THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS: SELF-REGULATION OR CONTROL OF TEACHING?

Jennifer Lamarche-Schmalz

Faculty of Education

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Education

Faculty of Graduate Studies The University of Western Ontario London, Ontario August 1997

Q Jennifer Lamarche-Schmalz 1997 National Library Bibliothèque nationale ($1 of Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographic Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395, nie Wellington Ottawa ON KIA ON4 Ottawa ON K 1A ON4 Canada Canada Your hie Vorro reterence

Our ri& Notre retdrence

The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sel1 reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of ths thesis in rnicrofonn, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/filrn, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.

The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. Abstract

This study analyzes the creation of an Ontario College of Teachers to determine whether a College will. in the opinion of teachers. further the self- regulation of the teachers of Ontario or serve as a mechanism to increase state control of the teaching profession.

This study focuses first on the historical context of the College of Teachers initiative. It then reviews the literature pertinent to the concepts of self- regdation, professionalism, power and control. Chapter three analyzes the available government and teachers' federations and associations documentation relating to the creation of an Ontario College of Teachers. Interviews conducted with the presidents of the Ontario Teachers' Federation (OTF).

Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens (AEFO),

Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association (OECTA), Ontario Public School

Teachers' Federation (OPSTF) and Ontario Secondary School Teachers'

Federation (OSSTF) are discussed with reference to the frarnework laid out in the literature review.

The OTF and its affiliates were found to be very suspicious of the government's motives, particulariy when discussing the composition of the

Governing Council of the College. The researcher discovered nothing that would suggest that teachers' suspicions were ill-founded.

III

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr. Rebecca Priegert Coulter for her guidance, support. and mostly her understanding throughout this process. Her vision and integrity made this study an enjoyable learning expertence. I would also like to thank

Dr. Marshall Mangan for his invaluable insight and his many contributions to the finished product. I am most grateful to my husband, John Schrnalz. for always being supportive and understanding of my many endeavours. He has never hesitated to encourage me to pursue al1 of my goals and dreams. TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Certificate of examination II

Abstract ii i

Dedication iv

Acknowledgements v

Table of contents vi

List of Appendices

Chapter 1 - Introduction and Historical Context

Chapter 2 - Professionaiism. Power and Control

Chapter 3 - lmplementing the College: A Chronology

Chapter 4 - Federation and Association Perspectives

Chapter 5 - Conclusions and Final Thoughts

Appendices

References

Vita LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page

Appendix A Interview Questions 68

Appendtx B Ethical Review Clearance Certificate 69 Chapter 1 - Introduction and Historical Context

In February 1995. the Ontario Royal Commission on Learning released its final report. lncluded in its many recommendations was one clearly specifying the need to create a "professional self-regulatory body for teaching" (vol.l Il.

1994. p.61) or. as the Commission called it, the Ontario College of Teachers.

The purpose of this study is to analyze whether the creation of an Ontario

College of Teachers will, in the opinion of teachers. further the self-regulation of the teaching profession. or whether it will serve as a mechanism to further state control of the teaching profession.

The concept of a College of Teachers is not new in Canada. The Royal

Commission report entitled Livina and Learninq (Ontario, 1968), better known as the Hall-Dennis report. contained a very specific recomrnendation dealing with the issue of teacher self-governance. Recommendation 137 of the report called on the Ontario government to "Enact a Teaching Profession Act which will make teaching a self governing profession with powers to license and to discipline its members, these powers to be exercised through an organization to be known as the College of Teachers of Ontario" (Ontario. 1968. p. 192). This proposal did not become a reality in the late sixties. but the Hall-Dennis recommendation opened the door for both the government and the Ontario

Teachers' Federation (OTF) and its five affiliates: the Federation of Women

Teachers' Associations of Ontario (FWTAO). the Ontario English Cat holic Teachers' Association (OECTA). the Ontario Public School Teachers'

Federation (OPSTF), the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation

(OSSTF) and the Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-

ontariens (AEFO), to begin considering and discussing the advantages and

disadvantages of teacher self-regulation. An OTF Commission established to

consider the notion of a College "responded favourably to the concept of

increasing the professional status of teachers" (Francis. 1993. p.45). This is

reflected in the OTF Commission's report. Pattern for Professionalism, which

O bserved:

If we are to be professionals in the full sense, we must be responsible for the standards of our profession. . . . This means finding avenues of influence and channels of communication, which. we must admit, however reluctantly. do not presently exist in as effective a fon as we should like to see them. (OTF. 1968, P. 10)

However. by the mid-seventies. the issue of teacher self-governance had al1 but

been forgotten.

The debate did not resurface until 1980 when the then Minister of

Education. Dr. Bette Stephenson, and her Deputy Minister. Dr. Harry Fisher,

revisited the idea of creating an Ontario College of Teachers. Stephenson formally introduced her vision of a College of Teachers in a document entitled

Issues and Directions (Ontario, Ministry of Education [hereafter MOE], 1980).

In this report, Stephenson clearly stated her intentions in the following sections:

4.3 The Government believes that the teaching profession has reached a stage of maturity comparable to that of other established professions and that the public interest can therefore be safeguarded through means other than those now in effect. 4.3.1 It is proposed that the Ministry of Education enter into discussions with the Ontario Teachers' Federation to plan the creation of a professional association or "college of teachers", which will exercise. on behalf of the public interest, rights of admission, certification. discipline, professional development, and maintenance of the professional records of teachers. 4.3.2 The Ministry of Education proposes to conduct a formal review of the Teaching Profession Act, 7944, with particular reference to the changes that should be made subsequent to the creation of a "college of teachers". (Ontario. MOE, 1980,p.40)

Stephenson went beyond simply making the announcement and waiting for the outcorne. In fact " Issues and Directions also proposed . . . to pursue it [a

College of Teachers] more aggressively" (Francis. 1993. p.49).

By 1983. Stephenson had a specific implementation strategy which was set out in Education Ontario (Ontario, MO€. June 1983). This article prescribed the following structure for a College:

i) The College of Teachers would be a separate entity from the existing Ontario Teachers' Federation and the professional organizations. ii) Membership in the College would be mandatory for ali who hold positions with a school board or in the Ministry of Education by virtue of a basic licence to teach in Ontario. but voluntary for teachers in the private sector (mandatory membership would not extend to teachers in pst secondary or adult continuing education). iii) Mernbership in OTF would not be a pre-requisite for membership in the College. iv) There would be a single College to represent al1 teachers - public and separate, as well as French and English. v) The Minister of Education and the Ministry of Colleges and Universities would be an ex-officio member of the governing body of the College of Teachers. Governance Structure i) The Council would be a separate legal entity from the existing Teachers' Federation and other professional organizations. ii) The Minister of Education and the Ministry of Colleges and Universities would be an ex-officio member of the Council. iii) The College would be self-financing and would have the authority to levy fees from rnembership to cover its costs of operation. iv) There would be 26 mernbers of the Governing Council as follows: 6 appointments by the lieutenant governor-in-council. 2 representatives elected by professional staff of Faculties of Education. and 18 teachers elected directly by teachers on a geographic basis to represent al1 teachers. (p.1.4)

Many of these recommendations will be discussed further in chapter 3 of this study. Sufftce it to Say that this second, more developed and more aggressive campaign to establish a College of Teachers in Ontario was opposed by the

OTF and il1s amliates. Certainly the most vocal opposition carne from the

OSSTF. In a document published in 1980. the OSSTF stated:

No right of self government should be claimed merely because the term 'profession' has been attached to a particular occupation. If the Government is still exercising this basic test before granting self-government to the teaching profession, we must then recognize that the interests of the public have been placed ahead of the interests of the profession (OSSTF, 1980,p. 10)

The interests of the members of the teaching profession are, without a doubt. the first priority of the OTF and its affiliates. "The mandate of the proposal was to protect the public interest. Stephenson's proposal was, in part, a reaction to the trade union activisrn of teachers that was flourishing in Ontario from 1965-1975" (Francis, 1993, p. 51). It could then be argued that, as early as 1980, the government's objective was to weaken teacher unionism by forcing mandatory membership in an Ontario College of Teachers that was 5 outside of the control and influence of the OTF and its affdiates. However. on

November 24. 1983. Premier Bill Davis made it clear in the Legislature that he had no intention of going to battle with the teachers of Ontario when he çaid

"we would not introduce a change of this significance and importance without the support of the teaching profession" (Ontario. Provincial Legislature. p.

3308). Once again, the College of Teachers would not become a reality. at least no? in 1983.

The next major encounter Canadian teachers had with the concept of a college of teachers was in April of 1987 when the then Premier of British

Columbia. Bill Vander Zalm. introdcced Bill 20. The Teaching Profession Act

(1987) in the British Columbia Legislature. Bill 20 established the British

Columbia College of Teachers (BCCT) that was to be fully functional in January

1988. Virtually ovemight and without any prior consultation with the British

Columbia Teachers' Federation (BCTF) or any other significant educational official. the teachers of the province became self-goveming (Francis, 1993. p.72). The Governing Council of the BCCT has 20 rnembers, 45 of whom are teachers elected from 15 provincial zones. Of the remaining five members, two are appointed by the Minister of Education. two are appointed by Cabinet and one is a representative nominated jointly by the Deans of the Faculties of

Education and the Minister of Education.

The government legislated compulsory membership in the BCCT for al1 public school teachers, vice principals, principals and superintendents. The mandate is as follows:

It is the object of the College to establish, having regard to the public interest. standards for the education, professional responsibility, and cumpetence of its members and applicants for membership and consistent with that object to encourage the professional interest of its members in those matters. (R. S. B.C. 1987, s.4)

The swift introduction and adoption of Bill 20 led the BCTF to believe "along

with teachers' organizations nation wide, that the legislation was introduced for

the sole purpose of breaking the power of the BCTF" (Francis. 1993. p.74).

Regardless of the motive, the BCCT became the first College of Teachers in

Canada.

It was in February 1995 that the discussion of a college of teachers came

once again to the forefront of political discussion and debate in Ontario with the

announcement of recomrnendation 58 of the Royal Commission on Learning.

The recommendation reads as follows:

We recommend that a professional self-regulatory body for teaching , the Ontario College of Teachers. be established, with the powers. duties, and membership of the College set out in legislation. The College should be responsible for determining professional standards. certification, and accreditation of teacher education programs. Professional educators should form a majority of the membership of the College, with substantial representation of non-educators from the cummunity at large. (Ontario. 1994, vol.lll, p.11)

The Minister of Education and Training at the time of the report. Dave Cooke, then struck The Ontario College of Teachers lmplementation Cornmittee to

report back to the Minister by September 1995 with regards to a framework for implementing an Ontario College of Teachers. In September, the Cornmittee published its report entitled The Privileae of Professionalism: The Ontario

Colleae of Teachers. However, by the time the committee reported back. the

Ontario public had elected a new government and in so doing, a new Minister of Education and Training, John Snobelen.

