it to Grade 12, they're smoking dope, they're doing all kinds of things, they're doing anything but school. I'm proud that my son has gone to school every day. He has given it his best shot.

I do thank you for your time, attention and interest in ensuring that there are appropriate education options for all children in this province. I thank you for your time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Forbes. We are going to allow a limited amount of time for questions from each caucus, so if you would just remain seated please. We'll start with Mr. Estabrooks.

MR. ESTABROOKS: My compliments to your son going to school every day - it's quite an accomplishment for any student, but considering some of his challenges. I hope he continues to love history and his sailing career continues. One question for Ms. Forbes, you said at one time during your comments that you used a disproportionate amount of time collecting this massive library of paper. Why does it take so long for parents to be able to assemble the obvious documentation that you collected? I've seen these files in other parents' situations, they guard them with their lives because, after all, it is their lifeline to getting success with their son. Why does it take so long to get the documentation in place?

MS. FORBES: I don't believe that parents are listened to. I think we know our children best. They seem to need to have the endorsement of every specialist in the city, I think we've met most of them. That's sad and we truly believe that if we just had enough paper that we would get the help we needed. I don't know if it's a stalling tactic. I believe that everyone through this process tried their best. I think that the system seems to be very hung up on labels and that perhaps they feel more comfortable with that - that's a very good question.

I wish I had that time back. I wish I didn't put my son through that. I think he was basically a pretty positive child, but he just was diminished more and more by that process. I'm saddened that's what it takes, but that seemed to be the gold standard. In order to make that application - I'm not sure of the cut-off, maybe we went overboard - I'm not sure when enough was enough to satisfy that process to make our application successful.

MR. ESTABROOKS: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Glavine.

MR. LEO GLAVINE: Thank you very much, Anne, for coming in today. I really appreciate your story and your story, of course, is similar to many others, and unfortunately many untold who are in the public school system and who just aren't able to get at least some support in order to get their child into one of the three current schools that we have. Just from your own personal experience, do you think that the IPP designation should be a requirement for a child to get the tuition support, since there can already be an array of testing done within the school and possibly outside at the IWK, et cetera? I'm now struggling with this a lot in the sense that some parents don't even like that stigma, of course, of what the IPP is all about. While it can be beneficial to the student, it still has a stigma and a very strong one. I would just like your comment on that, please.

MS. FORBES: Thank you for that. The IPP really is kind of the standard that establishes that a student is substantially behind his peers in a given grade or subject area. It seems counterintuitive to allow someone to slip two years behind - which is apparently what is needed to get that IPP - and then to somehow remediate up to an acceptable standard. As you say, it's a label, the IPP seems to be what is required and it's hard to get one of those. I know parents who are trying to get an IPP, they know their child is having difficulty, but an IPP seems to be perhaps interpreted by the school system as being a failure on the part of the school system. It is not. I don't think that every parent feels that way; we didn't, we worked very closely with the school staff and we felt we were supported all the way through that. Why waste - two years is a long time in a student's life.

MR. GLAVINE: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Morse.

MR. MORSE: Mr. Chairman, I thank Anne for coming in and sharing Stephen's story with us today and I guess it's not just Stephen's story, it's the whole family's story. I'm going to ask you a question and I'm hoping that all the presenters might comment at the end of their presentation whether this has been part of their struggle to get help from one of these three fabulous schools that we have in the province for those students who just need that extra targeted assistance to succeed in their studies. I also want to point out that my understanding is that the students who go to Bridgeway, Churchill - now it has a new name - and Landmark East, generally are very bright, they just have barriers to, I guess, harnessing those inherent abilities.

MS. FORBES: Exactly, yes.

MR. MORSE: In my experience as an MLA - and I've had a few parents in my office over the last eight and a half years with their own Stephens - quite often there are differences in opinions from the professionals who had assessed their children and this sometimes derails

the application for the Tuition Support Program. I'm wondering, did you have any of those problems with Stephen? I ask you that question but again, I'm hoping all presenters could make that comment.

MS. FORBES: I don't think so. I think the diagnosis and what we had for our son - Stephen is my husband and Andrew is our son . . .

MR. MORSE: Sorry.

MS. FORBES: That's okay. I think it was quite clear what his challenges were and I don't think that was a problem at all. I think it was just that - we understood there was so much money there, we were perhaps eligible for three years and we got two-year funding and then finally, subsequently three years. So it's not so much - I don't think it was the diagnosis, I think we had everything we needed to get the tuition agreement once that money was freed up but we should have done it, we should have gotten out far sooner. We just left it too long.

The first time I applied, I didn't even get an acknowledgment and then finally, I think there was some consideration given. Why have an application, why have a process if no one can access this money? I think our perception was that you needed to do something pretty spectacular, as a student, to get attention, and I mean in the punitive sense, that you probably had to throw somebody through a window or have property damage, something in that realm.

[9:45 a.m.]

Our son was a well-behaved, good kid who really was well regarded by the teachers, so I'm not sure - it seemed that if or maybe if he had - I don't know exactly what it was because we really - it wasn't an open, transparent process. We really didn't know how it worked or what the rationale was. I'm only thankful that we got what we got but we were - I'm forever an optimist. I'm sorry, I don't have a clear answer for that, because I really don't know enough about how that decision was arrived at.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Forbes, thank you very much for your presentation this morning. Thanks for taking the time to appear before us this morning.

Mrs. Kim Smith is next on the list.

MRS. KIM SMITH: Thank you all for the opportunity to be here. I'm sure we have a lot of similar stories to share, but I'd like to share mine. The entire process for us has been, I can only say, most unpleasant and frustrating, but I would absolutely go through it again to ensure our daughter received the education she deserves.

Last year, when our daughter was 14, she was facing the possibility of repeating Grade 8. At that time we began attempting to contact Dr. Lowe, the Tuition Support Program Administrator. Despite many phone calls and messages left, our calls were not returned. The deadline to apply for the upcoming year at Landmark East was approaching, so we went ahead and enrolled our daughter for the 2006 school year. We had missed the deadline to apply for tuition support for that year because Dr. Lowe - who I understand is in attendance here today - did not return our call.

At the time my reason for wanting to speak directly to Dr. Lowe was to get some clarification on some of the requirements for eligibility. Specifically, we needed to know how we could go about applying when our daughter had never been offered an IPP. We really didn't know what an IPP was at that time. All we knew was that our daughter had finally gotten the psychoeducational testing done after waiting for five years. Despite many requests for this testing, we were always told that our daughter was not a high priority, because she was not disruptive or causing problems in the classroom and other higher-needs students would continue to bump her place on the wait list. It wasn't until she was admitted to hospital in 2004 and diagnosed with inattentive ADD, generalized anxiety disorder and depression, that the testing was finally done.

Results of this testing suggested certain modifications be made in the classroom and, to our knowledge, these modifications were never put in place, much less had she been offered an IPP. In fact, two diagnoses were given while she was in Grade 7, and the results did not appear in her cumulative school record until Grade 8. So that was my first question that went unanswered - could she qualify without an IPP?

My second concern was that one of the requirements was to write a rationale explaining how the programs and services provided by the private school would positively affect her academic and behavioural well-being. She couldn't complete an assignment for school, all she thought about was turning 16 so she could quit. How could she be expected to write a letter explaining something she didn't understand?

I believe that requirement has since changed, but I also had to write a written rationale explaining the positive effects that we hoped to see, in addition to the public school IPP and the services provided by our school board. I had a really hard time writing the letter because in my opinion, our daughter had never received anything from the public school, so how could there be any effects added to that?

Anyhow, our calls weren't returned last year, and subsequently we missed the deadline to apply. We went ahead and enrolled our daughter at Landmark East without the tuition support. She has since completed Grade 9 and is so far doing well in Grade 10 there. We are still making payments on her Grade 9 education; however, we did finally get some help from the Tuition Support Program, but this help did not come easy.

I could make this long story short here but I won't, because I do understand that you want to hear how this process worked for or against families and I want you to hear how it worked for us.

This year on February 6^th and 7^th I attempted to contact Dr. Lowe again. I left messages and again my calls were not returned. On February 8^th I finally got to speak with him. I explained our situation and that we had tried contacting him last year and the calls were not returned. But I did have the opportunity to ask him if she would be eligible without the IPP. At that time I also explained to him that in fact she had attended a private school last year and this may also disqualify her as it was one of the requirements for being eligible. At that time Dr. Lowe indicated to give him a few days to look into our situation and said he would call back. He also said that if we didn't hear back by February 13^th, to call him. He apologized for not returning our calls from the previous year and he said we may be eligible for retroactive support.

A week later I still did not hear back, so I called his office and left another message. On February 16^th I again called his office and spoke with his secretary who indicated that he had, in fact, received my messages; however, she said he was tied up in meetings for another hour but that he would return my call by the end of the day. Again my calls were not returned.

