TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF THE EFFECTS OF REMOVING THE PRINCIPALS AND VICE-PRINCIPALS FROM THE BARGAINING UNITS IN ONTARIO
NICOLE MILLER
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF EDUCATION
NIPISSING UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF EDUCATION NORTH BAY, ONTARIO
© Nicole Miller August 2007
ISBN: 978-0-494-38140-3
Abstract
On January 1, 1998, Ontario’s Conservative government, under Premier Mike
Harris, enacted Bill 160 that effectively excluded principals from their bargaining units, thus separating contract negotiations between teachers and administrators and leaving administrators without their longstanding connections to, and support from, their unions.
Today, Ontario boards of education have a looming principal shortage, and a report commissioned by the Ontario Principals’ Council suggests that qualified, dynamic, and capable individuals are deciding not to become principals, at least in part because of this removal (Williams, 2001).
This study gathered quantitative and qualitative data that relate specifically to
Ontario and which explore the perceived effects of the administrator removal from the teachers’ federations from the standpoint of the teacher.
Findings suggest that despite long-standing contract and job-role conflicts for principals in a teachers’ federation, both teachers and administrators would prefer to be united in collective bargaining and that there have been some wide-reaching consequences of this removal.
iv Acknowledgements
A great deal of gratitude is owed to a number of people whose support and encouragement were essential to the completion of this study.
I’d like to thank Dr. Kris Kirkwood – your guidance and steadfastness helped me finally finish. Your courses were inspirational, and your students have been so lucky to have you. Here’s to Sunday at Orwell’s!!
Next, I’d like to thank my children, Tieg and Keely, who were eternally patient while Mom hogged the computer and stole time from our summer vacations to get this done. You two are my inspiration for everything I do.
To my dad and mom – two great educators with collectively over 70 years of teaching experience. I learned how to be a teacher, a writer, and a student from the two of you. Thank you for your time and guidance and love.
To my mentor and friend, Susan Roberts. You are an amazing leader with a near- mythical ability to get things done, to find money where there is none, to innovate and inspire. You have taught me what it means to be a fearless leader and to always remember that student success is our first duty as educators.
Last, but certainly not least, my dear Kevin – my partner in everything. Thank you for staying up late with me, helping me type, making me laugh, and reminding me why I’m doing all this. You are so wonderful, and I thank fate every day for bringing you to me. Thank you.
v Table of Contents Page Abstract…………………………………………………………….……… iv Acknowledgements……………………………………………….……….. v List of Tables………………………………………………………………. viii
CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM……………………………………… 1 Rationale for the Study…………………………….……………………. 2 Research Questions …………………………………………………….. 4 Definition of Terms……………………………………………………... 6
CHAPTER TWO: THE REVIEW OF THE RELEVANT LITERATURE…………………………………………………………….. 8 Literature Review………………………………………………………. 8 British Columbia Teachers’ Federation (BCTF) versus the Principals… 17 Ontario in the 1990s……………………………………………………. 18 The Debate Continues………………………………………………….. 25 Summary of Arguments Leading up to Exclusion……………………… 26 Summary: Links to Current Study……………………………………… 30
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY………………………………... 32 Participants in the Survey: Sample Selection…………………………… 32 Participants for the Personal Interviews: Sample Selection…………….. 33 Data Collection Procedures…………….……………………….………. 33 Threats to Internal Validity………………………………….….………. 36
CHAPTER FOUR: THE RESULTS……………………………..……… 38 Profile of the Sample………………………………………….……….. 38 Survey Results and Themes Associated with Removal………………... 47 Comments Made by Participants….…………………………………… 65
vi CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS…………………………………………... 88 Discussion…………………………………………………….……….. 96 Recommendations……………………………………………………… 102 References………………………………………………………….……… 108 Appendix A: Teacher Survey……………………………………..……… 113 Appendix B: Principal Survey…………………………………………… 117 Appendix C: Survey Comments - Principals………………….……….. 121 Appendix D: Nipissing University Ethics Approval………………….. 123 Appendix E: TDSB Survey Distribution Approval………………….. 124
vii List of Tables
Table Page
1. Position Title (Administrator Data)……………………………... 40
2. Position Title (Teacher Data)…………………………….……… 41
3. Gender of Respondents (Administrator Data)…………………… 42
4. Gender of Respondents (Teacher Data)…………………………..……… 43
5. Teaching Panel (Administrator Data)…………………………….……… 44
6. Teaching Panel (Teacher Data)…………………………………..……… 45
7. Federation or Union Affiliation (Teacher Data)………………….……… 46
8. Federation or Union Affiliation (Administrator Data)…………………… 48
9. Past Federation or Union Affilliation (Administrator Data)……...……… 49
10. Membership in a Teachers’ Federation
While Being an Administrator…………………………………..……… 50
11. Years of Service (Administrator Data)………………………….……… 51
12. Age of Respondents (Administrator Data)……………………...……… 52
13. Age of Respondents (Teacher Data)…………………………….……… 53
14. Perceptions of the Role of the Principal (Teacher Data)………..……… 54
15. Perceptions of the Role of the Principal (Administrator Data)………… 55
16. Crosstab (Teacher Data)………………………………………..……… 57
17. Perception of the Role of the Principal – Merged (Administrator Data). 58
18. Perception of the Role of the Principal – Merged (Teacher Data) ……. 59
19. Survey Questions (Administrator Data)………………………………… 61
20. Survey Questions (Teacher Data)……………………………….……… 62
viii CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM
Principals and vice-principals are members of teachers’ federations in every province except three: British Columbia, Quebec, and most recently, Ontario. Effective
January 1, 1998, the Conservative government under Mike Harris enacted Bill 160 which effectively excluded principals from their bargaining units, thus separating contract negotiations between teachers and administrators and leaving administrators without their long-standing connections to, and support from, their unions. The Ontario government, in a significant restructuring effort–and despite a large body of research suggesting that principals wanted to remain within the teachers’ union–determined to alter school culture in such a way that an “us versus them” system of school administration has subsequently emerged (Goheen, 2003; Hossack, 1997; Wallace, 2002). Today, teachers and administrators are divided; they no longer conduct contract negotiations as a collective, the Ontario boards of education have a looming principal shortage, and a report commissioned by the Ontario Principals’ Council suggests that qualified, dynamic, capable individuals are deciding not to become principals, at least in part because of this removal (Williams, 2001).
This thesis paper seeks to outline the history of this change in Ontario and suggests that there is a lack of Ontarian educational research that explores the real and perceived effects of principal removal from the bargaining units. This project would best be investigated through a triangulation of quantitative and qualitative methods. From a cross-sectional survey of a sample of teachers combined with a smaller group of interviews, new conclusions can be drawn about the effects that Bill 160’s removal of the principals from their bargaining units has had on Ontario principal/teacher relationships,
1 2 school culture, and the potential impact it may have on those who choose to pursue a career in administration.
The purpose of this study is to gather quantitative and qualitative data that relates specifically to Ontario and which explores the perceived effects of the administrator removal from the teachers’ federation from the standpoint of the teacher.
Rationale for the Study
1. While there is significant research detailing the perceived effects of removing
administrators from bargaining units and research that suggests principals and
vice principals overwhelmingly supported maintaining their membership with
teachers, there is a notable lack of Canadian, and more specifically Ontarian,
research that addresses the real effects of this removal.
2. School administrators face a particularly complicated web of accountability and
competing interests within the school system, making a positive, healthy
school culture essential. It would add to the body of school culture research to
investigate perceptions of both administrators and teachers regarding their
removal. It is timely because there are still teachers and administrators who
have experienced their leadership role both as part of the teachers’ bargaining
unit and as outsiders to the federation.
3. The 1985 Saskatchewan Principalship Study (cited in Hossack, 1997) describes
the teacher-administrator dichotomy: “On the one hand they are part of the
teaching team and on the other hand they must supervise staff…[which]
underlies the paradoxical nature of principal and vice-principal membership in
teachers’ federations today” (p. 1). This theme has been widely discussed, and 3
yet, postremoval there is little reflection on whether the concerns were realized
or the conflicts resolved. Indeed, there is some suggestion that some of these
problems, believed solvable by removal, have created in-school distrust and
adversarial relationships between principals and teachers.
4. Respondents to a report commissioned by the Ontario Principals’ Consultation
Group (Barque, Dunn, Peckitt & Rogers, 1998) express concern that the
qualifications for becoming a principal will change as a result of the removal.
This concern was not limited to teachers but extended to existing principals
and other interested parties (including parents, teachers, and others). This
report suggests that there is significant support for principals remaining
qualified teachers and that there is uncertainty about “the legislation,
regulations, and board policies that will apply to principals and vice principals
in the future” (Barque et al., p. i). There should be a continued examination of
this concern as the time from removal to the present extends and as those
principals who have experienced both realities get closer to retirement.
5. Research from Quebec (cited in Ontario Teachers’ Federation [OTF], 1980),
where administrators do not have collective bargaining rights, has suggested
that a:
disproportionate fraction of the current agreement between the
teachers and the Government of Quebec is devoted to detailing the role
and function of principals and vice principals in their working
relationships with teachers. The fact that this has occurred clearly 4
illustrates the deterioration in relationships between teachers and
principals in Quebec. (p. 30)
Evidence from both British Columbia and the United States affirms this finding
(Crawley, 1995; Hossack, 1997; Wallace, 2002). As well, statistics from
British Columbia show that the relationship between teachers and principals
has deteriorated and that teachers feel they need to be more militant about the
application of the collective agreement. Indeed, grievances filed in British
Columbia have gone from 0 in 1990, to 85 in 1995 and to more than 170 in
1996 (Hossack, 1997; Williams, 2001). It is important to gather Ontario-
specific information to determine if these negative effects have had a
deleterious effect on the relationships in the schools.
6. Goheen (2003) states that the “them versus us” syndrome has been created by
the government in large part by the exclusion of the principal and vice-
principal from the teachers’ unions and that removal has subsequently led to an
“adversarial atmosphere [in the schools]–a polarity between the staff and the
administration” (p. 8). Such perceptions should be examined from both the
standpoint of teachers and, possibly in a later study, administrators.
Research Questions
It was beneficial to use a survey to obtain a significant number of teacher responses about their perceived feelings about school change that has resulted from the administrators’ removal from the teachers’ bargaining unit. The survey can be found in
Appendix A. There are several questions that are the focus of this survey and are at the core of this research: 5
For teachers, it is important to know whether the exclusion of principals and vice- principals from the bargaining unit has resulted in a more confrontational application of the teachers’ collective agreement and whether, more generally, it has negatively impacted the relationship between teachers and administration on the whole. As well, whether the removal will be a deterrent when considering becoming a principal could have system-wide impact; in what way school culture has been impacted; the perceived change in the principal/teacher relationship and school culture; and expanding on
Wallace’s (2002) work, it is timely to ask about teacher preference for having principals in the federation alongside teachers. Given that the role of the principal includes teacher evaluation, it is key to clarify whether teachers feel that the principal’s role as school manager is actually simpler now that their roles are entirely separate from that of a teacher.
At the qualitative stage of the study, there will be four guiding, open-ended questions that may change as quantitative data are collected and themes emerge.
However, to further develop an understanding of the core research questions above, these qualitative responses will be sought:
Interview: Guiding Questions for Teachers
1. Do you feel having the principal within the federation would improve the
relationship between teacher and administrator at your school with regards to
school morale and the role of the principal in particular?
2. Will the fact that principals and vice-principals are not in the teachers’ union
be a deterrent for you when considering becoming a principal? 6
3. Do you feel that there have been changes to shared decision-making and
collaboration with administration as a result of the division between teacher
and administrator? (Or changes to school culture in general?)
4. Would you rather have the principal as a fellow member of the federation?
(Especially during contract negotiations and Teacher Performance Appraisal?)
Definition of Terms
Affiliates: These include all Ontario federations and collective bargaining groups that fall under the umbrella of the Ontario Teachers’ Federation. These include: Ontario
Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (OSSTF), Ontario Public School Teachers’
Federation (OPSTF), Federation of Women Teachers’ Associations of Ontario
(FWTAO), Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association (OECTA), Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-Ontariens (AEFO), The Elementary Teachers’
Federation of Ontario (ETFO), The Ontario Secondary Schools’ Principals’ Council
(OSSPC), and Ontario Principal’s Council (OPC). This list is not exhaustive. Some federations have amalgamated with others and some, like the FWTAO, have joined
ETFO and no longer identify under the FWTAO name.
Collective bargaining: the process of negotiating new contracts through union representation with the employer.
Ontario Teachers’ Federation (OTF): The Teaching Profession Act provides
“every teacher with exceptions that are immaterial, is a member of the Ontario Teachers’
Federation” (OTF, 1980, p. 25), OTF is an umbrella organization whose leadership consists of representatives from the other affiliates (i.e., OSSTF, ETFO, etc.). 7
Position of responsibility: This refers to a teacher who is given a chairship or other paid lead teacher position and who is part of a school’s administration team.
Principal: It is important to note that when using the term principal, the vice- principalship is included in this role designation.
Role of the principal: This is a difficult definition, as removal from the bargaining units has possibly shifted the definition. It is important to note that some of the following qualities would be seen by some to be more important than others, but for the purposes of this paper, a principal, as a head of school, is seen as: “curriculum implementers, instructional leaders, co-constructors of programs to meet group or individual needs, professional consultants, administrative official and public relations officers” (OTF,
1980, p. 30).
School administrator: This term will, for the purpose of this paper, encompass both the principal and vice-principal. CHAPTER TWO: THE REVIEW OF THE RELEVANT LITERATURE
In 1997, Bill 160 was passed by the Conservative government in power in
Ontario. It became law as of January 1, 1998 and removed principals and vice-principals from the teachers’ federations of which they had been a part for decades. In fact, principals were instrumental in the building of the unions from which they were now removed. Prior to this, there had been ongoing debate about the appropriateness of administrators in a teachers’ federation given their unique position as teacher evaluators and school leaders (Hodgkins, 1970; Hossack, 1997; Nasstrom & Pier, 1983; OTF, 1980;
Principals Oppose Removal, 1972). This literature review uses a combination of chronology and thematic strands to illuminate the issues in this long-standing debate as they led up to Bill 160. A chronological/historical approach is appropriate for contextualizing the current situation in Ontario, while themes emerge from an examination of similar situations in other provinces, the United States of America, and other countries.
Literature Review
The removal of principals from teachers’ unions has long been a contentious issue and has been actively debated since the early 1970s in Ontario. In 1970, Dr. Rolland
Jones looked at the importance of the principal’s role as team leader and not that of
“factory-model dictator” (Jones cited in Hodgins, 1970, p. 509). Indeed, the Ontario
Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) describes the principalship as a “compromise based on personal resources, interpersonal skill and charisma in dealing with people and pressure groups” (Hodgins, p. 509).
8 9
In the Toronto Globe and Mail (Principals Oppose Removal, 1972), principal
Karl Webb warned that to remove principals and vice-principals from their unions would cause unnecessary problems between teachers and administrators in the school setting.
He argued that the problems created would be similar to many faced in the United States:
“A great deal of friction in U.S. schools is caused by the fact that teachers regard their principals as representatives of administration and frequently do not trust them” (p. B20).
Hodgins (1970) also cites the additional bureaucratic work that has downloaded to principals who must interpret complicated contract agreements which, he says, is “not a position of educational leadership but rather [exclusively] bureaucratic administration”
(p. 510). Hodgins also discusses the fact that principals have sometimes felt isolated and abandoned during contract negotiations, and as a result, many federations have included a principal on the negotiation team to ensure that the unique needs of the principalship are considered during negotiations. Indeed, the somewhat tumultuous relationship between federations and principals is described here as a “marriage (that) can be broken up by neglect, distrust or hostility from either partner” (p. 510).
Other literature from the U.S. (where it is important to note, principals and teachers have never been part of the same union) also describes a tension between the role of the principal and the advent of the collective bargaining process in the U.S.:
The dilemma was determining which way to turn: to ally with their teachers with
whom they may have enjoyed a close professional relationship, or to ally with
school boards and sit across the table from teachers while they seek better pay,
more desirable teaching conditions, protection of their rights, and more influence
in decision-making. Principals… saw their influence and power eroding. 10
(Weldy, 1979, p. 30)
Weldy (1979) cautions the principal who is indecisive about which side he will choose, noting that ultimately the principal will be “forced to side with the employer, in line with his role as the middle management representative in the school” (p. 37).
