The Experience of Being a Minister Responsible for Education

University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository

Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations

2018-10-17 Anxiety, Authority and Accountability: The Experience of Being a Minister Responsible for Education

Rouble, Patrick James

Rouble, P. J. (2018). Anxiety, Authority and Accountability: The Experience of Being a Minister Responsible for Education (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/33215 http://hdl.handle.net/1880/108902 doctoral thesis

University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

Anxiety, Authority and Accountability: The Experience of Being a Minister Responsible for

Education

Patrick James Rouble

A THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

GRADUATE DIVISION OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

CALGARY, ALBERTA

OCTOBER, 2018

Abstract

Literature related to education leadership, governance, and political science provide a legal and process understanding of the position of minister responsible for education, but lack detail related to how the phenomenon is experienced by those in the position. Using a hermeneutic phenomenological approach, I explored the experience of being a minister of education in a

Canadian province and present a nuanced interpretation of the position. This inquiry examined the lived experience of 5 former ministers of education and provides a greater understanding of this important, complex, and challenging position through the lens of the emergent themes: changing identity, voicing identity, educating identity, and trusting identity. The study concludes with interpretations and implications of these experiences and demonstrates how issues such as anxiety, authority, and accountability play important roles in Canadian education.

Keywords: minister of education, education, education governance, education leadership, politics, hermeneutic phenomenology

iii

Acknowledgements

I wish to acknowledge my sincere thanks to the five participants who generously shared their insightful and candid stories with me.

I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Dennis Sumara, for creating the conditions necessary for me to learn from this experience, and the members of my committee, Dr. Jim

Brandon and Dr. Brenda Spencer, for their wisdom and support.

And, the work of Karen Crosby of Editarians should also be noted. Her careful attention to detail in copy editing this document has improved its readability and accessibility. I intentionally strayed from strict APA formatting on several occasions but benefited from her advice.

iii

Dedication

To my wife, Sophie, without whose enduring support this journey, and others, would not have been possible.

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii Acknowledgements ...... iii Dedication ...... iv Table of Contents ...... v Chapter 1: Overview of Study ...... 1 Clarification of Terms ...... 5 Context of the Researcher ...... 5 Chapter 2: Literature Review ...... 11 The Position of Minister Responsible for Education ...... 11 Becoming the minister ...... 12 Learning the position ...... 20 Summary ...... 29 Chapter 3: Methodology ...... 31 Hermeneutic Phenomenology ...... 32 Research Structure...... 40 Study Participants ...... 41 Data Collection Method ...... 43 Rationale for Method Choice ...... 46 Limitations of the Study ...... 47 Credibility, Trustworthiness, Dependability, and Reliability ...... 48 Researcher’s Perspectives and Context ...... 49 Chapter 4: Data From the Interviews ...... 51 Becoming a Politician and Being Appointed Minister ...... 52 Becoming the Minister ...... 55 The Activities of Being the Minister ...... 56 Making Decisions ...... 57 Being in Education ...... 74 Being the Voice of the Ministry of Education ...... 76 Being a Public Figure ...... 78 What Is It That You Wish More People Understood? ...... 79 Heroic Expectations ...... 83 Being Changed by the Experience ...... 84 v

Summary ...... 85 Chapter 5: Thematic Analysis ...... 86 Changing Identity ...... 89 Voicing Identity ...... 104 Educating Identity ...... 110 Trusting Identity ...... 116 Summary ...... 123 Chapter 6: Insights, Implications, and Conclusions...... 127 Anxiety and the Future ...... 127 Authority and Education ...... 130 Accountability in Education ...... 132 Conclusions ...... 134 References ...... 137 Appendix A: Project Description ...... 144 Appendix B: Informed Consent ...... 146 Appendix C: Interview Questions ...... 149

Chapter 1: Overview of Study

In Canada, provincial and territorial ministers of education have affected the lives of all citizens and influenced the political, economic, and cultural composition of the nation. Parents, teachers, community leaders, business leaders, media, and voters all have high expectations—

“heroic expectations” as Tiernan and Weller (2010) subtitled their book—for the minister. But few Canadians understand this complex, multifaceted position. This lack of understanding fosters unrealistic expectations, confusion, and wasted resources.

A provincial or territorial minister of education, also known as the minister responsible for education (I use these terms interchangeably in this paper), has a significant role in government. Under the Westminster system, a parliamentary system of government developed in the United Kingdom that includes a collection of conventions, procedures, and practices for operating a legislature, the minister of education is a member of the provincial executive council, or cabinet, and is involved in substantial policy, legislative, and financial decisions for government operations. The minister is also the pinnacle of the hierarchy of the Ministry of

Education decision-making and the leader of education in the province. As well, the minister of education is an elected representative of a constituency and faces the issues, challenges, and responsibilities of being a politician.

As a former minister of education (Yukon, 2006–2011), and one with a strong interest in educational leadership, I have examined this experience in detail. I was curious about how others have experienced being the minister of education. I had many questions: What is it like being the minister responsible for education? What does one become when one is appointed? How is the term “responsible for” interpreted and internalized? Is being a minister of education different from being a minister of other departments? How have people who have been a minister 1

2 responsible for education experienced the position? Using a hermeneutic phenomenological approach to examine this research topic, I started with the following research question: “What is the experience of being the minister of education?”

Current politicians, former politicians, potential politicians, those involved in education governance, and practicing educators encouraged me to explore this line of research. Several participants in the study strongly supported conducting the research and commented that few people really understood the position. I believe that there was significant value in examining the lived experience to understand this topic better. From a political perspective, Michael Ignatieff

(2013), an academic and politician, explained:

And what I learned from them, of course, is that failure in politics has its own authority,

not equivalent to the validation of success, but the authority of lived experience. Those

who have failed in politics have paid for what they know, and those who pay for

knowledge in the real currency of life are entitled to a hearing. (Kindle location 2299)

From an education perspective, Aoki (1993) wrote that “researchers sought out what may be called the lived curriculum of the students. This lived curriculum, of course, is not the curriculum as laid out in a plan, but a plan more or less lived out” (p. 257). And Gallagher and

Zahavi (2013) submitted, “The phenomenologist studies perception, not as a purely subjective phenomenon, but as it is lived through by a perceiver who is in the world, and who is also an embodied agent with motivations and purposes” (p. 11). Established provincial political arrangements create known conventions and structures, and the duties of the minister are prescribed in legislation. Exploring how the phenomenon of being the minister of education was experienced, by those who lived the position, was of interest to me.

I used a hermeneutic phenomenological research methodology to study the topic.

Following this approach, I interviewed former ministers of education regarding their experiences. The stories, anecdotes, and recollections were then analyzed, using a methodology put forward by van Manen (1990), and insights into what it means to be responsible for education in various Canadian provinces were identified. This research project has thus generated insights and interpretations of the experience of being a Canadian minister of education. In Hermeneutics and Education, Gallagher (1992) shared German philosopher Johann

Martin Chladenius’ definition of an interpretation: “An interpretation is, then, nothing other than teaching someone the concepts which are necessary to learn to understand or to fully understand a speech or a written work” (p. 1). As these interpretations provide insight into how education departments are governed and led, they should be of interest to those aspiring to the position of minister of education, those who interact with ministers of education, and those involved in educational governance in Canada.

Being the minister responsible for education is a complex role. The minister is an elected politician who, by appointment of the premier, becomes responsible for education policy, including often being the final decision maker, and is accountable for the expenditures and performance of the Department of Education to the assembly and to the public. The minister operates in the domains of both politics and education. By definition, often reinforced in legislation, the minister is a leader in education and thus operates in the field of educational leadership.

While examining the topic, I identified existing research and reviewed the literature. In addition to resources such as online journals and traditional texts, I researched provincial and territorial education-related legislation. To provide background and context to the study, I 3

4 examined recent research on elected political and government positions, including research investigating the role of a Canadian member of Parliament, the modern role of a Canadian cabinet minister, and the process of learning to become a cabinet minister in Australia. As part of my research, I contacted various organizations that assist current parliamentarians (including ministers of education) and engage in research on government and its operations. Finally, I also communicated with several authors of the cited works to explore some areas in greater detail.

The title of the position under examination often includes the term responsible.

Responsibility is an important concept and relates to authority, power, duty, and obligation.

Responsibility, in the context of a provincial education minister, includes political, philosophical, legal, and other influences. I examined literature related to these influences, which I describe in

Chapter 2. Also, being the education minister involves leading government initiatives in education and may be influenced by the field of educational leadership. Education leadership involves working with and, ultimately, guiding educators towards improving educational processes and outcomes in elementary, secondary, and postsecondary institutions. Much has been published in this area, and I present important findings related to leadership aspects of being the minister responsible for education.

In summary, in this study I examined the phenomenon of being a Canadian provincial minister responsible for education using a hermeneutic phenomenological methodology. By interpreting former education ministers’ experiences, a greater understanding of the position has been created. This information will be valuable to those in the fields of education, governance, and political science.

Clarification of Terms

Specific titles may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For clarity, I define my use of terms.

Member. An elected member of a Canadian federal, provincial, or territorial legislature, including a member of parliament (MP), Canada; member of provincial parliament (MPP),

Ontario; member of the national assembly (MNA), Quebec; member of the house of assembly

(MHA), Newfoundland and Labrador; and member of the legislative assembly (MLA), all other provinces and territories.

Minister. A member of the executive council, or cabinet, of a federal, provincial, or territorial legislature.

Minister of education. Provincial and territorial ministers who are responsible for some aspect of education, including public schools or the kindergarten to Grade 12 (K–12) system, and who are members of the Council of Ministers of Education. As noted above, I use the terms minister of education and minister responsible for education interchangeably.

Ministry. A government department, including the structures and people, headed by a minister. I use Ministry of Education interchangeably with Department of Education.

Context of the Researcher

As a former minister of education, I have experienced firsthand the phenomenon being studied. Upon retiring from the position and returning to academic study, I was initially drawn to other research areas. However, I appreciated how little was understood about this position, and I recognized the unique position that I was in to advance knowledge on this topic. Having a former minister of education interview other former ministers of education about the experience of being a minister of education seemed to be a natural project for me to undertake. 5

I was the minister of education for the Government of Yukon from 2006 until the general election of 2011. I was first elected as the MLA for the Southern Lakes in 2002 and reelected in

2006. When asked, I have often responded that the reason I became involved in politics was an overdeveloped sense of responsibility and an underdeveloped sense of fear. I announced my retirement at the end of my second term and decided to continue my academic career and further explore issues related to leadership and governance in the context of education.

As a minister, I often wondered what I could do to make a difference in the lives of

Yukon students. I tried to figure out what actions I could take to effect the changes that I felt were warranted. After some time in the position, I realized that my options were to change the legislation, change the departmental plan, change the budget, and change the structure of the annual report. These were some of the key documents that I had to sign and table in the legislative assembly. I also realized that I could not change these documents on my own; others needed to be involved in the change.

As the minister of education, I experienced many situations that influenced my understanding of the position. For example, I recall a significant experience that involved receiving a performance audit from the Auditor General of Canada (2009) on Yukon’s public schools and advanced education department. The less-than-flattering report concluded, “The

Yukon Department of Education could not demonstrate to us that it effectively delivers public school programs to Yukon children” (Auditor General of Canada, 2009, p. 27). I then had to respond to the legislative assembly and to the general public. This was a difficult experience for me as it involved both defending the department and accepting the criticisms of it. As the department leader, I felt a responsibility to defend the hard work of the people in the department, but as a community leader, I had to address the perceived faults in the system. 6

One frustrating aspect of the audit was that it covered a time frame during which I was not the minister, and it did not include changes that I had made in my tenure. This experience significantly influenced how I perceive accountability, responsibility, and the role in general.

Other experiences that influenced how I frame being responsible included being told, in the legislative assembly, that I was personally responsible for a student skipping school in a remote

Yukon community, and, at public meeting, being held responsible for a government decision made in 1986. My constituent stood and, pointing his finger at me, said, “You, you are the government!” At times, I felt as though I was responsible for everything related to education or related to the government.