On Monday, February 19^th, I called and left a message again. It was now two weeks since he said he would look into my questions and get back to me. The deadline to apply was now only eight business days away. By this time I was really feeling the pressure; I was changing my shifts at work and missing time at work in an attempt to contact and have these questions answered. By this point I was quite frustrated and I called my local MLA and explained my situation. Twenty minutes later Dr. Lowe called me back. He had absolutely no recollection of our call from two weeks before, but he did advise me to go ahead and fill out the application so that we would not miss the deadline for this year. At that time he asked if we had copies of her school assessments and doctors' reports. I had absolutely no idea that we could even access school reports; all I knew was anything the teachers and principals had ever told me.

So Dr. Lowe indicated that he would, through the school board, get the copies of her psychoeducational assessments and also that he would contact her pediatrician to get a copy of the results of her mental health diagnosis as well. I went ahead and I sent out the application, along with the written rationale. A few days later I called the Department of Education office to make sure that these necessary documents were obtained and I was informed that no other information was in the file except the part that I had sent in. Dr. Lowe was now away on vacation until the middle of March. The deadline was March 1^st. So I scrambled to get the rest of the necessary documents and I did have everything in before the deadline.

On April 16^th we received a letter of denial for tuition support under Section 71(1)(b), a student is eligible to apply for a funding unit if the student "(b) is enrolled in a public school . . . for at least one full school year before the date of application . . .". Of course, our daughter was not, she had already been in a private school.

I called Dr. Lowe back and I explained to him, as I had back on February 8^th , that the reason why she wasn't in a public school was because the public school system had failed her. He said to write a letter of appeal, that a one-person panel would review, and explained it was simply a matter of writing a letter explaining why she was not in public school and that "a letter of appeal should be sufficient." He also said to make sure we included the fact that he did not return our calls from the previous year which resulted in our being unable to proceed with the application for 2006. I sent in the letter of appeal the next day.

Two days later my husband took a phone call from Dr. Lowe's office informing us to disregard the letter of denial, that a new letter was on the way. I was quite excited thinking this one-person panel had read the letter of appeal and approved the tuition support. The next day the Department of Education office called me back to say an appeal hearing appointment was available for May 1^st and what time would we like to come. I was shocked and I said I didn't know anything about a hearing in Halifax, I thought all I had to do was write a letter. I waited while the secretary got out our file and then she told me that the letter of appeal I had sent was there and the letter of appeal was under Section 71(1)(b) for not having attended a public school, but now we were being denied under Section 71(1)(c), a student is eligible if the student is receiving educational programs and services under an IPP.

I asked to speak with Dr. Lowe and was informed that he was now away until May 7^th. She very curtly asked if I wanted the appointment for the appeal hearing for May 1^st or not, so of course I did. Over the next two weeks I prepared as much documentation as possible to present at the denial hearing, and thankfully the decision to deny was rescinded. I do have that letter if anyone would like to read it.

The bottom line is that the special needs of our daughter should have been addressed by the public school system a long time ago. An IPP requires collaboration from the school, parents and very often from outside agencies. Our public system is simply not equipped to handle this team effort. How can an IPP be a necessary requirement for tuition support when so many students are still on wait lists and slipping through the cracks?

In my opinion the whole process of obtaining tuition support is not designed to work for children and their families. Requirements are illogical, the information was misguided, and frankly we were presented with mis-truths through the whole process. I wondered oftentimes through that process if the whole thing wasn't designed just to cause parents to become frustrated and give up applying.

In closing, I would just like to comment on the proposed phasing out of the tuition support by the year 2010. After the minister's review, Walter Farmer, the committee chair, stated that the public system should be forced to provide for all students. I just don't know how he thinks that would ever happen. If the $1 million that currently supports the 150 students with special needs in private schools were to be put back into the public system, that would equate to about 25 teaching positions at $40,000 a year, six children per class, which is the recommended amount. What about all the other kids currently in the public schools that aren't getting the help they need? What about all the other services that so many of our special needs kids have? One million dollars just wouldn't cover it in the public school system.

I also read something the other day that really enraged me and it was from the CUPE President, Danny Cavanaugh. He agreed with Farmer and apparently he said the money could be spent by meeting the need for teachers' assistants as a starting point. I could go to school for a year and become a TA, but I'll be the first to admit that I would never ever be qualified or educated enough to teach my daughter. I have been trying for 15 years and she needs more specialization and experience than I or a TA could ever give her.

Cavanaugh apparently also said the tuition support is unfair to families who cannot afford to pay the rest of the tuition costs. To this I say, I live in a very modest house worth just a little over $40,000 and it's mortgaged to the max just to cover her last year's school expenses alone. I drive a 10-year-old car and I live without my husband, who works in the Northwest Territories most of the year so that we can afford to give our daughter her education. I pay $200 a month for her medication, because we have no medical coverage, and right now I'm spending anywhere from $75 to $120 an hour to cover her psychological and therapy sessions that are not covered under the public health care system, because she has been on a wait list for two years for mental health services. Again, my daughter is not a priority. Clearly, I can't afford the cost of this either, but I would do anything to give my daughter the education she deserves and help her become a productive member of society.

Really and truly, some of these comments that I hear - obviously to me these people don't understand what it's like to be uneducated in our society and I would love for them to know the costs that must be involved in that issue alone. I, for one, would love to save close to $30,000 a year on my daughter's education costs, but unless and until our public school system can support the needs of all children without putting the cart before the horse, I and many other parents like me will continue to sacrifice - and how can I put a price on my daughter?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mrs. Smith. Questions from the members. Mr. Parker.

MR. PARKER: Thank you, Kim, for speaking from the heart and telling it exactly like it is. You have gone through a lot of frustration - there's no question about that - and I guess as your MLA I've had some familiarity with this and some of the struggles you've gone through. A very emotional issue, there's no question of that for you and your husband, and I can see the emotion in some of the folks around here who have never met you but have gone through similar circumstances. It's a long, tough process, and you and Mike - your husband - deserve a lot of credit for pushing the agenda forward and getting Marleigh - your daughter - on the right path.

[10:00 a.m.]

I want to come back to the school officials - the principals, the vice-principals, the school psychologists, or whoever was working for the Chignecto-Central Regional School Board, who were there to offer support. What kind of support were you getting from them? Were you getting assessments? Were you working toward an IPP? Were you getting just emotional support? Where did the school officials fit into this equation?

MRS. SMITH: In Grade Primary, my daughter was five years old and the comments were there right from the start. Every year - once, twice, three times a year - I would go meet with the teachers, I know these issues are there, do you think it's a problem? In Grade 2 her teacher said, yes, Kim, it is a problem and I encourage you to get on top of it now, because as her workload increases and the demand increases, she'll struggle. I started asking for testing at that time.

I went to the principal at that time and yes, she will be placed on a wait list and we waited. In Grade 3, the comments were there and we waited. In Grade 4 and in Grade 5, the comments were always there, the requests were always there, but she was never a priority. Once I was told, you know, Kim, if she was flipping the tables in the classroom, she would probably get her assessment a whole lot quicker.

MR. PARKER: So you feel then, you weren't really getting the support from the school, from the teacher or the principal or the psychologist, whoever?

MRS. SMITH: We waited and I had absolutely no idea that I could even go any further than that. To me I thought, this is what I need. I need the teachers and I need the principal and this is where I get the help that I need.

MR. PARKER: So on the other hand when you went to the Department of Education, again, you had a real struggle, a real frustration there with the system and it took a lot of effort for you to get through the red tape and through what was required. Again, a commendation to both you and your husband for following through and making sure that you got her into Landmark East. It's the system that needs improvement, certainly, by the sound of it.

MRS. SMITH: It does and I have no idea what happens in Halifax or wherever the regional department is, but that was the most frustrating and I'm so glad that my daughter wasn't around to hear a lot of what we had to go through.

MR. PARKER: One final quick question. What has it actually cost in dollars - not the tuition support, but how many tens of thousands of dollars have you actually spent to this point, out of your own pocket?

MRS. SMITH: On her education?

MR. PARKER: Yes, at Landmark East.

MRS. SMITH: Well, as I indicated, we're still paying on last year's tuition and at the peak of all the expenses last year, it was around $42,000. So since then we were able to pay it down to below $30,000, but now this year we're back up to about $34,000. That would be a very nice retirement fund for mom and pop, but it just isn't going to happen.

MR. PARKER: And you're pursuing the retroactivity, hoping to get the . . .

MRS. SMITH: We did qualify for the retroactivity as well.

MR. PARKER: Okay, good, thank you.

MR. GLAVINE: Thank you very much, Kim, for coming in today. It's a gripping story that you tell and I'm sure that it can go on in all of our school districts. I thank you for being brave to come before the committee and telling your personal account.