By the spring of 1995, immediately following the Royal Commission's recommendation for an Ontario College of Teachers, al1 but one federation. the

OSSTF, was on record as supporting the concept of a College. However. the framework laid out in The Privileae of Professionalism (Ontario, Ministry of

Education and Training [hereafter MET], lmplementation Cornmittee. 1995) drew opposition from OTF and its five affiliates. Once again there was solidarity among the ranks of the teachers' federations and associations. The

OTF and some of the afftliates began drafting their own proposals and rewmmendations for an Ontario College of Teachers. As will be discussed in greater detail in chapter four, the presidents of the federations and associations were led to believe that Mr. Snobelen was not particularly attached to the idea of a College of Teachers or to the mode1 proposed by the implementation committee. Rather, it was simply left over from the previous government. Reg

Ferland. president of the OPSTF, summed it up when he said, "We [OTF and the affiliate presidents] asked what he [Mr. Snobelen] was going to do and at that point in time he said, 'Well, what do you want me to do?' He said, 'We didn't campaign on this; we have no attachment to this; we have no allegiance to this'." (R. Ferland, personal communication, November 27, 1995). In this 8 same interview Ferland added: "he also said that he had no space or time in the legislature to bring forward any kind of policy or legislation to be introduced in the House in this particular sitting." According to Ferland , it was approximately 10 days later that Mr. Snobelen introduced Bill 31 An Act to

Establish the Ontario Colleqe of Teachers into the Legislature, much to the surprise and dismay of the teachers' representatives who were. at the time. complettng revisions of the OTF mode1 for the creation of a College of Teachers that was to be presented to the Minister.

This very abrupt introduction of Bill 31 into the Ontario Legislature leads back to the research question 1 will discuss in the remaining four chapters of this study: In the opinion of teachers, is the creation of an Ontario Coliege of

Teachers a means to further the self-regulation of the teaching profession or is it a means by which the government can increase its wntrol of the teaching profession? Contained in this question are at least three sets of underlying questions. Firstly, what is a College of Teachers, what purposes might it serve and how would it operate? Secondly, what are the implications of autonomous self-regulation? Finally, what constitutes power and control in education, and who, specifically, has them? Moshould have them and who wants them?

To answer these questions the study was broken into three parts. The first part is a review of the scholarly literature pertinent to the concepts of professionalization and control in teaching. Some attention will be given to the literature on professionalization as it relates to other professions. The second part deals specifically with written primary data. For the Love of Learnina:-

Report of the Royal Commission on Leaminq (Ontario. Royal Commission on

Learning. 1994) will be an important source of information, as the current proposal for the Ontario College of Teachers stems from this report. Another source of particular interest in this chapter will be The Privileae of

Professionalism (Ontario. MET, lmplementation Committee. 1995),the report from the lmplementation Committee, as it has become the framework for the

College. Also included in this chapter will be an analysis of the written responses and articles prepared by the affiliates. Finally, the last part, chapter four. of this study will be an analysis of interviews with selected key actors in the College of Teachers debate. Because the actual creation of a College of

Teachers is relatively recent in Ontario. it is difficult to find a lengthy paper traii to document attitudes and perceptions. lnterviewing key players was chosen as the best method for obtaining the most recent, most relevant information about the now legislated College of Teachers.

The intention was to interview the presidents of the OTF, FWTAO, OECTA,

OPSTF, OSSTF and AEFO. Each of the presidents was contacted initially by telephone in late October and early November 1995. At that time, the nature of the study was explained and their participation was requested. It was clearly indicated that they were being asked to participate in their official capacity and that they would be identified by name and by title in the study. They were also informed that the intewiews would be audiotaped and transcribed and that upon 10 completion of the study. they would be offered to an appropriate archives.

Interviews with Ronald Robert (OTF), Roger Régimbal (AEFO), Mariiies Rettig

(OECTA) and Reg Ferland (OPSTF) were conducted in Novernber 1995 and with Earl Manners (OSSTF) in July 1996. Sheryl Hoshizaki (FWTAO) declined to participate in this study.

Using conceptual frameworks derived from the review of the scholariy literature, the documents and the interviews were analyzed to uncover similarities and differences among the various participants and organizations involved in this study. PaRicular attention was paid to the concepts of self- regulation and control.

There are at least four important limitations to this study, the first lying in the choice of interviewees. The six federation and association presidents were selected in an effort to focus primarily on the "profession" proper. understanding that the teaching profession is undoubtedly the stakeholder most affected by the creation of a College and also recognizing that this assumes that the federations and associations truly speak on behalf of teachers on this particular issue. The absence of Sheryl Hoshizaki, president of FWTAO, is a second limitation in that the largest of the affiliates is not well represented. The third is that the design of the interview rnight have hindered full disclosure by the participants because they were responding in their official capacities, being fuily aware that they were speaking on the record. Finally, this study deals only with how the College will or will not contribute to the professionalization of teaching 11 It does not deal with the College's administrative functions or its daily routines.

The original impetus for this research was a concern with the concept of professionalism. It appeared that those who favoured the creation of a College held a firm belief that the College would increase the professional status of teaching in Ontario. and thus an exploration of professionalism seemed a good place to start this research. It was soon discuvered, however, that those who opposed the College did not do so because they opposed professionalizing teaching. Rather, they were questioning the means by which the government proposed to professionalize teaching, namely through self-regulation, and more specifically, they challenged the government's construction of "self' in self- regulation. As Hugh Munby (1996) so eloquently puts it, "the final irony is that the Ministry of Education and Training will ultimately pronounce on how much

"self' is needed for a self-regulating body to be self-regulating." (p. 136). It could be argued :hat al1 agree that further professionalizing teaching is positive and beneficial to al1 concerned. This is not where the debate lies. As the research moved forward. it became clear that the struggle was one of power and co~trol.

In chapter two, the concepts of professionalism, self-regulation, power and wntrol are discussed by means of a scholarly literature review. The conceptual framework developed in this chapter provides the analytical tools used to interpret the data in chapters three and four. Chapter 2 - Professionalism, power and control

There is much discussion and debate around the concept of professionalism . Historically, the term "professional" was reserved for the few

"deserving" occupations that demonstrated narrowly defined criteria. However, more and more the term "professional" relates to a variety of different popular interpretations, for example, high income earning potential, high level of education or a certain amount of experience. Thus. we sometimes hear people

Say such things as "1 am a professional realtofqor "l'm a professional pilot".

The scholarly literature is certainly more prescriptive than popular opinions or self-descriptions. This chapter will deal with the concept of professionalism as defined in the literature with particular attention paid to the concepts of self- regulation. autonomy, power and control.

The first step to better understanding the concept of professionalism is to analyze the literature. much of which contains lists of required critena that an occupation must demonstrate in order to be recognized as a profession. Allan

Ornstein (1981) focused on what he considered to be the four most important characteristics of a profession: "1) a defined body of knowledge beyond the grasp of the lay public, 2) control over licensing standards andior entry requirements, 3) autonomy in ma king decisions about selected spheres of work. and 4) high prestige and ewnomic standing"(p. 196). This list is certainly not 13 conclusive as Ornstein (1981) indicates that these are the four most important elements drawn from a list of thirteen that he had extracted from the works of three writers on the subject of professionalism. It is the fourth characteristic on this list, high prestige and econornic standing, that makes it different from other lists. Hart and Marshall (1992) also reviewed a large number of characteristics, variables and criteria in the works of other authors and summarized "these similarities into five fundamental aspects of a profession: 1) Specific body of knowledge; 2) ldeal of service; 3) Ethical codes; 4) Autonomy; and 5)

Distinctive culture." (p. 2). Throughout the literature there are many more characteristics of the professional or the profession that are not included in either of the descriptions listed above. Ernest Greenwood (1966),for example, discusses "authority recognized by the clientele of the professional group" (p. 9) and "broader community sanction and approval of this authority" (p. 9). All of these elernents are important when considering the impact and significance of an Ontario College of Teachers.

When sifting through the various lists of characteristics of a profession, it is obvious that most of the researchers agree on certain core elements which include a specific body of knowledge and autonomy. Professional autonomy, although present on most lists of professional characteristics, is defined in a variety of ways. First, in reference to Ornstein's (1981) list cited above, it could be argued that two of the four elements are related to autonomy. He specifically uses the term autonomy in his third element "autonomy in rnaking decisions" but this is ais0 linked to his second element, "control over licensing standards and/or entry requirements" (p. 196). This type of control would undoubtedly lead a profession towards autonomy through self-regulation. The concept of self-reg dation is of particular importance to this discussion. Autonom y, as defined in the Funk and Wagnall's dictionary, creates a direct link between the two concepts: "The condition or quality of being autonomous; esp., the power or right of self-government" (1982, p.43). Madeline Hunter (1993) also addresses the issue of autonomy as she suggests that "the process or product of a professional is judged by knowledgeable members of that profession, not by the uninformed" (p.43). Hunter thus returns us to the question 'who should control the profession?'. Brian Rowan's (1994) response to this question is that "what is needed are educational reforms that give teachers more professional autonomy and a greater voice in educational decision making." (p. 4). The literature suggests that autonomy is a very signifiant element in defining a profession, which leads to the conclusion that in order to be recognized, a profession must have full control over the decision making process that will ultimately define its existence.

The concept of control raises its own set of difficulties. In this particular situation, there is much discussion around questions such as 'who has control?',

'who wants cuntrol?'. 'who is in a 90sition to confer control to whom?', and so on. It appears that both parties participating in the discussion. teachers and the government, are somewhat suspicious of the motives of the other. The literature would suggest that the suspicions are not unfounded. In fact.

Popkewitz (1994) stated that "ever since the 1MOs, attempts to reform teaching have served to introduce more hierarchical forms of wntrol " (p. 4). Dureault

(1989) asked the question "Mat do teachers want?"(p. 7) and then answered it as follows: "They want to have a Say in deciding what their responsibilities will be. including the what. the who, the when and the how of decision-making. It seems that professionals wanting to accept responsibility for their actions must struggle to obtain the power to do sou (p. 7). This statement implies that currently teachers do not have any power or have very little power in the decision-making process related to their occupation. In fact. with regards to the creation of the Ontario College of Teachers, Smaller (1995) drives home this point:

Given this kind of historical track record. it is hardly surprising that many of the classroom teachers I interviewed remained suspicious about the government's claim that the proposed College would be an autonornous teachers' organization. controlled by teachers. Their scepticism have[sic] proven to be well-founded: when the governing Ontario NDP announced the names of the people who had been appointed to the lmplementation Committee -- responsible for developing both the terms of reference and the legislation for the proposed college -- not one classrwm teacher was included in the group! (pp. 128-129)

Smaller is simply pointing out an obvious fact: it is difficult for teachers to control their occupation if they are never allowed to enter the discussion.

The lack of teacher representation on the lrnplementation Committee raises the question "why not?". If the government truly wishes to make teaching a self-regulating, autonomous profession, would it not make sense that teachers be included in the decision-making process about how this objective is to be realized? The answer lies perhaps in the observations by Labaree (1992) that

"there is good reason to be suspicious of any movement that calls for professionalization, on the grounds that it may benefit only the interest group leading the way" (p. 128).

Much of the literature frowns on outsiders. such as. the government and the public. setting standards within a profession. "If teaching is to become a true profession. educators must reverse the traditional practice of allowing legislators to set standards. Instead, educators must set the standards themselves ..."

(Wise and Leibbrand. 1993. p. 135). This statement irnplies that teaching has never been recognized as a profession because of govemmental control over the work teachers do. This view is supported by Avis (1994) who notes that

"Richard Pring (1993) is not alone in arguing that government policy undermines teacher professionalism and that it is timely to reassert the professionalism of teachers" (p. 63). This again returns to the fact that control. autonom y and self-regdation are very closely intertwined.

Another component of outside intervention in a profession is the public or lay person's input into a discussion that most of the professionals consider to be theirs and theirs alone. "lndeed, lay control is the natural enemy of professions; it limits the power of the professional and opens the door to outside interference." (Ornstein, 1981. p. 196). This sentiment is echoed by

Hart and Marshall (1992) who wnclude that only those who have earned a 17 place within the profession have the knowledge base and the cornpetence to judge a colleague within the same profession, which, in essence. excludes the client and those outside the profession from participating in this process. This component of professionalism will become particularly significant in chapter three with regards to the composition of the governing body of the College and in chapter four when the presidents comment on this composition. Suffice it to

Say at this point that the affiliate presidents do not perceive governance in the same manner as the provincial government.