Being an elected official was, for me, a life-changing, transcendent experience. I have experienced being in many diverse and challenging situations and have had the opportunity to reflect on these experiences. I know what it is like to go door to door in my community and ask people what they think about things. I know what it is like to travel to every community in the territory and meet with First Nations chiefs, mayors, school councils, school staff, students, and other community members and ask them their opinions. I know what it is like to hear conflicting and opposing views on subjects. I know what it is like to structure teams and trust them to accomplish challenging projects. I know what it is like to make decisions that I think are in the best interests of the community. I know what it is like to compromise on some problems so that I could work on other, bigger problems. I know what it is like to work with others to create a platform, a plan, and a vision. I know what it is like to struggle through decisions with political, philosophical, pragmatic, practical, and personal considerations pulling me in different directions. I know what it is like to be on the record all the time and to have off-hand comments interpreted as statements of public policy. I know what it is like to become cagey and weary of 7

8 even the most innocent of questions. And now, I know what it is like to retire from the position, formally study education leadership, and reflect on the experience.

In the past, I have often taken a pragmatic view towards education. At the age of 19, I enrolled in an employment-focused college business administration program. I found comfort in a positivist epistemological approach and appreciated how knowledge could be discovered by observation and experimentation. I then expected that people would behave in a logical, predictable manner. However, my life experiences and reflections have generated an appreciation for the complexity of the human world. As Burke (2011) noted, “Humans can choose to interact or not; molecules cannot choose to interact—they must” (p. 71).

My life experiences and reflections have generated an appreciation for the complexity of the world and the subjectivity of knowledge and the truth. Finding the truth has often been an elusive search, especially in the political world. In my former role of deputy speaker, I often listened to very passionate debates and heard members on opposite sides of the floor share their version of a situation. I often struggled with the reality that different members could hold very different positions and views, and both held them to be true.

As a politician, I had to deal with many situations in which individuals had created their own reality or belief about a topic. I found that people would come to me with a position on an issue that was sometimes based on subjective and emotionally influenced assumptions, and that sometimes they did not have all the facts. However, their position—what they believed to be true—was often the reality that needed to be addressed. This situation was challenging in that I wanted to provide people with more information about a topic or explain the constraints that prevented me from addressing things to their satisfaction, but I found that many times people

9 were not interested, or would not believe what I was trying to explain. It was frustrating to have my statements dismissed as untrustworthy simply because they were coming from a politician.

My political beliefs are certainly no secret as I ran, twice, under the banner of the conservative Yukon Party. My fiscal conservative values were often tested by campaigning on the right and, some would suggest, governing from the middle. For example, when home heating fuel costs suddenly increased, the government was pressured to help address the financial burden that many in the community faced in heating their homes. I was not personally supportive of a measure that was put in place, but I recognized that I could not hold to my ideological perspective all the time. Sometimes I, and other politicians, needed to make decisions on compassionate or even political grounds.

My world view has continued to shift and evolve. My desire for a world that is predictable yet comprehending that different people can and do behave differently resonates with complexity theory. Sumara and Davies (2006) positioned “complexity thinking somewhere between a belief in a fixed and fully knowable universe and a fear that meaning and reality are so dynamic that attempts to explicate are little more than self-delusions” (p.4). And I have a growing appreciation for Dilthy’s (1924) comment regarding “explaining” nature, but

“understanding” human beings.

My beliefs have influenced and resonate with the conceptual framework and methodology of this dissertation. I believe that it is important to try to understand human experiences. Human beings experience situations uniquely, but there are often similarities in how people experience the same phenomenon. For example, no one will ever be in the same situation that I was during the creation of the 2007 departmental budget, but others have created departmental budgets before. There are likely similarities in how people have experienced the 9

10 process; understanding these similarities is important to understanding the process. Hermeneutic phenomenological methodology was an appropriate methodology to produce an insightful understanding of the experience of being the minister of education.

During this project I was aware of my personal history and current status as a student. As a former education minister, I once held the same position as the participants in this study.

Although there were no existing power relationships between myself and the participants, I believe that being an insider had several benefits. It increased the ease and rate of participant participation and engagement, and it facilitated more in-depth, frank discussions. I also continued to examine my personal beliefs and took steps to ensure that I was “guided by what is actually experienced rather than by what [I] expect[ed] to find” (Gallagher & Zahavi, 2013, p.

11). I kept an open mind to the experiences of others, followed a sound methodology, and produced findings that honestly inform the reader about the world of being an education minister.

“What does it mean to be the minister responsible for education?” was a question that I was genuinely interested in exploring and one that I believed warranted further study. Through the careful execution of an appropriate methodology, meaningful findings have been developed.

These findings provide insights into this important aspect of educational leadership and would benefit those involved in leadership and governance positions.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Being the minister responsible for education is a complex position. The minister is an elected politician who, by appointment of the premier, becomes responsible for education policy and is accountable for the expenditures and performance of the Department of Education to the assembly and to the public. By definition, often reinforced in legislation, the minister is a leader in education and thus operates in the field of educational leadership. The title itself reinforces the issue of responsibility, which on its own is a complex matter.

In this literature review I first provide background information on the position of minister of education. I describe the process of becoming the minister, the oaths of office, and ministerial duties and responsibilities. Additional information related to being a politician is also examined.

I then examine research findings from journals, traditional texts, and provincial and territorial legislation related to political science, education and educational leadership, governance, and the concept of responsibility.

The Position of Minister Responsible for Education

I found very little research related to being a minister responsible for education in

Canada. As noted in Chapter 1, in exploring the topic and identifying existing research and literature, I contacted various organizations involved in assisting current parliamentarians and ministers of education and organizations engaged in research on government and its operations.

These organizations included the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians

(http://www.exparl.ca), the Canadian Commonwealth Parliamentary Association

(https://www.parl.ca/IIA/Association.aspx?Language=E&DCId=4&DTId=6&P=overview&OR

GId=1386), the Council of Ministers of Education Canada (https://www.cmec.ca/en), Samara

Canada (https://www.samaracanada.com), and the Manning Foundation for Democratic 11

Education (http://manningfoundation.org/about.html). Officials within these organizations were very helpful, suggested texts and readings, and offered me assistance.

Becoming the minister. Although the experience of being the minister of education officially begins with the swearing in ceremony, the process of becoming the minister starts much earlier and has a significant influence on the minister. This process of becoming an education minister is part of the experience of being the minister responsible for education. It is not a straightforward one and follows several decision points. An education minister is also a cabinet minister, a member of a provincial legislature, a party member, and an engaged citizen.

Making the step from one point to another is often not within the direct control of the individual.

It is important to understand this process as it is likely to influence the minister’s behaviour. For example, the minister may feel a sense of fealty or duty towards those who made it possible for her or him to be in this new position.

The process of becoming a minister of education often begins with someone being an engaged citizen; one who has an opinion about government and who wants to be involved. The individual must make the decision to get involved in politics, often at the request of others, and join a party, usually one aligned with particular political beliefs. This person must then be nominated by the local constituency association and become a candidate in a provincial election.

Being a candidate in an election involves seeking the support of voters in the riding.

Convincing voters that the candidate is the best person for the job is usually a complex process.

It may or may not involve the personal suitability of the candidate, the suitability of the party platform, the party affiliation, or the party leader. Voters also have their own particular reasons for choosing a candidate. Winning the riding race means that the candidate will now become an

MLA. 12

To continue the process, the party that the MLA is affiliated with must also win the election. Again, there are significant complexities outside of the individual’s control that influence this outcome. If the member is part of the winning party, there is a chance of becoming a cabinet minister.

The leader of the winning political party (the premier designate) decides who to put into cabinet and into what position. The decision can be made in isolation, with the influence of advisors, or, sometimes, in consultation with the elected members. Ultimately, the premier decides who sits in cabinet and in what capacity. Again, the premier has his or her own reasons for the decisions made. If the premier so decides, then the former engaged citizen, turned politician, now an elected MLA, will become the minister of education. Once the nominee takes the oaths of office, he or she becomes the minister of education with all the powers, rights, and responsibilities of this position.

Ignatieff (2013) shared a reflection of his swearing in ceremony his book Fire and Ashes.

He identified swearing his oaths as a turning point. He wrote:

Besides paying my debts, I was responsible to the people who had elected me. Your

awareness of what these responsibilities are begins when you take your oath of office in a

wood-panelled room near the House of Commons Chambers Parliament Hill. (Ignatieff,

2013, Kindle location 1285)

Although Ignatieff (2013) did not experience the phenomenon of being minister of education in a provincial legislature, I believe that his recognition of the ceremony as an important point in time is valid. The oaths are a public commitment of the individual’s intent to fulfill the role with honesty and integrity. Ministers are typically required to swear or affirm three oaths: an oath of allegiance, in which one commits to being faithful and to bear true 13

14 allegiance to the Crown; an oath of office, committing to duly and faithfully and to the best of one’s skill and knowledge execute the powers and trust imposed as a member of the executive council; and an oath of secrecy, in which one commits to faithfully and honestly fulfill the duties required as a member of the executive council and promises not to disclose, without due authority, anything that was learned as a result of being in the position.

Taking the oaths commits the minister to cabinet solidarity (and keeping confidential cabinet discussions), the Westminster concept of ministerial responsibility, and the duties and responsibilities of the minister prescribed in legislation and parliamentary convention. The education minister also has responsibilities, duties, and expectations specific to the domain of education. In a review of oaths of allegiance in the House of Commons, Bédard and Robertson

(2008) stated, “There is no magic about oaths, but they do serve an important symbolic function”

(p. 16). They suggested that the oath also serves to remind the individual taking it of the serious obligations and responsibilities that he or she is assuming.

Coming to an understanding of these responsibilities can be a daunting task given the complexity of the issues, the variety of interpretations of these forces, and the new minister’s preexisting knowledge and preparation. Also, it is expected that one’s level of understanding will be influenced by the time in the position. Political terms are typically four to five years, and with the practice of ministerial shuffles, ministers may be in the position for only part of that time.

New ministers have a tremendous amount to learn and understand. Information from the study of governance structures and specifically the Westminster style of governance has provided insights into the oaths of office and the conventions that ministers are expected to follow. “A Guide for

Ministers and Secretaries of State,” produced by the Privy Council Office (2002), detailed the

15 role of federal cabinet ministers and present conventions, including cabinet solidarity and ministerial responsibility.

Cabinet is a collective decision-making body. And, as a member of cabinet, the minister is bound by cabinet solidarity. This means that the decisions that cabinet makes are treated as collective decisions from which no deviation by individual members of cabinet is tolerated. In practice, this means that once a collective decision has been made by cabinet, all ministers, regardless of whether they personally agree with the decision, are required to support and defend the decision. Cabinet confidentiality, and the oath related to this, extends to restrict the minister from disclosing discussions, and potentially dissenting opinions, from the issue. Strictly speaking, ministers are prohibited from publicly stating that they disagreed with a decision of cabinet. Ministers are also expected to vote with the government on all matters. If they cannot support the legislation (including money bills), they are expected to resign from their position as a minister.

The Westminster style of government includes ministerial responsibility as a central principle of responsible government. Marleau and Montpetit (2000) identified that ministerial responsibility holds that ministers are accountable not only for their own actions as department heads, but also for the actions of subordinate department officials. Ministerial responsibility provides the basis for accountability throughout the system. Aucoin, Smith, and Dinsdale (2004, p. 26) cited Sharon Sutherland and wrote that the democratic principle underlying the doctrine of ministerial responsibility is to ensure that a particular minister is responsible for any act done by the Crown. This concept links ministerial authority, responsibility, and democratic accountability.

Interpreting what exactly ministerial responsibility means and how far it extends continues to be contested (Aucoin et al., 2004; Manzer, 2003; Savoie, 2013; Turnbull, 2013). For example, the federal Standing Committee on Public Accounts (2005) examined the issue in its report, Governance in the Public Service of Canada: Ministerial and Deputy Ministerial

Accountability. They concluded, “The Committee affirms the centrality of the doctrine of ministerial accountability and calls for its clarification and strengthening by the adoption of arrangements similar to those in place in the United Kingdom for permanent secretaries (deputy ministers)” (Standing Committee on Public Accounts, 2005, p. 26).

The Government of Canada, through the Privy Council Office (2011), disagreed with the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and ultimately issued

Accountable Government: A Guide for Ministers and Ministers of State in 2011. This interpretation was met with criticism from the official opposition and other critics. Provincial and territorial ministers are not part of the federal jurisdiction, but nonetheless may be influenced by the ongoing debate and understanding of the modern Canadian meaning of ministerial responsibility. It is interesting to note that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (2005, p.

27) also commented on the high rate of turnover for deputy ministers, a characteristic that is often shared with ministers. They suggested that this factor makes it difficult for incumbents to master the complexities of their departments, thus complicating their capacity to be held accountable for their performance.