It's also an appalling condemnation of our system as well, both at the local level and at the department level. I think what you've really touched upon is a great black hole in the system, and that's special education and how we regard it and how we deal with it. In my view, as an educator for nearly 30 years, I believe it has gotten worse since the inclusionary process has been implemented, because now all of the students have all these EAs and teachers are supposed to be meeting the needs of each child. That certainly seems to be far from the case.

I just want to make a comment on one of the things. How do you think that panel of inquiry ever arrived at the idea that in three years' time our public education system - which by the way, I dearly love and know it meets the needs of the vast majority of our students - but how do you think they ever arrived at this could be done away with in three years?

MRS. SMITH: To me, I think it must be just an arbitrary number, because obviously I've seen no information indicating that we have these plans in place, this is how we'll do

it. Please inform me if I'm wrong - I've seen no information or documentation. I think somebody just . . .

MR. GLAVINE: I thank you for that, because you're absolutely correct. We're 10 to 15 years or perhaps even longer . . .

MRS. SMITH: I well believe it.

MR. GLAVINE: . . . away from implementing any kind of a strong special education program in our system. It's one of the recommendations that I feel very strongly the deputy minister is getting his way with and I think we'll see and hopefully see that he's quite offside with the minister on this one, as she is much more in touch with the classroom.

MRS. SMITH: If I can just make a quick comment, too, about inclusion. I've said it before and I'll stand by it, the word is well and fine, but to me my daughter has been more included in her private school, after we excluded her from the public school system. She has been more included than she ever was in all her years of public schooling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Morse.

MR. MORSE: Thank you, Mrs. Smith. First of all I want to acknowledge and thank you for your persistence on behalf of your daughter, but also by coming in here today and sharing your story in detail on behalf of all those parents and children who find themselves in the same situation. I suspect there are a lot of children in Nova Scotia who are not so fortunate to have such parents. Your determination has given your daughter a chance that she would not have had if you were not so absolutely diligent in your efforts to make sure that she got the education that we all need to have a chance in this life.

I want to tell you that unfortunately what you shared with us today in terms of your daughter's struggle, that story is not confined to your family. During the first few years that I was an MLA, and perhaps because Landmark East was within the area and people knew that the service was there that could basically, in their view, rescue their child. I've had a few of these stories in my office and I'm pleased that at least there is something contributed towards the cost to your children's education, but as Mr. Parker drew out from you by way of his question, it is very expensive to go to these schools. Your daughter is in a boarding school, Landmark East is the one that takes students in as boarders and so it is that much more expensive again.

I want to just clarify that as was alluded to by Mr. Glavine, that's a recommendation by a panel and the minister has not accepted that recommendation and as Mr. Glavine suggested in his comments, I have a lot of confidence that the minister will make the right decisions.

I guess in my final question - or I guess now basically all statements, but . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: All statements, Mr. Morse. (Laughter) Can we get to the question, please?

MR. MORSE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just "Chair" will do.

MR. MORSE: Were there any conflicting diagnoses on the part of the psychologists . . .

MRS. SMITH: On the ADD diagnosis?

MR. MORSE: . . . and all the people who had to give opinions on your daughter's candidacy?

MRS. SMITH: Not inasmuch as the testing has been done, but certainly since that testing there have been suggestions by qualified people that perhaps we are dealing with more than ADD, that perhaps we are dealing with a non-verbal learning disability. At $125 an hour for me to go about getting that done, it just isn't worth it right now. Let's just deal with what we do know, for now, if that makes sense.

There are suggestions that there could be more there to it but because she had to go through being diagnosed with depression and anxiety in struggling to keep up with her peers, those conditions can often be intermingled with learning disabilities. So it's very hard to discern what's what there - if that makes sense.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mrs. Smith, and thank you very much for taking the time to appear before us.

MRS. SMITH: Thank you for not cutting me off. (Laughter)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Our next presenter is Ms. Janet Crowell. Good morning, Ms. Crowell.

MS. JANET CROWELL: Thank you very much for this opportunity. I'd like to say firstly that I am one of the grandparents in Canada who is looking after the 1 million grandchildren that parents can't look after and I'm doing it on my own.

Just a bit of background. My grandson has ADHD and he has the behavioural end of it. The first two speakers, it sounded like their children were calm going through this. My

grandson wasn't and our family - I have a granddaughter also - lived in constant turmoil because this child was overactive all the time and very aggressive.

I'm here about the education system but one note: the health care system is in no better shape in terms of the up-front work that needs to be done with children. It took me five years to get the IWK to see him and I was on waiting list after waiting list. He is not on Ritalin but he is on other medications, which made a tremendous difference. I, too, went through the process of taking him to private psychologists and that was the only place I really got any help and he ended up - the last assessment I had done for him, which I think is important, a speech language therapist did an assessment on him. When it was suggested for me to do that I thought they were crazy - he has no trouble verbalizing. Basically what came out of that assessment was he had extreme problems picking up on social cues and interpreting what he was hearing.

On the other side of the coin, he is extremely bright. An example of that would be if you were angry at him and you just gave him a look that said stop it, he wouldn't have a clue that you even gave him a look. So that's where the disconnect was for him.

He was in the public school in Grade Primary and that's where my story will start. When he arrived he was overactive, wouldn't sit still, interrupted everyone in the classroom. I immediately felt like I was going back to school, working full time, but however, there was not a week in the six years he was in the public school that I was not in the school building, and usually more than once. I met with more teachers, more guidance counselors than I care to remember. The sad part of it is the principal at one point in Grade 2 said to me, the day he walked in this building I looked at him and said there goes a poster child for ADHD. Guess what? She was right - it just took the health system another five years to do that diagnosis and get him some help.

So I did work very closely with the school and I have to say that they did everything possible, but I became so acutely aware of the lack of support that's in those schools, it's pathetic. Those teachers give everything that they have to give. Bottom line is they're not trained to deal with children with these disorders; it's not in them. There is goodness in them, there is trying in them, but they are not capable of handling this.

In the school that my grandson went to, somewhere between 300 or 400 beds, and what I've learned through the process was, there were eight desks or spots designated in that school for learning disabled or physical disabled - a special classroom that kids could go to. Now, the other side of the coin is in every classroom - and how many classrooms would be for 300 to 400 children, I'm not sure, but I know it's like 25 to 30 kids in each classroom - you have at least three or four children with this type of disorder. In every classroom you have three or four kids that can't sit still, can't learn, cause problems, can be aggressive and you have one teacher trying to look after that.

[10:15 a.m.]

My grandson came home from school every day with a new bruise, a new bump, a new cut and a new curse word. He was abused to the point that his last year in the public school, I insisted that he stay in the classroom on recess breaks and dinner breaks because he just couldn't take the beatings anymore. I could drive him to school and I did, but I was at work when school was over, so he had to come home on an Access-A-Bus for safety. Now that's pretty pathetic. This child had no self-esteem, he was beat physically, mentally, spiritually, emotionally to a pulp. You want to try looking at your child every day and every morning, dropping him off in a schoolyard knowing what was going to happen to him - that's the basis from where I will start. I tried to answer what your letter asked, so I have a little bit prepared here.

The process to be eligible for funding in itself is a barrier. The regulations make it a tick-box mentality for whoever grades them - it's very easy to exclude any child on some sort of technicality, I'll call it. A child in need can be dismissed because there's no IPP in place - that was the excuse that my boy was refused on. The IPP may be unavailable due to lack of support at the school level and then the child literally is discarded. They don't fall between the cracks, that's not an accurate statement in my perspective. The statement should be they're shoved, pushed and kicked through the cracks by the system. That's how I feel about it, that's what I watched happen, and it's a heartbreaking process.

To have a process in place that can't be supported doesn't make any sense, it creates an obstacle and the schools just aren't resourced. They do not have the teachers with the proper training, they don't have the space. The care that these kids need is just not available in the public system. The process for me was long and hard and started long before the paperwork. It took six years of persistence and unrelenting resolve to get help for my child, and that persistence and resolve was a daily commitment. There was never a day that that wasn't part of what you were doing.

The question in the letter that I got from this committee was, what necessary requirements were needed to obtain funding, or what would be the necessary requirements to obtain funding for the program? Very simply upfront, awareness for me was the biggest issue. When you have a child like this, you're in turmoil - you don't know the system and people in the system don't know the system. You go to school and like the lady before me said, you expect to get the answers there - you don't. I never once heard there's a private school, there is help for your child within the school system. I heard it from the psychologist when I finally got there, and that was the first inkling that I had that there was another road I could take for this child.

The awareness itself needs to be looked at and there needs to be something done about that within the system. If teachers are in a classroom and they have three or four children who have this problem, they should have some kind of literature in plain language

that they can give to those parents and grandparents so that they know there are things that can be done - it's not here, we haven't got it, but here's what you need to do or could do. So that to me is a huge thing. The schools themselves, I think, need to take some responsibility for that, because there's nowhere else. We depend on the system for education and our children cannot be educated in that system.