While Weldy (1979) cautions principals to remember where their bread is buttered, Cooley and Shen (2000) cite work by Chubb and Moe (1990) that characterizes the job of the principal as one that is “a powerless position mired in a bureaucracy and characterized by bickering, infighting, and non-existent teamwork between teachers and administrators” (p. 445). Of course, this rather maudlin characterization of the role of principal illustrates the difficulties inherent in juggling a myriad of competing interests, such as school leadership demands.
In 1980, the OTF submitted a paper to the Commission to Review the Collective
Negotiation Process Between Teachers and School Boards. Interestingly, the federation in their argument suggested that more needed to be done to ensure that the collegial model, suggested by Hodgins above, be furthered throughout the school system. In fact, they used some of the same arguments that opponents of inclusion in the bargaining unit use to argue that principals must not only remain in the units but they must also have all the same rights as a teacher. Their argument was that the Section 65(2) of the School
Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act should be excised from the Act as it prevented principals from striking:
The arguments for the Federation’s position on this issue are twofold: that
Section 65(2) undermines the collegial atmosphere necessary to a school’s
effective functioning, and that previous provincial legislation clearly 11
establishes principals and vice principals as teachers rather than members
of a separate management team. (OTF, 1980, p. 29)
Of course, this is a popular argument for proponents of removal and seems to be a pivotal issue in the debate.
This struggle between administration, staff, and collective bargaining has a long history in union debate. The principal/teacher cobargaining issue in particular, and others that were later raised by Bill 160, were long predicted and discussed at the union level. In remarks to the Principals’ Association, Jim Head (n.d.), OSSTF
District President, outlines the tensions created by Bill 100 (Bill 100 was passed in
1975, so his remarks are estimated to have been made between 1975 and 1981, during which time there was ongoing debate about Bill 100, including a Government
Commission regarding legislative changes to the Bill). He says, “The inconsistency of
Bill 100 [is that it has] placed you in the bargaining unit, and yet denied you full participation in the strike. This, to me, will be one of the major issues in the future”
(p. 2).
The Commission to Review the Collective Negotiation Process Between
Teachers and School Boards (1980) made recommendations about possible legislative changes to Bill 100. In it, both Recommendations 12 and 13 are relevant to Head’s speech. The Commission recommends that “the requirement in Bill 100 that principals and vice principals be members of the bargaining units be retained [and] that Bill 100 be amended to provide that principals only be denied the right to strike”
(OTF, 1981, p. 13). Not surprisingly, the OTF strongly endorses the first recommendation but takes exception to the latter. 12
This is in direct opposition to the submission made to the commission by the
Bruce County Board of Education, who urge that principals and vice principals be excluded from membership in their unions because they:
Exercise management functions on behalf of the board and on behalf of the
Ministry. Such management functions are of such a nature that it is difficult to
understand how one can justify legislation that requires them to be members
of the union of teachers whose work they must supervise. (Bruce County
Board of Education, 1980, p. 7)
This, of course, illustrates the continuing tensions and arguments over the years that principal and vice-principal membership in teachers’ unions has created.
Several important themes emerge in Head’s speech. First is the acknowledgement that there are only two possible solutions to the tension described above: Principals will become “either management or teacher” (Head, n.d., p. 2).
Head (n.d.) goes on to say:
The role of the principal is primarily a manager of human relations in an
“industry”, where motivation is the essential determinant of productivity – you
cannot motivate this group of employees using traditional management devices –
you cannot offer bonuses, “perks”, and fringe benefits like profit sharing, and
stock options. Your discipline powers are few, and to implement any of them
requires enormous energy, high legal costs, and the prospect of facing a judge –
what the proponents of “management” forget, is that the whole industrial structure
of management in the outside world, has been eroded away continuously, and in 13
schools the idea of management rights has been an absurdity for so long that it’s a
joke. (pp. 2-3)
Head (n.d.) predicts five key struggles in defining the role of the principal in the future. With the removal of administrators from the bargaining units, these are particularly relevant in light of Bill 160 and the issues that emerge in the Williams
(2001) study that looks at the administrator crisis looming in Ontario. It is relevant to explore these issues briefly here:
The Silencing of the Administrator Voice with Regards to Policy and Practice
Principals and vice-principals will be required to be loyal to board policies, and their ability to express concerns and have involvement in policy decisions will be compromised. As well, the ability to advocate for staff will be limited or perhaps discouraged (Head, n.d.). Larson (2000) argues that the Education Quality
Improvement Act (EQIA, Bill 160) was primarily created to control teachers, diminish their autonomy, and bust the union (p. 12).
While Larson (2000) compares the educational reform process in England to the Harris government’s Common Sense Revolution, her concern is the almost complete removal of regulatory control from the hands of those closest to education:
In Ontario, it is the cabinet (with the Lieutenant Governor’s rubber stamp) that
effectively holds all regulatory power. The EQIA (Bill 160) contains at least
186 clauses giving absolute regulatory power to the cabinet. School Boards,
school councils, principals and teachers are given no choice (according to the
legislation) but to comply with new regulations or orders, which can be
introduced at any time without debate. (p. 12) 14
Indeed, clause 58.3 in Bill 160 states, “if a regulation made by the Minister is in conflict with any other statute, the regulation shall prevail.” Effectively, the Minister could override the Legislature. (McConaghy, 1998, p. 553)
Becoming a Manager of a School, Not an Educator
Managerial duties such as budgeting, hiring within a budget, managing repairs, and other tasks that remove an administrator from education-based tasks or from any role that might be considered curriculum based erodes the principal identity as lead teacher. As well, being middle management in education means little effectiveness with either those above you or those below you.
McConaghy (1998) talks about the “corporate anorexia” that has prevailed in the government’s handling of education since Bill 160. Borrowing the term from
Secretan’s work (cited in McConaghy, p. 554) about downsizing and business restructuring, he argues that organizations such as schools need to inspire the soul:
The Ontario Teachers’ strike focused on the “soulless” business model. The
Harris government was treating education like a business. The only vision
Harris and his back-room advisors possessed was one of stripping education
of more than $1 billion and believing that all that counts is the bottom line.
The government would trim the fat… by eliminating the jobs of 10,000
teachers, cut back on the number of professional days, reduce teacher
preparation time, and weaken the educational leadership of principals and vice
principals by denying them membership in the various teacher organizations.
(p. 553) 15
What follows, of course, are overworked teachers and administrators with little opportunity for collaboration, reflection, risk-taking and unscheduled time together.
(McConaghy, p. 553)
Fears About Job Security
There was concern that there would be no union protection from wrongful dismissal, nor any system in place to address the new role that would emerge (Head, n.d.). Indeed, following the 2-week teacher walkout in 1997, Harris “tabled a number of amendments to Bill 160 in the Legislature, including the provision removing the principals and vice principals from the teachers’ bargaining units and denying them collective bargaining rights under the Ontario Labour Relations Act” (Supreme Court
Decides, 2001, p. 1) Many felt these were introduced as reprisal for the strike, but later the Supreme Court would deny the OTF and affiliates’ submission and find that the removal was neither retaliatory nor unconstitutional.
Unpleasant Activities
If principals are managers and not lead teachers and they are removed from this role, Head (n.d.) predicts they will have to perform the most unpleasant duties– ones that would seriously and permanently impact school relations–such as supervising strike-breakers and laying charges. Head emphasizes that principals will not be part of the team, but that they will be “over there” as management separated from the workers.
Impact on the Grievance Structure
Head predicts that principals will be grieved and the “intent will not just be the resolution of a disagreement, but the wonders of grievances and arbitrated 16 solutions go far beyond that – there is the real possibility of making gains for large numbers of people” (Head, n.d., p. 3). There will be far-reaching legal implications of grievance decisions, and this will replace any internal dispute resolution process that currently exists between colleagues.
It is important to note that Head (n.d.) warns that there is only one fundamental approach to solve the issues and problems that exist between teachers and principals and those which impact school culture, and that is, “a school where principal and staff are together in the union is the only approach that works” (p. 5)
This position is supported by the findings of Cooley and Shen (2000), who state that “principals’ leadership appears to be exercised primarily through behaviours that shape school-level instructional climate” (p. 444).
Despite these long-standing issues, it is important to note that surveys and polls taken suggest that principals in Ontario overwhelmingly wanted to remain in their bargaining units (Hossack, 1997, p. 27). Perhaps these decisions had been subject to an understanding of some of the conflicts detailed in other provinces,
American situations, and the 1987 removal of the British Columbian principals from the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation (BCTF). The important distinction between principals in B.C. and Ontario is that the principals from British Columbia felt betrayed by their union and requested to leave. Nonetheless, there have subsequently been unforeseen consequences that leave polled principals wishing that they were back in their federations (Hossack, 1997). Their story is outlined briefly below. 17
British Columbia Teachers’ Federation (BCTF) Versus the Principals
In 1983, B.C. principals released a paper called A Time for Change (cited in
Hossack, 1997, p. 2), where they expressed a desire to be removed from contract negotiations with their bargaining unit, BCTF. They suggested that there was little support or representation for principals in the union, particularly during contract negotiations. The BCTF position was that there should be less of a gap between the administrator’s salary and the classroom teacher’s salary. The principals wanted equivalent salary percentage increases to those of the teachers (Hossack, p. 2).
By 1987, the Social Credit Party had enacted the controversial Bill 19–The
Industrial Relations Act–which gave “full collective bargaining rights to teachers but excluded principals and vice principals from unionizing” (Crawley, 1995, p. 16). In the next few years, the relationship between the union (BCTF), the government, principals, and the board of education would sour to the point where a promising education reform initiative which Crawley argued the BCTF should have “embraced like a long-lost relative finally come home” (p. 99) would fail in part because of the aftermath of the exclusion:
The timing of the changes was unfortunate. The BCTF was in its
first few years of full collective bargaining, immediately after
Social Credit’s attempt to weaken its power. Everyone, including
administration, was on guard. (Crawley, 1995, p. 106)
Thus, Crawley (1995) suggests that given the climate between BCTF and, particularly, the Social Credit government, there would be no consensus under any circumstances (p. 106). 18
This differs markedly from the Ontario situation in that the principals from British
Columbia requested their removal, while the union did not want them to depart. The important lessons here, however, are the effects of principal removal outlined above and by Hossack (1997): “Increasingly, teachers are taking the position that they need to grieve every perceived violation of the collective agreement and therefore, friction is continuing to grow” (p. 4). Grievances filed in British Columbia went from 0 in 1990 to
85 in 1995 and to more than 170 in 1996 (Hossack, 1997; Williams, 2001). It is arguable that this is a result of the increased “we-they” atmosphere in British Columbia (Crawley,
1995; Hossack, 1997; Williams, 2001). Indeed, Hossack suggests that principals deeply regret their decision to leave and believe that the collegial model of the past was far better suited to the unique needs of the schools. She concludes by saying:
When asked what principals would say to principals in other provinces who
wonder whether or not it is in their best interest to leave the teachers’ federation
and form their own organization, they replied: stay if at all possible and work with
the teachers as a team. (Hossack, p. 5)
Ontario in the 1990s
Beginning in the late 1980s and persisting into the early 1990s, public opinion about educational quality reached a crisis level (Gidney, 1999, p. 170). Among the complaints: literacy, drop-out rates, curricular relevance, and increased spending without accountability. As well, a 1992 poll found “61% of Ontarians were dissatisfied with the education children [were] receiving” (Gidney, p. 172).
Coupled with a growing public dissatisfaction, or perhaps compounding and fueling it, was the release of the Radwanski report late in 1988 entitled, The Ontario 19
Study of the Relevance of Education and the Issue of Dropouts, which indicted that current school curriculum and educational focus was largely irrelevant:
Increasing the commitment to educational achievement and completion is the
central educational challenge facing Ontario policy makers, educators, and
students. All partners in the education system must respond to the fact that student
performance on basic skill tests is sliding or comparatively mediocre, that
illiteracy rates among those in and out of school are alarmingly high, that almost a
third of our students are dropouts, and that our students need earlier and more
effective exposure to an expanded scientific and technological knowledge base.
(Gidney, 1999, p. 173)
Indeed, Radwanski went on to describe the pedagogical shift away from the kinder, gentler 1970s and early ‘80s that was to be favoured in the 1990s by politicians, and largely the public, across the decade:
Education should not be confused with group therapy. We ought no longer to
shrink from affirming explicitly that education is ultimately about the acquisition
of knowledge and skills. (Gidney, p. 174)
Radwanski recommended excellence and equity in education via meaningful and measurable accountability. “The school system must be responsible to parents and taxpayers–there must be proof that our goals are actually being achieved, something that… has been lacking for decades” (Gidney, p. 174).
This pedagogical shift paved the way for the Tory government under Mike Harris to develop the Common Sense Revolution, characterized by fiscal restraint and budget 20
slashing, a new framework for education, and several years of labour unrest leading up to
and following the passing of Bill 160 (Gidney, 1999).
Bill 100, The School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, which had been in effect since 1975, had been widely viewed as teacher-friendly legislation, confirming that teachers have the right to strike and to negotiate for better salaries and working conditions (Gidney, 1999, p. 121).
Elected at a time of public dissatisfaction with education, the Conservative Party used international achievement comparisons to justify savings of over $400 million to be made by eliminating service duplication between boards, grade 13, and mandatory JK.
Ultimately, Harris determined to reshape education in Ontario with a new common curriculum under Bill 160, The Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997. (Head &
Hutton, 2005, p. 61).
One young teacher remembers the educational turmoil that led to his decision to vote in favour of a strike:
In the spring of 1997, with less than two years’ experience as a teacher in public
education, I voted along with 93% of my OSSTF colleagues, to impose the
ultimate sanction – withdrawal of services – if the government brought in
legislation to change the model of local governance of education, which had
served the province well for a century and a half. The vibrant legacy of public
education in Ontario was a very personal issue for me, because my father had
been a teacher for 46 years, half of them as a school inspector for the department
of education. I knew that the success of the system depended on an ever-evolving
interplay of provincial control and local autonomy, one that was reflected in a 21
delicate balance of provincial grants and local taxation. The Tory agenda was to
weaken public education beyond recognition, and then save it through
privatization. Too much was at stake. (Peat, 2003, p. 2)
His emotions were not unique; as he mentions a 93% strike mandate meant that the majority of teachers were ready to protest–albeit a somewhat futile effort, against Bill
160.
Despite a 10-day walkout of teachers across Ontario, the Conservatives pressed forward, and by December 1997 it became obvious that Bill 160 was to be law by
January 1998. In OSSTF’s Update (Commitment to OSSTF, 1997), the federation promised to continue to fight for the “repeal of those sections of Bill 160 which remove principals and vice principals from OSSTF [and add that both] opposition parties have committed to this repeal should they be elected in the next provincial election” (p. 1).
Left in a tenuous and undefined position, and within a month of removal, the
Principal/Vice-Principal Consultation Group (Barque et al., 1998) submitted a brief to the
Ministry of Education and Training (MET) outlining their concerns about their nonfederation status and made a seven-recommendation submission for job security, clear job responsibilities, redundancy, and qualification rights. The brief clearly states that until a “fair and consistent regulatory and policy framework” (Barque et al., p. ii) is created to define the new parameters of the principal’s role, the MET will not have demonstrated their support for the newly emerging role of principals and vice principals.
Job security was the central concern of administrators polled. Without addressing seniority and security issues, there was concern that qualified educators would elect NOT to become principals, choosing instead to remain securely in the classroom and, by 22 extension, the federation. Indeed, as many as 50% of principals asked indicated that they were seriously considering returning to the classrooms because of the fear of becoming redundant and having no security. One francophone principal is quoted as saying, “many
[of us] would feel inclined to opt for the security of a position protected by a bargaining unit” (Barque et al., p. 4). The Commission submitted that this issue of job security is the most important one facing educators and causing the greatest uncertainty. They used the situations in other provinces and countries where principals are not part of the teacher bargaining unit as a guide for best practice initiatives:
In British Columbia, redundant school administrators can be placed in teaching
positions, while in Quebec, they are moved to vacancies in their own or other
boards, are given alternate placements, or returned to teaching if there is a
vacancy. A study of provisions in several other jurisdictions, in the United States,
Britain, Australia, and New Zealand, indicates that in virtually all cases (except
New Zealand) administrators are moved to other positions for which they are
qualified. Being able to return to teaching positions is much less common,
although not unknown. Many presenters referred, with approval, to British
Columbia where principals and vice principals may return to the bargaining unit
at any time. (Barque et al., p. 9)
Despite such lengthy explanations for each of the seven recommendations, there is a note of desperation as the group repeats (four times in a 15-page document) the message that “the Ministry of Education and Training has stated its support for principals and vice principals, acknowledging their support for their vital contribution as educational leaders in Ontario’s schools” (Barque et al., 1998, pp. i, ii, 12, 15). This 23 suggests that given the political climate in 1998, this was more of a wish than an actual belief.