Thus far in this chapter the discussion has focused on the concept of professionalisrn and more specifically. the issues of autonomy and self- regulation as they pertain to professionalization. It should not go unnoted that there there is a body of literature that has chosen to describe teaching, along with other occupations such as nursing and social work. as a "semi- profession". Accurding to Etzioni (1969),this view of teaching and the other semi-professions he lists, stems from the belief that "their training is shorter, their status is less legitirnated. their right to privileged communication less established, there is less of a specialized body of knowledge, and they have less autonorny from supervision or societal control than 'the' professions "

(emphasis added) (p. v). Once again, the issues of autonomy and control are prominent. This statement also suggests that if teaching were a true profession there would be greater self-regulation and less societal control over teaching, which brings the discussion full circle to Ornstein (1981) and Hart and Marshall (1992).

Goode (1969) States that teaching, unlike some of the other semi- professions. will never achieve true professionalisrn. He then adds that

"teachers will doubtless move upward in income relative to other semi- professions. and so will librarians and nurses." (p. 281). If this statement is sifted through the four elements Ornstein (1981) identified as the most significant in professionalization, it wuld be argued that the increase in income, which in turn would increase the prestige of teachers, would ultimately increase the likelihood that teaching would be seen as a profession. Considering also that Goode wrote this article in 1969 in terrns of the American system, prior to the rapid salary increases and heightened teacher militancy in Ontario in the seventies. it could simply be assumed that this statement is outdated or no longer relevant to the situation in Ontario. However, the opposite side of the argument would indicate that he may not have been far off the mark as teachers. twenty-eight years later. still do not enjoy true autonomy and some will argue in later chapters, that the current model for a College of Teachers will still leave professional recognition or status beyond the grasp of teachers.

As the discussion around the creation of the Ontario College of Teachers evolves, one thing remains constant. The government is attempting to enlist the support of teachers by promising that the College will increase the professional image of teachers by way of professional autonomy. Smaller

(1995) discusses the works of a number of historians and sociologists that 19 pertain to the concept and ideology of professionalisrn and their evolution. He also mentions that historically, governmental control has increased around periods of economic recession in Canada. namely the 1830s, 1880s, 1930s,

1980s and, most recently, 1990s. Smaller (1995) states that "these social scientists suggest that 'professionalism' - rather than allowing more 'autonomy' for teachers in their work - has historically worked to regulate them in their workplace" (p. 127). This brief historical overview offers an explanation and further justifies the apparent lack of trust that exists behveen the government and the teachers' organizations with regards to the concept of teacher autonomy.

Teachers continue to struggle with the desire to be regarded as professionals. However, "it is ironic that teachers, in grasping at the Holy Grail of professional status. may well find themselves CO-optedinto a control process which actually decreases teacher autonomy, when, and if, they accept mem bership in the College of Teachers" (Coulter, 1996, p. 123). It is becoming increasingly obvious that more and more researchers are questioning governmental motives with regards to teacher autonomy and professionalism.

Certainly some of the scepticism is rooted in the historical facts mentioned eariier in Smaller (1995). The government has obviousiy left its trail of increased control and regulation under the guise of furthering the professionalization of teaching . Although the literature recognizes the need for teachers to be autonomous, it is also critical of the motives of a government or 20 of an interest group that attempts to impose its version of self-regulation on any professional or occupational group. In the final anatysis, the debate returns to the word "self' in self-regulation. As long as government or interest groups define "self' for any profession. the members of that profession will never attain true professional autonomy. At the same time, it is rewgnized that teaching is different from other professions in that almost 100% of the population is obligated to utilize its services from the ages of 6 to 16. The debate is not whether or not public representation is desirable, it is in defining the point at which public representation would undermine the profession's ability to be self- regulating and in deciding who has the right to define this point.

The concepts of professionalism, autonomy, self-regulation, power and control are woven into the fabric of teaching. Although it is undentood that professionalism cm be discussed on a variety of different levels, it is specifically the issues of autonomy and self-regulation that are of particular importance understanding what is truly at stake in the debate over the creation of the Ontario College of Teachers. It can be argued that the government is attempting to seduce the teachers of the province with promises of autonomy and self-regulation, yet it is the federations and associations. in their role of protecting their members' interests, who are most sceptical of the government's ulterior motives.

In the next chapter the primary documents pertinent to the creation of the

Ontario College of Teachers will be analyzed. This analysis will also focus on the British Columbia College of Teachers. as well as the General Teaching

Council of Scotland, as a basis of cornparison to the model proposed by the lmplementation Comm ittee that has already been passed by the Ontario

Legislature. Chapter 3 - lmplernenting the College: A Chronology

In February 1995 the Royal Commission on Learning publicly released its four volume report entitled For the Love of Learninq (Ontario, 1994). Contained in that report was a recommendation that cailed for the creation of an Ontario

College of Teachers. The Commission felt "that teaching itself cannot tnily be called professional because an essential characteristic of a profession in

Ontario is the exercise of self-regulation, under statute" (Ontario, 1994, v. III, p.9) and that characteristic was missing in the province. The recommendation was destgned to rectify this omission and thus professionalize teadiing in

Ontario. At the tirne of the announcement, many teachers believed that the

Commission was correct and were strong supporters of the concept of self- regulation. However, the honeymoon was short-lived. Using available print sources, this chapter will trace the debates among teachers about the creation of the College.

Following the Royal Commission's announcement of its many recommendations for educational reform, the OTF and its affiliates began drafting responses to the repart. Among these responses, of course, were initial positions on the creation of an Ontario College of Teachers. An examination of these positions reveals many of the crucial points of difference between the Commission's concept of a teaching profession and that of the OTF.

AH five of the affiliates were contacted by the author with a request for documentation outlining their initial responses to the Commission's cal1 for the creation of a College of Teachers. However, only two such reports were ever received by the author: lnterim Re~ort:Response to oovernment initiativeslRoval Commission report (OECTA. March 1995) and FWTAO positions on: New foundations for Ontario education (announcernents frorn the

Minister of Education and Training in response to the reoort of the Roval

Commission on Learnina (FWTAO, March 1995). Both documents clearly stated that the concept of self-governance through the creation of a College of

Teachers would be supported "in principle". Both also list the conditions under which these two affiliates would support the creation of a College of Teachers in

Ontario. Ftrst of all, they agreed that the rnajority of the members of the

Governing Council of the College should be practising teachen. "Practising teachers" are defined in both position papers as members of the OTF. This definition. of course, excludes any teacher not currently employed in a publicly- funded school system in Ontario, school board superintendents or directors of education, Ministry of Education and Training education officers and other ministry officiais, as well as professors and deans at the Faculties of Education.

OECTA went one step further in that it defined a "majority" as representing

75% of the voting members of the Council. Wth regards to the election of the teacher representation to the Council. there was further agreement that each affiliate should be responsible for the election of representatives through its

existing structures.

There was also agreement with regards to the investigation of complaints.

OECTA simpiy stated "That the College of Teachers not include the

investigation of complaints as announced by the Minister of Education and

Training" (March, 1995, p.4). FWTAO, however, was more descriptive when

dealing with the issue of complaints.

The functions of the College must be limited, and not intrude in any way on the current functions of OTF or the Affiliates or on the evaluation function of school boards; . . . OTF and the Affiliates should continue to handle conflicts between teachers or complaints against teachers, except for suspension or cancellation of certificates; school boards should continue to deal with parent and student complaints so that intervention by the College is limited. (March 1995, p.22)

Clearly. neither affiliate wished the College to become a public corn plaints

bureau for dealing with grievances against teachers or school boards, and was

attempting to make public the fact that school boards and the OTF already

have responsibilities with regards to public complaints.

Finally, both affiliates agreed that it was the government's responsibility to

assume al start-up costs related to the creation of an Ontario College of

Teachers. Although it was understood that the intent of the Royal Commission

and of the government was that the College be independent both of governrnent and of OTF and its affiliates, FWAO and OECTA clearly state that

start-up costs should not be borne by teachers.

Not al1 affiliates published independent documents following the Royal Commission's announcements, but certainly they were al1 engaged in discussion and debate about the many initiatives set forth by the Commission.

These discussions and debates were not solely interna1 to each of the affiliates but were also brought to the OTF table for further investigation. It was not until

June 1995, however, that the OTF Draft Position on a Cotleae of Teachers was distributed. This document contains the initial position of the OTF on the issue of the creation of an Ontario College of Teachers. In keeping with past practice and the policies and procedures of the OTF, the document also should reflect the official position of al1 five affdiates on this issue. However, Earl Manners. president of OSSTF had stated publicly that "very simply and unequivocally. we're opposed to a College of Teachers" (E. Manners. personal communication,

July 3. 1996). OSSTF. then. was not in favour of the position published by the

OTF

lncluded in the initial position of the OTF is the following preamble:

WHEREAS OTF did not ask for a College of Teachers and, WHEREAS no affiliate's brief to the Royal Commission recommended the creation of a College of Teachers and, WHEREAS there was no consultation process and, WHEREAS the benefits of the creation of a College of Teachers are yet to be deterrnined, BUT, WHEREAS it appears that the creation of a College of Teachers will be legislated, the OTF reluctantly [emphasis added] adopts the following position (OTF, June 1995, np.).

It is telling that the OTF chose to add the word "reluctantly" to this preamble.

This word ensured that the membership and the government understood that the OTF felt somewhat coerced into adopting a position on a College of Teachers it neither desired nor supported.

The OTF's initial position resernbled to a great extent the positions of the

FWTAO and of OECTA discussed above. Wth regards to the governing body of the College, the OTF as a whole adopted the position that:

25% of Council members shall be members from the public-at- large. 75% of Council members shall be members of the College of Teachers and shall be elected through the Affiliates of OTF. (OF, June 1995. np.)

It is important to note that OTF and the affiliates, by insisting that Council mem bers be elected through the affiliates, are in fact defining the teaching professional as a person who is currently employed by a publicly-funded Board of Education in Ontario and, by implication, a member of the OTF. This procedure certainly leaves no room for private school teachers. Faculty of

Education professors or other educators to be included in the 75%

"professional" majority of the Council. The definition of " professional" with regards to the final breakdown of the governing body would become and remain a very significant issue as the debate became more heated.

Election to the Governing Council is not the only issue that is narrowly defined in the OTF's draft position. Mernbership in the College. as stated in the document, should be

compulsory for and limited ta: (a) a teacher with an Ontario Teacher's Certificate (OTC) and a form 1, 2 or 3 contract with a school board in the province of Ontario; (b) a peson with a Letter of Permission, Standing or Eligibility, under contract form 1, 2 or 3 with a school board in the province of Ontario; (c) a teacher with an OTC, listed for employment with a school board and ernployed on an occasional basis. (OTF, June 1995. np.).

The limitations imposed by this definition once again exclude al1 educators who

do not fulfil the criteria listed above and is similar to the election procedure

eligibility clause requested by the OTF and its affiliates.