The second thing is, I think, someone to navigate parents through the system would be a sensible thing to do. It's trial and error. You pick up a bit of information from one professional and from another - I've been running to different professionals for the last four years and everyone gives you another piece of the puzzle. By the time you get your puzzle together and know what you can do, you've missed years off the child's life.

The opportunity to help these children - it's a small window. They're growing and they're learning, and they're learning the wrong things in school. I don't mean they're being taught wrong things, I mean they're being taught socially wrong things. They're being taught they're undervalued, they're stupid, they don't belong, they're troublemakers. What does that do to a child day after day? There needs to be that to save them - and that is the word, to save them.

Any paperwork including like when I finally got to the point for applying, you get the regulations mailed to you. Not everybody can read those regulations and I would say that there are a large number of people in Nova Scotia who don't have computers. We're a rural province. People who don't have computers can't look things up on computers and if you send then regulations they're going to look at them, read it, or try to read it. Literacy is a thing in this province too. You need it in plain language - about a Grade 7 level - that tells parents these are the steps and this is what happens and this is how you go about it.

The other piece of this that really bothers me - and I learned this going through the process, and you talk about heartbreak - the psychologist that I went to when I was asking about outcomes and what I could do for my grandson, his comment was, the bare truth is that one-third of children with this kind of disorder will end up in jail; one-third of children with this type of disorder will commit suicide; and one-third will have some type of quality of life totally dependent on the support they get now. That's pretty grim and for a society that claims to be so enlightened and so resourced as Canada, it's pathetic, from my perspective. That, to me, is something that needs to happen.

In my mind, I don't dump that on the education system - I dump it on all of our systems. The problem that my grandson has put blatantly in front of my face is that the justice system, the social services system, the education system, the health system, need to do something jointly. You just have to pick up the paper and read what's going on with our youth - we're missing the boat for them and as adults, we are responsible. We are supposed to be educating them and it's not happening.

The situations that we have with the children, it's because they're not taught. They are not taught values, they are not taught what they're worth and they are not given the opportunity to be all they can be, in many cases. So I think that - I know there are joint committees in the province that are supposed to be working together. If they're there - I don't know what they are but if they're there - they're not working because the kids are not getting what they should have. Our children need to be rescued from this.

As you can see, I am opinionated. I have one last comment - my grandson went from Primary to Grade 5 in the public system. I hope no one I ever know has to live through that again but that's what happened. When he went - he's in Churchill Academy. After four days of school, he came home and I said, how was school today? He said, it was just great. Well, I couldn't believe that. Then he looked at me and he said, you'll never believe this, I actually have a friend. In Grade 5, he was asked to do a poster about himself and the last question for the poster was, if you could have anything in the world, what would you want, and his was a friend. That's what those children - thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Ms. Crowell. I'll start with Ms. Massey.

Just before I do, I'm trying to watch the time and I know we want to hear the presentations, so if I'm going to bring down the hammer, I'll caution the members. It'll be on you and not the presenters. Anyway, Ms. Massey, your turn.

MS. MASSEY: Thank you. If I can call you Janet - I feel like I know you now that I've listened to you. Janet, I'd like to just lead into my question by saying that the people who come to my office looking for help have made me very cynical and I feel that there's almost a conspiracy in the education system to keep kids out of the private schools. All the things that you've said this morning just reinforced that in my mind.

The IPP, the criteria - you must have an IPP to get in any of these tuition support deals. I know parents who have come to me who have said, my child is in the public system now, has been there for five or six years and I didn't know what an IPP was until last week. Yet that parent has been in and out of that school - as you say you were - maybe on a weekly basis and there are these well-kept secrets.

I feel - and I may be totally way off base but speaking from my feelings in my heart - that there is something amiss in the system that's keeping the information from these parents. When they come to my office and I have to supply them with the resources and the materials, they're looking for me to advocate on their behalf and it's very hard. The three parents this morning who have talked seemed to be very capable of trying to get help for their children and your grandson. What about the parents who can't, who have literacy issues and all of these things? Definitely something is wrong with what's going on. So my question to you is - and I did look back through my notes, I was taking notes while you were speaking - was your grandson on an IPP prior to getting out?

MS. CROWELL: Well, he actually wasn't on a formal IPP and that's why we were refused the funding, but I insisted that he was because I paid a private psychologist to come to that school for meetings with the school team over a two-year period. I met with that team on a regular basis and as far as I could see, reading what an IPP was, he had all the components of it but it hadn't been documented or called that. So thank God the judge who I went to see about rescinding that, she looked at it and agreed and said that she would check with the schools, and indeed, yes, he certainly qualified. It just wasn't written down the way they wanted it written down. It's typical.

I'd like to comment on your comment about the conspiracy. From my experience, I don't think it's a conspiracy. I think that the teachers are so frustrated, so fed up and have no faith in their own system that they don't bother. I know that at one point someone said, he should be seen by the school psychologist but don't bother putting his name there, he'll be out of the school here before he ever gets seen; if you can, take him to a private person. So that's why I went to one. So that's what I think the problem is, from my experience.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Massey. Mr. Colwell.

MR. KEITH COLWELL: Janet, I'm going to ask you sort of weird questions here, so just bear with me.

MS. CROWELL: That's all right, Keith.

MR. COLWELL: We've known each other for many, many years. I'm just going to put some things on the record here that people should know about Janet Crowell. Janet Crowell is a lady who knows the provincial system. Because of her efforts, the health care system in some ways was totally rewritten in this province, so we're not talking about an individual here - when you see Janet Crowell sitting here, as a parent - who is not familiar with the system, doesn't know how the system works. We're talking to a lady here who understands fully how the system works.

[10:30 a.m.]

We've talked about this many times and it's hard to believe that someone with that background and that ability is still having this kind of problem. It is outrageous, that's what it is. It's not past, it's worse than that. So if you ever get a chance to get Ms. Crowell's background, she worked for The Birches and Twin Oaks, which she ran, and rewrote the book on how things are done in health care here in Nova Scotia. So we're dealing with an individual here who is quite an unusual witness and it's very important that we hear her story.

All the stories are the same this morning. I've talked to many parents, there is another parent from my community here who I think you'll hear the same story from. The system is

not working, the recommendations from this committee evidently surely didn't do their homework, because it just won't work.

I'm going to ask you a question. If you had portable funding right from day one - the amount of money that we spend in the Province of Nova Scotia on each child in a school - would that have been helpful, that you could have made a decision quicker, to move your child to a private school, out of the public education system?

MS. CROWELL: I would still have needed to be educated that it was a possibility but if there was portable money, of course people would then be aware that you have a choice of where your child could go and I could see that working very well. The issue around it for me would be, we'd need a lot more Churchill Academies and the other two places because there is a great need. Just on the school that I'm familiar with, like I'm estimating from what they said about how many in each classroom, there's got to be 100 kids in that school.

MR. COLWELL: Is it true that, because of this difficulty your grandson is having, that you took early retirement?

MS. CROWELL: I had to, I was beat. I was physically and emotionally just at the end of my rope. Yes, I took early retirement and not that I wanted to, I like working.

MR. COLWELL: You would still have been working if you had not encountered this problem with the system?

MS. CROWELL: Yes, it's a hard one, it's very difficult.

MR. COLWELL: And that's what I've been hearing from the other parents here today, in different ways.

MS. CROWELL: It takes a personal toll on your family, and each of the other two ladies said the same thing. I have a granddaughter there, too, who is eight years old who I am trying to give some kind of normal life to and MacGregor takes the bulk of the time. I don't begrudge him one minute of it, there's nothing I wouldn't do for him, nothing, but there's only so much you can do because we are physical beings and our bodies wear down. I was just physically, totally - I spent all last winter sick to the point that I thought I've either got a heart attack, cancer or retirement; I have to take my choice. I'm hoping retirement is going to work, I need to hang around another 10 or 15 years to look after those two.

MR. COLWELL: As you went through that process, I think you made some very good points and the other parents have too and I'm sure we're going to hear some more very good points. It's the access to the system, there are so many people I deal with in my office who don't get to the point that you're at. Indeed their children later on in life - I've seen it actually happen - they're the people being arrested for drugs, break and enters, or other things

that shouldn't happen. These were really good kids when they were growing up from good families, everything a family would want, except they didn't have the help in the school system. I have talked to teachers who are more frustrated, if that's imaginable, than what the parents are here today, because the system just simply doesn't support them.

MS. CROWELL: It does not support the children, that's right.

MR. COLWELL: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Porter.

MR. PORTER: Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief, I know we're pressed for time. Ms. Crowell, I want to just say a couple of comments. Thank you very much for telling us your story first of all and coming in here this morning. I want to congratulate you on the endurance you have had over the years through the system with what appears to be great challenges. I'm sure that your grandson one day is going to come back and thank you also, if he already hasn't.

MS. CROWELL: He does every time he looks at me.

MR. PORTER: I'm sure he does. That's all for now, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so very much.