In March 1998, the Ontario Teachers’ Federation (OTF) and many affiliates submitted a legal objection to the Ontario Court of Justice. The Attorney General of
Ontario was listed as the respondent. In their argument, the OTF and affiliates argued
Charter violations including: freedom of expression, freedom of association, the right to liberty and security of the person, and equality rights (OTF v. The Attorney General,
1998, p. 2). The applicants also took exception to the deadline given to principals to decide whether they would like to return to the classroom as teachers and remain in their federations or whether they would decide to continue as principals. In his decision,
Judge Southey found for the Attorney General and rejected the OTF arguments by stating that “collective bargaining rights are not protected by the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms” (OTF v. The Attorney General, p. 17).
Respondents to a report commissioned by the Ontario Principal Consultation
Group express significant concern that with the removal of administrators, there are concerns among existing principals and other interested parties–including parents, teachers and community members–that the qualifications for becoming a principal will change as a result of their removal from the union (Barque et al., 1998). They further suggest that there is significant support for principals remaining qualified teachers and that there is uncertainty about “the legislation, regulations and board policies that will apply to principals and vice principals in the future” (p. i).
Janice Wallace (2002) has been exploring these themes and takes a particular interest in considering the effects of removing administrators from their bargaining 24 units in Ontario by looking at a similar situation in British Columbia. By comparing the effects of educational restructuring in B.C., Wallace hoped to suggest future implications for the more recent restructuring of Ontario’s education system.
Administrators in British Columbia have been out of the teachers’ union for 14 years compared to 9 years in Ontario.
Wallace (2002) contextualizes the role of school administrators in both British
Columbia and Ontario over the past 17 years to illuminate the effects of education restructuring efforts that have characterized education in these two provinces. She focuses on the implications of the pedagogical role shift away from administrative leadership towards administrative management. While her initial research centered on the removal of administrators from their bargaining units, Wallace argues that she could not separate “the bargaining units from the broader issue of educational restructuring”
(p. 2).
As a result, she uses two guiding questions for her research: “How is the role of education administrators being transformed by post-modern social, political and economic conditions in Ontario and British Columbia? And, how are these changes affecting the work of women in school administration?” (p. 1). While specifically looking at the work of women is outside the scope of this thesis paper, the former guiding question is relevant, if indeed the removal of the principals can be linked to the broader issue of educational restructuring.
Wallace (2002) weaves notions of postmodernist theory into the fabric of the current educational canvas, explaining ideas like performativity (p. 8) and the endemic problems faced in such a climate (p. 9). She argues that the role shift from teacher- 25
administrator to manager-administrator has caused role anxiety, which has had a
significant impact on job satisfaction. She further asserts that women are “being
positioned as the emotional labourers who will absorb the stress caused by rapidly
shifting demands on teachers, students and parents” (Wallace, p. 9).
The Debate Continues
During contract negotiations in 2003, the Dialogue newsletter (March 2003) produced an article entitled: “Exacerbation of the ‘them versus us’ Syndrome”. Author
Dan Goheen expresses his concern about the existing leadership crisis created by the
Ontario government. He says the current leadership model is:
endorsing the managerial concept of education. The children and the parents
will become the consumers. The teachers will be the sales clerks. Principals and
vice-principals will become middle management, responsible for the efficient
expenditure of resources. Effective education will be defined as the minimum
dollars spent rather than the optimum human development achieved.
This crisis, Goheen suggests, is a result of several factors, the first and most significant of which was the removal of the principals from their federations (p. 6).
This has resulted in a new generation of young administrators with very limited teaching experience. He argues that they “spent too little time teaching [and] their loyalties are not to the staff, the parents and the students, but to the Board and the
Ministry of Education” (Goheen, p. 6).
The creation of a divided school culture has been, Goheen (2003) posits, a strategic move by the government and the boards to produce administrators with less and less loyalty to the classroom and to other facets of the effectively run school and 26 more and more, a loyalty only to the board and their fiscal/legal concerns (p. 8). Not only have principals and vice-principals been effectively neutered in terms of their ability to affect programs and classroom influence, but they have allowed themselves to become “capitulators [who will] capitulate to whatever government reform initiatives are legislated, or whatever board policy is established, regardless of whether or not it is in the best interests of the local school community” (Goheen, p. 8).
Summary of Arguments Leading up to Exclusion
The arguments both for and against the inclusion of principals and vice- principals in the bargaining units can be organized into three main categories of concern. These themes have emerged from the literature review and explore the inclusion or exclusion of principals as reflected in: legislation, good educational practice, and sound school and school board organization. It is useful to categorize the main tensions under these headings, and by dividing the arguments for and against inclusion, we can focus on the areas for further research.
Legislation
Proinclusion.
• The Education Act, Teaching Profession Act, and School Boards and
Teachers Collective Negotiations Act have established the principal as a lead
teacher first and foremost (Hossack, 1997; OTF, 1997).
• The principals and vice-principals have been a part of teacher bargaining
units and collective agreements since 1975. 27
• As a result of principals’ “age and experience [their inclusion] may help to
balance the radical nature of youth…[and] when this group supports a strong
stand by teachers, their influence is significant” (Hodgins, 1970, p. 509).
Proexclusion.
• Principals and vice-principals are excluded from the Labour Relations Act,
1995, such that they are now “denied access to the certification and collective
bargaining rights and protections under that act” (OTF v. The Attorney
General, 1998, p. 4).
• Bargaining collectively, some principals have felt their numbers haven’t
warranted vigorous representation.
Good Educational Practice
Proinclusion.
• “A principal who becomes something different and distinct from a teacher
will lose the capacity to understand the art of the teaching/learning process, to
understand those who practice that art, and therefore be less useful and
helpful to his students, teachers, parents, school council, school board, school
community and the education system as a whole” (OTF, 1997, p. 4).
• Loss of membership dues for the federation and greater cost to employer, who
must replace teaching hours that principals already do (Hossack, 1997). 28
Proexclusion.
• It is difficult to evaluate colleagues in the same union and, in fact, can be
seen as a direct violation of the collective agreement between teachers and the
board.
• The principal needs to have power, both perceived and real, that is distinct
from teachers and allows them to make difficult decisions unilaterally when
necessary.
Sound School and Board Organization
Proinclusion.
• The school staff will have difficulty operating without the principal as one of
the team (Hodgins, 1970, p. 510), and the principal will still be in a difficult
“middle” position, but with further difficulties with the teachers.
• There will be a more strict application of the collective agreement on both
sides, thus impacting school relationships, and the bargaining units will be
more militant and prone to strike action (Hossack, 1997, p. 6).
Proexclusion.
• “The principal is the Chief Administrative Officer in the school and owes his
primary allegiance to the Board who appointed him rather than his
professional federation” (Hodgins, 1970, p. 509).
• Principal membership in teachers’ federations creates a conflict because of
teacher evaluation: “Principals are school leaders and responsible for all
school activities, it [is] believed that they cannot be considered as peers to 29
classroom teachers or all semblance of order is compromised” (Hossack,
1997, p. 5).
• Safety is potentially compromised when principals and teachers strike.
It is important to remember that the removal of the principals and vice- principals from the bargaining unit was only one of several major structural changes made by Bill 160 to educational practice and policy. Majhanovich (2002) suggests that this educational restructuring was part of a larger agenda of deficit cutting and reducing government support and responsibility for social programs and the furthering of privatization in all of the public sectors (p. 161). She goes on to talk about the removal of principals and vice-principals from their unions as a method of “pitting them against their teaching staff and designating them as managers rather than their traditional role as lead educator in the school” (p. 162). Majhanovich does, however, see an upside of the 1997 strike:
Despite the government’s massive publicity campaign that attempted to paint
the teachers as self-seeking villains, and the Boards as weak enablers, the public
by and large was not fooled. The teachers mounted their own publicity
campaign to inform parents of just what they would lose in their neighbourhood
schools under the restructuring (the Ontario government’s “secret” plan to strip
$ 0.67 billion from the education budget was exposed during this time). The
parents supported the teachers. (p. 163)
It is widely felt that this was a turning point for public opinion and teacher/school relationships (Gidney, 1999; Majhanovich, 2002). However, according to Majhanovich, the ultimate goal of the Harris government’s attack on education was 30 to diminish parental faith in public education to the point where they would welcome voucher and charter schools as the only viable option (p. 173).
Summary: Links to Current Study
The purpose of this study is to gather quantitative and qualitative data that relate specifically to Ontario and which explore the perceived effects of the administrator removal from the teachers’ federations from the standpoint of both teachers and administrators. Work by Williams (2001) suggests that 39.1% of potential administrators have chosen not to pursue a principalship because of removal from the teachers’ union and that the shift in role designation to focus more on administrative duties than instructional leadership is highly relevant to 29% of respondents (p. 40).
This study suggests that there is room for current research on the effect that the principals’ removal has had since 1997. Williams warns that there is a shortage of qualified potential leadership candidates which will result in a leadership crisis as early as 2005, and the government actions since 1997 are “alienating large numbers of incumbent principals and vice principals” (p. 52).
While the Williams (2001) study is evidence that there is room for further research, it is limited in that it polls only principals and interviews 30 potential candidates for principalships who have chosen not to apply. Also apparent from the
Williams study is a professional disincentive which is the
need for principals to [now] manage the teacher-union contract and the related
impact it has on their collegial status within schools. Principals and vice-
principals are feeling considerable discomfort with both the re-definition of
their relationship with teachers and the time the administration of the contract 31
will take. [Indeed, they are] caught in the classic middle-management bind of
responsibility without commensurate authority” (p. 12).
This study explores some of the themes that emerged from the Williams (2001) study and seeks to examine the perceived effects of the removal on school culture
(including the “us vs. them” syndrome, grievances, role clarity, and relationships) as
Bill 160 has now been in place for 9 years. CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study was to gather quantitative and qualitative data that are specifically from Ontario and which explore the perceived effects of the administrator removal from the teachers’ federation, initially from the standpoint of teachers, and in a later study perhaps, administrators. This project would be best investigated through a triangulation of quantitative and qualitative methods. A cross-sectional survey of a sample of teachers in the Toronto District School Board combined with a smaller sample of teachers for interview will provide a foundation upon which to draw new conclusions, or suggest new areas for study, about the effects that the removal of the principals from their bargaining units under provisions set out in Bill 160 has had on urban Ontario principal/teacher relationships. Both quantitative and qualitative data will be collected and compared to explore and explain the validity of the findings.
Participants in the Survey: Sample Selection
The participants for the survey are teachers currently working in the Toronto
District School Board. As an employee of the TDSB, I have easy access to a group of professional teachers. Initially, I approached the two main public school Teachers’
Federations to see if a cross-sectional sample of teachers from across Ontario could be accessed through their address bank of teacher information, using appropriate safeguards for anonymity, but after several months of waiting for callbacks and discovering little support for such a project, I determined to continue with a smaller geographic sample taken from one school district in a large urban area. I am hopeful that an expanded
32 33
sample might be encouraged from findings within. I have collected 176 surveys from
teachers across the board (See Appendix A).
In the interest of further study, I have also gathered 12 administrator
questionnaires from current principals in the TDSB (the Administrator version of the
survey can be found in Appendix B). Of these, 6 have been administrators during both of
the periods pre- and post-Bill 160. This is an important target subgroup as principals
retire and this information will become more difficult to gather. In the interest of this
target subgroup, I have also gathered 4 surveys from recently retired principals (none
more than 5 years retired). The remaining 2 surveys were completed by current TDSB
principals who have never been administrators while being a member of their local
teachers’ federation.
Participants for the Personal Interviews: Sample Selection
I spoke with 15 teachers and 4 administrators within the Toronto District School
Board, with a representative sample of 8 elementary and 7 secondary teachers and 2 elementary principals and 2 secondary principals. Of the 8 elementary teachers surveyed,
4 taught at the middle school level, 2 were junior level, and 2 were primary level. This was a convenience sample of available and willing teachers and administrators.
Data Collection Procedures
The questions in this thesis research study required a collection of quantitative and qualitative data using several types of data collection instruments. For the quantitative survey, I used two methods of distributing the surveys: First, I gave them to individual teachers across the board that I have met over the years and asked them to further distribute the surveys to their school staff, with a request for them to return the 34 completed surveys to me anonymously by email or by hard copy. Second, I sought and gained permission from the moderator of the TEL online teacher network and posted the survey there, where it would be accessible to every teacher in TDSB who had access to
TEL, with a request for them to fill it out and return it to me as above.
Survey
The survey questionnaires (both teacher and administrator versions) are a result of the original questions that were field-tested on my staff at an inner-city middle school located in the South East Quadrant of TDSB. This group of 16 teachers and 2 administrators helped to identify ambiguous questions and develop further questions to clarify the stated goal. It is important to note that the questions were created from a bank of available data within the board professional library and from the Ontario Principals’
Council findings in the Williams (2001) study. Both surveys can be found in Appendix A
(Teacher Questionnaire) and Appendix B (Administrator Questionnaire).
Anecdotal comments by teachers are included in the body of Chapter Four, and the comments by administrators have been included as Appendix C.
Interview
The qualitative interview portion of the study had the following guiding questions that sought to act as a foundation for further discussion. In practice, the guiding questions led to discussions about a variety of issues including teacher performance appraisal, budget responsibility, and discussions about amalgamation and decentralization as they apply to the Harris government initiatives around the time of Bill 160. The guiding questions are listed here: 35
Questions for Administrators
1. Has the exclusion of the principals and vice-principals negatively impacted
the relationship between teachers and administration on the whole?
2. Has the exclusion of the principals and vice-principals clarified the
principal’s role as a manager and made disciplinary issues involving
teachers easier to handle?
3. Has the exclusion of the principals and vice principals from their bargaining
units made your job more difficult during contract negotiations with
teachers?
4. Given the opportunity, would you join the teachers’ federation to have
collective bargaining as a united group?
Questions for Teachers
1. Do you feel having the principal within the federation would improve the
relationship between teacher and administrator at your school with regards to
school morale and the role of the principal in particular?
2. Will the fact that principals and vice-principals are not in the teachers’ union
be a deterrent for you when considering becoming a principal?
3. Do you feel that there have been changes to shared decision-making and
collaboration with administration as a result of the division between teacher
and administrator? (Or changes to school culture in general?)
4. Would you rather have the principal as a fellow member of the federation?
(Especially during contract negotiations and Teacher Performance
Appraisal?) 36
Threats to Internal Validity
The main threats to internal validity are: survey respondent types, exclusion of francophone and Catholic school representatives, and the use of only urban respondents.
First, there is potential for bias with the type of person who would typically take the time to respond to a survey. Offering the survey over the internal TDSB network, all teachers had the opportunity to respond, and yet there was a significant disparity between the number of elementary and secondary teachers who responded. Indeed, far more female teachers responded than male. In fact, of 176 surveys returned, only 36 of them are from secondary teachers. Please notice that the administrator totals are not included in the total respondents as they are not officially part of the data collection for this thesis study but will be used to flesh out issues and offer suggestions for further study. Administrator data will be set out in separate tables and are identified as Administrator Data.
The disparity is greatest when looking at teacher elementary versus secondary respondents.
In terms of the exclusion of francophone and Catholic teachers, this thesis is looking at a parent population that, by necessity, includes only English-public teachers in the Toronto District School Board. This sample set, however, is valid and will draw conclusions only about similar teachers in similar urban boards. There would be a need for a province-wide survey including the above-mentioned groups in order to make wide- reaching or province-wide assumptions. It is not likely reasonable to assume that opinions of teachers in the Toronto area can be generalized across the province. This is the largest limitation to the study. 37
Another potential threat to validity is the different methods chosen to interview.
Eight of the teachers chosen for interview were selected based on the ease of travel and willingness to participate in an interview. Seven remaining secondary teachers were chosen for similar reasons. The principals were chosen based largely on their ability to discuss their dual experiences as administrators in the teachers’ federation and their role as administrators outside the union. Three of these interviews were done over the phone and one in person. While these are not identical interview conditions, the guiding questions were used, and I believe that this disadvantage is outweighed by the benefits of obtaining an interview that would otherwise be unavailable. This, coupled with the validity of the quantitative data, should help avoid interview bias. CHAPTER FOUR: THE RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to examine the perceived effects of the removal of the principals and vice-principals under the provisions set out in Bill 160 (1997). In particular, the effects of this removal according to teachers and with regard to many aspects of school life include: relationships between principals and teachers, school culture, collective bargaining, and the Teacher Performance Appraisal process. As well, some administrator surveys were gathered and interviews conducted in order to flesh out reasons behind survey results and preserve information from principals who have experience as administrators before and after Bill 160.