The issue of financing the Ontario College of Teachers probably did not

arouse much or any debate as the draft position simply states that "The

Government shatl pay all costs" (OTF. June 1995, np.). This. of course.

reiterates the positions already adopted by the FWTAO and OECTA discussed

earlier

In the course of the discussions that led to the draft position paper. the

federation and association presidents decided to visit Scotland, where they

could witness first-hand the workings of the most established, most well-known

college of teachers. "The General Teaching Council of Scotland" (GTC). A

report containing the overatl impressions of four of the affiliate presidents

(Ronald Robert. AEFO; Bev Gardner. FWTAO; Claire Ross, OECTA; and Reg

Ferland. OPSTF) was prepared. It is clearly stipulated within the first few

sentences of the report that it "is not a statement of what we accept or support with respect to Ontario's proposed college of teachers" (The Scottish

Exoerience. 1995, np.). Rather, the authors note that the document "is

primarily a report of what we heard, saw and experîenced in Scotland" (The

Scottish Emerience, 1995. np.). The first section of The Scottish Experience explains how the presidents came to be interested in exploring the functioning of the GTC. The mind-set of the four presidents. with regards to the concept of a college of teachers, is particularly clear in the following excerpt of their report:

It is noted at the outset that the four presidents making this report are personally oDen to the concept of a college of teachers. There is a willingness on the part of the four affiliate presidents to dialogue and to search out the best answers for the teachen of Ontario given what now appears to be the political inevitability of this initiative. Provided necessary self-interest goals are achieved and essential rights protected, we are prepared to move creatively foward. study, research. influence and implement. (The Scottish Ex~erience,1 995, np.)

This statement suggests that. at that particutar moment, four of the five affiliates recognized that there were advantages for the teaching profession in the concept of a college of teachers in Ontario. It is also quite clear that the affiliates felt strongly about protecting "self-interest goals" and "essential rights" for the teaching profession. not those of the public at large. At any rate. their report indicated a certain willingness. on the part of the profession, to cooperate and to be proactive in the process of creating an Ontario College of Teachers

The report emphasises throughout that the GTC is governed by a majority of teachers. Of the 49 members of the Council

30 are elected members, 11 from primary schools, 11 from secondary schools, 5 from the Colleges of Education and three from the further education sector.. . 15 of the nonelected members are appointed by the Scottish universities, the polytechnics, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, the employing authorities and the churches. The 4 remaining memben are directly nominated by the Secretary of State of Scotland ... (GTC, March 1992, p.5) The report also lists 22 concepts and principles of the Scottish Teaching

Council. Of these. some are more closely related to this research than others and reflect much of what the OTF and the affiliates had already indicated in their own position papers on the College of Teachers. lncluded in this list are the following:

The Council does net function as a cornplaints bureau. ..Any corn plaints directed to the Council are sim ply redirected back to the school in question. It is good to have outside representation on the Council. This insures the profession is "not closing ranks". Broader community representation gives more weight and credibility to the profession. Teacher representatives to the Council are elected at lame for a four year period... In the elections, the unions present dates of preferred candidates... To underscore the impartiality of the Council, the president of the ElS and the president and vice-president of the SSTA are currently elected as members of the Council. No recertification is required of teachers who are out of the profession for a period of time. A fee is charged for re- registration only. The integrity of the Scottish teachers' register is sacrosanct. There are no Letters of Permission or Temporary Letters of Eligibiliity[sic]. All who teach in Scotland, if even for a day, must be duly registered to teach. (The Scottish Ex~erience, 1995, np.)

The final section of the report lists the pros and cons of creating a College of Teachers. The list contained 20 pros and only 7 cons, suggesting, of course, that there were more reasons to move ahead and further explore the government initiative in Ontario. The objectives of furthering the professionalism and increasing the powers of teachers were most prominent among the pros. A College, they said, would: be a tangible symbol of the professional status of teachers in Ontario. . . . Allow the profession to deal with the critically important issue of professionalism. . . . Give teachers in Ontario recognized professional status for the first time in history. . . . Allow teachers of Ontario to gain real control over their profession. . . . gain essential powers and privileges as necessary steps to becoming a recognized profession. (The Scattish Ex~erience, 1995, np.)

It appears that the list of "cons" may be best summed up as the possible dissolution of the OTF, which could result in the loss of a collective teacher voice when dealing with the government as it is the only forum in which al1 five of the affiliates enjoy equal representation. Certainly, the College of Teachers has no mandate to guarantee such representation. The list of cons also indicates their fear of losing power over professional development as this power will certainly move to the College.

The four presidents wncluded the report on a note of willingness to

"seriously and creatively" explore the concept of a college of teachers for

Ontario. They viewed the "concept of a wllege of teachers as a means of further enhancing the professional interests of the teachers of Ontario" (The

Scottish Experience, 1995, np.).

Although the General Teaching Council of Scotland became the preferred model of the four federation and association presidents, it is important to recognize that there is an existing Canadian model of a college of teachers in

British Columbia. The discussion surrounding the BCCT, however, is somewhat iess positive. As was briefly discussed in chapter one, the way in which the

BCCT was introduced was not viewed favourably by all. There were many 3 1 accusations of union "busting" surrounding the government's rapid adoption of

this legislation.

By establishing the College and removing the historical recognition of the BCTF the governrnent, gambling upon teacher conservatism by separating the professional concerns of teachers from their economic concerns. believed that the College of Teachen would challenge and eventually "vanquish" the BCTF (Ungerleider, 1994. p.375).

It is interesting to speculate about the reasons why the OTF and its affiliates chose to focus on the GTC instead of the BCCT. The Scottish Ex~erience

(1995). portrays the emphasis of the GTC as the professionalization of teaching while that of the BCCT was perceived by teachers' federations around the country as coercive and threatening to the existing structures of teacher representation.

"The intent of the B.C. government is to destroy the BCTF one way or another. " Thomas[ATA president] said. Other professional teacher organizations, including the ATA, also are threatened since provincial governments across the country are considering similar types of legislation. (Keeler, April 1987, p. 1 )

Much of what the presidents shared with the author. in terms of documentation, was limited to the GTC. In can then be assumed that the BCCT was not considered as an acceptable rnodel by the federations and associations in

Ontario.

Mile the discussion and debate were ongoing among the OTF and its five afftliates, the govemment-appointed College of Teachers lmplementation

Cornmittee was in the process of drafting its recommendations for the creation of an Ontario College of Teachen. Their final report, entitled The Privileae of Professionalisrn (Ontario, MET, lmplementation Cornmittee, 1995), outlined what the cornmittee believed to be the most significant issues in creating a college of teachen in Ontario: membership, a Governing Council. organizational structure. fees. committees, standards of practice, roles and responsibilities, and the concept of self-regulation.

In its report the lrnplementation Committee deals with the issue of a self- regulating profession. This chapter of the report discusses the guiding principles the Committee felt the government should include in the legislative framework for the creation of the Ontario College of Teachers. "The Committee developed a set of principles of public accountability" (Ontario, MET. lm plementation

Committee. 1995, p.9). They are as follows:

Direct public participation will be provided in the self- regulatory functions of the College through significant public participation on the College's Governing Council and its cornmittees. Open Council meetings and disciplinary hearings will sewe to increase access and accountability. Public access to information on whether or not a teacher is registered with the College will improve the profession's accountability with the community. Public accountability will further be ensured through the submission of an annuat report on the College's activities through the Minister of Education and Training to the Legislative Assembly as well as to the teacher mernbership. The Ontario College of Teachers Act will provide legislative parameters within which the College will operate. The Statutory Powers Procedures Act will regulate the adjudicative processes established by the College. The College will consolidate a nurnber of activities currently undertaken by the Ministry of Education and Training, faculties of education, and the Ontario Teachen' Federation. (Ontario, MET, lmplementation Committee, 1995, pp. 9.1O) 33 It is interesting to note that nowhere in this list of principles is there mention of furthering the professionaiization of teachen. Equally interesting is the repeated mention of public participation and public accountability. If these are to be the principles upon which the legislation will rest. it is clear that the emphasis is on making teachers more accountable to the public and allowing the public more access to and more control of the profession. Smaller (1995) drives home this point when he states that most students, parents and the public "perceive it [the College of Teachers] as an instrument for controlling classroom practice and disciplining individual teachers who get out of line"

The lmplementation Committee also dealt with the issue of membership in the College. The Committee opened the door much wider than OTF or any of the affiliates had requested.

Members of the College would include qualified teachers and supervisory officers in public and private schools, memben of faculties of education, occasional and unemployed teachers. and qualified teachers working in the ministry, colleges. universities, and the private sector (Ontar~o,MET, lmplementation Committee, 1995, p.10).

This list is more inclusive than that set out by the OTF position paper discussed earlier.

The Privileae of Professionalism (Ontario, MET. 1995) identifies the

Governing Council of the College as being responsible for the functioning and the decision making of the College. Certainly, it was recommended that the power and control of the College lie with it. The Royal Commission on Learning suggested that there be "substantial representation of non-educators from the community at large" (Ontario, 1994, vol. Ill, p. 1 1). However. the OTF clearly stated its preference that only "25% of Council members shall be members from the public-at-large" in its draft position (OTF, June 1995, np.). The lrn plementation Committee obviously chose to respect the Royal Commission's view, recommending a Governing Council of 31 members, 17 of which "should be elected to the Governing Council by the membership" (Ontario. MET, lmplementation Committee, 1995, p. 12) and "14 memben [to] be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council to represent the broader public interest"

(Ontario, MET, lmplernentation Committee, 1995. p. 13). This split represents

45% public representation and 55% "educator" representation. The term

"educator" was specifically chosen as it is more inclusive than the term

"teacher". As will be discussed further in chapter four, the OTF and its affiliates belteve that, in fact, this recommendation opted for minority teacher representation on the Council because 3 of the 17 elected members were not members of OTF. A recommendation for a very narrow majority of elected educators on the Council forces one to consider the reasons the Committee chose the numbers it did. If the ultimate objective was to allow the profession to self-regulate, it would make sense to ensure a clear professional majority. If, however, the objective was not to allow true self-regulation, it makes sense to blur the lines between majority and minority representation. Also, in this particular case, the definition of "educator" varies from one group to the next, making consensus sornewhat difficult to achieve.

The report also contains recommendations with regards to operating costs and the way in which these shall be covered. "As with other self-regulatory professions, the costs of running the Ontario College of Teachers should be borne by the membership" (Ontario, MET, lmplementation Cornmittee, 1995. p.21). The Committee recommended a registration fee of $25 and an annual fee of $90. The report did not contain any indication that the government would or should bear any of the initial start-up costs of the College. The implication. then. is that the start-up costs would be paid out of the initial fees collected upon the opening of the College. This, of course, is contrary to the OTF's request that the government bear al1 costs related to the opening of the Ontario

College of Teachers.

Following the introduction of the lrnplementation Comrnittee's report the OTF and its affiliates began studying the document and making recommendations to the Minister of Education and Training, John Snobelen. The federations even proposed a different mode! that would be an extension of the existing structure of the OFThe details of this proposal will be discussed in chapter four. The

Minister, however. chose not to consider any of the requests or accept any of the proposals made by the federations and associations. The recomrnendations in The Privileae of Professionalism (Ontario. MET. lmplementation Committee, 1995) foned the basis for Bill 31: An Act to establish the Ontario Collecre of Teachers and to make related amendments to 36 certain statutes (1995). which received first reading in the Legislative Assembly on December 14. 1995. This legislation went to second reading on April 2,

1996. third reading on June 17 1996. received Royal assent June 27 1996 and was proclaimed on July 5. 1996.

Following the publication of The Privileae of Professionalism (Ontario. MET. lmplementation Committee. 1995). the Ontario College of Teachers lmplementation Committee began publishing and distributing a broadsheet newsletter entitled Professionallv S~eaking. The purpose of the first edition of the newsletter was to address some of the questions and concerns teachers had about what was. at the time, the potential structure and jurisdiction of the

Ontario College of Teachers. The first issue, dated September 1995, had a lead story under the headline, "Mat WiII the Proposed College of Teachers

Mean to Me?". Most of this article does not actually respond to the question put forward in the title, but instead answen more technical questions about the

College such as, "WIII I have to join the proposed College?", "Who will fun the

Ontario College of Teachers?", "WiII there be a membership fee?" and "How will discipline procedures change?". Certainly this publication was designed to enlist support from the teachers of Ontario.