Provincial legislation has also identified the duties of the minister. Education Acts or

School Acts stipulate the powers, duties, and functions of the minister of education. Giles and

Proudfoot (1994) submitted that “there is a high degree of similarity among the provinces with respect to the legal duties of the Minister of Education” (p. 51). These duties often include 16

17 functions such as establish courses of study; issue, suspend, and cancel teaching certificates; and provide for the financing of the education system out of funds appropriated by the legislative assembly. In many cases these duties can be delegated to others to carry out, but the minister is still publicly responsible for their execution. And, as Savoie (2013) noted, ministers are expected to be lobbyists for their constituencies, regions, and departments (p. 78). Additionally, various organizational theories have also suggested that the executive is responsible for setting overall objectives and strategy and for allocating resources.

By committing to duly and faithfully and to the best of one’s skill and knowledge execute the powers and trust imposed as the minister of education, the new minister is agreeing to accept and carry out the responsibilities, duties, and powers typically defined in the province’s or territory’s relevant Act. For example, Prince Edward Island’s School Act (2006) stated, “The

Minister is responsible for the administration of this Act, for ensuring the provision of education services through the Department and the education authorities, and for overall leadership of the education system in the province” (Sec. 2[1]). Saskatchewan’s Education Act (Government of

Saskatchewan, 2017) stated, “The minister is responsible for all matters not by law assigned to any other minister, department, branch or agency of the Government of Saskatchewan relating to elementary and secondary education” (Sec. 3[1]). And although each jurisdiction has different legislation, this researcher’s review of Canada’s 13 different Education Acts suggests that there are significant similarities in the duties and responsibilities of the minister across the jurisdictions. Typically, ministers are expected to establish provincial or territorial education programs, curricula, and courses; provide financing (through appropriations by the assembly); establish regulations and policies; and provide performance reporting. They may also be

18 responsible for certifying teachers, establishing and administering additional governance structures such as school councils and school boards, and performing other duties.

An important component entrenched in legislation is the ability of the minister to delegate any power, duty, or function to another body or person. However, as noted, the minister is still answerable and accountable for the decisions made by others, including those delegated to others. The education minister must also follow legislation such as financial administration and governance acts in carrying out these responsibilities and duties. With appropriation acts, or budgets, the minister has the responsibility to present, defend, and follow the legislation.

In addition to the duties prescribed in legislation, they must also carry out specific functions in the legislative assembly, in cabinet, and in the public. They must answer for the actions of the government and the department, present and debate policy changes and legislation related to education, present and debate the department’s budget (which is likely tied to strategic plans and policies), and report on the performance of the department. Education ministers also have significant public and ceremonial functions, such as speaking at public events, signing official matters, and attending school and civic functions. As members of cabinet, they have the responsibility of being part of broader government discussions and decisions (including the creation of budgets, policy, and legislation for other departments). Additionally, ministers are still MLAs, elected representatives of their constituency. They retain a responsibility to their constituency, which can include addressing constituency issues and attending constituency functions. On the issue of how ministers operationally execute their responsibilities, Manzer

(2003) suggested that the theory of executive leadership is applied in practice and that policy- making is a joint venture involving political heads and senior officials, thus linking the domains of partisan politics and bureaucratic expertise (p. 13). 18

Beyond the responsibilities previously identified, in loco parentis is an important concept in education: MacKay and Dickinson (1998) summarized the principle as the expectation that those with a responsibility in education will use the same degree of care with respect to their students as prudent or careful parents would use with their own children (p. 9). This concept is a standard that educators are expected to meet, especially concerning matters of safety, when dealing with students. The concept may be taken into consideration by education ministers when making decisions, but I have not found any research to support this assumption.

Much of the published information about Canadian government structures relates to the federal level. However, as White (2005) noted, the structures of the provinces and Yukon are premised on the identical constitution precepts of responsible government (p. 54). The Northwest

Territories and Nunavut do not have a party structure and have different methods for selecting the premier and cabinet positions.

Loat and MacMillan (2014a, 2014b) studied the experience of becoming a federal MP.

They conducted interviews with 80 former members and recently published their findings in a series of reports (The MP Exit Interview Reports) and in the book A Tragedy in the Commons.

They found that many of the people who ran for federal office did not have a background in political science, came to political leadership in ways that seemed accidental, and, even though they were “politicians,” considered themselves to be political outsiders. Their research illustrated the variety of backgrounds, education levels, careers, cultures, and other characteristics of people who had served in Parliament. They summarized that most members became candidates only when they were asked to consider being a candidate, and many of these candidates expressed that they did not have political ambitions prior to being approached (Loat & MacMillan, 2014a,

Kindle location 205). 19

The question of what motivates one to seek political office was examined by Docherty

(2001). He surveyed former Canadian MPs on their motivation for running, satisfaction with the experience, and experience transitioning out of office. He found that the motivations for seeking office, from strongest to weakest, were to (a) serve the community, (b) pursue particular policy interests, (c) display loyalty to the party, (d) promote partisan beliefs, and (e) serve in the federal cabinet (Docherty, 2001, p. 3).

Learning the position. Upon being and elected and appointed, the new minister must now learn the position. In discussion and correspondence with Dr. Paul Wilson, former chief of staff to the Prime Minister’s Office, I asked if there was anything one could do to prepare for being a minister. He advised that there was little that anyone could do to prepare to become a minister: The path that leads to the position has too many uncontrollable variables, and ultimately it is a decision of the premier, who has many different factors to consider in the appointment (P. Wilson, personal communication, February 15, 2014). He also commented that after the appointment, new ministers would often be given little advice; it would regularly be left to the department and other political staffers to conduct the orientation and issue briefings (P.

Wilson, personal communication, May 10, 2014).

It is interesting to note, again, that there is no education, training, or experience required to become a member. White (2005) asserted that “staggering proportions of Canadian ministers take up their duties having little or no legislative experience” (p. 39). Former Canadian parliamentarian Preston Manning (2012) has commented frequently in speeches and interviews that “to work for Starbucks as a barista you need at least 20 hours of training . . . but you can become a lawmaker in the Parliament of Canada or a provincial legislature without one hour of training in law making” (Illustration of the Need section, paras. 1–2). Considering the wide- 20

21 ranging and complex duties that members have, from reviewing financial statements and budgets, to evaluating legislative changes, to implementing philosophically based policies, many new members face significant learning curves upon taking office. Additionally, ministers are often put in charge of areas in which they have little subject matter expertise and must quickly understand the totality of their department.

Tiernan and Weller (2010) examined the process of learning to be a minister. Using a phenomenological approach, they studied how newly elected Australian Labour Party ministers experienced their new positions. They noted that “nothing can entirely prepare a person for the reality of a ministerial appointment” (Tiernan & Weller, 2010, p. xi) and observed that new ministers received little formal training for their new positions. Loat and MacMillan (2014a) and

Savoie (2013) put forward the same conclusions from their Canadian research.

Tiernan and Weller (2010) quoted British minister Margaret Beckett, who said, “No training could prepare you for the pressure of ministerial life, only experience helps” (p. 66).

Additionally, they were told by a former senior minister that it is impossible to train individuals to be ministers (Tiernan & Weller, 2010, p. 71). They found that Australian ministers learned their positions by being in them, observing the performance of others, seeking the advice of senior ministers, and discussing with others, and that no single model of a minister and no one route can lead to success. They concluded that “[ministers’] performance will depend on their personality, the requirements of the government, the expectations of their portfolio and the political circumstances in which they find themselves” (Tiernan & Weller, 2010, p. 299).

One of the challenges in learning the position of being a member and a minister is the lack of a clear understanding of what the job involves. This concern was examined in detail by both Savoie (2013) and Loat and MacMillan (2014a, 2014b). Loat and MacMillan (2014b) went 21

22 so far as to title one of their reports, “Welcome to Parliament: A Job With No Description.” They put forward that there was little consistency amongst MPs about the core purpose of an MP and that members often held conflicting views about the purpose. Savoie (2013) concluded that an

MP has three roles: “review, refine if necessary, and pass legislation; authorize the spending of public money and hold the government accountable; and decide to support or withdraw confidence in the government” (p. 40). He summed up the role of a minister as “lobbyist for their constituencies, regions, and departments” (Savoie, 2013, p. 78).

The Yukon Legislative Assembly (2012) produced an Information Sheet in which it identified that an MLA may fulfill five distinct roles: representing the people who live in his or her electoral district, being a legislator, being a member of a party caucus, possibly serving as a cabinet minister or critic, and being a parliamentarian. Members and ministers have very busy schedules. Savoie (2013, p. 63) identified the events that fill ministers’ schedules as meeting with political staff, deputy ministers, and other departmental officials; attending to house duties; meeting with constituents, client groups, or special interest groups associated with the department; attending caucus and cabinet meetings; addressing political party affairs; and dealing with correspondence. Other activities, such as research and preparation, travel, committee meetings (local, territorial, national, and international), and ceremonial functions place significant demands on ministers’ time.

Docherty (2001) found that MPs spent a little over one third of their time on constituency issues, slightly less than one third on legislative work, and the remaining time on policy, party, and governmental duties. He noted that former MPs identified the following duties as the most enjoyable: taking an active role in public policy formation, serving the community that elected

23 me, helping constituents with government red tape, being an issue advocate inside caucus, and communicating government policy to constituents (Docherty, 2001, p. 4).

The question of whether the member sees oneself as a delegate (one who follows the expressed preference of the constituent) or a trustee (one who follows one’s own judgement) is an important one. According to the research done by Loat and MacMillan (2014a), this question does not have a consistent answer, and the conflict is often exacerbated by being in a ministerial position. One respondent to Loat and MacMillan’s(2014a) survey indicated that she saw the role of MP as looking out for the best interests of her constituency, but as a minister she was responsible for looking out for the interests of the whole country.

Individual ministers’ personal histories and personalities also impact how they approach the role. Several authors have attempted to identify character types for ministers. Savoie (1990) suggested that different factors influenced ministers, and he categorized them based on being driven by the factors of status, mission, policy, and process. Tiernan and Weller (2010) identified them as maintenance ministers (those who are concerned about their personal survival and relying on the department for solutions and initiatives), spruiker ministers (departmental cheerleaders with few original ideas), policy driver ministers (those who seek to shape the agenda and leave a legacy of change), warrior ministers (fighters who seem to enjoy taking on public issues and sensitive issues), and partisan ministers (strongly partisan politicians who are more interested in the party position than the issues of the department). Tiernan and Weller also cited Headey’s 1974 book British Cabinet Ministers, in which he identified the types as minimalists (those who give priority to parliamentary and party issues), policy selectors (those who promote the position of the department), policy initiators (those who champion issues important to the sector), executive ministers (those who expect the department to address issues), 23

24 and ambassador ministers (those who become the public face of the department). Although these labels may help to understand some behaviours, Tiernan and Weller cautioned that ministers do not fit neatly in one category, and they may display different characteristics in different circumstances.

There was a consensus from the works of Savoie (1990, 2013), Loat and MacMillan

(2014a), and Ternan and Weller (2010) that the positions of members and ministers are poorly understood, that new members and ministers are poorly oriented to the position, and that very little training is given. All observed that new ministers were often left to themselves to determine their role and how best to address it. Or, as Dr. Paul Wilson (personal communication, February

15, 2014) commented, to sink or swim and, hopefully, not screw it up.

Being the minister of education also involves being in the complex field of education.

Preparing children for the future is something that humans have done since time immemorial, but the purpose, content, process, and structure of formal education systems have evolved and changed many times. Education was once the domain of the family, with children learning to prepare for their future by learning from their parents and the people in their community. Now, education is significantly influenced by the state. Provincial legislation governs the structure and delivery of public education; provincial budgets (largely) fund operations and capital projects; and provincial education ministries provide curricula, assessment, and policy direction.

Education ministers play a significant role in many of these areas—areas that will influence how children are prepared for their future.

Education is a remarkable, complex field and is filled with a variety of ideas and positions. Some of these diverse opinions are at the heart of the very nature of education.

Noddings (2012) identified some of the foundational questions about education—questions that 24

25 have been the focus of philosophical debate since at least as far back as the time of Socrates and

Plato. She noted many longstanding questions:

What should be the aims or purposes of education? Who should be educated? What does

equity in education mean? How should students be educated? What should be taught?

What role should the state play in education? And, should parents have control over their

children’s education? (Noddings, 2012, p. 1).

These questions are still being debated, but it is expected that education ministers will have answers for them.