MS. CROWELL: Thank you, that was very kind.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Crowell, for appearing here this morning. Our next presenter is Mrs. Conrad. Take your time, we provide boxes and boxes of Kleenex for our presenters.

MR. ESTABROOKS: She's just nervous to talk in front of her old teacher. (Laughter)

MR. CHAIRMAN: I can tell you, Mrs. Conrad, that Mr. Estabrooks has brought tears to my eyes many times too. (Laughter)

MRS. JOCELYN CONRAD: I do want to say that it is a privilege for me to be able to be here today and I do thank you for the opportunity. I say I would do anything for my son, I'd even public speak and this is a hard thing to do. I'm here today to talk about the tuition support and what I'm going to say - I'm probably going to repeat much of what has already been said. I'm not a well-spoken person, I'll just get on with it.

My son, Stephen, right now attends Churchill Academy and he's 13 years old. He's in Grade 7, this is his fifth year of private education, but only his third year at Churchill

Academy. Stephen has severe learning disabilities in every area of language - he has ADHD, dyslexia and auditory processing disorder. He had issues with anxiety that over the last three years at Churchill have diminished quite a bit.

A brief history of Stephen. To help you better understand, I look back at Steve's first day of preschool when he was four years old and we were sitting in the car and he hung his head in his hand and he said, mommy, what if they try to make me use a crayon? I didn't think too much of it at the time, but as the years unfurled I knew something wasn't right, so even in Primary, the teacher noticed something was different. With Grade 1 came resource, with Grade 2 came struggle after struggle. He could barely print and he didn't know his entire alphabet. Near the end of Grade 2, I was told by his principal that he was 21 on the list for psychological testing. At first, actually, she told me he's down for psycho-testing or something and I went, what? I was in psychiatric nursing, but she explained to me what it was and I had never heard anything before that time about any kind of testing for any children.

So 21 on the list meant that it would literally be years before he would be tested, because I asked her how many they do and I think she said two to three a year - and I'm just trying to add those numbers up in my head - so he may not even be done by Grade 6. It would literally be years before he would be assessed, so we had no choice but to seek professional help privately. So within the next three months his assessment was completed and his diagnosis was devastating.

I didn't understand the psychologist, because she told me he had severe learning disability in every area of language and I said, I don't understand what you're saying and she said it again. I said, but what does that mean? Is it auditory? Is it verbal? Is it non-verbal? And she said no, Jocelyn, he will struggle with anything to do with language. He will have trouble with interactions on anything language-based.

He was eight years old at the time, he was in the first percentile range for reading, so it was if he was mentally challenged, but his cognitive skills were at the age of a 16-year-old. Because of the conflicts at the school at the time and disagreements with administration, I just said, you know what? It taught me one thing - never go into a meeting alone, because it's your word against somebody else's, take somebody with you. I just said - because of the problems, I removed my daughter and my son from that system and we started attending another school in the next year, where he went into Grade 2 again.

It was actually more or less a year of babysitting for him. He had an IPP made up and that honestly was a joke. I know he was in Grade 2 his second year - the IPP meant nothing. It looked great on paper, but it really didn't do anything for him. His resource consisted of 30 minutes, twice a week. We had no choice but to seek private education, because we wanted to see him thrive and not just survive.

When we first heard about the option of sending Stephen to a private school, we automatically dismissed the thought because we immediately saw dollar signs, which was something near the sum of $8,200 at that time. It was through another program that we had him in, which was called Spell Read, and it was $1,200 for the first course and the second, and then another $2,500. That was also taking him to Halifax twice a week and a whole month of August, and I guess that did benefit him somewhat.

We started at Bridgeway Academy and he still continued to struggle all the way. Many issues needed to be addressed and they weren't being addressed. In his second year of private school at Bridgeway, he was 10 years old and he came to me and asked me for a knife and he said he wanted to die. He said, I don't want to go to Heaven and I don't want to go to Hell, but I just can't go on another day. The date was November 1, 2004, so he was 10 years old and my son wanted to take his life because he couldn't handle another day at school. But this was private school, and I want to state for the record that Bridgeway didn't work for him - just him - so I don't want to come up here and say bad things about Bridgeway.

Yet again, I sought my last alternative, which was Churchill Academy, because the fees at Landmark East, at the private school, it was just too far away and it just wasn't an option. So my hope was fading - this was Stephen's fourth year of school in five years. We had to make it work this time and finally at Churchill, Stephen started to thrive.

The smaller classes and experienced special education teachers add up to a winning combination and I think that's their secret to success. We still have difficult issues, but because of the small class ratio, there are seven in his class and his issues are being dealt with. We still have mountains, but they're smaller mountains now. But came the fight for funding.

In 2004, tuition support was engaged. The Department of Education set the standard and the criteria for eligibility. So it wasn't the parents who did it, it was the Department of Education who set that standard, and we met it. Yet every time - for three years we received it and three years we continued to have to apply. It is draining and it is straining, but you do it.

We were thrilled to receive word of approval. That meant that we only had to come up with $4,000 instead of the original $9,500, because every year it just keeps increasing because it's a pupil fund. The second year, we reapplied and once again we got it and the third year like the PCs said, if we get in we will give you those monies. Well, why should it matter who's in power? To me, that has nothing to do with it. There's a need here and I just think that it shouldn't matter who's in power. I promised two MLAs today that I would keep very calm and one of them said, you can't keep calm.

We need a stability for support. This is not a luxury, this is a necessity. I'm not asking you to give me money to send my son to prep school. I'm asking you to help him get his basic education. But my search for answers is not over. I cannot understand how you can receive letter after letter and you hear voice after voice and nothing is being done and you just kind of slough us off - us, as in parents and the children.

We did the review committee and you give us this 100-page report that cost us $300,000 for administration fees to say no. To say we're going to cut this thing in 2010, this tuition support, for monies that already exist. It's per pupil funded. Where's my $6,400? Right now, right here today, you tell me where it is because that's the per pupil fund - where is that money? Is it in the public education system? If it is, I want it back, that's mine. I pay taxes - my husband pays taxes because I can't work anymore.

[10:45 a.m.]

I had my own business and because of the problems, like Janet said, you just can't keep going, you can't go on, so I've been plagued with headaches and migraines. Of course, nobody can find the answer to them. Is it stress? I don't know. I had my own business and I had to give things up because of the stress.

My husband still works and he paid $37,000 in tax last year. Thank God my husband has a good job that he can send Steve to school; it's $11,000 this year. But you know what? I'm not even here today to say I want $11,000. I'm here today to say there's $6,400 out there, could I please have that so that next year I can send my son to a private setting where he needs to be? I've already given you his diagnosis. Can you see him in a classroom with other children? It's just not working and there still are kids, as we know, in the public education system that are in this setting where people are struggling, the teachers are struggling. It not only takes away from the child with the need, it takes away from the other children who deserve the teacher's time and not all of the teacher's time to go to the child with the need. It's compromising the other children.

Clearly the impact is far more reaching to keep these children with learning difficulties and disabilities in an environment where once again their needs can be met. I'm asking you - my husband says I'm telling you - to reconsider the legislation. Some parents are fighting, like I say, for tuition support for the whole thing. I'm only asking for what is already there - those monies already exist, they're already there. Reallocate.

Like Keith Colwell says, it is portable. If we make it portable funding, don't give me the $6,400 - I'm not flying to Florida for a week. You take the money and you say okay, Department of Education, we're going to take that money - $6,000, $6,400, whatever it is - and we're going to give it to Churchill Academy. Don't give me the money, I'm not even asking for the money. I'm asking that you can have it, keep it in your hands, just reallocate it.

Right now there are 123 students receiving tuition support. That's $700,000 of existing funds, that money is already there. I'm just asking that you not terminate the support that's already in place. Is it working? From the review committee and the voices that we've heard from the parents and the people, it's working. The private schools are working and they want to take it away, I don't understand that. It's like you're shooting yourself in the foot. You already have these schools in place, you have the teachers who have the special education behind them to teach these children. If you put my son, Stephen, back in the public system, he might get an EPA and she's not going to know how to teach him, as one of the moms already pointed out. I can go into the public school after becoming an EPA - I can't teach kids, I'm not about to do that. I don't care what my salary would be, that's not the place for me and I'm well aware of that.

The review committee - I don't understand how they can come up with the end result. I think their opinion was unfair. The people on the committee - was there anybody there from Churchill Academy? Were there any teachers from special needs schools there to give their opinion on how it's working? I think my son deserves equal opportunities as other students in Nova Scotia. If we're talking inclusion, then include him. There's already a place for him, it's not like there's no place for him to go.

I think it's removing a huge burden from the public system. You take these kids and you put them back into the public system and you want to see all hell break loose? We've tried Steve on medication - we're on our fourth attempt at a new medication to help him. If he came in here, he could sit and he could be quiet and he could listen. But he learns differently, so there are some behavior issues there.

