“Examining the Authoritarian Drift of Bill 23 on School Governance: The Power of the Minister and the National Institute of Excellence in Education (INEE)”

With his bill 23 on school governance, Bernard Drainville announces that the year will be long.

Today, in collaboration with Marc St-Pierrewe will discuss two elements: the power of life or death of the minister over the DGs of the CSS and the creation of the National Institute of Excellence in Education (INEE).

God complex

The draft “gives the Minister the power to overrule a decision of a CSS and take the one which in his opinion should have been taken in the first place”.

Speaking of his superpower, Bernard Drainville is adamant that he hopes not to have to use it, but he will in cases where a CSS breaks away from the government’s vision.

A certain detachment like wanting tackle dogma to open as many four-year-old kindergartens as possible? To paraphrase Mr. Legault, a CEO will have to draw on his reserve of courage to speak in public, comfortably seated on his ejection seat.

For a party that wanted to bring decisions closer to those who know students by name, this is further away from the promised decentralization.

On the ground, there is no one crazy enough to believe that it is a good idea to leave so much power to a single individual.

It is dangerous to centralize decision-making in the minister’s office.

The individual doesn’t matter. The party doesn’t matter.

INEE

When, in a bill, the INEE is created and, at the same time, the minister is given the power to hire/dismiss DGs, it becomes easy to associate INEE with an authoritarian and centralizing drift.

In 2018, if Sébastien Proulx had acted on the report he had commissioned on the creation of the INEE, would that have sheltered us? (1, 2, 3, 45, 6)

INEE can be a good idea and will gain credibility if it is given some teeth and is proof against ministerial improvisations and preconceived ideas.

Thus, the institute should be an independent body, only accountable to the National Assembly. In addition, the Minister will have to justify himself publicly when he decides to disregard one of his opinions. What he is under no obligation to do with those of the CSE.

It seems that if such a body had existed when the Roberge reform and that he had reported on the research on effective governance, there is a good chance that his project was shredded.

According to Prime Minister“it would definitely be easier not to change anything […]. We are going to do this for our young people”.

We can’t help but smile imagining the day when the INEE will make recommendations on the deleterious effects of competition, the 3-speed school or private funding.

What is especially easy not to change is not to attack, by ideology, certain sacred cows.