Manzer (2003) suggested that the response to these questions and the education regimes

(including education governance structures and education policy) in Australia, Canada, England,

New Zealand, and the United States (the first four follow Westminster styles of governance) have been strongly influenced by the common belief in democracy and by the political philosophies of conservatism, liberalism, and socialism. He identified that factors such as the demand for industrial efficiency, the creation of the welfare state, the effects of pluralist societies, and global capitalism have had an impact on these education systems. He also indicated that differences in ideological traditions and political institutions between the countries studied create differences in education policy (Manzer, 2003). This finding suggests that the political orientation of the government and thus of the education minister, among a myriad of other factors, will have an influence on education policy.

Additional forces are likely to influence the minister of education. As was noted, the minister is also a member of a cabinet, caucus, legislative assembly, and political party, as well as the representative of a constituency. Tajfel and Turner (1986) posited that individuals will treat members of the groups that they belong to (ingroup) differently than members of groups 25

26 that they do not belong to (outgroup). They suggested that individuals will favour the ingroup over the outgroup, maximize the differences between the ingroup and the outgroup, minimize the perception of differences between ingroup members (this increases ingroup cohesion), and remember more positive information about the ingroup and more negative information about the outgroup. Being part of these, and other groups, may influence the minister.

In addition to the political orientation (including the personal moral imperative) of the education minister, the minister will need to reconcile the multiple forces influencing the decision-making process. These include the positions of stakeholders and education research.

Also, policy literature has suggested that there are multiple factors to consider in the creation of education policy, such as political, economic, social, technological, and demographic forces.

Manzer (2003) noted that there are sometimes challenges in making decisions involving education knowledge, efficient management, and politics and policy. He wrote that the practice of executive leadership—the linking together of the separate domains of partisan politics, bureaucratic, professional, and technical expertise—is commonplace in Anglo-American education systems (Manzer, 2003, p. 13). He also submitted that “in principle, there was an observable reassertion of the theory of ministerial responsibility, focused on recovering the political direction of education policy from professional educators” (Manzer, 2003, p. 336). And that, in practice, however, the minister focused on politics and policy and relied on professional advice from civil servants.

I found Manzer’s (2003) assertion of “recovering the political direction of education policy from professional educators” (p. 336) to be an important point. It raises questions related to technical knowledge and political accountability. For example, should decisions be made by representatives of the people or by technical experts? Or by both? What happens when the will of 26

27 the people, as expressed by who was elected, conflicts with what experts recommend? When in office, I faced situations in which I was elected, with a mandate, to make changes that some professional educators did not agree with. I believed that it was my duty to implement the changes. I also faced situations in which I was held accountable for decisions that other people had made, decisions that I did not agree with. In those situations, I had to decide whether to overturn the decision or accept it.

In addition to making decisions, ministers of education are also recognized as leaders in their communities and for the Department of Education. In examining leadership research, I identified an emphasis on the importance of including other people and their perspectives in decision-making. In the context of educational leadership, Leithwood and Seashore Louis (2012) concluded that “collective leadership has a stronger influence on student achievement than does individual leadership” (p. 23). As such, education ministers may benefit from involving others when making decisions. The list of stakeholders in education is long and includes, but is not limited to, students, teachers, parents, administrators, school councils, school boards, government departments, employers, unions, self-regulating bodies, special interest groups

(based on language, ethnicity, religion, region, occupation, and other factors), and associations for all of the above (at the local, provincial and territorial, national, and international levels) as well as all orders of government (including municipal, First Nations, provincial and territorial, and federal).

These diverse stakeholders often have different perspectives, beliefs, philosophies, and criteria of success. They have varied, often conflicting, formal and informal goals. And, they have a variety of powers and a variety of abilities to influence decisions in education.

Additionally, as a leader in the field of education, the minister of education must be cognizant of the structures, cultures, and relationships within the education system. This can include the minister’s office, the department (and divisions within it), school boards, school councils, and the schools. The minister should be aware of the roles, responsibilities, and powers of those in the system, including those of students, parents, teachers, school administrators, school board trustees, and department officials. These duties, responsibilities, and powers may be detailed in legislation. The cultures within these structures are also important to understand.

These relationships may be influenced by the leadership practices of those involved. In

“System Leadership in Action: Leading Networks Leading the System,” a paper for the British

National College for School Leadership, Ballantyne, Jackson, Temperley, Jopling, and

Lieberman (2006) put forward:

System leaders are leaders who build leadership capacity within their own schools at the

same time as working beyond their schools on behalf of all children. . . . System leaders

are those who are in the front line, wrestling with the complexities of local context,

asking better and deeper questions of themselves, of others and of the system. (p. 1)

Many in the education system, regardless of their place in the hierarchy, are now feeling empowered and expected to take action to change the system. As Schein (2010) noted,

“Leadership as a distributed function is gaining ground, which leads to the possibility that anyone who facilitates progress toward some desired outcome is displaying leadership” (p. x). I believe that teachers, principals, and others in education systems are leaders. Teachers are expected to assist, or lead, their students in moving from a place of ignorance to one of understanding. They are expected to help students grow and change. Principals are expected to

29 lead their schools, to help increase the performance of the staff, and to help increase the outcomes of the students.

As a minister, I had to trust others. I had to trust teachers, principals, and others in the system. They were expected to follow legislation, regulation, and policy, and make decisions that were defendable. As noted previously, the minister of education is ultimately responsible for the actions and outcomes of the education system. Even though duties and responsibilities are frequently delegated to others, the minister is still publicly accountable. Others in the system may have different knowledge, values, and beliefs and may make different decisions than the minister. This situation may be complicated in the field of education due to the practice of distributed leadership, and in some cases, the issue of academic freedom. Reconciling how one can be accountable for the decisions of others but not agree with the decisions of others is an issue for which I have found little research.

Summary

In conclusion, the research reviewed has shown that being a minister responsible for education is clearly a complex position. Upon becoming a party candidate, potential ministers commit to following a political ideology and implementing a platform and other campaign promises. Following the election and appointment to cabinet, ministers often realize that they have a sense of duty or fealty to the people who made it possible for them to hold office, including the premier, the party, the voters in the province or territory, the voters in their constituency, their riding association, and those that convinced them to run. Taking the oaths of office binds the minister to the conventions of cabinet solidarity and ministerial responsibility, and the minister becomes responsible for executing duties prescribed in legislation. Education ministers are expected to be leaders in the field of education. However, the position of minister is 29

30 often poorly understood; new ministers are poorly oriented to the position and are given little training.

Current education systems have been influenced by political ideologies, world events, and education research. There are multiple stakeholders in education who often have different expectations of the system and consider different philosophical approaches. Governance and decision-making power is distributed throughout the system, by legislation, convention, and practice. Yet, through convention, education ministers are responsible and accountable for the actions of those in the system and its outcomes. Addressing all these issues, constraints, and influences in a new and highly public forum is a challenging task. In this study I examined how several people experienced the phenomenon of being a minister responsible for education. In the next chapter, I outline the methodology I followed in this pursuit.

Chapter 3: Methodology

I used a qualitative methodology influenced by hermeneutic phenomenology to examine the question, “What is the experience of being the minister responsible for education in

Canada?” This chapter presents the rationale for my selection of this research methodology, introduces a brief history of hermeneutic phenomenology, and details the methodology and methods used in this research project. In exploring how to examine this research question, I considered several research methodologies. These were then evaluated based on their suitability to the research question, their potential for providing meaningful insights, and their resonance with my own underlying philosophical foundation.

As a first step, I considered whether a qualitative or quantitative approach should be taken. As Creswell (2012) noted, a qualitative research approach is useful when exploring an issue and describing a phenomenon, and quantitative research often involves an analysis of how variables influence each other measured through specific, narrow, measurable, and observable lenses. Although I recognized that each of these paradigms have their place, some have criticized the use of positivist, empirical methods in addressing human science issues. Originally put forward by Gadamer (1976), van Manen (1990) continued the argument that “the preoccupation with (objective) method or techniques is really antithetical to the spirit of human science scholarship” (p. 3). Greenfield (1986) argued that positivistic science and administrative science have failed and have not developed a greater understanding of organizations and education. And,

J. K. Smith and Blasé (1991) put forward that “the empiricist approach to inquiry has not made good its promise for an intellectual and practical mastery of the social world in a way similar to the mastery physical scientists have gained over the natural domain” (p. 7).

There is a growing interest, acceptance, and demand for qualitative research, including methods that engage context, perception, and complexity in the fields of education, administration, and leadership. Greenfield (1986) called for “approaches that work with practising administrators and aim to give them deeper insights into the nature of their craft—into its dilemmas and possibilities—through study of its realities and through reflections upon them”

(p. 74). And Mishler (1979) addressed the importance of situational context and relationships, suggesting that

rather than abstracting certain features of the object of study so that it can be placed

within a network of causal propositions for purposes of prediction and control,

phenomenological work seeks a fuller understanding of the meaning of the phenomenon

as a unity. (p. 10)

I believe that a hermeneutic phenomenological approach was the most appropriate methodology to use to improve understanding of what it means to be the minister responsible for education. This methodology involves gathering recollections, stories, and thoughts from the people who have experienced the phenomenon under study; analyzing and understanding their contributions through a variety of methods, including a thematic review; and presenting insights and interpretations based on the new knowledge, understanding, and perspectives gained. This method has helped to create a new understanding of what it means to be the minister responsible for education. In the next section, I discuss the origins and philosophical underpinnings of hermeneutic phenomenology.

Hermeneutic Phenomenology

Phenomenology is both a philosophical perspective and a research approach. It considers how knowledge is created and understood. Phenomenology considers how people make meaning 32

33 from being in a situation or experiencing a phenomenon. Hermeneutics is the study of interpretation. Hermeneutic phenomenology explores how knowledge is created through an interpretation of how different people have experienced or lived a common phenomenon. As a philosophy and methodology that has evolved over generations, hermeneutic phenomenology has experienced several developments and interpretations. Moules (2002) explained that

“understanding phenomenology and the distinction between it and hermeneutics leads into a contentious topic that is living out the contention in practice and theory today” (p. 12).

I followed a hermeneutic phenomenology methodology strongly influenced by van

Manen (1990, 2011, 2014); thus, it is important to have an understanding of the development of the approach. In this section I provide a brief historical examination of the development of a modern hermeneutic phenomenology methodology and illustrate the approach put forward by van Manen (1990, 2014).

Edmund Husserl is considered to have initiated the movement, and he believed that experience was the fundamental source of knowledge (Dowling, 2007, p. 132). He put forward that there could be a purely descriptive, preinterpreted account of a first-person experience as it is being experienced. Husserl also put forward the idea of the “life world” as a descriptor for the sense of the world as it is, before it is interpreted. He posited that the immediate examination of the events in the life world would yield the essences and fundamental components of the human experience (Dowling, 2007).

Husserl theorized that the essence of an experience could be found, or distilled, by a process of phenomenological reduction (Laverty, 2003, p. 6). This process involves identification of what is immediate to one’s consciousness. “In determining the universal or essential quality of a theme, our concern is to discover aspects or qualities that make a 33

34 phenomenon what it is and without which the phenomenon could not be what it is” (van Manen,

1990, p. 107). Husserl (as cited in Laverty, 2003) also put forward that the mind needed to become consciously aware of the situation (involving intentionality, or the shift from being in the moment to thinking about being in the moment) in order to recognize the essence of the experience (p. 5). Husserl (as cited in Laverty, 2003) instructed that in the process of analyzing the experience, the researcher must suspend judgment and personal beliefs about the phenomenon in order to find the underlying essence of the experiences. He believed that through this process of bracketing out individual biases, referred to as the epoché, one could successfully achieve a greater understanding of the underlying essence. Heidegger, a student of Husserl’s, continued to examine lived experiences as a way of understanding the world in which we live

(Laverty, 2003). However, he did not believe that there could be a presuppositionless

(precontextual) description of the lived experience; life events are always interpretive and influenced by who we already are before the experience. Heidegger is responsible for evolving the school of thought into hermeneutic phenomenology (Laverty, 2003).

Hermeneutics means interpretation. Etymologically, its roots can be traced back to

Hermes, the ancient Greek character who interpreted the gods for humans. Heidegger believed that it was important to consider individuals’ interpretive perspective when they experienced a phenomenon (Laverty, 2003). Additionally, he rejected the notion that who and what people already are could be bracketed out in the investigation of examining experiences.