When Ms. Crowell was speaking and my daughter was back there and she said, who's her son and I said, MacGregor and she said, oh. So it's even different just to sit here and tell you about my son when you haven't met him and you don't know what kind of boy he is and how respectable he is and respectful. I want you guys to drill me and I want you to ask me questions. I just cannot see how they can take this away from us. We have had three assessments done on him privately. That was money out of our pocket, that's a burden off the system right there. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mrs. Conrad. Mr. Estabrooks and then Mr. Glavine.

MR. ESTABROOKS: You did okay, Jocelyn, you know your research material, you speak from the heart. You do a better job when you don't use notes, but that's all the old teacher in me coming out. (Laughter)

MRS. CONRAD: I didn't want to go off into rabbit trails, so I had to have something in front of me.

MR. ESTABROOKS: The committee and who was on the committee and how it was done, we've had that discussion before, there's no point going down that road with me, considering two old retired school administrators and a university prof don't really get much say when it comes to the analysis of tuition support in this province.

You said something about IPPs - my God, I wish they would stop using acronyms in the school system, especially IPP. It looked great on paper, you said, but aside from that it did absolutely nothing for Stephen. Could you expand on that?

MRS. CONRAD: Individual Program Planning. We're going to do this for him and we're gong to do that and we're going to make sure that when it's minus 15 degrees in February that he's not going to leave without his coat. How many times did he come home without his coat and his boots? That's not even the issue, but if you can't make sure my son has his coat on when it's minus zero, then how are you going to teach him to read and write? Two plus two - he could care less, because the teacher doesn't have the time to give to him.

MR. ESTABROOKS: Thank you, Jocelyn.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Glavine.

MR. GLAVINE: Thank you, Jocelyn, for coming in today. We have had some conversations in the past and you did do a great job. Along the way, over the last couple of years, we've also had the Nunn Commission Report. I don't think the right people, by the way - just to divert for a second - actually got out when the panel reviewed the special education, or certainly not enough of the right people, because otherwise I don't understand how they arrived at where they did.

I want to concur first with what you said and that is, how could you ever think in terms of an arbitrary one, two or now - even through an enormous fight from parents and the Opposition - to get three years or tuition support? How could you put an arbitrary number that a child is automatically now going to be able to go back into the public school system? It's a laudable goal, it's a desirable goal for many parents not to have to pay this money that you currently are for your children, but I know you would. That's the first thing that I would like for the department to forget, yes, the IPP, forget this three years that you will get tuition support for, because I'm struggling right now with the department on behalf of a couple of parents over an IPP that wasn't done and they are already at Landmark and they need the financial support. I would like for the department to immediately review the cases that are before them and do what is simply right to do.

I started out by mentioning the Nunn report because I really wanted to ask a question of the previous speaker, Janet. Do you think this is where we should be placing the work of the Nunn report to be carried out, and that's under the Department of Education to first deal with the children - and there are so many children who have severe learning disabilities. Less

than 10 per cent are currently getting some help - that's not an outlandish statement here, that's the reality. Less than 10 per cent are getting the direct supports at Churchill, Bridgeway and Landmark. Do you think that the Nunn report can go anywhere if we don't do it in the education system?

MRS. CONRAD: I think the overall end result is, is it not to introduce it into the public system? Do you think that will be done by 2010?

MR. GLAVINE: There's not a hope.

MRS. CONRAD: No, so . . .

MR. GLAVINE: I'd like to be proven wrong, but I don't think there is any hope - I've been in the public school system. I know the turtle rate of change that goes on.

MRS. CONRAD: That's two years. I have those here with me right now - Supporting Student Success, Department of Education, Student Services - that they're going to - what do we say? - implement, put it in place. Personally, I don't think that will work. I think he needs to be in the environment - am I answering your question, Leo?

MR. GLAVINE: Yes.

MRS. CONRAD: He needs to be in the environment that he's in right now.

MR. GLAVINE: Okay, thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Morse.

MR. MORSE: I just want to thank you, Mrs. Conrad, like the other parents and grandparents coming in sharing your story. It's really important that Nova Scotians have a greater appreciation of the challenges faced by families who have children with disabilities. Again, I want to point out that a lot of the students who go to Churchill, to Bridgeway, to Landmark East are really bright, it's just that they have a different way in which they have to learn, and I want to thank you for coming in and sharing your story with Nova Scotians.

MRS. CONRAD: Thank you, I hope this goes further. I don't know where this is going to go from here. I hope that Minister Casey will listen and see that good is being done and not to go backward. I could just talk all day, so thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for appearing, Mrs. Conrad.

Our next presenter is Mr. Cyril White and his wife, Penny, as well. Good morning.

MR. CYRIL WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are Cyril and Penny White, we're from Kentville - thank you for your time here this morning. Penny is basically going to do the presentation.

MRS. PENNY WHITE: Thank you. As we said, we're Cyril and Penny White. We are grandparents of a young man with learning disabilities. Hearing all of these stories is going to make me quite emotional, as I am anyway.

Following an assessment by Dr. Emily Freeman, a learning disability specialist, confirming the diagnosis of non-verbal learning disability in our case, we assisted our grandson's parents in removing him from the public school system at the end of Grade 6 in June 2006. He was struggling miserably, moving through the grades and falling further behind his classmates with each grade, with devastating academic and competence results.

In Grades 5 and 6, we hired a tutor to help him with mathematics. This was helpful, but did not bring him up to a level to be able to learn the new information being presented in class. In fact, testing showed that he was working in mathematics at a Grade 3 level in Grade 6. This apparently was acceptable in the school because that was meeting his outcomes, whatever that means, but Grade 3 in Grade 6 isn't acceptable.

Our grandson was accepted at Landmark East school on May 30, 2006. We were advised that there was a student Tuition Support Program, but that the deadline had passed on March 1, 2006, so we did not apply at that time. In Landmark East, this young man flourished. His academic achievement has been startling and delightful for us. We have seen firsthand that our grandson is well able to learn if he's provided with the proper resources. His increased confidence and social well-being is very rewarding - there wasn't any of that before.

[11:00 a.m.]

In February 2007, we filed an application for tuition support for this current school term. This application was denied on the basis that our grandson was not in the public school system at the time the application was made - I think that's Section 71(1)(b). This is astounding. In order to reapply, the rules of the Tuition Support Program would have required us to remove our grandson from a supportive and beneficial educational setting and return him to a public school setting in which he was not achieving in the first place. This appears to be a clear example of a child being sacrificed to a rule.

We, of course, appealed the denial of tuition support. This appeal resulted in a reconfirmation of the original ruling and also added an additional refusal based on the necessity of an IPP - Individual Program Plan - for the student. This is apparently a program that needs to be set up by the public school, recognizing the student's disabilities and the implementation of a program to compensate for these difficulties. To our family's

knowledge, no such IPP was ever implemented for our grandson, so currently he is not eligible for tuition support because he did not have an IPP.

We haven't given up yet. We again filed another appeal and have had another meeting with the adjudicator. We are now in the process of requesting a review to determine if in fact steps had been taken to initiate an IPP for our grandson. What should have been a very straightforward application has become a very complicated process.

In our situation, the application and appeal process will not deter us from getting the necessary education for our grandson. This whole application process has been very frustrating and discouraging for us. We're not educators - we're businesspeople and we're grandparents. We will, however, pursue this appeal until it is resolved, and hopefully we'll be able to gain knowledge that will help others in our situation.

In the appeal process we have become aware of the 2006 publication by the Education Department of a book entitled, The Program Planning Process: A Guide for Parents. I really wonder how many parents have ever seen it. This booklet outlines the steps needed to have an IPP established for your student. It also outlines the roles and responsibilities of the program planning team. Why are parents not being made aware of the booklet and the process outlined in it? This is a booklet that should be given to all parents of children in the public school system if these are the rules that are going to apply.

In our case our daughter had never seen or heard of the booklet until when we were in our appeal process in June 2006. Parents applying for tuition support should be made aware of this booklet before they make application, not when they get to the appeal process.

The benefit of Landmark East to the education of our grandson has been well proven to us during this past year. We believe that there are many other children with learning disabilities who would benefit from the specialized educational methods used at Landmark and the other two recognized independent schools, but they are unable to take advantage of these because of financial concerns. The Tuition Support Program can provide a meaningful contribution to this expense and assist these children in receiving an education in a way in which they are able to achieve, both academically and socially.

We are thankful that in our area of Kings County, we have three MLAs who recognize the value of the education being provided for students with learning disabilities at Landmark and the other two private schools. We hope that the Minister of Education will also recognize the value of these schools for the education of students with learning disabilities and will not endorse the elimination of the Tuition Support Program in three years' time, but will in fact increase the financial support for these students in order that they will be able to receive an education in the way in which they are able to learn.