First, there is a profile of the sample; second, there are comments on survey results from administrators and teachers; and third, there is an exploration of interview findings and written comments from respondents.
Profile of the Sample
The sample consisted of administrators and teachers of the Toronto District
School Board. Using two methods of distribution for the survey had the advantage of a wider audience, but it is difficult to know the total number of surveys actually distributed. I distributed 250 hard copies of the survey to teachers across the board that
I knew would distribute them to their colleagues. As well, I posted the survey on the
Teachers’ Online Educational Forum (TEL), where any teacher who accesses the
TDSB intranet would have access to the survey. Using the history function in the online posting, I estimate the number of teachers able to access and potentially respond to be
200. Thus, of a survey sample total of approximately 450, 176 responded, resulting in a return rate of 39.1%.
38 39
Questions were created using Williams (2001) study as a starting point in order to gather quantitative current teacher data on questions specifically related to bargaining units, principals and vice-principals, the decision to become an administrator and factors that influence that decision, and the perceptions of teachers about school leadership today. Permission was granted for dispersal of the survey through the teachers’ intranet, “TEL” (www.mytdsb.on.ca), by both the moderator of the website and a school administrator. As well, hard copies were sent to targeted schools for dispersal within the TDSB.
Tables 1 and 2 summarize the respondents by position titles. The tables are separated by role: administrator (Table 1) and teacher (Table 2). For the purpose of this study the primary focus is teacher findings, and administrator results are tabled to provide a comparison and contrast to teacher positions.
There is a significant female respondent pool: Of 176 total respondents, there were 125 females and 51 males, or a 71% female return. This is illustrated in Tables 3 and 4. Tables 5 and 6 illustrate the panel in which the respondents work, with far more elementary staff (88%) responding than secondary staff (12%). This is true for both administrators and teachers.
Table 7 outlines teacher union affiliation showing that 86% of respondents are part of ETFO (Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario), which relates to the panel discrepancy noted above. Only 11% of respondents were part of the OSSTF (Ontario
Secondary Schools’ Teachers’ Federation) and 3% aligned with either both unions or another union. 40
Table 1
Position Title (Administrator Data)
Frequency Valid percent Valid Principal 9 75 Vice-principal 1 8 Retired administrator 2 17 Total 12 100 41
Table 2
Position Title (Teacher Data)
Frequency Valid percent Valid Full-time teacher 137 78 Part-time teacher 9 5 Long-term occasional 12 7 Daily occasional 5 3 Teacher with POR 8 4 Other 5 3 Total 176 100 42
Table 3
Gender of Respondents (Administrator Data)
Frequency Valid percent Valid Male 6 50 Female 6 50 Total 12 100 43
Table 4
Gender of Respondents (Teacher Data)
Frequency Valid percent Valid Male 51 30 Female 125 70 Total 176 100 44
Table 5
Teaching Panel (Administrator Data)
Frequency Valid percent Valid Elementary panel 11 92 Secondary panel 1 8 Total 12 100 45
Table 6
Teaching Panel (Teacher Data)
Frequency Valid percent Valid Elementary panel 154 88 Secondary panel 22 12 Total 176 100 46
Table 7
Federation or Union Affiliation (Teacher Data)
Frequency Valid percent Valid ETFO 151 87 OSSTF 19 11 Other 6 2 Total 176 100 47
Table 8 illustrates administrator federation affiliation, with most (75%) holding membership in both OPC (Ontario Principals’ Council) and TSAA (Toronto Schools’
Administrators’ Association). Further to this, administrators were asked to disclose previous teacher union membership, and 67% had been members of ETFO during their careers. This is outlined in Table 9. It is important to point out that 50% of administrator respondents had been administrators prior to Bill 160 and thus were administrators while being part of a teachers’ union (See Table 10). Most administrators had between 5 and 8 years of service as a principal or vice-principal
(67%), with 25% having greater than 10 years of experience (See Table 11).
A full 67% of administrator respondents were older than 50 years of age, while only 31% of teacher respondents were over 50 years old (See Table 12). The greatest percentage of teacher respondents were under 40 years of age (35%), followed closely by the 40-49-year-old age range (34%). This is displayed in Table 13.
Survey Results and Themes Associated With Removal
The remainder of the survey focused on nine predicted and emergent themes associated with removal of the administrators from the teachers’ bargaining units.
Tables 14 and 15 look at the role of the principal as perceived by teachers and administrators respectively. Teachers were asked to rank the role descriptions from 1 –
5, with 1 being most relevant and 5 being least relevant: lead teacher, financial manager, curriculum leader, disciplinary head of school, and intermediary between school and board. Sixty-seven percent of teachers responded that the primary role of the principal is lead teacher. Trailing, 25% said that the primary role is intermediary between the school and the board. 48
Table 8
Federation or Union Affiliation (Administrator Data)
Frequency Valid percent Valid Ontario Principal’s Council 1 8 TSAA 1 8 Other 1 8 OPC & TSAA 9 75 Total 12 99 49
Table 9
Past Federation or Union Affiliation (Administrator Data)
Frequency Valid percent Valid ETFO 8 67 OSSTF 1 8 OPC 1 8 ETFO & other 1 8 ETFO, TSAA & OPC 1 8 Total 12 99 50
Table 10
Membership in a Teachers’ Federation While Being an Administrator
Have you been a member of the Teachers’ Federation while being an administrator? (Administrator Data)
Frequency Valid percent Valid Yes 6 50 No 6 50 Total 12 100 51
Table 11
Years of Service (Administrator Data)
Frequency Valid percent Valid 0 – 4 years 1 8 5 – 9 years 8 67 10 + years 3 25 Total 12 100 52
Table 12
Age of Respondents (Administrator Data)
Frequency Valid percent Valid 20 – 39 years 3 25 40 – 49 years 1 8 50 – 59 years 6 50 60 + years 2 17 Total 12 100 53
Table 13
Age of Respondents (Teacher Data)
Frequency Valid percent Valid 20 – 39 years 61 35 40 – 49 years 60 34 50 – 59 years 39 22 60 + years 16 9 Total 176 100 54
Table 14
Perceptions of the Role of the Principal (Teacher Data)
In order, rank the following roles of the principal (your personal perception of your job) with 1 being most relevant and 5 being least relevant. (Teacher Data) ______Ranking
1 2 3 4 5 ______
Lead teacher 67 12 14 54 30
Intermediary between school & board 44 48 17 12 51
Financial manager 34 24 35 49 35
Disciplinary head of school 17 49 56 21 37
Curriculum leader 17 43 54 40 23
______55
Table 15
Perceptions of the Role of the Principal (Administrator Data)
In order, rank the following roles of the principal (your personal perception of your job) with 1 being most relevant and 5 being least relevant. (Administrator Data) ______Ranking
1 2 3 4 5 ______
Lead teacher 4 1 5 1 1
Intermediary between school & board 3 3 2 2 2
Financial manager 4 3 1 3 1
Disciplinary head of school 0 4 3 3 2
Curriculum leader 1 4 2 4 1
______56
In comparison, principals also identified their role as one of lead teacher but to a lesser extent (33%), and they ranked financial manager as an equally accurate descriptor, with
33% citing this as the primary role of the principal today. Twenty-five percent of principals also identified themselves as an intermediary between the board and the school.
In order to determine if there is any differentiated response pattern across gender and the rankings of the role of principal, a contingency analysis, including chi-square was utilized. The results of this analysis yielded only one significant result (See Table 16).
This is an interesting finding as it explores teacher perceptions of the role of a principal, and while 47% of male respondents see the principal as mainly a curriculum leader, only
24% of women see their principal in that regard. This contrasts with the female perspective that, in fact, the principal is the disciplinary head of school (38%), with only
18% of men responding that their principal is the disciplinary head.
This is particularly interesting in light of the principals’ perception of their jobs as both lead teacher (35%) and financial manager (34%). In fact, curriculum lead and disciplinary head are the two least popular descriptors of the principal’s role with administrators who responded to the survey. Initially, it appears that teachers and administrators agree that first and foremost, a principal is the lead teacher for the school.
However, if we rework Tables 14 and 15 to combine those descriptors that were rated first and second (with 1 being most relevant and 2 being relevant), then our results change significantly and “financial manager” becomes the primary descriptor (see Tables
17 and 18) for principals and “intermediary between board and school” becomes the 57
Table 16
Crosstab (Teacher Data)
In order, please rank the following roles of the principal (your personal perception of your job) with 1 being most relevant and 5 being least relevant.
______
Gender Total Male Female ______
Lead teacher 4 10 14 7.8% 8.0% 8.0%
Financial manager 10 25 35 19.6% 20.0% 19.9%
Curriculum leader 24 30 54 47.1% 24.0% 30.7%
Disciplinary head 9 47 56 of school 17.6% 37.6% 31.8%
Intermediary between 4 13 17 school and board 7.8% 10.4% 9.7%
Count 51 125 176 100% 100% 100% ______Note. Chi-square test = 11.058, df = 4, asymp. sig. = 0.26 58
Table 17
Perception of the Role of the Principal – Merged (Administrator Data)
In order, rank the following roles of the principal (your personal perception of your job) with 1 being most relevant and 5 being least relevant. (Administrator Data) ______Ranking
(1 and 2) 3 4 5 ______
Financial manager 7 1 3 1
Intermediary between school & board 6 2 2 2
Lead teacher 5 5 1 1
Curriculum leader 5 2 4 1
Disciplinary head of school 4 3 3 2 ______59
Table 18
Perception of the Role of the Principal – Merged (Teacher Data)
In order, rank the following roles of the principal (your personal perception of your job) with 1 being most relevant and 5 being least relevant. (Teacher Data) ______Ranking
(1 and 2) 3 4 5 ______
Intermediary between school & board 92 17 12 51
Lead teacher 79 14 54 30
Disciplinary head of school 66 56 21 37
Curriculum leader 60 54 40 23
Financial manager 58 35 49 35 ______60 primary choice for teachers. It is interesting that financial manager ranks third for teachers and first for principals. This may have to do with a general misunderstanding on the part of teachers as to the obligations of the principal with regards to financial management.
Tables 19 and 20 illustrate the perceptions of administrators and teachers about the themes outlined above. Using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree, it is possible to explore and compare opinions with regards to those themes.
Table 19 looks at administrator responses to survey questions. A full 91% of administrators agree or strongly agree that their exclusion from the union has resulted in a more confrontational application of the teachers’ collective agreement. It is relevant to note that 0% of administrators disagreed or strongly disagreed with this question and only 8% remained neutral. Eighty-four percent of administrators feel that this element of Bill 160 has negatively impacted the relationship between teachers and administrators on the whole, and 83% feel this makes their job as principal or vice- principal more difficult during contract negotiations.
There is a reduced confidence in their own bargaining power, with 75% feeling that their bargaining power has diminished as a result of the removal from teachers’ unions.
With 66% of principals believing their staff would feel more comfortable talking to them about school-related concerns, there appears to be a diminished sense of connectedness with teachers from the administrator standpoint. 61
Table 19
Survey Questions (Administrative Data)
Percentages SD D N A SA
The exclusion of the principals and vice-principals from the 0 0 8 33 58 bargaining units (teachers’ union) has resulted in a more confrontational application of the teachers’ collective agreement.
The exclusion of the principals and vice-principals from the 0 8 8 67 17 union has negatively impacted the relationship between teachers and administration on the whole.
The exclusion of the principals and vice-principals from the 8 67 8 8 8 union has clarified the principal’s role as a manager and made disciplinary issues involving teachers easier to handle.
Given the chance, I would join the teachers’ federation to 0 25 33 33 8 have collective bargaining as a collective group.
The exclusion of the principals and vice-principals makes my 0 8 8 33 50 job as administrator more difficult during contract negotiations with teachers.
I feel that my own bargaining power has been diminished as a 0 8 17 17 58 result of the removal from the teachers’ union.
I feel that my staff would be more comfortable speaking with 0 25 8 33 33 me about their school-related concerns if we were all in the same union.
I feel that the Teacher Performance Appraisal (TPA) process 0 42 33 17 8 would be improved if I were part of the same union as my staff.
Note. SD = strongly disagree; D = disagree; N = neutral; A = agree; SA = strongly agree 62
Table 20
Survey Questions (Teacher Data)
Percentages SD D N A SA
A principal is first and foremost lead teacher, and managerial 4 24 8 36 28 duties should be secondary to this role.
It is essential that a principal be a qualified teacher with at 2 1 5 17 75 least 5 years of classroom teaching experience.
I am considering becoming an administrator 34 20 24 13 9 in the next 5-8 years.
The fact that principals and vice-principals are not in the 7 14 30 32 17 teachers’ union will be a deterrent for me when considering becoming a principal.
The exclusion of the principals and vice-principals from the 16 18 32 29 5 union has clarified the principals’ role as a manager and made disciplinary issues involving teachers easier to handle.
The principal’s role has become largely managerial and 4 23 11 38 23 involves little interaction with teacher and student curriculum support.
I would rather have my principal as a fellow member of the 2 8 15 46 29 federation.
I feel having my principal within the federation would 2 8 22 40 28 improve the relationship between teacher and administrator in my school.
I would feel more comfortable discussing school-related 6 10 24 36 24 concerns with my principal if I knew they were part of my union.
(table continues) 63
Percentages SD D N A SA
The exclusion of the principals and vice-principals from the 1 10 16 43 31 union makes school relationships more difficult during contract negotiations.
I feel that the Teacher Performance Appraisal (TPA) process 4 15 28 32 21 would be improved if my administrator were part of the same union as the staff.
The exclusion of the principals and vice-principals makes my 4 14 22 36 23 job as teacher more difficult during contract negotiations.
Note. SD = strongly disagree; D = disagree; N = neutral; A = agree; SA = strongly agree 64
Forty-two percent of administrators do not feel the Teacher Performance
Appraisal (TPA) process would be easier if collective bargaining were to resume, 33% remain neutral, and only 25% agree or strongly agree that it might be improved if administration were in the union. This is the one area where respondents appear to prefer removal to inclusion.
One of the most interesting findings is the administrator response to disciplinary issues. One of the long-standing issues with principals and vice-principals being in the same union as the teachers they must evaluate and discipline is that there is conflict between their roles as “evaluators” and “supportive lead teachers.” However, 75% of administrators responded that their removal did not, in fact, improve or clarify disciplinary issues and the principals’ role (Table 19).
Along that line, a full 83% said that there is a much more confrontational application of the collective agreement now that principals are out of the bargaining unit, and they perceive that teachers are more likely to grieve things they may previously have worked out together (Table 19).
Seventy-six percent of teachers agreed that contract negotiations are more difficult (Table 20), but interestingly, only 34% of teachers felt that disciplinary issues were not improved by removal, compared to 75% of administrators. However, 34% of teachers remained neutral (compared to 8% of administrators), suggesting perhaps that teachers have little experience with the handling of discipline issues in the school.
We turn now to anecdotal comments made by teacher respondents. 65
Participant Interviews
Participants were asked four guiding questions:
1. Do you feel having the principal within the federation would improve the
relationship between teacher and administrator at your school with regards to
school morale and the role of the principal in particular?
2. Will the fact that principals and vice-principals are not in the teachers’ union
be a deterrent for you when considering becoming a principal?
3. Do you feel that there have been changes to shared decision-making and
collaboration with administration as a result of the division between teacher
and administrator? (Or changes to school culture in general?)
4. Would you rather have the principal as a fellow member of the federation?
(Especially during contract negotiations and Teacher Performance Appraisal?)
Using these questions as a framework, it is possible to address the four thematic strands outlined in the survey and to explore some of the explanations for, and reasons behind, some of the survey results.
I spoke with 15 teachers working at the Toronto District School Board, with a representative sample of 8 elementary and 7 secondary teachers. Of the 8 elementary teachers surveyed, 4 taught at the middle school level, 2 were junior level, and 2 were primary level. This was a convenience sample of available and willing teachers, all working at different schools to allow for some school-culture variance.
The comments that follow are separated by the guiding questions and are copied verbatim: 66
1. Do you feel having the principal within the federation would improve the relationship
between teacher and administrator at your school with regards to school morale and the
role of the principal in particular?