Gadamer (1976) continued to examine, from a philosophical perspective, how people create knowledge contextually through their interpretive understanding of the world around them. In Linge’s (1976) introduction to his translation of Gadamer’s German text Philosophical

Hermeneutics, he explained that hermeneutics 34

has to do with bridging the gap between the familiar world in which we stand and the

strange meaning that resists assimilation into the horizons of our world. It is vitally

important to recognize that the hermeneutical phenomenon encompasses both the alien

that we strive to understand and the familiar world that we already understand. (p. xii)

Linge (1976) also discussed Heidegger’s concepts of understanding, not understanding, and misunderstanding, and suggested that “misunderstanding arise naturally because of changes in word meaning, world views and so on that have taken place in the time separating the author from the interpreter” (p. xiii). D. G. Smith (1999) summarized that Heidegger positioned human experience of the world taking place within a horizon of past, present, and future (p. 33), and that knowledge cannot be free from human thought. The ideas that individuals have prejudices that influence their interpretation, and that there is a reciprocal relationship between the person being studied and the researcher, are key positions in Gadamer’s idea of hermeneutic phenomenology

(Dowling, 2007, p. 134). Additionally, it is important to remember, as D. G. Smith put forward,

“The meaning of anything is always arrived at referentially and relationally rather than (for want of a better word) absolutely” (1999, p. 38).

Dowling (2007) suggested that researchers following the work of Gadamer should ensure that feedback and further discussion take place with study participants. Ultimately, “the hermeneutic process becomes a dialogical method whereby the horizon of the interpreter and the phenomenon being studied are combined together” (Dowling, 2007, p. 134). Moules (2002) explained that the purpose of hermeneutic phenomenology is not to create a universal theory of practice, but to develop a better understanding of experiencing and learning from a situation. As van Manen (1990) put forward, “Phenomenology does not offer us the possibility of effective

36 theory with which we can now explain and/or control the world, but rather it offers us the possibility of plausible insights that bring us in more direct contact with the world” (p. 9).

A hermeneutic phenomenological approach aims to create a greater understanding of the social world by examining how people make meaning from their experiences and how they have reflectively learned from being in the world. As well, it is important to consider the context and possible other objectives of the exchange of information. In Unquiet Understanding, Davey

(2006) stated that “Gadamer insisted that the meaning and significance of a body of thought extend beyond what its author may have intended” (p. 3). Analysis involving hermeneutic phenomenology considers that words have a meaning, the choice of the words has a meaning, and what was not said has meaning.

There are important philosophical constructs to consider when applying hermeneutic phenomenology. Higgs, Paterson, and Kinsella (2012) summarized these as the fusion of horizons, dialogue of questions and answers, and the hermeneutic circle. Gadamer (1976) viewed interpretation as a fusion of horizons, which Laverty (2003) described as “a dialectical interaction between the expectation of the interpreter and the meaning of the text” (p. 21). A horizon is a range of vision, or level of knowledge and understanding. Different human beings’ horizons need to be considered and fused to create an understanding of the phenomenon.

Dialogue is important to the creation of a hermeneutic phenomenological understanding.

This approach invites participants into an ongoing conversation on the phenomenon. Questions that invite how they understood their experiences are an important part of the process. The researcher must be free to explore the participants’ experiences and the meaning they make of them. A back and forth between researcher and participant is important as the process strives to

37 cocreate knowledge. Returning to the participant and checking to see if the researcher’s findings are consistent with his or her experience is also an important step.

In a conscious conversation, questions can be asked, more information can be requested, understandings can be verified. Participants share their stories, and the interviewer responds.

This process is different from reading participant responses to a questionnaire. It allows for divergent thought, reflection, and the inclusion of more contextual information. The back and forth, the give and take, and the exchanges between participant and researcher help to create richer, more contextual data.

The hermeneutic circle is a term used to describe the concept of understanding the whole by examining the parts and understanding the parts by examining the whole. It recognizes that the whole cannot be separated from its constituent parts and that the whole can be much more than the sum of its parts. Van Manen (2014) summarized hermeneutic phenomenology as

a method of abstemious reflection on the basic structures of the lived experience of

human existence. The term method refers to the way or attitude of approaching a

phenomenon. Abstemious means that reflecting on experience aims to abstain from

theoretical, polemical, suppositional, and emotional intoxications. Hermeneutic means

that reflection on experience must aim for discursive language and sensitive interpretive

devices that make phenomenological analysis, explication, and description possible and

intelligible. (p. 26)

Van Manen (2014) continued to explain that phenomenological analysis requires an understanding of philosophical methods (including forms of the epoché, the reduction, and the vocative) and special human science methods (including phenomenological interviewing, observing, reflecting, and thematizing; p. 297). Epoché, or bracketing, involves overcoming 37

38 one’s predetermined thoughts and beliefs to be open to the understanding to be gained from exploring how the phenomenon has been lived by others. Reduction relates to the techniques used in the analysis of data gathered during hermeneutic phenomenological research. And the vocative is the process of writing, rewriting, and discovering the findings. When I think of the term vocative, I am reminded of the apothegm, “How can I know what I think until I see what I write?”

Data for hermeneutic phenomenological study can be gathered from interviews, observations, and other methods. Van Manen (2014) explained, “We gather other people’s experiences because these allow us, in a vicarious sort of way, to become more experienced ourselves” (p. 313). He directed those using a hermeneutic phenomenological approach to gather lived-experience descriptions. The description is a subject’s best recollection of experiencing a phenomenon. It will not be identical to the actual experience as it will have been interpreted through the eyes of the subject, but it should provide, as much as possible, a prereflective account of the experience.

Phenomenological interviewing involves asking questions designed to encourage the sharing of experiential narratives; the story of the specific experience. This may involve helping the interviewee walk through the experience. What was it like to . . .? Who was involved? Where did it start? How did it end? A semistructured approach is often used. Care should be taken not to influence how the nature of the experience is related.

Hermeneutic questions are different from phenomenological ones. Van Manen (2014) put forward that “the hermeneutic interview aims for exploring the ways that fundamental phenomenological notions and methods can be understood” (p. 317). This interviewing approach may be used as a follow-up to the phenomenological interview to seek an interpretation of the 38

39 lived experience. Hermeneutic questions seek a reflection on the experience. For example: Why do you think it turned out that way? If you could do it over, what would you do differently?

Specific to my study, some of the following questions were helpful: You said that you learned as a minister that if you want to get rid of something, you have to have an option that would make it more palatable, politically speaking; what else would a wise minister do? If you became the minister again, what would you do differently? My hermeneutic questions were oriented to sense-making and interpreting experiential meanings. For example: When people were mad, were they mad at you personally or you as the minister? Do you think this situation was unique, or does the phenomenon of being the minister change a person?

Once the researcher has collected the data, or texts, from these interviews, they must be examined. Moules (2002), van Manen (1990, 2011, 2014), and D. G. Smith (1999) advised careful reading and rereading of texts, with a deep attentiveness to the language used, in order to seek meaning. Suggestions included “grasping and formulating a thematic understanding is not a rule-bound process but a free act of ‘seeing’ meaning that is driven by the epoché and the reduction” (van Manen, 1990, p. 79) and techniques for close reading (van Manen, 2014, p. 320).

Van Manen (2011) also identified approaches or structures for the reduction and a method to discover them. By examining the experiences of others through these lenses, one can distill the experience and discover insights into the phenomenon. The activity of writing and rewriting— the vocative—is an important step in analyzing and understanding the shared experiences. Van

Manen (1990, p. 125) suggested that this is where the researcher’s thinking and poetizing takes place. The act of expressing ideas in a written form coalesces the writer’s ideas, and rewriting encourages reflection, reinterpretation, and reimagination.

In summary, a hermeneutic phenomenological approach considers that individuals create knowledge and understanding through their experience and their reflections on the experience

(recognizing that experiences are influenced by individuals’ preexisting prejudices and other subjective influences). When researchers approach these experiences with a sound methodology, they can create a fusion of these understandings and produce insights into an aspect of the human experience. This philosophical perspective, with its associated epistemological and ontological characteristics, aligned well with the research question. It is a respected approach that has been used successfully in other research studies. I believe that it was an appropriate foundation upon which to design a study that explored what it means to be the minister responsible for education.

The position of minister of education is poorly understood. It comes with legislated duties and many expectations, yet it does not come with a job description or matrix for measuring job performance. Most ministers learn the job by doing it. Hermeneutic phenomenology offers a method of exploring how others have understood and interpreted a phenomenon. Examining how a group of different people with different backgrounds experienced the phenomenon of being an education minister, albeit in very different ways, and how they changed as a result of the experience, has yielded many comments, observations and insights, which I present in Chapters

4, 5, and 6.

Research Structure

In Researching Lived Experience, van Manen (1990, p. 30) proposed a structure for conducting this type of research. He advised that hermeneutic phenomenological research can be seen as a dynamic interplay between examining an interesting phenomenon, investigating experiences as they were lived (rather than how the experience was conceptualized), reflecting on the essential themes that characterize the phenomenon, describing the phenomenon through 40

41 the art of writing and rewriting, maintaining a strong and oriented pedagogical relation to the phenomenon, and balancing the research context by considering its parts and the whole.

Following this structure, I researched the conceptual understanding of the position and investigated the experiences of those who have lived it. I conducted multiple private, confidential interviews with several former ministers of education from different jurisdictions in Canada. The data collected were analyzed and themes were identified. Using a thematic analysis, I wrote about the experience and described the experience in a new way. During the process of analysis,

I researched emerging areas and incorporated this information into the findings, which were further examined and interpreted to develop insights into the broader topic of education in

Canada.

Study Participants

Former Canadian provincial ministers of education were participants in this study.

Laverty (2003) recommended that

the aim in participant selection in hermeneutic phenomenological research is to select

participants who have lived experience that is the focus of the study, who are willing to

talk about their experience, and who are diverse enough from one another to enhance

possibilities of rich and unique stories of the particular experience. (p. 18)

There are differences in title and responsibilities in the minister of education portfolios among the provinces. For example, Alberta once referred to the ministry as Ministry of Learning, and some jurisdictions include both K–12 and advanced education in the department. In this study, I included participants who had been minister of the department responsible for public schools or K–12 education after the year 2000. I set this time limit to ensure that the experiences were somewhat recent and to have a large enough pool of potential participants to draw from. 41

I excluded people who had held the portfolio for less than two years. I felt that it was important to interview participants who had been through at least two budget cycles. It was my experience that the first budget cycle is a significant new learning experience. I wanted to study the experience of people who had been involved in drafting a budget and defending it in the assembly. Additionally, I excluded territorial education ministers. The Northwest Territories and

Nunavut do not use a typical Westminster governance structure, and in Yukon, at the time of the study, there were no other living former Yukon education ministers who met the criteria.

Potential participants were identified from provincial government records (including information provided by provincial legislative assembly clerks) and other online resources. I prepared a database of former education ministers that included the name of the minister, jurisdiction, date in office, tenure in office, gender, party affiliation, education, and previous occupation. The information gathered proved to be very interesting. There were 81 different individuals who had held the position of minister of education, or a related title, with several individuals having held the position on more than one occasion. The average time in office was just under 2 years, with 34 (42%) having served more than 2 years. The breakdown by gender was 58% male and 38% female. Of significant interest was the finding that 52% of the individuals held a significant background in education (either having been employed in the field or having received postsecondary education in the field).

Given that only 34 people had served as an education minister for greater than two years,

I decided to keep those people who were still in an elected position (either in government or opposition) in the pool of potential participants. However, I did not include current education ministers in the pool of potential study participants. I felt that these individuals were still in the

43 process of being the minister, had not completed the experience, and likely would not have had the time or opportunity to reflect on the experience.

I randomly drew 10 names from the potential participants. Using common Internet search tools, such as Google, LinkedIn, Facebook, and Canada411, I found contact information for eight of them. These eight people were contacted by email and/or telephone. I provided project materials to all contacted, which included the project description, an informed consent form, and the initial interview guide (see Appendices A, B, and C, respectively).

Of the eight potential participants initially contacted, five responded and four agreed to participate. Following a review of the participants, and consistent with my approved methodology, I contacted an additional participant to increase the diversity of backgrounds included in the study. The participants included males and females; former representatives from five different provinces in the west, the Prairies, central Canada, and the Maritimes; members of

Conservative, Liberal, and New Democratic Parties; and people from a variety of professions

(including K–12 and postsecondary educators). As the participants were public figures and the population of former ministers of education is small, it is not possible to describe them in detail without breaching their confidentiality. Providing details such as previous occupation, field of academic study, or specifics related to the incidents described could identify the participants.