We are concerned that there are many students with difficulties similar to those of our grandson who are unable to take advantage of the specialized educational methods provided by these independent schools. Focusing solely on the benefit to the student with a learning disability, the Department of Education should not only be making it easier for parents to apply for tuition support, but should in fact be extending and enhancing the program. Any consideration of eliminating the tuition support should not even be entertained. We have witnessed firsthand the dramatic benefits of these specialized programs offered at Landmark East. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Are we ready for questions now? Ms. Massey.

MS. MASSEY: Thank you for coming in. It looks like it's really hard for both of you today. I'm just thinking back to some of the earlier comments and the last thing you said was basically, please do not eliminate the Tuition Support Program. We have one of the ministers here today who I think earlier had mentioned that maybe the Minister of Education has not accepted the recommendations. I know ministers often like to make those announcements very public, in very public, splashy ways, but if there's anything else that the minister opposite can share with us today, that would be great. Maybe he could steal her thunder.

We can all keep our fingers crossed that she is going to make the right decision and not accept that recommendation.

MRS. PENNY WHITE: If she's focusing on the students, which is where the focus should be, she won't make that recommendation. She won't accept it.

MS. MASSEY: I know I'm just sort of saying this - it is a serious thing, but I'm just trying to add a little bit of levity to the topic. I know I put the minister in an awkward position and I don't really expect him to have to reply to it, but . . .

MR. ESTABROOKS: He's used to that, relax. (Laughter)

MS. MASSEY: He's a good guy. I guess if I had to ask a question, again I go back to - I guess I'm using the wrong terminology - conspiracy theory, but I'm becoming more cynical the longer I'm in this job. It seems again like you've faced a lot of sort of loopholes, roadblocks, whatever you want to call them, along the way. One of them was just as simple as that booklet, which I've handed out in my office, that nice little booklet, The Program Planning Process: A Guide for Parents. It's a fabulous little document and there you go, you've got it, but it took you a long time to get it.

MRS. PENNY WHITE: Well, yes, it took a long time to get it but also, at the point we were at, he was - we didn't know that this process wasn't needed. We were just so thrilled

to finally have it diagnosed, which we arranged for the testing, and that there was a place that could help him.

We have a whole team working with us now. If you haven't sat where we are, or where all these other people are, you can't know how much that means to you, that you're not fighting this all by yourself and trying to find a spot for your young one to be comfortable. We have a team, he's happy. The first day he came home from school, he stopped at his grandfather's office to tell him how wonderful school was. School has never been wonderful for him. He said, you better call your grandmother right away because I know she's waiting to hear. He said, Grandma, it was awesome, I can hardly wait to go back tomorrow.

I never heard that, I had seen a little boy come home with his shoulders dropped, go in his room, close his curtains and lay on his bed because school had been that bad. We're not seeing that anymore, and he's where he needs to be. I just think the Department of Education should be helping him and helping the rest of these and those out there who need to be helped, who need this, who haven't got a chance to get it, and there are lots of them. Did I answer your question? I'm sorry.

MS. MASSEY: I think you did very well. Yes, indeed, thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Massey. Mr. Glavine.

MR. GLAVINE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Cyril and Penny, for coming in today. Your own children did very well in the public school system, isn't that correct - your own children, not your grandchild.

MR. CYRIL WHITE: They had some problems when they were going to school, but it seems that was a different day and age. The system was - they were able to fit into the system at that time. I think our children are probably average children. As far as we were aware, they didn't have any learning disabilities while they were going through. As a result, they all did graduate from high school.

MR. GLAVINE: So obviously then, Landmark has been the answer for your grandson and their special education . . .

MR. CYRIL WHITE: Most definitely, Landmark has been the salvation for him.

MR. GLAVINE: Right. Had his parents looked at getting testing prior to going to the private tester, Dr. Emily Freeman, who used to work for AVRSB? Had the parents tried to get that testing done?

MR. CYRIL WHITE: To our knowledge, I don't - unless there was something . . .

MRS. PENNY WHITE: I don't think it was ever suggested.

MR. CYRIL WHITE: . . . suggested by the school board, I don't believe so. So to answer your question, I don't think there had been any testing of any kind.

MR. GLAVINE: Isn't it so ironic that you have somebody as qualified and does such a wonderful job as Dr. Freeman, but yet the Department of Education won't recognize her assessment and put an IPP as an obstacle to getting support. What a travesty. That's all I have to say.

MR. CYRIL WHITE: Yes, it's very discouraging.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Glavine. Mr. Morse.

MR. MORSE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Cyril and Penny, for coming in today. For those of you who may not know Cyril and Penny, they are those quiet people who do good things in the community and never look for any kind of recognition. I would suggest that it's somewhat out of character for them to be here, as was the case with the previous speaker, and I want to thank them for coming in and sharing their story with their grandson.

There are two things I'd like to ask you about, and you should feel quite comfortable turning down this invitation if you're not comfortable answering the questions. Leo has alluded to the first one and when I have had parents come to me expressing frustration accessing the Tuition Support Program, understanding this just pays what the department would otherwise give to the public education system. It does not pay for the cost of going to any one of these three marvelous schools, but occasionally you get situations where the families go out, get the private opinion and then when the application goes forward, it's then contradicted by one that's obtained through the public school system. Could you comment on that in your case, was that a problem?

MR. CYRIL WHITE: Just repeat that last part again, would you please, David?

MR. MORSE: Well, I've had parents come to me who have gone out, gotten the opinion of maybe a private psychologist or some other professional, only to have a different opinion given by the public school system.

MR. CYRIL WHITE: No, there has not been a different opinion expressed.

MR. MORSE: Okay, that's good, but I do want to get . . .

MRS. PENNY WHITE: Other than they didn't recognize that he had a learning disability. So there's no process of IPP that we're aware of, because they did recognize a math problem and did agree that he probably would benefit from a tutor which we hired - it wasn't supplied by the school. The tutor was bringing him up to helping him a bit, but that didn't allow him to go back in the classroom and learn the way it was being taught to the rest of the students, and as the rest have said, when you're that young one sitting there who has no idea what's going on in the rest of the classroom because you don't understand the steps leading up to it.

[11:15 a.m.]

No, they didn't come right out and counteract. This assessment was done in May and he finished the school in June and then went to Landmark after that. We just removed him from the school and sent him to Landmark.

MR. MORSE: I just wanted to ask that question again, because this is something that keeps bubbling up when I encounter parents who are frustrated with accessing the Tuition Support Program. That's why I keep asking the question, are you comfortable commenting on the appeal process you went through? You were expecting to be addressing one issue that led to the decline, and then when you got to the appeal process you encountered a completely different question. Are you comfortable commenting on that today?

MR. CYRIL WHITE: Yes, we were advised that we had been refused under Section 71(1)(b) of the legislation, that stated that a student would be disqualified if the application hadn't been made within such and such a timeline. We were late in applying, so it was our understanding that we were disqualified for that reason. But when we went to the appeal, the issue became Section 71(1)(c) of the legislation, pertaining to the IPP.

We're presently going to try to determine if, in fact, there were any steps taken to begin an IPP and, if there were any steps taken, at what level it finished up. So that's what the focus was on, Section 71(1)(c). After this last review, or our last meeting with the adjudicator, we now will be going back to our local school board to try to determine again whether an IPP had been initiated.

MR. MORSE: I guess, Mr. Chairman . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Quickly, Mr. Morse.

MR. MORSE: . . . the point I want to make here is that in the written communication, the reason for the refusal was one section, Section 71(1)(b), but when you came prepared to argue your case you found yourself facing a completely different objection.

MR. CYRIL WHITE: The objection, yes, became Section 71(1)(c), the IPP.

MR. MORSE: And you never had a chance to prepare for that situation . . .

MR. CYRIL WHITE: Exactly, we weren't even aware of that.

MR. MORSE: . . . you were taken by surprise.

MRS. PENNY WHITE: That's when we received this book.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. White, for appearing this morning, we appreciate it.

MR. CYRIL WHITE: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Our final presenter of the morning is Stacey Pellegrini. Is Stacey Pellegrini here?

Okay, I don't know - I'll give the committee members a chance to perhaps have any final comments that they want at this point in time, or if indeed there are any motions to put before the committee.

I want to take the opportunity, while I have it, on behalf of the committee members, to thank our presenters. I know personally when you pour through some documents and some research and read papers and read material on this, it gives you one perspective. I think you've helped us put a human face on that perspective this morning, which I think is extremely important in this situation. So I thank you for working up the guts to appear this morning, first of all. I know that takes a certain amount of strength there to appear before such an august committee as you have here this morning and to face some faces.

MR. ESTABROOKS: Speak for yourself. (Laughter)

MR. CHAIRMAN: But seriously, we appreciate you taking your time and coming forward and telling us your stories. I know you've made a tremendous impact in my case, and I'm sure with the other members of the committee as well. Mr. Estabrooks, then Mr. Glavine.