The December 1995 issue summarizes the lmplementation Cornmittee's recommendations to the Minister of Education and Training. The lead article begins

The skill and cornmitment of Ontario's teachers are the heart and sou1 of our education system. So it is only appropriate that the Ontario College of Teachers will finally give teachers the professionai recognition and status they deserve. (p. 1)

This is an interesting opening comment when only a few days earlier, on

November 21, 1995, the Minister of Education and Training was conveying a different message in the Legislative Assernbly with regards to the creation of an

Ontario College of Teachers. There, he said:

Today, I am pleased to announce another reform to our educational system that speaks to the public's request for professional accountability and quality in our public service. This important initiative will ensure that the teaching profession will be fully acwuntable to the public it serves. (Snobelen. November 21 1995, pl)

Certainly the emphasis of the government in creating the Ontario College of

Teachers is public accountability. However. the series Professionallv S~eakinq suggests that the College has been created to further the professionalization of teachers. This suggests a certain amount of politically-motivated double talk in the rhetoric surrounding the Ontario College of Teachers.

Following the proclamation of the Colleqe of Teachers Act in July 1996. the

Septem ber issue Professionallv S~eakinqaddressed al1 of the issues related to actually creating the Ontario College of Teachers, with particular attention paid to the election of the Governing Council of the College. This latest publication was 12 pages in length with charts, tables, regional maps and a cal1 for nominations for the election of the first Governing Council. It also included nomination procedures with questions and answers and a nomination fon for all those interested in standing for election. There is also an article 38 that explains that "One of the campaign's key targets is the group of 70,000 qualified teachers who are not employed by a school board and who must register themselves with the College" (Professionallv S~eakinq,September

1996, p.5). Another important piece of information included in this issue of

Professionallv S~eakingwas a chart (p.3) which listed a number of the other professional organizations in the province of Ontario with the breakdown of professional representation versus public appointments on their governing bodies. The numben listed show that the College of Teachers has a 55% professional representation on its Council. Of the other 28 professions and semi-professions listed, only seven had a lower rate of professional representation while 2 1 had a higher rate of professional representation. Of those with a higher rate of professional representation the range was from 56% to 100%. Only the lnstitute of Management Consultants had no public representation on its Council, followed by the Law Society of Upper Canada with only 4 out of 44 public appointments, 91% elected professional representation.

While the lmplementation Cornmittee and the govemment were pu blishing their plans for an Ontario College of Teachers, the OTF and its affiliates were in the process of examining and responding to the proposed model. According to

Reg Ferland, president of the OPSTF, the Minister of Education and Training,

John Snobelen, had agreed to explore an OTF proposal for the creation of a

College of Teachers before going forward with the lmplementation Cornmittee's 39 rnodel for a College. However, this was not to be, as for some unknown reason Mr. Snobelen decided to move fotward with great urgency to legislate a

College of Teachers in Ontario using most of the lmplementation Committee's recommendation (R.Ferland, personal communication, November 27,1995).

Following the first reading of the legislation in the Legislative Assembly. the

OTF and its amliates began studying and responding to the proposed legislation contained in Bill 31

Briefs were presented to the Standing Cornmittee on Social Development, the group responsible for reviewing and proposing amendments to Bill 31 before final reading. OECTA and OSSTF both raised similar concerns with regards to the excessive power granted to the Minister under this legislation, the lack of true self-regulation. the blatant discrimination against some teachers. the inadequate classroom teacher representation on the Council, and the violation of the privacy rights of teachers (OECTA, April 1996 and OSSTF. April

Both affiliates raised the issue of the intrusive power of the Minister of

Education and Training under Bill 31. Section 12 of the Bill defined the power of the Minister as including the ability to:

a) review the activities of the Council and require the Council to provide reports and information; b) require the Council to do anything that, in the opinion of the Minister, is necessary or advisable to carry out the intent of this Act; C) require the Council to rnake, amend or revoke a regulation or by-law. (OSSTF, April 1996, p.8) 40 The repeated use of the word "require" instead of words such as "suggest" or

"request" were regarded as particularly offensive as they imply that the College

will be anything but "self-governing". "The powers of the Minister are excessive

in rnany aspects of the operation of the College. . . . This unprecedented

intrusion into the workings of a College that is supposed to be self-governing is

alarming" (OECTA, April 1996, p. 16).

OECTA also objected to the Minister maintaining the power to grant Letters

of Permission in light of the fact that the College is responsible for the

certification and recertification of teachers in Ontario. "With the arriva1 of the

College. the Minister surrenders the power to grant certification - except to

people with no qualification at alln (OECTA. April 1996, p.18). According to

OECTA, "licensing unqualified persons would be affordable" and thus explains why the Minister wanted to continue to grant Letters of Permission. In fact.

the reality is that during the period of the Social Contract, from September 1993 through February 8. 1996 (most recent Ministry of Education and Training data) when school boards were required to reduce their teaching staff by 4.75 per cent with a commensurate increase in the student pupil ratio of 5 per cent, the Ministry saw fit to grant eight hundred and twenty eight (828) Letters of Permission.[ernphasis added]. (OECTA. April 1996. PW

It is clear that self-regulation, according to the affiliates. should entail full control of certification and recertification, including the type of temporary certification granted with the Letters of Permission.

There was also a great deal of concern on the part of the OSSTF and

OECTA about the teacher representation on the Governing Council of the College of Teachers. Consistent with the numbers discussed earlier. the

OSSTF and OECTA both objected to classroom teachers being represented by less than 50% of the Council. The OSSTF puts the question. "How is professionalism enhanced when teachers are a minority in a College designed to be self-governing?" (April 1996, p. 1). Both affiliates agreed that this structure ensured that the College would not be truly self-goveming

Mile it is recognized that it is important to have public and lay representation on the Council, the majority of members must be practitioners. This is the case with every other professional college, and it is intrinsic to a profession being self-regulating. To have it otherwise would be public-regulating, not self-regulating. (OECTA, April 1996,p. 15).

The issue of representation on the Council has been very heated right from the outset. Smaller (1995) points out that representation became an issue right from the time the lmplementation Committee members were announced. There was not one classroom teacher in the initial group. According to Smaller. it took one month of intense lobbying from the teacher federations to have one classroom teacher added to the cornmittee, but he also notes that one school board trustee was also added to "balance" things out. It should thus corne as no surprise to the government that the teachers' federations snd associations are somewhat sceptical about representation on the Council.

The OECTA and OSSTF briefs also complained about discrimination against physically or mentally chailenged teachers. Both documents condemned section 28(3)(b) of Bill 31 which reads:

(3) The Discipline Committee may, after a hearing. find a member incompetent if, in its opinion, (b) the member is suffering from a physical or mental condition or disorder such that the member is unfit to continue to carry out his or her professional responsibilities or that a certificate held by the member under this Act should be made subject to terms. conditions or limitations.

In both responses there was mention of the Ontario Human Rights Code. "Self- regulating professions must conform to Human Rights legislation which views disability in a particular way and quite separate from disciplinary issues. This legislation ignores this and even appears to provide punitive sanctions for disabilities" {OECTA. April 1996, p. 9). OSSTF took this response one step further, adding that "in fact, the Human Rights Code requires employers to accommodate disabilities. not discriminate against them" (April 1996,p.2).

it is obvious that both OSSTF and OECTA agreed that Bill 31 violated the

Ontario Human Rights Code. It appears that they both also agreed that it might contravene the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act of Ontario as well. The OSSTF document raised the issue in terms of violation of the privacy rights of its members.

Boards may be required to disclose private information about members, and such information may be kept in a register open to any member of the public. This represents a serious violation of privacy rights. No other professional College legislation includes such an override of privacy protections. (April 1996, p.2)

This move towards disclosure of a teacher's personal information raises the question "why?" Why would a government offer self-regulation to a professional group of people, and at the sarne time legislate an ovenide on that same group's privacy? In acquiring the title "professional" are teachers going to be subject to further control by the government? Should the motives of

government not be questioned when it moves to remove legal defenses of any

identified segment of the population?

On July 5 1996, Bill 31 was proclaimed and became law in the province.

On January 1 1997, the Ontario College of Teachers became the professional

regulating body of the teaching profession in Ontario. It wuld certainly be said

that this legislation was hurried through the legislature as it took less than

seven months from first reading to Royal Proclamation. The speed at which it

was adopted makes one wonder why the government was in such a hurry ta

adopt legislation that is a long way from being popular among those it is

supposedly designed to help. "ln workplace dernocracy votes held across

Ontario. teachers voted to reject the proposed College of Teachers by a margin of 94%" (OSSTF, College of Teachers information sheet, nd). If the College is designed to truly place the regulation of the teaching profession in the hands of teachers, one must wonder why it is that 94% of the OSSTF's teacher members are opposed to the mode1 legisiated by government.

The next chapter explores the perspectives of the teacher federations and associations on professionalism and self-regulation through a description and analysis of interviews wnducted with the president of the OTF and with four of the five presidents of the affiliates. Chapter 4 - Federation perspectives

From the outset of this study it was understood that there would be a very short paper trait on the issue of an Ontario College of Teachers. In fact, the initial work on this study began shortly after the Royal Commission on Learning made its recommendations and when it was still unclear if or when a College of

Teachers would see the light in Ontario. At the point at which the research proposal was drafted, it was uncertain if the lmplementation Committee would report on time or how the upcoming Ontario election would affect the outcorne.

It became obvious that the most effective method to collect the data necessary to cornplete this study would be to interview one segment of the major stakeholders. lnterviewing allowed for a snapshot of the current situation to be taken as discussions and debates unfolded. ensuring the most up to date feedback possible. Certainly not all major stakeholders are represented in this process. The intent was to evaluate the situation from the perspective of the teachers of Ontario through their elected representatives, as the creation of a self-governing body would affect them most directly. Also, the lrnplementation

Cornmittee's report Privileae of Professionalism (Ontario, MET, lmplementation

Committee, 1995) was used as the govemment's perspective as it formed the basis of Bill 31 which became the Coltege of feachers Act.

In October 1995, the president of OTF and the presidents of the five 45 affiliates were contacted by telephone to request their participation in the study.

All agreed to participate, except Sheryl Hoshizaki, president of the FVVTAO.

Those who agreed to participate were sent a package by mail containing a

letter outlining the study, the interview questions and a release form to sign. At

her request, the same package was sent to Ms. Hoshizaki to allow her to

reconsider her decision not to participate with her colleagues. All of the

interviews were scheduled for November 1995; however, the interview with Earl

Manners, president of OSSTF, had to be rescheduled a number of times. This

interview was finally completed on July 3rd1 1996. Between October 1995 and

July 1996, Ms. Hoshizaki was contacted by telephone. by mail and by fax in an attempt to determine what her final decision was with respect to participation in the study. In the end, she declined to grant an interview.

The interview schedule used has four major question groups, each containing two or three subquestions (see appendix A). The first series of questions deals with the concepts of self-governance and a college of teachers.

The second series deals with the federations' and associations' perceptions of the government's motives with regards to this initiative. The third series focuses on the concept of professionalism. Finally, the last series of questions centres specifically on the Ontario College of Teachers. Most of the presidents responded to this section with particular attention paid to the lmplementation

Cornmittee's proposed model.