Data Collection Method

Data were collected from semistructured interviews. I conducted the interviews by distance, over Skype, and digitally recorded them using the application Pamela. Voice calls were used rather than video conferencing. Most initial interviews were conducted in April 2016, with the last call occurring on May 1, 2016.

The interview began with a description of me as the researcher, the purpose of the study, the intention to record and transcribe the interview, a pledge to keep the participant’s identity and participation in the study confidential, a commitment to provide him or her with a copy of the transcript, and the identification of ways that each person could provide additional comments.

The participants reaffirmed their willingness to participate in the study and to have the conversation recorded. The initial interviews lasted between 1 and 1 3/4 hours, with the average for the initial interview being 1 hour and 28 minutes.

My intention in the first interview was to create a rapport with the participants and obtain data pertinent to the study. The questions were designed to gain background information and invite stories, experiences, and reflections. The interviews examined the process of becoming the minister (including becoming a candidate, the election process, and the appointment); the duties and activities of the minister (including reviewing policies, changing legislation, and preparing budgets); making decisions; how responsibility was experienced (including experiencing ministerial responsibility and the collectivity of cabinet); being in education; and being a leader.

Following the completion of the interview, I confirmed that the interview had been recorded and backed up the recording to a separate computer and back-up drive. These devices were both kept in locked, secure places.

I transcribed the conversations almost verbatim. Some “ums” and “ahs” and some conversation false starts were excluded. This removal did not affect the content or the message of the interview. I anonymized the original transcripts by removing specific information relating to names, places, and dates. Fully anonymizing the data became challenging due to the specific and public nature of some experiences. In these cases, I removed details from the examples during the anonymization process. Under the headings of The Appointment, The A-ha Moment, the 44

Activities of Being the Minister, and Becoming the Minister, I aggregated comments from each anonymized transcript into compilation documents.

Following the completion of the transcriptions, I sent the documents either by email or post to the participants for their review, thoughts, and reflections. After receiving their transcript, participants were given a week to review the document prior to being contacted for a second interview. Before conducting the second interview, I reviewed the first interviews and determined if questions or points needed to be revisited. The second interview questions were similar for all participants; however, they were tailored to each participant. This included revisiting questions from the initial interview and following up on specific comments from the initial interview.

Questions drafted for the second interview addressed experiencing phenomena such as amending legislation, creating strategic plans, and being involved in legal actions. I identified any points that had been raised by participants that I felt should be discussed with other participants. These questions were anonymized to protect the confidentiality of the participants.

For example, during the second interview I asked participants about one participant’s comment,

“Evidence rarely trumps politics.” Other questions addressed issues such as leadership, decision- making, and being a public figure; the topic of being a public figure became an important one based on the comments from the initial interviews.

Follow-up interviews were conducted within 8 weeks of the initial interviews, with an average of 39 days between each interview, and averaged 1 hour and 26 minutes in length. These interviews were also recorded, transcribed, anonymized, and summarized. Each of the interviews generated a transcript of about 10,000 words. In total, over 100,000 words were transcribed

(101,471) or approximately 230 pages. 45

During the second interview, participants confirmed that the transcript I had sent of the first interview accurately captured what had been said. Participants were asked if there were any thoughts or points from the first conversation or the transcript that they would like to revisit.

None of the participants immediately wanted to revisit topics covered in the initial interview.

Although this question did not immediately raise additional points, I believe that it was beneficial for the participants to see what they said and to review the initial conversation.

At the conclusion of the second interview, I confirmed to participants that I would send a draft of the project findings for their review. This was provided. A complete copy of the final dissertation was also offered.

Rationale for Method Choice

Although interviews with current education ministers might provide an in-the-moment- of-living-it, prereflective understanding of the world of an education minister, I chose to conduct interviews with former education ministers. Given that current ministers of education are living the experience, I believe it would have been very challenging to conduct research with them. In addition to being extremely busy, these individuals are in the moment of being politicians and public figures. I believe that being in this state would influence what they said and how they acted. It has been my experience that politicians are hesitant to share their true personal feelings and beliefs. In fact, when ministers respond, as per cabinet solidarity, they are stating the position of their government, not their own opinion. This point is further illustrated by the

Standing Orders of the Yukon Legislative Assembly (Yukon Legislative Assembly, 2017), which prohibit asking for personal opinions about a policy. I believe that I received more meaningful contributions from people who were not currently in the position of being the minister responsible for education. 46

My approach follows many of the current practices in the application of a hermeneutic phenomenological approach. Caelli (2000) referred to it as an evolution of the research methodology and suggested that “American phenomenologists questions do not generally seek the pre-reflective experience but include thoughts and interpretations of the experience in the data collection and analysis”(p. 367) and that “thoughtful, reflective, and previously interpreted descriptions of experience given by research participants provide a broader canvas on which to paint a description of a phenomenon than is provided by traditional phenomenology alone” (p.

373). I asked questions that inquired about how the experience was lived (for example, “Did you ever have situations like that, ones that pulled you in different directions?”). I sought, especially in the follow-up interview, participants’ reflective interpretations of the experience (for example,

“In the first interview you mentioned [a specific situation that happened twice]. Did you approach it differently the second time?”). This manner of interviewing led to information about how and why a situation was approached differently.

I believe that important data were collected from the participants. They shared detailed stories of their experiences. In some cases, the participants had reflected on their situations in the past; for others, the questions they were being asked caused them to create a new understanding of their experience. I think that interviewing people who were out of office provided richer, more frank, and less guarded comments.

Limitations of the Study

The findings are subject to limitations common to phenomenological studies. Van Manen

(1990) identified two limitations: not allowing for empirical generalizations or the production of law-like statements, or for being a tool for problem-solving (p. 23). The findings are not general universalities about how all education ministers might act. They are an interpretation of the 47

48 experience of five different former ministers (six if the researcher is included). In addition to the limitations put forward by van Manen (1990), Davey (2006) also identified limitations on hermeneutic studies (p. 13), including the beliefs that no act of understanding can be the definitive observation or can be totally complete, that hermeneutic understanding is limited by time and horizon, and that understanding is perspectival.

A limitation that was anticipated was that there could be some challenges obtaining honest, frank responses from past politicians. Throughout their careers, the participants have answered many questions from opposition members, the media, and the general public, and I expected that they would have developed strong skills in dodging and obfuscating questions. I took steps to build rapport, discussed the importance of genuine participation, and ensured confidentiality in an attempt to overcome their possible hesitancy in answering questions. I found that, for the most part, participants were very forthcoming and straightforward with their responses.

Credibility, Trustworthiness, Dependability, and Reliability

To ensure the credibility and trustworthiness of the data, the participants were provided with a transcript of their interviews. They were given an opportunity to review the transcripts and provide corrections, clarity, and additional comment. I present comments from the participants in

Chapter 4 without editorialization, to allow the reader to see the data prior to their interpretation.

On the issue of dependability, I worked with my supervisor and committee to keep them apprised of my activities and progress. I kept records of interviews and interactions with research participants and followed the procedures I have identified.

As the participants were public figures, I took strict measures to ensure the confidentiality of their participation. University of Calgary ethics and research protocols were carefully 48

49 followed. In addition to being a condition of the Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics Board

(CFREB) approval, I believe that keeping the identity of the participants confidential was important to the participants involved in the study.

As with any methodology that involves the people involved sharing stories of their experiences, there is a risk that the stories will not be recalled exactly as the situation happened.

There could be a variety of reasons for this limitation, such as forgetting details, suppressing memories, embellishing the story to put the storyteller in a better light, or fearing reprisal for sharing the original situation. However, Van Manen (1990) proposed that in a hermeneutic phenomenological study, researchers “are less concerned with the factual accuracy of an account than with the plausibility of an account—whether it is true to our living sense of it” (p. 64).

During the interviews I asked questions and prompted the participants to recall their experiences as accurately as they could. But I also realized that the affiliated characteristics (forgotten details, embellishments, etc.) are part of the data that were considered.

Researcher’s Perspectives and Context

As a former minister responsible for education, I wondered if my experiences were similar to others’ experiences. I expected that we had elements of our experience that were alike.

At national meetings I attended while in office, I noted that my colleagues and I faced many of the same situations but that our budgets were vastly different in scale. (Yukon has the same number of students as Ontario has schools.)

No one will ever live through my situation and context, or the exact situations and contexts of other ministers, but new people will become new ministers and will have to fill the role and address their own unique situations. I would like to provide them with insights into what

50 it means to be the minister responsible for education so that they are better prepared for the position.

I cannot separate myself from who I have become and bracket away my thoughts and perceptions. Van Manen (1990) stated, “If we simply try to forget or ignore what we already

‘know,’ we may find that the presuppositions persistently creep back into our reflections. It is better to make explicit our understandings, beliefs, biases assumptions, presuppositions, and theories” (p. 47). And D. G. Smith (1999) said, “The hermeneutic imagination requires an openness to the other of experience, an openness to that which knocks from beyond the boundaries of what is known” (p. 47). I tried to follow this advice.

And, although I needed to be conscious of my past, it was a benefit to conducting this study. I was an insider to the group that I investigated, and I had greater access to them because of that trait. Additionally, because of my familiarity with the position, I was able to delve deeper and faster into discussions. I believe that through this research project, I have come to a more profound understanding of hermeneutic phenomenology and have used it as a tool to develop a greater understanding of the experience of being the minister responsible for education.

Chapter 4: Data From the Interviews

The participants in this study were generous with their time and with their contributions. I found their responses to be very thoughtful, frank, and forthright. In this chapter I present the data collected during the interviews. I include direct quotes from the participants without any analysis. By presenting the data in this manner, I would like to honour the contributions of the participants.

With the goal of describing how the phenomenon of being the minister responsible for education was experienced, rather than conceptualized, I gathered information from five former ministers. Moules, McCaffrey, Field, and Laing (2015) put forward that “the purpose in hermeneutic research is to bring understanding around the topic; the participants in the study are not the topic but are chosen to bring their knowledge about, and to, the topic” (p. 123). The comments and stories presented illustrate the experiences of the phenomenon being studied.

Through conversation and open dialogue, I was able to find out more details about the situations—about context, emotion, and other influences. Hearing the details about the stories created richer data to consider. As Kirby (1991) suggested, “Narrative emplotment [placing a series of events into a narrative with a plot] appears to yield a form of understanding of human experience, both individual and collective, that is not directly amenable to other forms of exposition or analysis” (p. 3).

The responses and comments from the participants have been quoted, paraphrased, summarized, and compiled in this section. I have removed specific names, places, and details from their comments to preserve confidentiality. As well, to prevent a participant’s aggregate comments inadvertently revealing his or her identity, I do not attribute comments (such as by use of pseudonyms or participant numbers). The data are presented in this manner, in part, to honour 51

52 the powerful, wise, and diverse voices of the participants in this study. Five people differently experienced the phenomenon of being a minister of education, and I believe that it is important for the reader to read their comments without interpretation or significant editorialization.

The participants in this study experienced similar activities and situations, such as meeting with constituents, answering questions in question period, and presenting budgets.

However, each participant experienced the situations differently and uniquely. Not all situations were the same, and not all answers from the participants were the same. In some cases, the participants presented similar responses. In these situations, I include the comments that are exemplars. In other cases, where participants had different views, I present a variety of perspectives. Particularly poignant comments are also included. Their stories and comments constitute important information about the experience of being the minister of education.

I present my interpretation of these collective experiences in the following chapters. In

Chapter 5, I analyze several themes that became evident and discuss them, considering the literature reviewed and additional participant comments. In Chapter 6, I give my interpretations of the experiences and consider the implications of the research.

Becoming a Politician and Being Appointed Minister

The first interviews started with questions about how the participants became an MLA and the minister of education. In these discussions, the participants shared information about how they became involved in politics, the process of being a candidate and being elected, being appointed to the position, and the process of learning the position. When discussing why they became involved in politics, a variety of answers were given. Some had been active in politics since they were teenagers and were longstanding members of political parties. Others became politically active immediately prior to their first election. One participant said that he “didn`t like 52

53 the direction in which the province was going” and that in his constituency the incumbent did not represent his interests. Others also shared that they did not like the current direction of the government and that they got involved to make a change. Some of the participants were asked by party officials to consider being a candidate, and others volunteered.