MR. ESTABROOKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it would be appropriate, however, that we as a committee and you as the chairman would be in correspondence with the Minister of Education. I so move that this committee instruct the Minister of Education to carefully consider the positives of the current Tuition Support Program and that it be allowed to continue. So moved.

MR. PARKER: I'll second it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A seconder is not needed. Mr. Estabrooks has moved the motion. Mr. Glavine.

MR. GLAVINE: Yes, I just wanted to make a final comment because the five very personal accounts today are very gripping, very disturbing. While one part of it is a good-news story, that you do have your child or grandchild into one of the three special schools, you know, the process to get there through the public school system and the process of trying to get some financial help of tuition support certainly needs to be reviewed immediately so some relief can be put in place. Especially for those parents who don't often have the education and the ability to go through filling out all the documents and who just don't have the dogged determination to see it through.

One of the things I'd like to raise today is the fact that in all of the seven school districts that we currently have, plus the French system making eight, we have these types of programs being offered in only two of the eight school systems. I think if the public education system is going to be truly accountable, that they start with a very small initiative this year to begin the development of such schools, either in the context of an existing public education school building or in an abandoned building or an underutilized school facility, to start the development of such schools. These are urgently needed. As I said, less than 10 per cent are currently getting this kind of specialized help that we need our children to be getting.

The one glaring statistic that nobody can deny, and this is really what Nunn's report was all about, is that the junior high years now - and I'm sure Mr. Estabrooks will agree - these are the years where children are dropping out of school. It's because they haven't been assessed, they are running into enormous educational difficulties, having no success whatsoever, and then they become the social and the behavioral problems that are within the school community, but carried over to our larger communities. I think we have to move in that direction to address.

I just want to finish off with a motion, and that is . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion on the floor right now, Mr. Glavine, so can we deal with that first?

MR. GLAVINE: Sure, absolutely.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is this on the motion, Mr. Parker?

MR. PARKER: Not directly. We should do the motion first.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, Mr. Colwell. I did forget, my apology.

MR. COLWELL: On this motion, I want a recorded vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Which would call for - a recorded vote, does anyone have a problem with a recorded vote?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We don't have a problem. Is there any further discussion on the motion? Mr. Estabrooks, again your motion as you put it before.

MR. ESTABROOKS: Maybe Mrs. Henry could get it? Maybe we should have Hansard correct me with my mistakes, so I'll say it again: That the chairman be instructed to communicate with the minister, asking her to carefully consider the importance of the Tuition Support Program and that it be encouraged to continue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A recorded vote has been called for. Are you ready for the question?

[The chairman calls the roll.]

YEAS NAYS

Mr. Porter

Mr. Morse

Mr. Parker

Mr. Estabrooks

Ms. Massey

Mr. Glavine

Mr. Colwell

Mr. David Wilson (Glace Bay)

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is carried.

Mr. Glavine.

MR. GLAVINE: I got ahead of myself a little bit there, I certainly agreed with Mr. Estabrooks' motion, but I made some general comments. I would like to make a motion today and it's probably one to obviously be reviewed by the Minister and the Department of Education. My motion is that the current three-year restriction on tuition support be removed and that portability be the process employed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your motion is that we're requesting the minister do that?

MR. GLAVINE: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That the current . . .

MR. GLAVINE: That the three-year restriction be removed from tuition support.

MR. COLWELL: And that tuition support continue?

MR. GLAVINE: Obviously, yes, because we just voted on that.

MR. COLWELL: Put it in the motion.

MR. GLAVINE: Put it in the motion, yes. That tuition support obviously be continued beyond the three years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion? Mr. Morse.

MR. MORSE: Mr. Chairman, consistent with my own personal beliefs in this program and whatever role I may have had in changing the department's policy toward tuition support, now several years ago and the almost unanimous support of my Party at the recent provincial AGM, I will be voting in favour of this motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Colwell.

MR. COLWELL: A recorded vote again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A recorded vote has been called for. Are you ready for the question?

[The chairman calls the roll.]

YEAS NAYS

Mr. Porter

Mr. Morse

Mr. Parker

Mr. Estabrooks

Ms. Massey

Mr. Glavine

Mr. Colwell

Mr. David Wilson (Glace Bay)

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is carried.

Any further discussion? Mr. Parker.

MR. PARKER: I'm just going to make a suggestion maybe to the Department of Education. This whole process is very frustrating for the parents. They are trying to get information from the school or from the school board, they're trying to get information from the department and they're really not getting the answers they need. The book that one of the parents mentioned here is very good, I've seen that, and that's The Program Planning Process: A Guide for Parents, and that's good if people even know it exists, if they can get it in their hands.

A parallel process I can think of in the health system is that when somebody comes down with a terrible disease called cancer, there are what they call cancer navigators in the system that really guide that family and that individual through the system. I wonder if there could be something similar to that for parents in the education system in the special needs department, if they know their child needs that kind of help. So a special needs navigator really would be what I'm suggesting. I can make that a motion or maybe just throw it out there as an idea for the department personnel who are here today to maybe run with that and see if it's possible to guide a family through the system. Right now, they are on their own and that's where the frustration is coming from. So I'm throwing that out as a suggestion to the department.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Colwell.

MR. COLWELL: I just want to thank all the parents and grandparents who came today. I know the stories are very sad, but you're the lucky ones. You are the people who have taken the time and effort, spent your own money, changed your careers and did everything else you can to help your children - those children are very fortunate. It's the other parents that we alluded to today that don't know the system, don't realize maybe there is some help available, don't have the resources or just are simply too busy every day making a living that they can't afford to do the things you've done or aren't aware of it.

I think we've got to raise awareness of this, we've got to make sure that people know this. I've had discussions with school teachers who are just as frustrated as you are with the system. They are hamstrung by the school boards quite frankly, at least the Halifax Regional School Board - I've seen that happen over and over again. It's unfortunate. They can't say that, because they'll be criticized by the board and all kinds of other problems they may run into.

I wish I had time today, but there was one incident where a parent came to me and a teacher went beyond what she should have done in the school system, which I feel that she should be doing anyway, and she got a letter from the school board that said if she continued, that she would be terminated. It was exactly the problem that you discussed today. It was absolutely outrageous as far as I'm concerned, and it meant a young lady managed to go

through the system and actually went through the system after that, stayed in the school system with some help and got through it and didn't have to go to any of the other schools.

[11:30 a.m.]

I think the teachers have the best motives here, they have the best intentions, but they need help and they need support from the system to do that. I would encourage the Department of Education to get rid of that problem that seems to exist in the school boards - not so much in the Department of Education, because once it hits there they seem to resolve the problems - and give them directives to make sure that these things are done for children, so we don't have to deal with things I deal with every day. The break and enters, drugs, murders and all those things, some of these kids get tangled up in because they haven't had an opportunity, as they have under the Constitution to get an education in this country, they haven't had the opportunity to get a proper education.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Porter.

MR. PORTER: Very quickly, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to thank all of you for coming in today. It has been a very emotional meeting, but a very good one, one of the best that I'll say I have attended in this committee, so thank you for being here. There was one comment that sort of struck me, though. One of you noted that you were not educators and I just want to say as someone who has worked in health care for many years and has had the unfortunate displeasure of viewing the circumstances more than you can imagine, I want to say that we're all educators, it's very important to think outside the classroom. You are all very good educators to your children, your grandchildren and so on. So thank you very much for all that you're doing and continue to do it. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we move to adjourn we have one item, a request from the Canadian Federation of Students to meet with the committee. Calls have been returned to the committee - I did return a call to the Canadian Federation of Students, but I didn't have a return call. It happens to us too.

MRS. SMITH: Once is okay . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, once is okay, I won't accept it twice. (Laughter) Anyway, we're attempting to set up a meeting for the Canadian Federation of Students to appear here. As you know, our next scheduled meeting is November 27^th to deal with ABCs, but we also have a little rule there that might get in the way, because we do not meet on a regular basis during the House sitting. Is that correct? The House will resume sitting on November 22^nd.

MRS. DARLENE HENRY (Legislative Committee Clerk): What about December 18^th?

MR. CHAIRMAN: December 18^th would possibly be a date that we could meet with the Canadian Federation of Students. Having said that, we may still be in the House and it's a little close to Christmas. Mr. Morse.

MR. MORSE: I wonder if that's a good date for them, because some of them may be from out of the province and it may be difficult for them to attend on December 18^th. I wonder if January would be a better date for them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: With the committee's permission then, we'll continue for myself and the clerk to try to arrange and attempt a meeting with the Canadian Federation of Students at some point in time. Is that fine? Great.

The next scheduled meeting is November 27^th at 9:00 a.m. Again everyone today, thank you for your co-operation and thank you for being here. A motion to adjourn, please.

MR. ESTABROOKS: So moved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The meeting is adjourned.

[The committee adjourned at 11:33 a.m.]