As was discussed in chapter two. one of the most significant elements of 46 professionalism is self-governance. Ornstein (1981) defines it as control over licensing standards and autonomy of decision making and Hart and Marshall

(1992) define it simply as autonomy. Regardless of the terminology. all of the presidents interviewed agreed that teacher self-regulation is necessary. Most of the presidents also agree that the teaching profession has been self-regulating for a number of years already, thus downplaying the necessity for a College of

Teachers. Earl Manners. OSSTF, drives home the point when explaining that. in his opinion, self-regulation "is not something that we've had to gain. we've had it for a long time ...we don't need some rnanufactured bureaucracy to create it for us" (personal communication, July 3,1996). These cornments reflect the general sentiment of the presidents and set the mood of the interviews.

Much of what the literature describes as essential elements of professionalism was also identified by the federation and association presidents as essential elements in their support of or opposition to the Ontario College of

Teachers. Both Ornstein (1981) and Hart and Marshall (1992) list "a specific body of knowiedge" as being an essential element of a profession. Although most of the presidents did not deal with it directly. it was an element to which they alluded in a number of different ways. For example. Marilies Rettig,

OECTA, referred to

al1 of the elernents of preservice and al1 of the elements that are contained within pre-service to prepare the profession and certainly they would incorporate different aspects of academic preparedness. different aspects of skill preparation and development in tens of dealing with classrooms and other aspects that would be pervasive and pertinent to the age group with which those teachers are working. (personal communication, November 27, 1995)

Her point is that there is a great deal of training and studying involved in preparing an individual for a classroom. All of the participants agreed that professional development is an essential component of the profession and no one discounted the benefits of pre-service and in-service education in the strengthening of the professionalism of teachers. Matformed the basis of the objection, however, is "the penalty factor attached to it that says if you don? fulfill these expert expectations we will pull your membership from the College of Teachers and if you don? have a membership then you can't teach in this province" (R. Ferland, personal communication, November 27. 1995). Another objection was raised by the president of AEFO, Roger Régimbal. It is his opinion that the Council, not being made up of a majority of teachers, had neither the professional knowledge nor expertise to detemine professional recertification standards (personal communication, November 17. 1995).

It appears that the public's and the govemrnent's desire to ensure that al1 teachers meet certain certification and recertification requirements would also support the fact that teaching does in fact have a "body of knowledge" necessary to ensure greater success in the occupation. If such is not the case, then one must question why those outside the profession are so adamant about teacher certification and recertification.

The topic of "body of knowledge" ties into the concept of teacher self- governance in that self-regulation is usually granted to those occupations considered "professional". The Royal Commission on Learning obviously believed that teaching is. in fact, a profession as it recommended the creation of a self-regulatory body which it referred to as "college of teachers". Menthe federation and association presidents were asked about the concept of a

"college of teachers". the tendency was to respond in terms of the proposed model as opposed to the concept itself. It did, however. bewme clear that al1 participants, except the president of OSSTF, were in fact in favour of the concept while quite opposed to the proposed model. Earl Manners states. however. when asked about the concept of a "college of teachers". that "very simply and unequivocally we're opposed to a college of teachers . . . we don't really need a college of teachers to recreate sornething that's already in existence" (personal communication, July 3, 1996). This statement is supported by the fact that the OSSTF was the only affiliate of the OTF that was absent from the list of collaborators on the document The Scottish Expenence (1995).

Although there is support for the concept of teacher self-governance and for the concept of a college of teachers, the support for a college ends at the conceptual level. The second series of questions on the interview schedule asked the participants how they viewed the govemment's interest in this initiative, particularly in light of the fact that the group that supposedly has the most to gain from self-regulation and heightened professionalization is so opposed to the government's proposal. Throughout the wmrnents made by the presidents two words seem to be more prominent than any others: accountability and coçts.

There was certainly consensus arnong the participating presidents that the

Minister of Education and Training, John Snobelen, had made comments to

them that were "deceptive rather than indicative of his real opinions"

(EManners. personal communication. July 3. 1996). Ferland suggested that

the Minister had been clear on the fact that his party had not campaigned on a

College of Teachers and, therefore. neither he nor his government had any

allegiance to this initiative (personal communication, November 27, 1995). This

response was prevalent throughout the interviews. The presidents felt that they

had been duped in some way in that Snobelen had led them to believe that

there was time and room for discussion. Accordingly, the presidents of OTF

and al1 five affiliates had continued to meet to design what they referred to as the "OTF model" of self-regulation. Snobelen. however, "ignored al1 of the alternative suggestions that al1 the affiliates put together or individual affiliates put forward" (E. Mamers, personal communication, July 3, 1996). Interestingly enough, "about a week or ten days aftemards he let it be known that, son of a gun, there was an opening in the Legislature and they were going to bring in the legislation and bring in the College of Teachers" (R. Ferland, personal communication, November 27, 1995). Obviously, any trust that the federation and association leaders may have had in Snobelen and the Harris government was quickly destroyed.

There also appeared to be some very different perceptions about what the College of Teachers would provide. Obviously, the teachers and their elected

officiais viewed the College as a means to further the professionaliration of

teaching while the government and the public viewed it as a means by which

the teaching profession would become more accountable. Rettig. OECTA,

suggests that "if it's just out for the public then . . . they're going to want a

sledgehammer that they cm hit us over the head with" (personal

communication, Novernber 27, 1995). Although this statement appears strong,

it was certainly shared by al1 participants. All five interviews focused on the

government's emphasis on public accountability instead of on teacher

professionalism and self-governance. It should also be noted that the

presidents agreed that "nous ne nous objectons pas du tout a ce qu'il y ait des

gens du grand public qui soient assis au niveau du Conseil et qu'ils aient un

droit de regard sur les activités de la profession enseignante" (we have no

objections that there be people from the public at large on the Council and that

they have the right to observe the activities of the teaching profession) (R.

Robert, personal communication, November 23, 1995). As will be discussed further in the final part of the interviews. much of the debate centres on the

numeric breakdown of teacher versus public representation on the Council.

Robert's comments support the discussion in chapter WO in that the teaching

profession recognizes that their clients are mandatory users of its service and that exclusive professional representation on the Council is neither desirable nor practical. Finally. the federation and association presidents perceived the cost factor as a significant motive for the govemment to pursue this legislation. Régimbal

(AEFO) suggests that it is a fiscal savings of about $1 million for the government to pass on the responsibility of certification, decertification and teacher qualification records (personal communication, November 17, 1995).

He also adds that if the government were serious about the success of the

College of Teachers it would provide the start-up costs to ensure that it was well estabiished right from the start. Since this is not the case, the underlying message is that the government is more interested in ridding itself of a financial burden than it is in ensuring a well-established College of Teachers.

Although the entire interview focused on various elements of professionalism, it was in the third section of questions that the participants were asked to provide their own definitions. lnterestingly enough none of the presidents focused on the many elements discussed in the academic Merature, even though each had alluded to most of them throughout the interview. The focus for this particular segment of discussion was on the intangibles: devotion, love of children, selflessness, etc. Rettig, OECTA, for example, states: "1 think we are doing an incredible amount of work as a profession and there's a lot out there that we should be applauded for and that would help in the recognition of that" (personal communication, November 27. 1995). Manners defines professionalism a little differently as he includes membership as an important element. On a micro-level it's very much how you act and what you do in a classroom that defines you as a professional. On a macro-level it defines an occupation and it defines your membership in that occupation or in that profession; and it defines you then as a member of a teacher federation or the union (personal communication, July 3, 1996).

None of the presidents had prepared a list of elements, even though they had each received the interview questions weeks in advance of the interviews.

Also, none of them cited the criteria listed in the scholarly literature. It almost seemed as though the terms "professionalism" and "professional" were simply viewed as a means by which the public would demonstrate their recognition for the cornmitment of teachers.

The last series of questions focused on issues specific to the lrnplementation Cornmittee's proposed College of Teachers. In this segment of responses al1 represented affiiiates gave the same or at least very similar responses. The first part of the series simply asked whether the College was an effective means to further professionalize teaching. The overwhelm ing response was "absolutely not". Manners laid out his official position clearly when he said:

I think it de-professionalizes teachers, if you want to use that word. It's like saying that now teachers need a dog tag that they have to renew every year or couple of years that iegitimizes what they have been doing. I think it's demeaning; I think it's credentialism gone wild and it's paternalistic because it's someone else who is looking down and sort of anointing you (personal communication, July 3, 1996). lnherent in Mamers' response, as well as those of his colleagues. is the sense that the govemment was demeaning both the profession and the professional 53 by its choice of model for the College. The next series of answers gets at the heart of this sentiment, the definition of "self' in self-regulation.

As was discussed in chapter two. the literature suggests that in the final analysis. the debate over the professionalkation of teaching is really about the meaning of the word "self' in self-regulation. lt was also found, both in the literature and in the presidents' responses, that professional autonomy was elusive if groups other than the profession were granted the right to define the membership of the regulatory body. This is, without a doubt, the focal point of this discussion. The president of the OTF and the four affiliates represented in the interview process were equally charged when asked a bout the essential elements required to ensure effective teacher self-govemance.

The lmplementation Committee suggested a Council of 31 members. The governrnent later adopted this structure. According to both the Committee and the government, 17 of the 31 positions represent teachers. Such a structure respects the notion that a professional College requires that teachers have majority representation on the Council. However. the federations and associations argue that there are, in fact, only 14 teacher representatives. granting the "professionals" a 43% representation. Régimbal, AEFO, makes the point:

Les trois autres qui sont dans les limbes se trouvent à être des personnes que. si ils regardent le Teaching Profession Act, ça dit bien là-dedans ' is not a teacher : member of the Faculty and superintendent.' Puis eux, dans l'ordre des enseignantes et des enseignants, dans la proposition. ils nous les font passer comme des enseignantes et de enseignants. (The other three, who are sort of thrown in, are people who, if they check the Teaching Profession Act it clearly States 'is not a teacher: member of the Faculty and superintendent.' but those in the College of Teachers, in their proposal, are trying to pass them off as teachers) (personal communication. November 1 7, 1995).

Certainly the point is well made. Definitions can be used strategically to realize the objectives of government or its agents.

Régimbal, AEFO. is not the only president to interpret the numbers in this fashion. Rettig, OECTA, feels "it's absolutely outrageous to say you're going to have a professional self-regulatory group and Say, okay. we'll allow you 43% representation. That's lunacy and it's not self-regulatory at all. It's public policing of a profession" (personal communication, November 27, 1995). Not only is Rettig outraged by the fact that the lmplementation Committee suggested the representation it did, but she suggests that if the government's objective was, in fact. to allow self-regulation of the teaching profession the more appropriate mechanism would have been

teachers with representation from other public areas, the trustees, the general public, the business community and every group that's there and some appointed by the Minister and others appointed by representation of groups. But that group then sits down and the profession decides 'what do we have to do as a self-regulatory group and how do we achieve that?' And that's that in a nutshell. mat's the first thing we need? A majority of teachers. Then let that group sit down and determine how we govem and where we go (personal communication, Novem ber 27,1995).

This approach seems so simple and so obvious that it makes one wonder why it was not the chosen by the lmplementation Committee or the government.

The final question in this series asked the participants what they believed the ultimate objective of the government is or was in creating an Ontario

College of Teachers. I nterestingly , al1 of the presidents had somewhat

different responses

Robert. OTF. points out that the College of Teachers was actually an

initiative of the previous Minister of Education and Training. Dave Cooke. His

sense was that Cooke's original motive was quite sincere in that he believed in

teacher self-regulation. He suggests that Snobelen has not been in his position

long enough for anyone to really know what his motives are or if his intent is

sincere. Perhaps it is as simple as what Robert indicated was the

government's ofkial response: "c'est effectivement pour assurer aux

contribuables de la province. aux enfants de nos écoles et à la profession

enseignante le meilleur système d'éducation possible (in effect, it is to assure

the taxpayers of this province, the children in our schools and the teaching

profession the best educational system possible) (persona1 communication,

November 23, 1995). Again, even the officia! response wntains no mention of

the concept of teacher self-regulation.