In an effort to expand an understanding of the perceived effects of removing
administrators from the union, teachers were asked to comment on such membership as it
relates to school morale. While there was a general sense of a decline in school morale,
teachers’ worries extended across several issues. One respondent, for example, was
concerned about the middle management conundrum of principals now, with principals
vying for resources through a wide spectrum of initiatives, without considering the best
interests of the particular community of children they serve. She says, “At our staff
meetings, I see the impact of the current system when the administration come in with
ridiculous initiatives that I suspect have been fueled by their endless board-wide
‘training’ sessions that pit school against school in a competition for funding and public
recognition. I wouldn’t be surprised if principals qualify for bonus incentives if they
really toe the board ‘corporate’ line. I feel very much that the board is trying to manage
schools like a business without providing its primary workers, teachers, with any of the
niceties of working in private industry (e.g., an annual picnic, subsidized daycare, up-to-
date equipment or a funded Christmas Party). Not to mention the children who are
suffering through a variety of initiatives rather than concentrating on one or two that
have been directly linked to the learning needs of that particular community.”
This sentiment, in general, was echoed by respondents who were concerned about the diminished ‘lead teacher’ element of the principal’s role, with one respondent commenting that, “principals as a professional group need to speak out on issues, take a 67
stand and reinforce their collective role as lead teachers”. Another respondent reminds
us that with the downloading of budgets and other administrative paperwork to
principals, “too many principals are managers and no longer fulfill role of lead teacher.
That role is passed on to “chairs,” many lacking enough classroom experience to really
support the teachers in their classrooms properly”.
The same respondent adds that, depending on the particular principal, school morale has become more confrontational but adds that, “the Board requires administrators to be excluded from their previous federations in order to achieve their mandate. Federation need not be the focus for relationships – coming together to benefit the students should be a consideration”. Which goes back to the idea of the principal as ‘middle management’ with little real power or influence at the Board level. Indeed, another teacher adds, “it is not about the administration and the community, or the administration and us, the Board seems to be cultivating an adversarial relationship”. Some teachers link the administrator’s “allegiance to the Board first and to the teachers’ second” while others acknowledge that they are “very lucky because our administrator is very collegial, kind and caring and she shapes school morale despite the fact that the Board doesn’t encourage this.”
One very experienced respondent, who taught as an LTO teacher at over 60 schools feels that overall morale deteriorated – a condition he has attributed to both the principal removal and the amalgamation of predecessor boards under Bill 160. Prior to his career as a teacher, he experienced a job where the boss and the workers laboured under different unions. He says, “when I began working for the Board, I was surprised to find that principals and vice-principals were part of the federation. I had had a previous job 68
with very difficult relationships between union members and supervisors. Although not
perfect, the now-defunct Board set-up was certainly better by comparison”. He reminds
us though, that the attitude and personality combination between a staff and the principal
can supercede these difficult changes, “even before the changes, there were principals
who participated fully in issue-related staff conversations in the staffrooms, and those
whose staff changed the topic to the weather the second they walked in”.
Still another very experienced respondent with 25 years of classroom experience says she has “experienced a definite erosion of the principal/teacher/student relationship and (she blames) this change directly on the removal of the principal from the federation”.
Respondents concurred that there were difficulties associated with principal removal with regards to the ‘us versus them’ syndrome, although to varying degrees.
From the comments that follow, it is easy to see that some people have very positive relationships with their administration, while others are struggling for a whole variety of reasons. It is important to note that this personal relationship will impact the ‘division’ between administration and teachers. While unanimously in agreement, there is a wide variance in teacher opinion; one respondent feeling that if principals and vice-principals
“could be in the same union then it would be easier to discuss certain issues because we will all be fighting for the same issues” suggesting that teachers and principals now have different educational directions entirely, while another feels it may simply be personal attitude about the presence of a teachers’ union and the principals’ “feelings and views on the role of the federation that will shape the way he interacts with the teachers and whether it will be positive, or negative or neutral”. 69
Another interview respondent says that school morale is where “the administration split from the federation has made a big difference. The administration act in an insulting and high-handed way. I think this is true quite widely.” When pressed to consider why she holds this opinion she says, “I have a lot of teacher friends and they almost all feel that principals act like Kings in their mini-kingdom who refer to the school as ‘their’ school and who are basically mini-dictators.” A veteran respondent reminds us that
“there were lots of principals who saw themselves as a Demi-God even when they were in the federation. I have a principal who is exceptional and didn’t change at all when he was taken out of the federation”.
One respondent disagreed that morale is dependent on union membership but is instead dependent on “how the principal views his role regardless of whether or not he is in the federation. If he sees himself as a curriculum leader it does not matter whether or not he is in the federation”. She adds that “Our principal has always been totally supportive and understanding. She contributes much to school morale”. Ultimately, it appears to be this personal relationship between teacher and administration that shapes the opinions and perceptions about school morale, “With our current leadership there is no issue. If I still had my last principal, I would not hesitate to have the federation down her throat–something that would have been delicate to say the least before. I guess it depends upon the administrator, however their removal from teachers’ federations has given those who tend to be more dictatorial extra encouragement in their tendencies.”
Of course there is also the very real perspective of the young teacher who has no sense of any before and after: “not having taught when principals were part of the union,
I can’t give an opinion, however, I have heard from seasoned teachers that things are 70 very different now”. Even here however, one young teacher indicates that while she has no clear perspective on principals in and out of the bargaining unit she still, “feel(s) a greater sense of distance each year. This is just as much the fault of the teachers as it is of the administration.” Her opinion is echoed by one high school respondent who acknowledges that there is definitely a “sense of ‘us versus them’ and I feel that the fault is on both sides. I find that many teachers are automatically suspicious of ideas that are generated at the level of principals or the board, without any balanced examination of the merits of those ideas. On the other hand, I have been occasionally surprised by how willing some administrators are to behave in an authoritarian manner when collaboration would be more productive.
Unanimously, respondents have perceived a decline in school morale and a deterioration in school relationships. This was very much a predicted outcome of Bill
160, and many of the teachers link it directly to the removal of the administrators from their bargaining units:
[One] important reason for keeping principals and vice-principals in the
bargaining unit is to maintain the collegial atmosphere that exists among the
teaching staff in the school. (OPSTF, 1997)
The importance of such collegiality is articulated repeatedly, not only from the standpoint of collective bargaining but as part of a larger vision of the school as something unique–something to be distinguished from a business:
A school is not a factory or a business. Effective schools require that the principal and the teachers work in a collegial fashion to create a comprehensive, positive learning environment for students, teachers, and the school community. (First Victims, 1997, p. 2) 71
This leads us to the second guiding question with regards to the Williams (1997) concern that quality candidates will shy away from the role that offers a diminished collegial relationship with their staffs and greater workload.
2. Will the fact that principals and vice-principals are not in the teachers’ union be a deterrent for you when considering becoming a principal?
McIntyre (2000) expresses concern about an impending leadership shortage. He says, “more than 3 of 4 teachers who hold principals’ qualifications will retire by 2010”
(p. 24). In order to gather teacher perception about the job, respondents were asked to comment on the impact the removal of the administrators from the bargaining units would have on them when determining whether or not to become a principal or vice- principal.
Of the 8 elementary respondents, 5 echoed the sentiments of one when he said,
“Never! My decision is retirement”. Of the 7 secondary respondents, 6 agreed and indicated that they would never seek the role of the principal; some citing the “too political” nature of the job, others indicating the role held, “too many headaches”. All six cited the low pay commensurate with the workload, making remuneration a huge consideration when recruiting solid candidates to the role.
The seventh secondary respondent was the only one with a position of responsibility at the secondary level and she says she doubts she will ultimately choose to be principal:
“I had wanted to become an administrator but am very discouraged by how little
time is spent with the kids and staff vs. how much paperwork and negative
encounters you are constantly faced with. I am intrigued by the leadership role 72
but am more interested in a hands-on, person-to-person environment than an
office job.”
Another secondary respondent indicated concern about the difficulties encountered
in the position now, saying, “the principal’s job is too difficult. He/she is expected to be
the CEO, the lead teacher and the person to discipline yet he/she needs to be all these
things”.
There were three respondents who were confident that they would become
administrators. All three felt that the administrative role of the principal or vice-principal
is an important and necessary role as it “enables the maintenance and functioning of the
education system and as such, teachers should be encouraged to become administrators”.
Two of the three interested candidates expressed concern about legal liabilities when they
leave their teachers’ union, saying “knowing that you’re leaving the protection of a strong
union to become a “manager” of the people in that union is definitely a deterrent for me”.
Alternately, the third said he does not have any concerns about “leaving the ETFO as I
become an administrator. My plans are to join the OPC for legal support”.
One interesting point that came up repeatedly by all the respondents was the general
lack of experience and young age of newer administrators. One respondent lamented that
the principal often arrives with little understanding about the various grade levels. She
reminds us that, “teaching grade one gym does not equal primary experience!” Another adds that, “I’m not planning to become an administrator. However, I think that in addition to having at least a certain amount of teaching experience (I personally don’t think 5 years is enough), this experience should be in each of the divisions represented in the school. For example, a K to 8 school should have someone with experience teaching 73
Primary, Junior and Intermediate”. One respondent said that she felt principal candidates should have “at least 10 years in the classroom”.
However, when discussed, 13 of the 15 respondents agreed that the union affiliation is an important consideration. One summarized by saying that, “in the current situation, I wouldn’t become a principal because it would be better if we negotiated together and struck together”. Another added that if the administrators became part of the union he would, “be more inclined to become one”. One elementary respondent who had considered administration and who holds Principal Qualifying Papers Part I, says that she has thought about administration, but, “at some level I think it takes all the fun out of being an educator and just adds paperwork! Also, now that the job is no longer part of the union, I feel that good administrators have less ability to fight bad decisions coming down from above, as they do not have a union to back them up”.
An elementary male respondent adds, “My personal perception is that there is a lot of unnecessary hoop jumping on the road to becoming an administrator. This often will discourage the best teachers to seek promotion, due to family commitments, or wanting to have a life beyond the board. These master teachers are excellent material for administration. Some who are willing to do the hoop jumping are just desperate to get out of the classroom, while others experience difficulty in working as a team, and so go up the ladder to escape that professional requirement. We do get a few well-rounded teachers who seek promotion, but they are few and far between. Being a ‘peer’ of the vast majority of “hoop jumpers” scares the heck out of me, so as it stands I have no plans to seek promotion. In my opinion, the only motivating factor right now for teachers to seek administrative posts is for the money. 74
One highly qualified respondent concisely summarizes the difficulties faced by the competent candidates as they determine whether to become part of the administration:
I had a Master’s Degree and a PhD before receiving my B.Ed. My plan was to
teach for five years and then go into the administrative track. Since then, I have
seen (at the TDSB) that the exclusion of administrators from the Federation has
turned the position into a strictly managerial/bureaucratic one. As schools
become more “business-oriented,” the core values that underpin teaching are of
little importance in the administrative role. Despite the rhetoric that claims
principals to be “curriculum leaders,” I find that most administrators have little
time/interest to continue their training in education and relationship with
students. They therefore become “out of touch” with the day-to-day realities of
the classroom, and with pedagogical innovations as they are applied to teaching
practice. In fact, I see principal-bureaucrats as the impediments to pedagogical
innovation as practiced by teachers (who are the real curriculum leaders–I mean,
who would ever call a surgeon who has abandoned his/her practice to be a
hospital bureaucrat a “surgical leader”–the very idea would be absurd in
medicine that someone who doesn’t practice should tell practitioners how to do
their jobs! Yet in education this bizarre idea is seen as normal). I have had offers
to start in the administrative track in my board, however am no longer interested.
Instead, I have become deeply involved in union/federation participation, as I see
that type of participation as helping to place teachers where they belong–in the
role of curriculum leaders. 75
The analogy connecting the principal and ‘lead teacher’ to the hospital administrator ‘lead surgeon’ illustrates the fairly bleak opinion teachers hold towards the role of principal. Many anecdotal respondents from the surveys were emphatically against the position, exclaiming, “NOT IN A MILLION YEARS” and “NOT IN MY
LIFETIME” when asked if they would consider the job. It is widely felt to be thankless, paperwork driven, and out of touch with the children.
Williams (2001), Browne (2000), McIntyre (2001), and others all predict an administrator shortage to reach a crisis by the year 2010. Whether that will occur or whether young teachers with little classroom experience will be hired remains to be seen, but the perception is that many administrators are new and teachers resent being evaluated by administrators with little or no experience in their grade and even their division. The perceptions noted here express a general sense that the role of the principal is too complicated, difficult, low paying, and isolated from the union to bother becoming an administrator.
This raises the issue of the realities of the new role of principal and collaboration in the workplace, leading to our next discussion question:
3. Do you feel that there have been changes to shared decision-making and collaboration with administration as a result of the division between teacher and administrator? (Or changes to school culture in general?)
This question elicited a wide variety of responses which reflected a variety of school cultures and their impact on teacher perceptions. Two respondents were extremely satisfied with the collaboration at their respective schools: “I’ve found the administration in most cases to be open and willing to hear my position on an issue. I found we were 76
able to talk things through to consensus.” The second acknowledges that this is not the
case in many of her colleagues’ schools but adds that “fortunately, we are very involved
and our views are welcomed in decision making”.
Team building through collaboration was cited several times as an essential component of positive and productive school decision-making. Five respondents indicated that, “committees of teachers and administration usually work together for many of the decisions”. This question, however, elicited some of the more ‘pro- exclusion’ comments with regard to conflict that does arise. One interviewee says, “If there is a professional dispute between the administration and a teacher, not being part of the union allows my union to solely represent the teacher. In the past, with both the admin and the teacher being part of the same union, there was a conflict if they were being represented in a dispute, especially when most of the union (President, etc) was from admin and therefore the teacher was not represented equally.” Another perceives schools decisions as entirely “based on guidelines from the Board of Education. It is necessary to have a clear and obvious separation between teachers and administration in making decisions.”
Again, there is a majority perception that collaboration and decision-making have eroded since removal, but it is important to recognize the many voices that attribute the level of decision-making and collaboration to the particular personality of the principal.
Murphy and Hallinger (1992) remind us that the changes may be part of a larger picture; in a time of global educational restructuring where the principal’s role is continually expanded and the various competing interests keep a principal hopping to make all stakeholders happy, engaged, even inspired: 77
[Principals] are moving from their role as “leading professional” to a role as “chief executive”…they are expected to display independent initiative and power over their environments…[to engage in] shared decision making and school based management…keep abreast of trends and issues, threats and opportunities in the school environment and society at large. (p. 82)
Indeed, the principal’s role is changing, and they are “being asked to [become] transformational leaders” (Murphy & Hallinger, p. 81). There is a general sense from many of the respondents that principals are less than eager to work collaboratively, some feeling that any collaboration is “artificial collaboration because administration has already made decisions (i.e. about staffing assignments and timetables) even before the process begins”. Another respondent agrees, stating, “it should all be a team approach and teaching staff should feel valued in knowing that they are allowed to make decisions and recommendations. However, it is understood that the principal has final say, making true and authentic collaboration a bit of a myth”.
Which brings us back to the link between collaboration in schools and the membership in a federation. Here there is some division with two respondents agreeing that “having principals and vice principals separate from teachers reduces the conflict of interest possibilities-they are essentially management and although they must have empathy and understanding of the roles of teachers, they may have to make decisions not in the apparent interest of the classroom experience. The majority of interviewees, however, agree that “collaboration is probably easier when teachers and administrators are officially on the same side” and that the difficulties encountered with this division of interests, “would be improved by having the same status in the union”. The vast majority 78
of comments about difficulties arising at the collaboration level were centered around
staffing committees, which are described as “uncomfortable”, “difficult”, “impossible”
and “farcical”. In some cases staffing and scheduling become very contentious as in this
respondent’s experience: “The admin have little interest in consulting or collaborating
with staff. In an instance that has become famous at my school, what would have been a
major change to our schedule was described as being “too important to let teachers
decide.” Still another argues that with staffing committees, “staff input should be valued and seriously contemplated by administrators. The Staffing Committee is largely viewed as a rubber stamp for the principal’s viewpoint, and therefore becomes not only a huge waste of time, but essentially ineffective.