After winning their riding elections, some found themselves in the opposition benches and others on the government side. Those who first sat in opposition were reelected and formed government. Some of those who were part of the governing party sat in the back benches for a while and others were immediately put into cabinet. One participant suggested that there was a benefit to not being immediately in cabinet as it allowed her to have some time to understand the job of being a politician. She went on to say that one of the benefits of democracy, as it is practiced in Canadian provincial elections, is that there is a diverse, eclectic mix of candidates with a variety of different backgrounds. She also noted that being a politician is unlike being in another profession and that it does take some time to learn the position.

Following the convention of provincial governance structures, all were appointed to cabinet and to the position of minister of education by the premier. One of the participants was expecting the education portfolio but most were not. When discussing the appointment, emotions of excitement, honour, and trust were frequently raised. One participant made a point to bring up how overwhelmed she felt about the level of responsibility that she realized that she now had.

Some had private discussions with the premier about the position prior to the appointment and others did not. One participant shared a discussion with the premier. She said:

[The premier] said, “When you come in as a minister, I want you to feel strongly that

what you are recommending to the government is the right thing to do. Secondly, I want

you to know it—to have done your homework. But at the end of the day, I want you to 53

recognize that the guy in the corner office—that I, the premier—make the call. And

whatever call I make, whether I accept your recommendation or make another call, I want

you to put that same passion into defending my decision as if it were your own.”

She went on to say, “And that was the deal. And I agreed.”

Several suggested that premiers consider many factors when making cabinet appointments, including the situations that the minister is going to face, the skills and characteristics deemed necessary for the position, and the activities that the minister is expected to undertake. One of the participants said, “The premier had always believed that a teacher should be education minister. He thought that it sent the right message to the teachers’ association and to the teachers in general—that one of their own is steering the ship.”

Another participant spoke about the benefit of not being affiliated with education. He recalled telling the premier:

Don’t put me in [a different portfolio that the participant had expert knowledge in]. I

know just enough to be dangerous. The things that I have learned we need to do are not

the things that are in our platform. They aren’t the things that are going to get us elected.

Some of the participants held other portfolios prior to education. Those who had previous experience were familiar with being a minister. Those who did not had to learn about being a minister in addition being responsible for the particulars of education.

The participants in this study swore or affirmed several oaths of office during the ceremony in which they became a minister. Provincial oaths differ slightly, but ministers are obliged to truly and faithfully, and to the best of their skill and knowledge, execute the powers and trusts reposed in them; keep secret certain information; and accept responsibility for all actions carried out by their department. The oaths were explicitly raised three times during the 54

55 interviews. One was in reference to being advised of the premier’s decision to appoint the individual the night before the oaths were taken, and the other two were as a result of having taken the oaths. One participant said that he was not able to share details of a situation with me because of cabinet confidentiality and the oath that he had taken. In another situation, the participant said that he had had conversations that included a reference to his oaths. He said that he told people:

We can go through the process, and I’ll have an answer for you. If it’s not to your

satisfaction, I apologize for that, but I’m bound by an oath of office that I will conduct

myself without fear of favour and that I will respect the rules that we have in place.

He went on to say, “Course, I wouldn’t put it quite that way, but that’s what I was saying.”

Becoming the Minister

When asked about receiving training for the position, several participants said that they had received some communications or media training at the beginning of the mandate. Several discussed the original briefings that they received and said that they were informed about legislation, budgets, and current issues. But none of the participants said that they had received any specific training about how to be a minister. One participant said, “We don’t have training; you have trust.”

To find out how former education ministers perceived their position, I asked them what they would include in the job description for the position. Their responses were varied. Some spoke about broad goals and others about specific activities. One participant asked rhetorically,

“There is a job description?” Some mentioned that they felt responsible for increasing the performance of the system and the outcomes of the system. This perspective was characterized 55

56 by the participants routinely asking themselves similar questions, such as “Is the decision that I am making today better for students?” or “Are we preparing kids for the future?”

Others discussed the importance of being on top of the budget, legislation, and policy.

Another saw the role as being immersed in the school community and understanding the challenges and opportunities of different schools. One participant suggested that the minister of education is “the voice that explains the public’s desires to the professionals and the professional’s needs to the public.”

Several commented that the position did not come with a job description or someone to explain it to them, and they had to learn the position mostly on their own. One summarized the role as, “People come in, tell you their problems, you examine the issue, and then come up with a solution for them, and solve the problem. That is the basic premise of what politicians should be in a democratic society.”

In further discussions about the position, some expressed that they were surprised to find out how busy they would become, and others were aware of the demanding schedule. As one participant noted, it is a 24/7 job and that one is always “on”; constituents, colleagues, and others can call at all hours of the day, and activities take place during the day, evenings, and weekends.

One participant noted that one month, he had been away from his family 28 days out of 31.

In summarizing the role of government and the role of the minister of education, one participant noted that “government has the responsibility for resolving problems in society.” And of course, problems related to education often end up on the minister’s desk to be resolved.

The Activities of Being the Minister

Participants identified that they spent their days studying briefing materials (for their specific portfolios and for cabinet decisions), attending meetings, drafting correspondence, 56

57 travelling, attending events (including events in their riding, province, nationally, and internationally), and being in the legislative assembly. Participating in meetings was a key activity. Participants regularly met with a variety of people including their own executive and administrative staff, the premier and staff from the premiers’ office, cabinet and caucus colleagues, department officials (including deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers, and other staff), stakeholders (including students, parents, teachers, administrators, school boards, community organizations, and other organizations), visiting dignitaries, and constituents.

Topics in these meetings were wide ranging. Some involved proactively working on issues and others reacting to issues. They could include working on budgets, preparing policy positions, developing legislation, preparing for question period and media inquiries, and hearing the concerns of others. Attending events was also identified as an important activity. These included public meetings, speaking engagements (at constituency, stakeholder, party, and other events), and public events. The participants were often the official spokesperson for their department and for the government.

The difference between being a cabinet minister and being the minister of education was discussed. Being part of cabinet involves participating in many of the large provincial political issues and being the minister responsible for education can involve focusing on education-related issues. One participant suggested that “some ministers really want to leave their mark on the portfolios; for others, presence in cabinet is about doing the political stuff from a higher level.”

Making Decisions

The participants in this study, when they were ministers of education, were required to make decisions. When making these decisions, they were influenced by many factors including

58 the information received, impacts on others, the positions of others, and resources available. One participant discussed the complexity of many of the issues. He said,

People are given black-and-white decisions when in actual fact there is a huge amount of

grey in each decision that you make. . . . There are a lot of grey areas in the system; areas

where yes or no simply can’t provide an answer.

One participant noted that when faced with recommendations from those in the department, “You quickly learn that you have to accept things because if you are going to overrule the system, that means that you can now make a better decision than the people there.”

When discussing one decision, one participant brought up legal, financial, bureaucratic, political,

(both within the caucus and public opinion), and union positions; the need for professional enthusiasm (would the teachers like it?); and the opinion of the subject matter experts. Multiple factors and influences were often considered when making decisions.

When discussing using data to inform decision-making, a participant said, “People, when they get into government, are astounded at how very little good data government has—on lots of issues, often for lots of good reasons.” Another participant commented, “You need to know how to make decisions without having all of the information.” This point was repeated by others, and several noted situations in which they did not have all of the information that they would have liked to have had in making the decisions.

On the issue of making decisions when one is part of the government, one participant said:

Even if you are a majority government, that doesn’t mean you get to do exactly what you

want to do the way you want to do it. There are legitimate stakeholders that you should

be listening to. Government isn’t always right. 58

Several commented that in some circumstances, they needed to mediate a compromise between stakeholders. Some decision-making situations could be challenging, especially when there were differences of opinion between the people in the system. One participant explained:

The math program was, and still is, political here. What I found interesting about the

math program is that professionals weren’t in agreement. So, we had people in the

Department of Education who promoted a certain math program and had their rationale.

And then we had university professors who were at complete odds with the department. I

used to look at it and think, “I’m not a mathematician. How do I pick a side?”

In some cases, there were differences between the course of action the minister wanted to take and the one staff in the department wanted to take. One participant shared an incident where a senior Department of Education employee said, “Minister, on these I have to tell you that professionally I cannot recommend them.” The two then continued to examine the issues and identified compromises that both could make.

Situations in which the public does not agree with the subject matter experts were also discussed. One participant told a story about being at a public meeting at which a constituent raised technical issues about a road project. The constituent wanted the minister (who was his

MLA) to get involved and change decisions that had been made on the project. After discussing the situation, the minister responded:

Look, I don’t know if you are right or not. But I know what will lead to the most

mistakes. Letting the professional engineer do it will lead to fewer mistakes than if the

[nonengineering] major who gets elected and comes in and orders professional engineers

to change roads.

He also said that he had encountered similar issues in education, where people wanted the minister to step in and change things.

It was also noted that stakeholders, including researchers, educators, parents, associations, and others, often hold different perspectives, beliefs, and opinions. Several participants acknowledged that education is a contested space and that people have a variety of philosophies and positions. It was suggested that those opinions are a reality and that they need to be addressed. Participants shared examples of consulting on issues, finding out more about issues, and finding out the positions of others. These activities included going on fact-finding missions and meeting with subject experts. On this point one participant said:

After doing significant consultation, I thought about things differently than I had first

started out thinking. That was part of an ongoing discussion, and I credited that to the

people that I had spoken with and listened to. I had 50 meetings, so after 50 meetings I

had a different view.

Participants discussed creating committees or project groups to review situations and provide recommendations. They highlighted that committee recommendations, including those from Royal Commissions or audit committees, had the benefit of including a variety of stakeholders, often reduced the perception of political bias or influence, and mitigated the potential of stakeholders (who were involved in developing recommendations) from being critical of the recommendations. Using research to inform decision-making was also discussed.

One participant said that he “wanted to get the actual scientific facts behind making the decision.” He also expressed frustration at not being able to find consistent, reliable, evidence- based information. On this topic, one of the participants said:

Evidence rarely trumps politics. If the politics is pushing you in a particular direction, the

evidence is sometimes almost irrelevant. Which is a very sad thing to say. And I

shouldn’t say always because it’s not always. But frequently, and unfortunately, that is

the way politics can work.

Some participants agreed with this concept and were able to provide examples, but they also suggested that there comes a point at which the evidence is overwhelming and sways political opinion. This point about politics influencing decision-making was discussed further.

One participant said, “The day-to-day running of the school system requires decisions to be made all of the time by the minister, and I would suggest that the political colour makes very little difference.” Several of the participants agreed with this perspective, yet they also noted that at times they made decisions based on their philosophical or political orientations.

Participants discussed some of their challenging issues. These included situations such as the closure of a school, a change in remuneration, and the change in a long-standing education program. These situations involved parties who were very emotional and very vocal. In these situations, the participants considered many of the variables, including changes in technology, costs, past practice, delegated authority, what was best for the student, and the process of coming to the recommendation. They considered what they thought was fair and what was right.

Regarding making a tough decision, one participant said, “So again, that was doing what I thought was correct, what I felt was right.”

Another participant stressed the importance of believing in the decision. He said:

I believe that if you are making a decision that you don’t entirely believe in, because

someone else has told you to do it, I think that that is a very dangerous situation from a

personal point of view. I had very few of those [situations]. 61

Another participant discussed trying to resolve an issue that pitted two important beliefs of the political party that he was a member of against each other. The participant was present at a political party function and was called upon to defend his decision. In his defense, he was explicit in his philosophical orientation to the problem and to the solution. He also added that this kind of philosophical explanation was occasionally required among the grassroots, but in cabinet it was almost never required.

Participants were asked whether they made decisions to gain favour with the electorate.

One of the participants said that he had not, and that he felt confident he would be reelected in his riding as long as he wanted to be the representative. When making decisions, this MLA felt a sense of freedom, and said, “I could concentrate on making what I thought was the right decision for the right reasons as opposed to saying, “Is this decision going to get me reelected?” He suggested that his constituents had faith in his ability to make the right decisions. This feeling of security or confidence was not shared by others. One commented:

Pollsters have shown that 50 years ago, we [the public] were more likely to say a

statement like, “I just want the minister of education to be someone who is smart, and I

trust that they know best.” . . . And so, it becomes harder for a politician to say, “I know

you don’t think that this will work, but you have elected me for three years to spend way

more time thinking about it than any of you have, so trust me, it’s right.”

Those who did not have the same level of confidence in being reelected also expressed some degree of freedom in making decisions. Several mentioned being in changeable ridings, ones that did not historically reelect their members. One commented, “My attitude was always,

‘I’m not here so I can lose an election [for reasons outside my control]’ and go home and look in the mirror and say, ‘What the hell did I get done?’” 62

Participants expressed a belief that they were legitimately empowered by the electorate to carry out their duties. But they also expressed that they did not have “carte blanche” for change and that they had to consider what everyone in the community thought about an issue.