Régimbal agrees with Rettig who says, "1 don't even think they know 100% to be quite honest with you" (personal communication. November 27, 1995);

however, Régimbal narrows it down to two basic elernents, cost and control:

je ne sais pas si je leur donne le crédit de l'intelligence intellectuelle assez forte pour être capable de savoir s'ils ont un but réel autre que de se départir de quelque chose qui leur fait mal. qui les achale, au niveau financier . . . et aussi de donner l'apparence au public qu'ils ont un mot a dire dans le contrôle des enseignantes et des enseignants (I don't know if I give them the intellectual intelligence to know if they have a real goal other than wanting to rid thernselves of something that is hurting them, bothering them, on a financial level . . . and also, to appear to the public as though they have something to Say about the control of teachers (personal communication. November 17, 1995).

Once again, it boils down to cost and control or, cost and accountability to the public. Ferland. OPSTF. simply stated, "it's accountability from a punitive aspect" (personal communication. Novem ber 27, 1995). Rettig completes this thought by stating that "it will allow the public to beat up on teachers" (personal communication, November 27, 1995).

Manners appears to have given the motive of govemmental control a great deal of thought. He reduced the govemment's motive to one word

It's only about control. You look at the investigative powers that this College has that no other College has. It smacks of control and smacks of invasion of privacy. You look at the numbers and, again. lack of rnajority is a perfect example of paternalisrri. You look at the fact that it's getting involved in professional development and telling teachers what is in their best interest, I think it's undermining personal integrity and the whole concept of self-govemance (personal communication. July 3. 1996).

In the final analysis, what was most prominent in these interviews was that the government was not committed to teacher self-governance or furthering the professionalization of the teachers of Ontario. According to those interviewed, the government did make a commitment, however, to cut its own administrative costs linked to maintaining teacher records. and a very strong commitment to increase public accountability and cont rol of the profession. Chapter 5 - Conclusions and Final Thoughts

In February 1995, the Ontario Royal Commission on Learning recommended

the creation of an Ontario College of Teachers. In March of the same year,

Monique Bégin. CO-chairof the Commission. addressed the delegates to the

AEFO annual meeting. which 1 attended. She shared her vision as well as her

version of the Commission's report For the Love of Learninq (Ontario. Royal

Commission on Learning. 1994). 1 found her discussion of the College of

Teachers passionate, intelligent and convincing. 1 was left with the belief that

the creation of a College of Teachers was a necessary step to further

professionalize teaching in Ontario.

Following the release of For the Love of Learninq (Ontario, Royal

Commission on Learning, 1994) the media were full of commentaries and

interpretations of the Commission's work, based mostly on the government's announcements. As I read and listened to the various reports 1 realized that there were some discrepancies between Madame Bégin's vision and that shared by those feeding the media. These announcements did not leave me with the same level of certainty about the creation of an Ontario College of

Teachers. In fact, they left me with a great deal of suspicion about the true motives of the various players. These suspicions led me to examine more ciosely the purpose of a college of teachers as the topic of this thesis. 58 As discussed in chapter one, the idea of creating an Ontario College of

Teachers is not new. It first surfaced in the Hall-Dennis report, Livina and

Learninq (Ontario, Royal Commission, 1968). This first initiative never went beyond a simple recommendation that incited some discussion around the issue of teacher self-governance; t lowever, it did plant the seed for future initiatives.

The next attempt to create a college of teachers was introduced by Dr. Bette

Stepenson, Minister of Education, in 1980. This second initiative was certainly more aggressive on the part of the Minister; however. the opposition was also more aggressive on the part of the teachers' federations and associations. In fact. the federations and associations succeeded in enlisting the support of the then Premier of Ontario. Bill Davis. Davis made it clear in the Legislature on

November 24. 1983 that he had no intention of moving forward on such a significant change without the support of the teaching profession. Once again the federations and associations were successful in resisting a college of teachers.

The next major encounter Canadian teachers had with the concept of a cullege of teachers was in April, 1987 when the then Premier of British

Columbia, Bill Vander Zalm, introduced Bill 20, The Teachin~Profession Act

(1987) in the British Columbia Legislature. This document established the

British Columbia College of Teachets. As was discussed in chapter one. basically overnight and without any pnor consultation, the teachers of British

Columbia became self-governing. as this legislation took effect in January, 59 1988. This initiative was highly criticized by teachers' organizations across the

country, particularly because there was no consultation. It cm also be argued

that the speed at which the govemment pushed the legislation through the

Legislature would suggest that there was never any intent to consult the

profession or to allow the profession to react to the initiative. Nonetheless, the

BCCT became the first Canadian example of a college of teachers.

The reintroduction of the concept of an Ontario College of Teachers was

launched by the Ontario Royal Commission on Leaming in 1995. The Minister

of Education and Training, Dave Cooke, pursued the initiative and struck The

Ontario College of Teachers lmplernentation Committee. The Committee

published its report, The Privileae of Professionalism: The Ontario Collepe of

Teachers, in Septernber, 7 995. By this time. however, the Ontario public had

elected a new government and a new Minister of Education and Training, John

Snobelen, had been appointed. Snobelen did not begin his mandate with any

real cornmitment to the creation of a College of Teachers, but his initial position

quickly changed. Snobelen's change in attitude and sudden urgency in

introducing Bill 31, An Act to establish the Ontario Colleae of Teachers and to

make related amendments ta certain statutes, into the Ontario Legislature

raised questions and suspicions with regards to his motives. His urgency is

particularly interesting given the OTF and four of the affiliates were already on record as supporting the concept of a wllege of teachers, and in the process of drafting a framework to present to the Minister. In light of the fact that there was no significant opposition to the concept of teacher self-governance, it appeared to me that it was not Snobelen's intention to truly wnsult the teachers. If such were the case, he would have waited until the next sitting of the Legislature to bring forward legislation that had been jointly drafted. The federation and association presidents made it clear that it was the Minister's sudden interest in and compulsion to push through Bill 31 that made them suspicious of his real motives.

The Minister had had the opportunity of meeting with the presidents prior to introducing Bill 31. At that time they outlined the reasons they opposed the lmplementation Cornmittee's framework for a College of Teachers. It could certainly be argued that, by pursuing Bill 31 in the manner he did, Snobelen made clear to the teaching profession that he felt it had no significant contribution to make to the process. Once again. this raises the issue of who has the right to define "self' when designing a self-regulatory body for any profession. Snobelen obviously felt that teachers should not and would not be permitted to contribute to the defînition.

Chapter two focused primarily on the concepts of professionalism, power and control. The issue of control certainly plays a signifiant role in defining a profession in terms of the identified criteria raised by many different researchers such as Ornstein (1981), Hart and Marshall (1992), Greenwood (1966) and

Hunter (1993) to name a few. Much of the argument used by the various federation and association presidents focused on the issues also found in the 61 literature. Although some have criticized the negative response of the OTF and its affiliates with regards to the College, the literature certainly supports their reasoning in that there is a clear rejection of outsiders such as the govemment or the public setting standards within a profession. There is also a great deal of support in the literature for professionals to reject any definition of "self' in "self- govemance" that does not stem from within the profession. If we look closely at what the presidents had to Say about the composition of the Governing

Council of the College, it is simply that they object to the fact that the govemment unilaterally imposed its definition of "self' on the teaching profession. Certainly. al1 of the presidents interviewed agreed that they were more than happy to welcome public representation on the Council; however, they felt that the numbers legislated were infiated.

The definition of the self-governing body was addressed at length in chapter three. in which the documentation published by the government and the OTF and its affdiates was analysed. All of the documentation received from the OTF and its affiliates clearly stipulates that the corporate "self' should be represented via 75% of the Governing Council. This suggestion also indicates the profession's willingness to accept minority public representation on the

Council.

The federations' and associations' definition of rnembership in the College was also addressed in chapter three. This issue was raised in all of the interviews with the presidents. In simple tens, the OTF and its affilates were not willing to accept non-members of OTF as "teaching" rnembers of the

Council. We now know that the government did not agree. Bill 31 included superintendents, private school teachers and members of the faculties of education in the 17 positions on the Governing Council defined as the professional representation on the Council.

When I began to review the documentation from the govemment's perspective. I was surprised to discover that there was little, if any, mention of the government's desire to further professionalize teaching in Ontario. The lmplementation Cornmittee's report itself, as well as the public addresses of the

Minister. John Snobelen, made it clear that the govemment's position was one of public accountability. This position raised the concern that the Cotlege would simply bewme a complaints bureau where individuals could go to report al1 of their complaints about every incident involving a teacher. This same concern was raised by the presidents in the interview process.

The interviews with the presidents reiterated, to a great extent, what the federations and associations had already published. The discussion pertaining to govemment motivation was certainly interesting. The one word that surfaced more than any other throughout the interviews was "control". The presidents al1 agreed that the creation of a College of Teachers in Ontario. by the shear breakdown of the representation to the Goveming Council. would further the externat control of the teaching profession of Ontario.

In July, 1996 1 completed the interview process for this study. Bill 3 1 had 63 just been legislated, and there was no longer any uncertainty about the creation of a College of Teachers in Ontario. or about the composition of the Governing

Council. Throughout my research, I found little evidence of the government's willingness to cansult with the official representatives of teachers. The report published by the lmplementation Committee, The Privileae of Professionalism

(Ontario. MET. lmplementation Committee. 1995),certainly foned the basis of the legislation. Few changes were made to the recurnmendations in the report before they became Bill 31 which then became law.

Obviously, al1 of the reports published by the OTF and its affiliates and al1 of the meetings the presidents had with the Minister were fruitless in that they brought no change to the eventual outcome. This, again, raises the question of the true motivation of the government in creating a College of Teachers. If the reason is to further professionalize teaching. would it not make sense to consult with and include those who have the most to gain from the College? If, however, the motivation is to further control the teaching profession, it would make sense that the structure and representation of the College would be imposed by the government.

Following the passage of Bill 31. the task at hand was to establish the

Goveming Council of the College. The process for the elections was announced in the September, 1996 issue of Professionallv S~eaking.This issue called for nominations. At the same time, the federations and associations were also calling for nominations from their respective members. 64 The OTF and its affiliates selected a slate of candidates from those members expressing a desire to serve on the Governing Council of the College.

The slate contained a balanced representation from each of the five affiliates.

During the months leading up ta the election of the first Governing Council, the

OTF and the five affiliates promoted the candidates whose names appeared on the official slate. In Febniary 1997, the entire slate of OTF candidates was elected to the Governing Council of the College. It could be argued that this was the first real victory for the OTF and its affiliates in terms of regaining some power and exercising some control of the College.

Before the Ontario College of Teachers received official sanction in the

Legislature. the OTF and its affiliates attempted unsuccessfully to defeat it.

Once the College had been proclaimed, their strategy changed. The actions of the OTF and its affiliates indicated that they realized that. from this point forward, it would be more effective to work for change from within the Council than to continue to fight the existence of the College from the outside. The

March 1997 edition of OTWEO Interaction quotes Martin, the President of

OTF, as saying "The Ontario Teachers' Federation is willing to work with the

Governing Council and the Ontario College of Teachers on behalf of, and for the betterment of the teachers of Ontario" (np.). This willingness to cooperate and work with the Council is reiterated in the June issue of OTFIFEO lnteraction in the "President's Message" where Martin says that the "OTF will continue to monitor the activities of the College and work (closely) with elected teacher representatives. The executive of OTF believes we al1 gain from this coordinated effort" (1997, np.). This certainly represents a change in attitude from the initial position published by OTF just two years previously.