Looking at all the responses from the surveys and the anecdotal comments, it became obvious that there were two areas where a significant amount of conflict between administration and teachers could present a problem: teacher evaluations (TPA) and contract negotiations with the Board. To become the ‘transformational’ leader suggested above, it is a balancing act for a principal as they evaluate teachers (perhaps with little or no experience at that grade level) and maintain collegial relationships. This leads to our final question:
4. Would you rather have the principal as a fellow member of the federation?
(Especially during contract negotiations and Teacher Performance Appraisal?)
Contract negotiations seem to be an area of in-school conflict between principals and vice-principals. Certainly, historically, principals did not have the right to strike with their colleagues under Bill 100. However, they were generally felt to be “on the teachers’ sides” and would frequently maintain a relationship during strikes by picketing outside 79
school hours, delivering food and coffee outside during the strike, and other ‘friendly’
behaviours.
Now, however, with 9 our of 15 respondents, there is a perception that, “there is a
definite us and them with administration especially during contract negotiations” and
“the exclusion of principals and vice principals from teachers’ federations can create a
sense of uncertainty and tension during periods involving contract negotiations”.
Another respondent indicated that, “the relationships are strained during negotiations,
because the board gives the administration instructions that might negatively impact the
teachers in the union”. For example, one respondent said that in the last few years, during the most recent job action, her principal was told by the Board to hold staff meetings after
4 p.m. and to have teachers sign in on a sheet in the morning when they arrived and sign out when they left – a practice that was uncommon to the regular procedures at the school.
Still another respondent feels that the removal has “heightened confrontational behaviour between staff and principal” and “Work to Rule and other job actions can be a trying time for all school staff. Having administration outside of our federation really adds fuel to the fire, because there is no pressure on the principal to have realistic or reasonable expectations of teachers during these times. If the principal truly is the lead teacher, then relationships on the whole can develop more positively. Often, principals expect teachers to “walk on water” when they themselves are extremely ineffective administrators”. One respondent feels that the “exclusion from the teachers’ federation creates a perception of confrontation between the two sides during any negotiations”. 80
The rest of the interviewees, however, feel that, “our school morale and admin-
teacher relationships have remained strong during contract negotiations”. Another adds,
“once again, our principal and vice-principal were very professional and courteous
during this year’s labour dispute. However, I feel that this was due to their character, not
to their role as non-members of the Teachers’ Federation”. While these teachers all
agree that the relationships built by the principal will impact labour disputes and how
they affect the classroom and school, it is apparent that when the staff can say that they
have a “wonderful rapport with the principal” such problems will be diminished.
When it comes to teacher evaluations, however, the divide seems greater. This is likely a function of the personal nature of such evaluations, but the emotions described are significant as they shape the future relationship with an administration charged with teacher evaluation.
Despite the genuine emotions expressed by teachers with regard to the context and content of the prescribed TPA process, there is a true mix of opinion with regard to whether it would be easier with the principal and vice-principal as part of the union, or in fact, harder. Some teachers felt that the principal would be more collegial and the experience more positive if the principal was in the same union, while several others felt that their union membership was “irrelevant,” and in fact more important than union membership is previous classroom teaching experience that dictates a principal’s competence to evaluate a teacher. This, of course, is reminiscent of the anxieties expressed at the time of principal removal from the bargaining units about the regulations governing the teaching experience required to become a principal: 81
A principal who becomes something different and distinct from a teacher will lose
the capacity to understand the art of the teaching/learning process, to understand
those who practise that art and therefore be less useful and helpful to students,
teachers, parents, school council, school board, school community and the
education system as a whole. (OTF, 1997, p. 4)
One respondent agrees, stating, “I think if principals were in our union rather than tied to the powers above, they would take more control of TPA and make the process easier for both teachers and admin. I see the principals having LESS power now than they used to due to their removal from our union”. Another teacher adds that the collegial aspect of a TPA completed by someone in your union engaged in a process of helping a colleague become a better teacher and helping to focus on areas of growth, is easily lost in a confrontational TPA between members of different unions, saying “I think these would be much less stressful if principals/vice-principals were members of the union so we wouldn’t take everything as a potential for us being fired or disciplined”.
One teacher recounts her own difficult experience with the TPA process where she chose to grieve her principal’s actions and which she argues would not have happened in a truly collegial, same-union model:
One principal and vice-principal asked me to sign my summative report for the
TPA. As they had not met any of the timelines for the pre- and post- and
summative reports, and I had not received the pre- and post- reports until the
summative was presented, the union advised me not to sign the 3 reports. The
principal and vice-principal cut and pasted my signature from a draft document
and backdated all 3 reports and without my knowledge or consent submitted them 82
to the board. When I eventually found out and got copies of the falsified
documents and complained to the board, the board refused to do anything about it.
The police told me the principal and vice-principal had committed a criminal
offence. Had the principal and vice-principal been in the teachers’ union maybe
something would have been done. The Board “covered up” the matter and tried to
deny the existence of the falsified documents but I had already obtained copies (it
is also interesting to note that the documents submitted to the Board were
different in many ways from the draft documents I had seen, albeit well after the
timeline set out in the TPA).
While there seems to be general anxiety over performance evaluations, there remains the
majority of interview respondents who feel that while the TPA is “unwieldy” and
“onerous” and “a big waste of time” there is an obligation to evaluate in some way to
“hold teachers accountable for maintaining a high level of professionalism”. One respondent adds that “for teachers who are doing their job, this shouldn’t be a problem”.
Still other respondents felt that in order to evaluate a teacher, it is best that
management not be part of the same union. While certainly in the minority, this position
was stated several times. One respondent reminds us of one of the historically difficult
parts of Bill 100 when she says, “I feel it is necessary for admin to not be in the same
federation. The language of a Collective Bargaining Agreement may not allow members
to make negative reports on other members–the possible case in a TPA”.
A single secondary school respondent insists that teacher performance appraisal is
“an integral part of the teacher’s professional undertaking and should not be influenced 83 by the principal or vice principal’s involvement with union membership or union activities, thus, being outside the union for this purpose is important”.
Again, however, we return to the notion of the relationship between teacher and principal. What follows are several comments by respondents that reflect the wide variety of opinion about the TPA process as it relates to principals and union membership:
• Depending on the principal, the Teacher Performance Appraisal can either be an
easy process or a difficult one. If you are respected and doing a good job, it
shouldn’t make much of a difference if principals and vice-principals are in the
union or not.
• Our principal is very fair in her appraisals, and supportive, which I know is unique
because many of my colleagues have very young principals who have never
taught their grade appraising them.
• I feel principals do not have a deep understanding of the process–if they have not
previously been classroom teachers for a long time. Currently, we have a principal
who just turned 40 and a vice principal who is only 32. Neither has ever taught
primary and yet they are charged with assessing our programs.
• It is extremely important that anyone evaluating a teacher have a strong
“PRACTICAL” background in teaching. The dynamic nature of the job requires
personal experience.
• The TPA is important–but principals need to have a good “classroom”
background to assess others. In our case, our principal was a middle school
teacher for many years before becoming principal. He understands and values that 84
there are many ways to teach this age group and he reflects that deeper
understanding in all his evaluations.
• It is not that they need to be part of the federation on this issue, it is that they need
to be knowledgeable of curriculum and the grade level (through experience) of
which they are assessing the performance of a teacher in.
• I am unsure whether membership in the federation will make a difference to the
teacher performance appraisal process. It is a cumbersome mess and it seems both
principal and teacher equally dislike it.
• Our principal was very courteous and professional when conducting the teacher
performance appraisal. However, if I happened to have a principal who was not so
courteous and professional, I would want the support of my federation.
• Yes it is possible that this might be a more positive experience for me during the
TPA if the principal was in the same union, and while this has not been a concern
for me, it has been an issue for people on staff who have had their union reps
present during their evaluations.
• Having principals in the federation would help because I think most of them
realize that the performance appraisal is a massive waste of time and energy and
they would have some power to negotiate that fact with the Board. Right now,
they are the middle men who have to apply it to their staff. As well, if you look at
other trained professionals (doctors, lawyers) they do not have anywhere near as
much ongoing appraisal.
• There were no concerns whatsoever during my performance appraisal. However I
can only speak about the rapport I have had with my principal. 85
• I think if principals were in the union with teachers it might be better and more
collegial, but it might be more important that principals are required to have
teaching experience at the level they are evaluating.
• Principals are now so out of the loop that they make unreasonable time demands
for appraisal–i.e., insisting on a detailed portfolio. This could be because they are
tied to their computers trying to handle the mass of paperwork that has been
downloaded to them and they don’t really know what is happening in the
classroom so now the onus is on classroom teachers to ‘prove’ their
professionalism.
• The TPA at present, is an enormous amount of paperwork for both administrators
and teachers. It is largely subjective, and so may not be meaningful, especially
with regards to changing schools and admin for teachers. Some admin say they
“never” give out an exemplary, whereas others readily assign this rating to
teachers. The teacher’s performance rating is affected by the efficacy of the
principal in their administration of the schools. Therefore, there should be some
evaluation of principals by teachers and other support staff, so that the board
hierarchy is aware of any problems in administration style. In order for a school to
be effective, the staff must not be undermined as individuals or as a group.
• It is difficult for me to comment on the topic of this survey because I have been
teaching for only 3 years. As I see it, there is not a problem having 2 separate
unions.
• I feel principal should be a manager of teachers and the school, just like a boss or
CEO of a company. It keeps teachers on their toes and makes them accountable 86
which is why the public and media get so upset about teachers in the first place
because it appears that the union protects them from accountability.
• Principals and vice-principals have no vested interest in the TPA but if they were
members of the same union, they may realize how important it could be for a
teacher and how much one negative comment could affect his/her career.
• I had to do mine this year–what a colossal waste of time for both teacher and
principal. I think the problem here is not affected by administration being in or
out of the federation–it is just an overlong process. Since every teacher I’ve talked
to ended up with a rating of “good” (apparently they’re forbidden to rank anyone
as exemplary), this could have been “accomplished” in much less time. And
where there are terrible teachers the principal won’t give them a bad evaluation
because then the principal has to help the teacher and prove that he did everything
he could to improve him.
• In my years the Teacher Performance Appraisals were brief and to the point. Now,
they have become ridiculous–8-12 pages!
• Whether or not they are in the federation is irrelevant. What is important is do
they understand what teaching is like today and are they supportive of their
teachers and how long they have been out of the classroom with no real
understanding of the changes.
• Nothing has really or substantially changed. Actually, if anything, things are
better as we could grieve a wrongful appraisal with federation fully on our side. 87
• There is far too much prep work involved in matching all my items to the
numerous “look-fors”–this time is taken away from preparing for my students. A
principal should know my time belongs to my students.
• I didn’t have any discomfort last time I was evaluated (4 years ago).
• The TPA process has been opposed by both the OPC and various teachers’
federations on the basis of being unwieldy and time-consuming (for both
administrator and teacher), No difference in principals’ attitudes would exist if
they belonged to our federations.
It is clear from the above, that TPA was the area with the most disagreement among professionals. On the whole, however, principals were seen as adversaries in the process instead of allies working towards a common goal of improved teaching. Complicating the issue of principal union membership and the TPA are teachers’ perception about a principal’s ability to fairly evaluate a teacher and the use of the union to grieve TPA’s that are not satisfactory to the recipient. CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Recall, the purpose of this study was to gather quantitative and qualitative data that relates specifically to Ontario and which explores the perceived effects of the administrator removal from the teachers’ federation from the standpoint of the teacher, following the passage of Bill 160 in 1998. In particular, this study sought to draw new conclusions about the effects that the removal of the principals from their bargaining units has had on Ontario principal/teacher relationships, school culture, and the potential impact it may have on those who choose to pursue a career in administration. As such, this study explored four guiding questions, and in this section these questions are rearticulated and the corresponding answer is given.
1. Do you feel having the principal within the federation would improve the relationship between teacher and administrator at your school with regards to school morale and the role of the principal in particular?
Undoubtedly, teachers felt (79%) that they would prefer the administration to bargain as teachers, and 68% felt it would significantly improve teacher-administrator relationships at the school level. This question elicited passionate responses from teachers, many of whom felt the principals’ role had been impacted as they are forced to bring new initiatives from their “endless board-wide training sessions that pit school against school for funding and public recognition.”
Most anecdotal comments suggested that school morale has become more adversarial. In particular, older respondents articulate a shift in attitude and morale:
Over the past several years, I have taught in about 65 different schools (some on a
regular basis, a few LTOs). I have seen morale deteriorate. I’m not sure how
88 89
much to attribute to principal/vice-principal exclusion from Federation and how
much to attribute to amalgamation of predecessor boards.… From what I have
seen at Federation meetings, however, I do not think that the principals and vice
principals would be welcomed back even if the legislation were changed. I think
there is definitely more of an “us versus them” mentality.
Many respondents felt that a common union would produce greater trust, teamwork, collaboration, and involvement. Interestingly, several teachers mentioned that the principal and vice-principal at their schools have been excluded from school collegiality because they were “outsiders.”
It is interesting to compare administrator responses, as 84% also agree that the relationships between administration and teachers have become more difficult, and 91% feel there has become a much more confrontational application of the collective agreement now that there is a separation. Perhaps a bit surprisingly, 41% of administrators say they would join the teachers’ federation to bargain collectively, but
25% say they would not; 33% have a neutral opinion. This is interesting, given the strong feelings administration display when discussing problems in school morale and relationships postremoval.
Wallace (2002) suggests a decline in school morale could be related to role anxiety, with principals helping to “support the work of teachers in order to improve student learning but restructuring efforts…were pushing their work away from instructional leadership and towards management” (p. 6). While exploring this finding, interviewees acknowledged the difficult position they are in now but don’t necessarily feel that they would be welcomed back given the long-standing history of collective 90 bargaining disputes even in the teachers’ federation. One principal brings up an important consideration when he says:
Now teachers don’t even really have to be polite to us. They can view us as “the
boss” and then they have their collective agreement and they can hide behind it
without a sense that problems should be solved in a collegial manner. Of course
this is not every teacher, it’s only the vocal few, but one or two on a staff can
absolutely poison morale.
However, all principals interviewed said they would have preferred to never have been excluded in the first place.
2. Will the fact that principals and vice-principals are not in the teachers’ union be a deterrent for you when considering becoming a principal?
Since the early 1990s, research has explored the evolution or ever-changing nature of the role of principal. Educational restructuring is part of a larger political and social belt-tightening affecting education, and as a result, the definition of what it means to be a principal:
Principals are expected to display independent initiative and power over their
environments to achieve both organizational effectiveness and efficiency….
Principals assume a more public role, interacting with people in the wider
community and forging links between the school and the environment…. The
public relations function is becoming increasingly more significant [while
looking] carefully at the school reputation, its publicity, its relations with the
community and its involvement with industry. (Murphy & Hallinger, 1992, p. 82) 91
These elements and others have come to shape the multidimensional role of the
principal. What was once thought of with a sense of awe and community respect–a way
for a teacher to logically improve his/her status and salary–has become a job that most
teachers, it appears, would rather not have. In this study, 54% of respondents disagreed or
strongly disagreed that they would consider becoming a principal. Thirty percent
remained unsure, and only 21% agree that they would be at all interested over the next
5–8 years.
It is important to note that 49% of respondents say that the principals’ exclusion
from the bargaining units will be a deterrent for them when considering becoming an
administrator. This is a significant increase from the 39.1% of respondents in the
Williams (2001) study. This result was a bit surprising given the number of elementary
respondents to this study who are typically less militant than their high school
counterparts. It is also surprising because of the significant number of young teachers
who have little or no experience under both systems.
At interview, teacher respondents cited a number of reasons for not pursuing this
leadership opportunity including:
• “No way! Not enough money!”
• “Too much paperwork!”
• “I’d rather be with my family!”
• “Principal Qualifications are too expensive.”
Still others cited removal from their union as a deterrent, asking, “Why would I leave a strong union to go to a new, weaker one?” 92
However, while this may be cause for concern as generally negative sentiment towards the removal appears to have grown rather than dissipated, Williams (2001) also identified other deterrents to the role including “perceived inability of principals to effect change” and “government media portrayal of public education,” (Williams, p. 40) both of which can at least partially be attributed to educational restructuring and the ensuing chaos and labour unrest in the 1990s.
3. Do you feel that there have been changes to shared decision-making and collaboration with administration as a result of the division between teacher and administrator? (Or changes to school culture in general?)
Generally, teachers feel that removal from the union has created an “us versus them” mentality. Sixty-eight percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that relationships in the school would be improved if the principal was returned to the union and 60% feel generally uncomfortable discussing school-related issues to the principal because s/he is not a member of the teachers’ union.
A small majority of teachers (34%) felt that removal had clarified the managerial role of principals and vice-principals, making disciplinary issues easier to handle, but
61% feel that there is little interaction with teachers or help with curriculum support. A few of the pertinent anecdotal comments from interviews and surveys are here:
• “There is definitely a sense of ‘us and them,’ and I feel the fault is on both sides. I
find many teachers are automatically suspicious of ideas generated…by principals
without a balanced examination of those ideas. On the other hand, I have been
occasionally surprised by how willing some administrators are to behave in an
authoritarian manner when collaboration would be easier.” 93
• “Exclusion from federation creates a perception of confrontation during any
negotiation.”
• “It seems the administration’s allegiance is with the Board/Ministry first and the
teachers second.”
• “I have taught for over 25 years, I have witnessed an erosion of the
principal/teacher/student relationship. I blame this change directly on the removal
of principals from our Federation.”
• “Staffing decisions are very uncomfortable.”
• “Less willing to work collaboratively.”
• “Relationships have become more confrontational and less collaborative.”
• “Collaboration is easier when teachers and administrators are officially on the
same side in Federation issues.”
Clearly, school decision making and collaboration are impacted by a sense of distrust created by principal and vice-principal removal from the unions. The detrimental effects of the removal of principals from the bargaining units are well summarized and long predicted, in the following statement from 1973:
If the principal doesn’t act as part of the staff in a leadership role, he can’t have
the full support of his staff, and morale and efficiency suffer….Instructional
leadership implies the ability to work with people. The greater the distance
between administrators and teachers, the less likely the chances are of attaining a
cooperative working relationship. Unlike managerial training, most of the skills
necessary to educational administration are developed over long periods of close
relationships with colleagues. (McLeod, 1973, pp. 2-3) 94
4. Would you rather have the principal as a fellow member of the federation? (Especially during contract negotiations and Teacher Performance Appraisal?)
Seventy-five percent of respondents said yes–46% agreed, 29% strongly agreed– that they would prefer their principal be part of their union. Only 8% of respondents disagreed, and only 2% strongly disagreed. The remaining 15% remained neutral.
The neutral vote may be attributable to the younger respondents who have no opinion as a result of no experience with their administrator in their union. However, some respondents are simply mistrustful of the union’s ability to effectively represent both sides, as this teacher illustrates:
If there is a professional dispute between administration and teacher, not being
part of the union allows my union to solely represent the teacher. In the past, with
both the administration and teacher being part of the same union, there was a
conflict if they were being represented in a dispute, especially when most of the
union (president, etc) was from administration and therefore the teacher was not
represented equally.
During contract negotiations, 74% of teacher respondents feel the school relationships have become more difficult, and 59% feel their job as teachers have become more difficult during such negotiations. This follows a general feeling that school collegiality and collaboration have diminished since the administrators’ removal from the federation.
Interestingly, 88% of administrators surveyed said that their job has been made more difficult during contract negotiations, and 41% would join the teachers’ federation if given the chance to bargain collectively. 95
Teacher Performance Appraisal (TPA) is where teachers and administrators
appear to differ significantly in their perceptions. Fifty-three percent of teachers feel the
TPA would be improved if the administration was in the same union, compared to only
25% of administrators. The following five comments are from teachers who are
proinclusion for the purposes of the TPA process:
• “I think if principals were in our union rather than tied to the powers above, they
would take more control of the TPA and make the process easier for both teachers
and admin. I see the principals having LESS power now than they used to due to
their removal from our union.”
• “I think these would be much less stressful if principals/vice-principals were
members of the union.”
• “I feel principals do not have a deep understanding of the process–if they have not
previously been classroom teachers for a long time.”
• “It is extremely important that anyone evaluating a teacher have a strong
‘practical’ background in teaching and be in the same union. The dynamic nature
of the job requires personal experience.”
• “Principals are now so out of the loop that they make unreasonable time demands
for appraisal, i.e. insisting on a detailed portfolio.”
These next three comments are by teachers who feel the TPA is best served with administrators excluded from the teachers’ union:
• “I feel it is necessary for admin to not be in the same federation. Language of a
Collective Bargaining Agreement may not allow members to make negative
reports on other members–the possible case in a TPA. 96
• “This is an integral part of the teacher’s professional undertaking and should not
be influenced by the principal/VP’s involvement with union
activities/membership.”
• “It is not that they need to be part of the federation on this issue, it is that they
need to be knowledgeable of curriculum and the grade level (through experience)
of which they are assessing the performance of a teacher in.”
It is interesting to juxtapose these comments with those of administrators and their reflection on the TPA process as it relates to union membership:
• “The process is too convoluted and do not truly reflect strengths or weaknesses of
an individual.”
• “The TPA is very time consuming and onerous for the administration. If we were
part of the union the workload would be considered a higher priority.”
• “The collaboration between teachers and principals make the process an exercise
in reflection and growth–not connected to union membership.”
Discussion
Born from an OPC-commissioned study on the looming shortage of principals and vice-principals in Ontario school boards (Williams, 2001), this thesis paper drew on findings which indicated that a significant deterrent to becoming an administrator was the removal of administrators from the teachers’ bargaining units. Current Ontario-based research that explored this topic was lacking, despite several countries and provinces having a longer experience with the consequences of this removal.
Williams (2001) found that 64% of secondary teachers and 43% of elementary respondents ranked the removal from the bargaining units negatively. At the time, 97
Williams attributed the disparity to the “intense job action of the OSSTF in the province’s high schools” (p. 36) at the time of Bill 160 and the historical experience of OSSTF militancy compared to their less-militant elementary counterparts. It is important to note that this survey suggests that elementary teachers are feeling more and more dissatisfaction that they are willing to voice. With only 22% of respondents considering becoming administrators in the next 5–8 years, 49% of those feel that the lack of membership in the teachers’ union will be a deterrent when making that decision. Sixty- eight percent of teachers surveyed feel that relationships between teachers and administration would improve if their principal were part of the same union.
Despite the lack of current Ontario-based research, this topic had long been hotly debated in union/board debates. British Columbia, England, and New Zealand were all modern examples of countries that faced removal of their administrators during tumultuous educational, political, and social restructuring. The experiences of these countries/provinces–by most accounts highly negative, even years after the fact–do not appear to have been taken into consideration when weighing the implications of such a move. In fact, many felt the board punitively removed administrators from their unions following their support for the 1997 2-week walkout. (Gidney, 1999; Wallace, 2002;
Whitehead, 1998) However, following a Supreme Court challenge, the court found the move to be legal, not punitive, and not subject to challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Exploring the findings of the survey data and using the interview questions and anecdotal comments to refute or support the survey findings, it is possible to see that perceptions of teachers continue, 9 years after Bill 160, to be quite strongly opposed to 98 their principals being placed outside the teachers’ union. Sixty-four percent of teachers identified the principal as first and foremost a lead teacher, but at the same time 61% say that the reality of the principals’ role is one of manager rather than program supporter or lead teacher. A full 79% agreed that they would prefer to have their principal as part of the union, with 68% feeling confident that this would improve relationships between administration and teachers at the school level.
Comments by teachers suggest that this could be related to the particular principal’s ability to juggle competing interests and maintain positive relationships within the school. One interview respondent said, “Our principal is excellent. She loves us and respects us as teachers and people, but at the same time she runs a tight ship and doesn’t tolerate unprofessional behaviour. I know we are lucky because of how many stories I’ve heard from other teachers.”
A discussion of survey findings would be remiss without looking at the restructuring of education that was at the centre of the political climate in the 1990s.
Majanovich (2002) views the changes in light of global restructuring efforts in
“conservative Alberta, in New Zealand, Thatcher’s England, and in some of the more right wing states in the USA” (p. 161). While the Harris government’s Common Sense
Revolution appealed to the fiscally nervous populace, Majanovich points out that the agenda was something more than a cost-cutting measure, because polls in Ontario
“showed that citizens would even be prepared to pay higher taxes for education” (p. 161).
Indeed, Majanovich (2002) is not alone when she argues that the true agenda was to control all aspects of educational administration, diminish public support for education to further an agenda for privatization, and a complete restructuring of education because 99 it was “broken, and the teachers and their unions were largely responsible for the problems” (p. 161).
Rose (2002) agrees that this educational restructuring was a function of a conservative government whose “zeal to overhaul the education system [caused it to] throw the baby out with the bath water. Specifically, it dismantled an innovative and successful system of school teacher bargaining and mounted a legislative assault on the institution of collective bargaining” (p. 101).
He also makes an important point that comments about excessive labour unrest perpetuated in the media and by the government were unfounded, and in fact “teacher bargaining has resulted in a higher proportion of direct bargaining settlements and lower dispute rates than with other sectors. Thus, whatever reservations may have existed about teacher strikes, Bill 100 provided a framework for stable labour relations” (Rose, 2002, p.
113).
This is mentioned here because the unrest caused by Bill 160 perpetuated further government-sanctioned restrictions to the collective bargaining process, including the
Back to Work Act, 1998 (Rose, 2002, p. 113). It is important to recognize that the removal of the principals and vice-principals from the teachers’ bargaining units was part of this larger process of restructuring and adjusting governmental control over education, and almost 10 years later, it continues to be a deterrent to potential leadership candidates.
It is important to note here that most administrators and teachers appear to be happy with their jobs, despite the many issues that have resulted from labour unrest and the tumultuous 1990s in Ontario’s educational history. Principals who were interviewed reflected on their own satisfaction with the work they do: 100
• “Despite the difficulties, challenges and very draining days–I love the job!”
• “It is a great job in spite of recent increased responsibilities.”
• “When it is working right, it’s a great job that can impact kids and staff and
community in a very positive way. It is special to feel that, but admittedly, rare.”
Teachers also commented on positive school relations between staff and administration having a great effect on school morale, despite political wrangling and contract disputes:
• “Our principal is supportive of us and gives us a lot of latitude to do what we feel
is best for our students and our school. We have committees and teachers are very
involved in the running of everything in the school. At first we were mad she
brought in the committees, but pretty quickly, we saw that she was just letting us
put our ideas out there and work towards a better school for our students.”
• “Some principals can make a school sing…kids happy, parents friendlier. It is
really amazing what a good leader can do. It is equally amazing what can happen
with a poor principal, mind you.”
• “Our principal is respectful of our collective agreement and will work through
most problems with us in a very collegial way. We are a very happy and content
staff and have little turnover. We know that we have something special.”
• “I just like to team teach with the teacher across the hall from me. Our principal is
terrible and has dismantled our school, all our activities and initiatives and
community involvement is vanishing. Students are becoming dangerously rude
and behaviour problems are rampant, with suspensions and discipline non-
existent. So, my teaching partner and I just developed our own little ‘school’ up in 101
our corner of the world and handle our own problem. When I’m teaching, I’m
happiest, despite what is happening out there.”
It is undoubtedly these attitudes that bring teachers and principals to work each day. Murphy and Hallinger (1992) assert that “if the literature on change implementation is a guide, the actual restructuring of our educational systems will depend to a significant degree, on the response of the school principals” (p. 86). It can be argued that teachers and administrators working collaboratively can create something quite special and positive for student outcomes, despite external pressures and political agendas. The challenge is to learn to keep the two sides empathetic to each other.
Wallace (2002) draws a poignant metaphor of the school principal as a “fierce angel, unseen, unbidden, zealously guarding the interests of students with endless energy and determination, despite the challenges of a workplace transformed by the discursive imperatives of globalization” (p. 14). Indeed this study illustrates the powerful impact the principal has on school morale and relationships. And while this thesis sought to determine the perceived effects of the principal/vice-principal removal from the teachers’ bargaining units, it also elicited an unforeseen caution or limit to the conclusions: While the impact of an excellent administrator cannot be understated, the removal of principals and vice-principals is only a piece of a larger issue of politics and educational restructuring which makes for a complicated array of influences that are changing school relationships and cultures. 102
Recommendations
After examining current and historical literature about the collective bargaining process, the issues involving bargaining and nonbargaining principals, and the results of both survey and anecdotal results, several recommendations can be made.
1. It is recommended that further, updated, Ontario-specific research be
undertaken to determine the link, if any, with principal/teacher job satisfaction
and high teacher union militancy as it relates to student success.
There seems to be little existing research beyond an American study in 1981 by
Styles-Johnson, Yeakey, and Winter on the teacher collective bargaining process and job satisfaction of the principals experiencing high levels of teacher militancy when it comes to a vigorous application of the collective agreement. Styles-Johnson et al. describe a modified hierarchy of needs originally created by Maslow:
Porter adapted this hierarchy for the study of needs-satisfaction among
management personnel. Porter’s needs hierarchy included security, social, esteem,
autonomy, and self-actualization. The autonomy level includes authority,
opportunity for independent thought and action, participation in goal setting, and
participation in the determination of job methods and procedures. Porter
concluded that, at various managerial levels, the largest frequencies of need
fulfillment deficiency occurred in the higher order need areas of esteem,
autonomy, and self-actualization. (p. 355)
The findings in this thesis suggest that principals and teachers feel that the removal of the principals from the bargaining units has created an atmosphere of greater militancy and a heightened likelihood of grievances by teachers. In fact, 91% of 103 administrators agree that a more confrontational application of the collective agreement has been a result of the removal of principals and vice-principals from the union. Eighty- four percent also feel that the relationships between administration and teachers have been negatively impacted by removal and the resulting conflicts. It is possible that further updated work on this particular area, from a Canadian standpoint, would benefit relationships between principals and teachers during contract negotiations and during the rest of the school year where agreements must be applied and adhered to, thus potentially reducing adversity in the workplace and improving job satisfaction for both teachers and principals and ultimately impacting student success positively.
2. Compare principal collective agreements before and after the removal from the
teachers’ bargaining units to see if 83% of administrators surveyed are correct
when they perceive their bargaining power to have weakened.
Following the removal, Rose (2002) points out that the “overall effect on the 1998 bargaining round is reflected in settlement data” (p. 116). He reminds us that a strike rate of 2.2% existed under Bill 100 for the years spanning 1982–1997. In contrast:
Settlement figures for 1998 and 1999 reveal settlements in direct bargaining stage
dropped to 40.2% (from 59.6% previously) and the strike rate increased to 23.8%.
(Rose, p. 116)
While this reflects teacher data, it would be prudent to compare collective agreements for principals from the early 1990s to now, taking into consideration inflation, job requirements/descriptions, remuneration, holiday time, legal responsibilities, and benefits to see whether the perceptions of administrators who feel that their bargaining power is weakened are correct. 104
One principal says, “It just feels like our contract is very much handed to us as a
‘take it or leave it’ thing. There may be more going on than I know but it feels that we have little input, our salary grid jumps are small, and there are limited incentives to becoming a principal, given the heavier workload, responsibility and disconnectedness from staff.”
3. Use the administrator data for a larger study of administrators to further these
study findings and use teacher data to compare and find common ground
between the two roles, and seek solutions to differences.
If, as this study suggests, the removal of the principals from their bargaining units can be linked to the broader issue of educational restructuring, and its impact is being acutely felt in the workplace with administrators as it is with teachers, then further study could seek best practices and ways to balance and apply mediation strategies for harmonious work environments. Recommendations could be made to the boards and
Ministry of Education about the state of administrator and teacher job dissatisfaction and areas of greatest satisfaction for planning future educational policy and practice.
Now that bargaining is regulated under the Ontario Labour Relations Board, it is essential that a body of research emerge that clarifies the difficulties and tensions created by a new, less stable bargaining position, despite the fact that teachers did manage to keep the right to strike. Rose (2002) points out that the “right [to strike] is more fragile today than in the past…[and this can be attributed to the fact that] the government has deviated from the history of constrained intervention in school teacher disputes” (p. 122).
This study finds 68% of teachers concerned that school morale is diminished,
53% of teachers feel that the TPA process would be improved if principals and vice- 105
principals were in the same union, and 60% of respondents saying that they feel
uncomfortable discussing school-related concerns with their principals because of the “us
versus them” syndrome.
4. Professional development, time, resources and support.
The recommendation for professional development, time, resources and support
come in response to the many anecdotal comments about the very real fiscal impact of
Bill 160. Two such comments sum up this position:
• “The source is not so much the relationship with unions as it is resources in the
school. Adequate staffing, additional support personnel and professional
development funding are really more the issue.”
• “The best way to build collaboration is the implementation of a professional
learning community where everyone contributes to building capacity and uses the
PLC to advance discussions and plan implementation strategies that improve
student success. Why is it hard? TIME! Teachers need common planning time,
time to read professionally, time to implement innovation in the classroom.”