In May and June 1997 teachers paid their first $90 fee to the College of

Teachers. Many are wondering what exactly this fee is going to buy thern that will be different from what they already receive from their respective affliates and from OTF. At this point in time, it is too soon to tell what the true impact of the College of Teachers will be. There is certainly a great deal of speculation.

Having completed this study of the College of Teachers, I am not as positive or as hopeful about the College as I was at the beginning. It is certainly not to the concept of self-regulation or to the concept of a college of teachers that I object. I do, however, object to, and am suspicious of, the manner in which the government irnposed its will on the teachers of Ontario. I am not convinced the process was a fair meeting of the minds or even a fair compromise of the significant concerns of the various players, nor am I convinced that that was ever the governrnent's intention, particularly in light of the fact that the Minister has not yet relinquished his power to wntrol the decisions of the Council. It remains to be seen to what extent the Minister will truly remove himself from the functionning of the College and allow the Governing Council to be a self- regulating body.

Wbether or not I agree with the manner in which the government legislated the Ontario College of Teachers, it is now in place. 1 would like to believe that 66 there is now a willingness on the part of the members of the Governing Council to do the best they can wtth what they have. We need to recognize that the

Council now has the power to adopt new structures or change the existing ones as time goes by. Certainly, the first draft of anything new always requires alterations and it is likely that the OTF and its affiliates will take the political action necessary to encourage those on the Governing Council of the College of Teachers to make these changes.

Teachers will continue to struggle with the desire to be regarded as professionals, with or without the College. Srnaller (1995) explains that in striving for professionalism, teachers, historically, have ended up being further regulated in their work. Coulter (1996) suggests that teachen "may well find themselves CO-optedinto a control process which actually decreases teacher autonomy, when, and if, they accept membership in the College of Teachers"

(p.123). Teachers were not granted the option of choosing the "when" or the

"if' of the College of Teachers. which in fact proves that Coulter (1996) is correct in suggesting that teachers will be less autonomous under the College of Teachers.

The Ontario College of Teachers has the potential to be one of the more fundamental educational initiatives of the century. It also has the potential to be one of the most powerful means to control the teaching profession. The outcome will depend, in part, on the degree to which the present and future

Ministers choose to exercise their authority to direct the activities of the College. 67 How that power to control gets used over the next few years will tell us much about the politics of education in the province. Appendix A

l nterview Questions

1. a) What is the offcial position of your federationlassociation on the issue of

teacher self-governance?

b) What is the officiai position of your federation/association on the College

of Teachers?

C) Please explain the key issues or elernents that were taken into

consideration when adopting these positions.

2. a) How would you describe the government'slMinister's of Education and

Training interest in this initiative?

b) Mat specificaily has led you to this perception?

3. a) What do you feel are the key elements of professionalism in teaching?

b) In much of rny reading, teaching is described as a semi-profession. How

do you feel about this description? Explain.

4. a) Do you believe that the College of Teachers is an effective way to further

professionalize teaching? Why or why not?

b) Mat must a College of Teachers have or do to ensure effective teacher

self-governance? My?

c) Matdo you believe the ultimate objective of the govemment is in

creating an Ontario College of Teachers? Appendix B Ethical Review Clearance Certificate

If the propostd rcscarch does not iovoIve 1 If the proposcd rcsearch involves hum% nibjctts, h& subjxts or the direct use of thcir wrirtcn this signanirc form, dong wirh ont copy of the records, video-rnpcs. rtcordings. tests, etc., this resdproposal and & copies of the Ethical signanue form, dong with one copy of the rcsearch Rtview Fonn musc be submitttd to the Chair of hc proposal should be delivcrcd direcdy ro the Ethical Rcview Cornminet, Office of the Dean, Gradue Educauon Office for final approvd. Facuiry of Eduution.

IT IS 'iEE STüDEYT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THE RESEARCFI PROPOSAL (CVCLUDING REVISIOKS) TO TEE THESIS SUPERVISOR A.ALL hIE&lBERSOF THE ADVISORY COhrM-rrEE.

Namc(s) of Mcmbcrs of the Thesis Advisory Cornmitcet: References

Avis, J. (1994). Teacher professionalism: One more time. Educational Review, a(1). 63-72.

Coulter, R. (1996). Recertification: Inspection by another narne? In Rinq Some Alarm Bells in Ontario: Reactions to the re~ortof the Roval Commission on Learning (pp. 119-126). G. Milburn (Ed.). London: The Althouse Press.

Dureault, G. (1989, Decem ber). Not a question of power. Manitoba Teacher, -68(2), 7-8. Etzioni. A. (1969). Preface to Semi Professions and Their Orqanization: Teachers. Nurses. Social Workers. A. Etzioni (Ed. ). Toronto: Collier Macmillan.

Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario. (1995, March 15). FWAO positions on: New foundations for Ontario education (Announcements from the Minister of Education and Trainincl in response to the report of the Roval Commission on Leamina). Toronto: Author.

Francis, L. (1993). State Ca~tureand the Reaulation of the Teachinq Profession: A case studv of Ontario and British Columbia. Vnpublished master's thesis. University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.

Funk and Waanalls Standard Desk Dictionaw. (1982). U.S.A.: Lippincott and Crowell.

General Teaching Council for Scotland. (1992, March). Historical Backoround. Edinburgh: n. publ. 1-25.

Goode, W. J. (1969). The theoretical limits of professionalization. In Semi Professions and Their Oraanization: Teachers, Nurses. Social Workers (pp.266- 313). A. Etzioni (Ed.). Toronto: Collier Macmillan.

Greenwood, E. (1966). The elements of professionalization. In Professionalization (pp.9-19). H.M. Vollmer 8 D.L.Mills (Eds.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Hart, S.P. & Marshall, D.J. (1992, July). The Question of Teacher Professionalism. microfiche €034929 1.

Hunter, M. (1993, summer). Education as a profession. Journal of Staff Keeler, B.T. (1987, April 27). Vander Zalm tramples upon B. C. teachers. The ATA News, 2l(16), 1.

Labaree, O.F. (1992). Power, knowledge, and the rationalization of teaching: A genealogy of the movement to professionalize teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 123-1 54.

Munby. H. (1996). Professional education: The ironies of omission. In Rinq Some Alarm Bels in Ontario: Reactions to the rePort of the Roval Commission on Learning (pp. 127-137). G. Milburn (Ed.) . London: The Althouse Press.

Ontario. Ministry of Education and Ministry of Colleges and Universities. (1983). College of Teachers proposed &y Ministry. Education Ontario. Toronto: Ministry of Education and Ministry of Colleges and Universities.

Ontario. Ministry of Education and Ministry of Colleges and Universities. (1980). Issues and Directions: The response to the final report of the Commission on Declinina School Enrolrnent in Ontario. Toronto: Ministry of Education and Ministry of Colleges and Universities.

Ontario. Ministry of Education and Training. (1995). Bill 31 : An Act to establish the Ontario College of Teachers and to make related amendrnents to certain statutes. Toronto: Queen's printer for Ontario.

Ontario. Ministry of Education and Training. College of Teachers lrnplementation Cornmittee. (1995, September). The Privileae of Professionalism: the Ontario Collecie of Teachers. Toronto: author.

Ontario. Provincial Legislature. (1983, November 24). Debates. 3rd Session. 32nd Parliament.

Ontario. Royal Commission. (1 968). Living and Learnina: The re~ortof the Provincial Committee on Aims and Ob~ectivesof Education in the Schools of Ontario. Toronto: The Newton Publishing Co.

Ontario. Royal Commission on Leaming. (1994). For the Love of Learnina: Re~ortof the Roval Commission on Leaming. Toronto: Queen's printer for Ontario.

Ontario College of Teachers lmplementation Committee. (1995, September). What will the proposed College of Teachers mean to me? Professionally S~eakina:A newsletter for Ontario teachers. Toronto: author. Ontario College of Teachers Project. (1995, December). College of Teachers gefs the green light from govemment. Professionallv Swakina: A newsletter for Ontario teachers. Toronto: author.

Ontario College of Teachen Project. (1996. September). Coîîege launches awareness campaign. Professionall~Speakina: A newsletter for Ontario teachers. Toronto: author.

Ontario College of Teachers Project. (1996, Septem ber). How Ontario's professional organizations compare. Professionallv Sceakina: A newsletter for Ontario teachers. Toronto: author.

Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association. (1996, April). Brief to the Standinq Committee on Develo~rnenton Bill 31 - An Act to establish an Ontario Colleae of Teachers and to make related arnendrnents to certain statutes. Toronto: author.

Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association. (1995, March). lnterim Report: Res~onseto qovemment initiativeslRoval Commission on Learninq. Toronto: author.

Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation. (nd.). Colleae of Teachers: l ntrusive and expensive bureaucracv not needed. Information sheet.

Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation. (1980, October). Re~ortof the Task Force of the OSSTF Provincial Executive to Studv Self-Governance for the Teachin~Profession. Toronto: author.

Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation. (1996, April). Submission of the Ontario Secondaw School Teachers' Federation to the Social Develo~mentCommittee on Bill 31: an Act to establish the Ontario Colleae of Teachers. Toronto: author.

Ontario Teachers' Federation. (1997, March). Elections '97. OTFlFEO Interaction, 23(3), n.p.

Ontario Teachers' Federation. (1995, June). OTF Draft Position on a Colleae of Teachers. Toronto: author.

Ontario Teachen' Federation. (1968, August). Pattern for Professionalism: The report of the OTF Commission to the Board of Governors of the Ontario Teachers' Federation. Toronto: author.

Ontario Teachers' Federation. (1997, June). President's message. OTFlFEO Interaction, 23(4). 9.p.

Ornstein, Allan C. (198 1). The trend toward increased professionalism for teachers. Phi Delta Kaman, 63(3), 196- 198.

Popkewitz, T. S. (1 994). Professionalization in teaching and teacher education: Some notes on its history, rdeology, and potential. Teachina and Teacher Education, îO(10). 1-14.

Rowan. 6. (1994, August-Septem ber). Comparing teachen' work with work in other occupations: Notes on the professional status of teaching. Educational Researcher, 23(6), 4-21.

R.S.B.C. (1987). Teachinq Profession Act. In State Capture and the Recruration of the Teachinci Profession: A case studv of Ontario and British Columbia. L. Francis. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.

Scottish Ex~erience(The). (1995). (n.ed.).

Smaller, H. (1995, September). The Ontario College of Teachers: whose interests would it serve? Our Schools/Our Selves: A ma~azinefor Canadian education activists. z(l), 121-1 33.

Snobelen, J.C. (1995, November 21). Statement for Minister of Education and Trainina John C. Snobelen on Ontario Collerie of Teachers November 21. -1995. Paper presented to the Legislative Assem bly, Toronto, Ontario. Ungerleider, C . S. (1994). Po wer, politics, and the professionalization of teachers in British Columbia. In Socioloclv of Education in Canada: Criticat pers~ectiveson theow, research and ~ractice(pp.370-379). Lorna envin and David MacLennan (eds.). Toronto: Copp Clark.

Wise, A.E. & Liebbrand, J. (1993, October). Accreditation and the creation of a profession of teaching. Phi Delta Kaman, ï5(2), 133-1 36. 154-1 57. APPLIEO A IMAGE.lnc 1653 East Main Street -.- - --- Rochester, NY 14609 USA ------Phone: 71 61482-0300 ---- Fax: 7 1 6/288-5989

0 1993. Applied Image. Inc.. All Rights Fieserveci