5. Careful leadership planning and recruitment of qualified but reluctant master
teachers must be under way. One major complaint of teachers is the perception
that many principals, especially young ones, are moved forward in spite of a
lack of classroom ability rather than an exemplary record of teaching at a
variety of levels.
The leadership identification process must be rigorous, and selection criteria must reflect sensitivity to the impact a leader has on the entire school morale and, ultimately, student success. Anecdotal evidence from this study suggests that careful placement 106 criteria should be developed when placing a leader in a school to ensure the leader has experience at that level of teaching to lend credibility to the TPA process, or modify the process to include an administrator with experience with that grade level.
Some respondents to the survey felt that the decision to become an administrator will depend “on the changing roles and responsibilities of teachers and administrators.”
Still others felt that “now that the job is no longer part of the union, I feel that good administrators have less ability to fight bad decisions coming down from above as they do not have [the teachers’] union to back them up.”
One often-repeated complaint was the lack of teaching experience required of teachers to become administrators. Many said principals should have at least 10 years in the classroom, and at a variety of age groups, to be a truly effective evaluator of teacher performance. Another respondent joked about the people currently being promoted by designing his “master plan”: “complete my M.Ed, possibly Ed.D., take principal course as soon as I have 5 years of teaching experience, become a VP by the time I’m 30 years old, become a principal by the time I’m 35–40 years old, take Superintendent qualifications and become a Superintendent by the time I’m 45 years old and then work my way up the school board to the TOP!”
Survey results gathered also support the anecdotal comments, with 64% of respondents feeling that a principal should first and foremost be a lead teacher, and 92% feel that principals should be qualified principals with at least 5 years of teaching experience. (It would be remiss not to note that many respondents commented that the requirement of 5 years should be altered to reflect a minimum of 10 years of experience in the classroom.) 107
6. A province-wide survey to determine whether there should be
recommendations made to the government and Ministry of Education to return
principals to their bargaining units.
This could be a contentious, and definitely problematic, recommendation. First, the limitation of study findings from a large urban centre such as Toronto may not reflect opinions in rural and other Ontario jurisdictions (which necessitates the expansion of this study to include all Ontario teachers).
Next is the inclusion of all principals in the survey to expand on and develop an understanding of some reluctance to return–especially as it contrasts significantly with teacher desire in this survey to see them back.
Last, and perhaps most important–it is clear from this study that simply placing the principal/vice-principal back into the union will not solve all school culture problems or issues during contract negotiations. As mentioned several times, it is not only the principal/vice-principal removal from teacher bargaining units that has caused the educational woes of the 1990s. However, the teacher perception is overwhelmingly in favour of an administrative return to the union, with 75% saying they would want their principal to collectively bargain as teachers. It would be important as part of a larger body of school culture and educational leadership work to determine the impact on morale that such a move could make. References
Barque, A., Dunn, B., Peckitt, J., & Rogers, M. (1998, February).
Report to the Deputy Minister of Education and Training of the
Principal/Vice-Principal Consultation Group (MET
Commission Report). Toronto, ON.
Browne, L. (2000, March). Minister’s task force on teacher supply
toiled mightily but results are meagre. Professionally Speaking,
16-21.
Bruce County Board of Education. (1980) Comments and recommendations for
submission to the commission to review the collective negotiation process
between teacher and school boards (Commission recommendation submission).
Bruce County, ON.
Commitment to OSSTF principals and vice-principals. (1997, December 1).
Update OSSTF, 25(7), 1-3.
Cooley, V. E., & Shen, J. (2000, August). Factors influencing applying for urban
principalship. Education and Urban Society. 32(4), 443-454.
Crawley, M. (1995). Schoolyard bullies: Messing with British Columbia’s education
system. Victoria, BC: Orca Books.
First victims of Bill 160: Implications for principals and vice-principals.
(1997, November 17). Update OSSTF, 25(6), 1-3.
Gidney, R.D. (1999). From Hope to Harris: The reshaping of Ontario’s schools.
Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
108 109
Goheen, D. (2003, March). Exacerbation of the ‘them versus us’ syndrome. Dialogue.
4(2), 6-8.
Head, J. (n.d.). Remarks to Principal’s Association. (Personal Correspondence). 1-6.
Head, J., & Hutton, J. (2005). The union makes us strong.Toronto: Ontario Secondary
Schools Teachers’ Federation.
Hodgins, D.R. (1970, December). The principals and federation: Should the principals of
Ontario secondary schools stay as members of OSSTF?
The Bulletin, 50(6), 509-511.
Hossack, L. (1997, February). An overview of the issues surrounding the inclusion of
principals and vice-principals in Canadian teachers’ federations. PAR Changing
Structures, Changing Relationships, 34, 1-16.
Koperwas, T. (2002, March 25). Teachers empowered. The Toronto Star, p.A19.
Larson, M. (2000). Controlling teachers: Lessons from the education reform process in
England. Education Forum, 26(3), 12-15.
Majhanovich, S. (2002). Conflicting visions, competing expectations: Control and
deskilling of education – a perspective from Ontario. McGill Journal of
Education, 37(2), 159-176.
Manners, E. (1997, February 26). The Paroian report and principals and vice-principals
(Memorandum mailing to principals and vice-principals). Toronto: Ontario
Secondary School Teachers’ Federation.
Manners, E. (1998, January 15). Role of principals and vice-principals (Memorandum to
District/Division Bargaining Unit presidents). Toronto: Ontario Secondary School
Teachers’ Federation. 110
McConaghy, T. (1998, March). Ontario’s education war far from over. Phi Delta
Kappan, 79(7) 552-553.
McIntyre, F. (2000, December). School board recruiters will face tough challenges for
another decade: Exodus of retiring teachers will continue until 2010.
Professionally Speaking, 20-24.
McIntyre, F. (2001, March). Job applicants should look north and try Toronto.
Professionally Speaking, 53-55.
McLeod, G. (1973, Spring). Principals in the bargaining unit: Two points of view.
Challenge in Educational Administration, 12(3), 7-15.
Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1992). The principalship in an era of transformation. Journal
of Educational Administration, 30(3), 77-88.
Nasstrom, R.R., & Pier, C.D. (1983, Summer). Bargaining and non-bargaining principals.
Planning and Changing, 101-108.
Ontario Ministry of Education. (1980, June). The report of a commission to review the
collective negotiation process between teachers and school boards.
Ontario Public Schools Teachers’ Federation. (1997). Tough questions: Speaking
positively about maintaining principals and vice-principals in federation
[Brochure]. Mississauga, ON: OPSTF.
Ontario Secondary Schools Teachers’ Federation. (1996, September 20). Submission by
the OSSTF to Leon Paroian, Q.C.: School Boards and Teachers Collective
Negotiations Act review (Bill 100 Review Submission). Toronto, ON. 111
Ontario Teachers’ Federation. (1980, March 5). A submission to the commission to
review the collective negotiation process between teachers and school boards
(OTF Report). Toronto, ON.
Ontario Teachers’ Federation. (1981). OTF response to the report of a commission to
review the collective negotiation process between teachers and school boards
(Commission review submission). Toronto, ON.
Ontario Teachers’ Federation. (1997, February 19). Paper re: principals and vice-
principals (Position Paper). Toronto, ON: Government Issues Strategy
Committee.
Ontario Teachers’ Federation v. The Attorney General of Ontario, No. 97-CV-137709.
(The Ontario Court of Justice General Division, Toronto Motions Court. March 2,
1998).
Peat, D. (2003). Five years after the political protest over bill 160. Education Forum,
29(1), 5-6.
Principals oppose removal from OSSTF. (1972, April 24). Toronto Globe and Mail,
p. B20.
The role of the principal and vice-principal in sanctions [Takeover Manual]. (1995).
Toronto, ON: Principals Bargaining Unit 36.
Rose, J. B. (2002, Winter). The assault on school teacher bargaining in ontario. Industrial
Relations, 57(1), 100-128.
Styles-Johnson, G., Yeakey, C., & Winter, R.A. (1981). A study of the relationship
between the job satisfaction of principals and the perceived level of teacher
militancy. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 27(4), 352-365. 112
Supreme Court decides role of principals and vice principals. (2001). Update, 28(10),
1-2.
Wallace, J. (2002). The work of school administrators in changing times. Retrieved
January 20, 2003, from http://www.aare.edu.au/01pap/wal01214.htm
Weldy, G. (1979). Principals: What they do and who they are. Virginia: National
Association of Secondary School Principals.
Whitehead, J. (1998). Up your offer: My life in a teachers’ union. Ravenna, Ontario.
Williams, T.R. (2001, August). Unrecognized exodus, unaccepted accountability: The
looming shortage of principals and vice principals in Ontario public school
boards. Queens University, School of Policy Studies. Kingston, ON: The Ontario
Principal’s Council. Appendix A
Teacher Survey
Survey: Teacher’s perceptions about the administrators’ exclusion from the teachers’ union.
Personal Information/Details
1. Are you currently (choose one): a) a full-time teacher b) a part-time teacher c) a long-term occasional teacher d) a daily occasional teacher e) a teacher with a position of responsibility f) other (please describe):______
2. Are you with the: a) elementary panel b) secondary panel c) other (please describe):______
3. Are you a a) male b) female
4. Are you currently a member of any of: a) ETFO Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario b) OSSTF Ontario Secondary Schools Teachers’ Federation c) OPC Ontario Principals’ Council
5. Age category. Please circle the correct age range: a) 20 - 39 years b) 40 - 49 years c) 50 - 59 years d) 60 + years
113 114
Please answer the following questions by assigning a score on the scale below each question. Please circle your selection.
1. A principal is first and foremost a lead teacher, and managerial duties should be secondary to this role.
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly disagree agree ______
2. It is essential that a principal be a qualified teacher with at least 5 years of classroom teaching experience.
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly disagree agree ______
3. I am considering becoming an administrator in the next 5 - 8 years.
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly disagree agree ______
4. The fact that principals and vice-principals are not in the teachers’ union will be a deterrent for me when considering becoming a principal.
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly disagree agree ______
5. The principal’s role has become largely managerial and involves little interaction with teacher and student curriculum support.
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly disagree agree ______115
6. I would rather have my principal as a fellow member of the federation.
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly disagree agree ______
7. I feel having my principal within the federation would improve the relationship between teacher and administrator in my school.
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly disagree agree ______
8. The exclusion of the principals and vice-principals from the union makes school relationships more difficult during contract negotiations.
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly disagree agree ______
9. I would feel more comfortable discussing school-related concerns with my principal if I knew they were a part of my union.
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly disagree agree ______
10. I feel that the Teacher Performance Appraisal process would be improved if my administrator were a member of my federation.
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly disagree agree ______
11. The exclusion of the principals and vice-principals from the union has clarified the principal’s role as a manager and made disciplinary issues involving teachers easier to handle.
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly disagree agree ______116
Written Comments/ Feedback:
Thank you for your time completing this survey. Any additional comments on the following issues as they relate to the principal/vice-principals’ exclusion from the teachers’ federations would be greatly appreciated:
1. Teacher Performance Appraisal ______
2. School Morale / Relationships ______
3. School decision making and collaboration between teaching staff and administration ______
4. The decision to become an administrator ______Appendix B
Principal Survey
Survey: Principals’ perceptions about their removal from the bargaining units.
Personal Information/Details
1. Are you currently (choose one): a) a principal b) a vice-principal c) a principal with teaching duties d) a vice-principal with teaching duties e) other (please describe):______
2. Are you with the: a) elementary panel b) secondary panel c) other (please describe):______
3. Are you a a) male b) female
4. Are you currently a member of any of:
a) ETFO Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario b) OSSTF Ontario Secondary Schools Teachers’ Federation c) OPC Ontario Principals’ Council d) other union affiliation (please describe):______
5. Have you ever been a member of any of: a) ETFO Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario b) OSSTF Ontario Secondary Schools Teachers’ Federation c) OPC Ontario Principals’ Council d) other union affiliation (please describe):______
6. Age category. Please circle the correct age range: a) 20 - 39 years b) 40 - 49 years c) 50 - 59 years d) 60 + year
7. How long have you been a principal or vice-principal? a) 0-4 years b) 5-9 years c) 10+ years
117 118
8. Have you ever been a member of the teachers’ federation while being an Administrator? yes no
9. If yes, which union? (If no, please proceed to question 10) a) ETFO Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario b) OSSTF Ontario Secondary Schools’ Teachers’ Federation c) Other union affiliation (please describe):______
10. In order, please rank the following roles of the principal (your personal perception of your job) with 1 being most relevant and 5 being least relevant: a) a lead teacher ____ b) a financial manager ____ c) curriculum leader ____ d) a disciplinary head of school ____ e) an intermediary between the school and the board superiors ____
Survey Questions: Please answer the following questions by assigning a score on the scale below each question. Please circle your selection.
1. The exclusion of principals and vice-principals from the bargaining unit (Teachers’ Union) has resulted in a more confrontational application of the teachers’ collective agreement.
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly disagree agree ______
2. The exclusion of the principals and vice-principals from the union has negatively impacted the relationship between teachers and administration on the whole.
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly disagree agree ______
3. The exclusion of the principals and vice-principals from the union has clarified the principal’s role as a manager and made disciplinary issues involving teachers easier to handle.
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly disagree agree ______119
4. Given the chance, I would join with the teachers’ federation to have collective bargaining as a united group.
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly disagree agree ______
5. The exclusion of the principals and vice-principals make my job as principal more difficult during contract negotiations with teachers.
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly disagree agree ______
6. I feel that my own bargaining power has been diminished as a result of the removal from the teachers’ union.
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly disagree agree ______
7. I feel that my staff would be more comfortable speaking to me about their school- related concerns if we were all in the same union.
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly disagree agree ______
8. I feel that the Teacher Performance Appraisal process would be improved if I were a part of the same union as my staff
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly disagree agree ______120
Written Comments/ Feedback:
Thank you for your time completing this survey. Any additional comments on the following issues as they relate to the principal/vice principals’ exclusion from the teachers’ federations would be greatly appreciated:
1. Teacher Performance Appraisal ______
2. School Morale / Relationships ______
3. School decision making and collaboration between teaching staff and administration ______
4. The decision to become an administrator ______Appendix C
Survey Comments - Principals
Teacher Performance Appraisal
• Difficult to truly reflect observations and strengths or weaknesses.
• TPA is very time consuming and onerous for the administration. I think if we were part of the union, the workload would be considered a higher priority.
• They are too convoluted.
• too repetitive; very ambiguous; can’t say what you would/could; very lengthy
• The collaboration between teachers and principals makes the process an exercise in reflection and growth.
School Morale/Relationships
• Particularly during job actions very difficult for administrators as task are not completed but still want to value relationships. Have to be very carefuol of how things are handled.
• seen more as a leader in stressful contract negotiation times because we are all in same boat together.
• This depends on the leadership in the school.
• Generally have good relationships with staff; teachers genuinely want to do what is best for the kids; teachers uncertain as to where they really should “stand” during work to rule situations; staff generally works together to make it work for the kids as much as is possible during negotiations times.
• Never very good during contract talks – it becomes an “us and them” situation no matter how supportive and positive the relationships between admin and staff is.
• When both parties remember that we are professionals, and they truly believe that “Students come First”, there should really be no problems.
• Affected more by policies than in-school working relationships.
121 122
School decision making and collaboration between teaching staff and administration
• Removal from the union has created an “us and them” mentality.
• Only a factor during contract issues or work to rule.
• Generally very good depending upon school climate and dynamics of school. Not going to please all of the people all of the time.
• reference checking for new hires easier when not in same Federation – more honesty.
• This depends on the leadership in the school.
• generally not a problem as admin team meets weekly with staff to discuss issues and brings concerns/needs back to admin table.
• The best vehicle for this is a Professional Learning Team approach where everyone plays a part in the advancement of all students and the building of capacity and sustainability of collaborative decision making.
The decision to become an administrator
• not a factor.
• I was an administrator for a brief time before being taken out of the union. Not being in the union is only part of the problems that affect us such as amalgamation, job actions and too many demands by the Ministry and Board.
• Worked very hard during teaching career always thinking about the needs of students and attempting to program and make changes that would benefit students.
• Despite the difficulties, challenges and very draining days – I love the job.
• It is a great job in spite of recent increased responsibilities and pressures.
• The issue is not so much the relationship with unions as it is resources in the school. Adequate staffing, additional support personnel (elementary guidance, social workers, attendance counselling, etc.) and PD funding are really more the issue.