Considering what the entire population thought, and not just what they thought or what their party position was, often tempered or compromised decisions.

The issue of whether the MLA is a delegate or a trustee was discussed with several participants. In some cases, they felt responsible for carrying forward the views of their constituents and in other cases they felt responsible for making decisions influenced by their knowledge (which may not be widespread) and the situational context of the decision. In summarizing the process used to make the decision, several said that they had to do what they felt was the right thing to do.

Participants were asked if they ever had a conversation with colleagues about explicitly applying a political philosophy. Most said that they had not. One participant responded, “No, we didn’t. There was no such thing as applying a political philosophy along the guidelines of what someone else wrote. It was basically doing the right thing.” When another was asked, “How often did that party philosophy influence the decisions that you made?” he responded, “Well, I guess, 100% of the time, frankly.” On this topic another said, “If you are going to be good in politics, you need to have a philosophical framework that guides your decisions, that guides your approach to government.”

Being part of a political party appeared to bring some consistency to decision-making. As one participant said:

The bureaucrats who served our government said that one of the things that they liked

about us was that they were pretty comfortable that they knew which way we were going 63

to jump on an issue. They knew what family of options that they should be bringing

forward, that we were likely to move forward on.

In examining options for decision-making, many cited the need to drill down to identify how people—the man on the street or the child in the classroom—would be affected by the decision. Several participants gave examples of reviewing policy and budget decisions from the perspective of those ultimately affected by the decision. Discussion about making decisions also raised the point of how some affected by a decision frequently wanted the issue addressed in their own interest. For example, a participant shared a story about the allocation of teaching resources. The union had a perspective (it wanted the option that was favourable to its members), the finance department had a perspective, and the administrators had a perspective (they wanted the option that was administratively straightforward, and they did not want to upset the union).

The minister had to involve himself in the decision and direct that the decision be made in the best interests of the students (which was also consistent with legislation) rather than the option that was most administratively expedient or most favourable to the union.

The topic of engaging stakeholders in decision-making was also discussed. The stakeholders in the education system are significant and diverse. They include students, parents, teachers, administrators, school boards, community organizations, and ultimately voters. The needs of these stakeholders can be wide-ranging and sometimes conflicting. The minister faces the challenge of addressing the individual needs and creating system-wide solutions. The participants in this study were responsible for K–12 school systems that serve children. Parents are naturally interested in the system. And, as several participants noted, “Parents ultimately want the best for their kids.” Parents regularly lobbied the participants and advocated for the position that they perceived would serve their children best. Teachers, especially through their 64

65 collective bargaining bodies, also called upon the participants to take specific positions and actions (especially in the areas of labour agreements). Participants said that it was often challenging accommodating these requests considering the fiscal constraints that they were under.

One participant said, “The various stakeholder groups had an agenda that dealt with their own issues and had no real concern about student achievement.” Another said, “And a lot of the discussions with stakeholder groups get off on issues that they also need to address, but they never bring it back to how it will affect student achievement. And that’s a problem.” This situation was discussed with others who shared similar stories. Participants noted that it was understandable for these organizations to lobby for their own interests, which is what their members paid them to do, but that it was the minister’s responsibility to consider the outcomes of the education system as a whole. It was the minister’s job to be a “watchdog” for the students.

When an individual or organization brings an issue to the minister, it is often because it has not been addressed to their satisfaction by others. They can be frustrated and angry and often believe that the minister is their last hope. A participant noted that it is often perceived as government’s job to fix the problems in a province, and it is often perceived that it is the minister of education’s job to fix problems in education regardless of whether they happen in the classroom, in the community, or in the system. One participant made a point to discuss the role of school boards in addressing problems. She said, “I always found that if there were issues in education, very rarely did the boards ever take any of the heat for it, or were they ever held accountable for it.” She also said that people would often, if they were political or had a cause, go to the politicians instead of the board. In another example, at the end of a conversation with a

66 constituent regarding the actions of a teacher, one participant was told, “My kid’s life is being ruined by this. Fix it. You are the minister, fix it!”

Although it may be perceived that the minister is responsible for addressing the large issues (as one participant said, “[The] education minister is supposed to be worried about the system”), they are often confronted with personal or individual issues. As one participant explained:

If you see a dad in a grocery store whose daughter got caught drinking at a dance, and

now she can’t go to her Grade 12 prom, and she has been crying at home for three days,

and a daughter crying makes a dad very miserable, I can guarantee that giving him a

lecture on how busy you are with literacy isn’t really what he wants to hear. Those small

examples dominate our day.

Regarding those small examples, another participant said:

I always tried to look at the little things as part of it. The big picture—you can get lost in

the big picture—but you always had to remember that little things could make a

difference to a lot of people.

On the overall expectation of others on the role of the minister, one participant summarized:

I found often that many people didn’t understand exactly what the power that the minister

had, or the lack of power that the minister had. I don’t think a lot of people understood

that either. They seem to have the idea that you can change policy or change laws to

satisfy their concerns.

One participant said that he explained to his constituents, “Please don’t confuse my ability to address the issue with whether or not I care about your situation.” Several participants 66

67 shared stories about situations where there was a problem and they did not have the ability to address it. Existing legislation, regulations, policies, processes, and the actions of others sometimes prevented the outcome that was requested.

When citizens had issues that the minister did not address to their satisfaction, the citizens would often take their issue to the press. Participants shared stories about being criticized in the media and the public. Several of the participants commented that the media and the public did not have all the facts or information that they had been privy to when making the decision. In some of these cases, they were prevented from sharing pertinent information due to the responsibility to keep confidential personal information. As one participant said, “Often you have to give what sounds like a whitewashed answer, but you have to respect the system.”

When the factors preventing outcomes satisfactory to the complainant were investigated, sometimes they were changed and sometimes they were not. One participant said, “The system didn’t get to be the way it is because no one wanted it that way,” suggesting that there was a certain amount of intentionality to existing structures and that people had previously championed for those positions. However, another participant suggested that he was still responsible for the decisions of the department. He said:

One of the first things that I said to my department was that I never wanted to be in a

position where I said, “Well, that wasn’t me, that was my department that made that

decision, that bad decision.” I took [the] credit and I took the crap for all decisions that

were being made. So, yes, people would make decisions. Ultimately that decision was

accountable to me, and ultimately, I was accountable for that decision.

This participant went on to say that he was very involved in important departmental decisions. When there were differences of opinion, he gave individuals the opportunity to present 67

68 a case for why the decision should be made a certain way. If he could be convinced of the argument, he would agree with the recommendation.

Participants also put forward that they were held responsible for previous decisions of other governments. One participant said:

You get about six to eight weeks [after being sworn in] where everyone is interested in

your opinions about what should change. After that, everything that is wrong is your

fault. Or at the very least, you have to explain it.

Another participant recalled saying at a meeting, somewhat tongue in cheek, “This legislation came in in 19[xx], and I accept full responsibility. I was 14 then, but I accept full responsibility.”

The education system is complex and includes many people. Authority to make decisions is delegated to numerous individuals in the system (from the deputy minister to the teacher in the classroom), and they make decisions every day. Sometimes people are not happy with these decisions. One participant suggested that in some situations, “You do wind up defending the system or at the very least the need to let the system play out.” Some commented that this could be challenging to do in a political environment, especially when they are often being asked to champion a cause and intervene.

Participants were asked about defending the decisions of the department. On this point, several commented that they did not feel responsible for defending the status quo, that they would defend the action if it met their test of acceptability, and that if they did not agree with the decision, they might intervene. When deciding to intervene, one suggested that the situation had to be particularly egregious, or of a significant weight, in order to become involved. He commented that one has only so much political capital, only so much ability to make changes, 68

69 and it has to be used judiciously. He said, “For me, the ideal was that I wanted every principal to feel like I, of course, would back them, but they always had that tiny bit of doubt that I wouldn’t.”

One participant shared a story about intervening in a situation involving the decision of a principal that had caused some division in a community. Despite being told by the department that it was a matter for the community to address and that the department did not want to get involved—which the minister said he recognized as operationally sound advice—the issue had become public and the minister intervened. He directed that the decision be reversed and ultimately passed a policy on the issue. In this case the minister was publicly praised, including by the opposition parties, for his actions.

Participants brought up test questions, or criteria of success, that they would often use in decision-making. These included looking at the situation from an immediate perspective and from the broader system perspective. An immediate perspective included comments such as “I’m a dad; I try to draw on that experience”; “I had a daughter who was in school who was . . .”; and

“Would you send your child to this?” Looking at situations from a broader perspective included comments such as, “How will this impact student learning?”; “Is this in the public interest?”; and

“Are we doing this for their own good?” The question, “Where do we want to be on this issue?” was also identified as useful for looking at the situation from a collective perspective.

In discussing the process of looking at a situation from the micro (the individual student) to the macro (the broader system or society), one participant said:

I think that probably the biggest thing is that you have to make decisions that affect the

system, and if you have a good system your child will do well. As opposed to making

decisions that affect the individual child and hope that the system does well. You have to 69

elevate yourself above the individual complaint, or individual student—complaint is the

wrong word—the individual issue, and try and make systematic changes so that the issues

look after themselves, so to speak.

Given that the minister is held publicly accountable for all decisions made by everyone in the system, he or she is often called to account for situations that have gone wrong. A participant discussed a tragic situation in which students died. The minister was personally distant from all the factors that led to the incident but was asked by a reporter, in a media scrum, if he personally felt responsible for the deaths. This situation led to a discussion about the concept of in loco parentis, the premise that in the absence of the parents, the teacher, administrator, or those in the system are responsible for the care of children. He said:

The easiest thing for the media is to think of the safest thing that you possibly could do.

There are moments when you need to say something and to find the right way to say it.

But it was also, in some ways, my job to, for the good of the system, to resist the

automatic impulses to overlegislate. There’s a balance. I’m a dad; I try to draw on that

experience. I understand the impulse to keep your kids at home and not take any risks.

There are families who are going to go on drives who aren’t going to come back. There

will be school trips, and they are going to have a chance of terrible things happening. You

just have to keep striking the balance between keeping that as close to zero as humanly

possible without simply surrendering to fear and denying our kids all the same chances

that we had to go out to see the world and enjoy sports, go on trips, and be kids.

Sometimes in the aftermath we can very easily go too far the other way, and I think that it

is important to balance it.

The minister of education is also a member of the government caucus and a member of cabinet. These bodies make decisions, and the minister is part of them. About these debates, one participant said:

Caucus and cabinet were a more intense debate than in the actual house. In caucus and

cabinet, that is when everyone puts forward their ideas, and there are no timelines, there

are no rules, when it comes to debating it. The conversations aren’t being taped, so they

aren’t being staged for anyone. The criticisms and the accolades are from the heart in

caucus and cabinet, whereas on the floor they tend to be more politically motivated.

In the case of a cabinet decision, each cabinet minister must publicly endorse it regardless of whether they personally support it. One participant shared a story about implementing a cabinet decision that she did not agree with. She said:

It was a real shitshow here for a long time. And it was probably something that I will

wear forever. And it is something that I had to take as a member of the team. I remember

I protested and tried to explain why I shouldn’t be involved. And it did not go over well

at all. And I remember speaking with other colleagues at the time and one said to me, “Is

this the hill that you are going to die on?” And the question was, if you feel so strongly

about this, are you going to throw down your political career and walk away? Or are you

going to live to fight another day? And that is how serious that particular issue was for

me.

This question of whether to implement the decision of cabinet or leave cabinet came up with another participant. She said:

There was an issue when I was minister that I thought was fundamentally wrong, for a

whole bunch of reasons, and I didn’t think that I could put it into play. I had to make a 71

decision: if we did this, would I resign? Now, luckily, I won the argument, and we didn’t

do it. But it was a very tough time for me. I was quite upset and concerned about it.

Luckily, they didn’t do it, and I didn’t have to decide to quit or not.

Once a decision is made in cabinet, it must be implemented. Regarding this point, one participant said:

But once you make a decision, it is like the old game of Telephone, the one where

somebody whispers something into someone’s ear, and they pass on what they heard, and

so on. And by the time that it gets around to the end and back to you, it is so different

than what you said. Being a minister is very much like that. You make a policy decision,

and it gets executed, and it goes through the layers to the frontline staff person or

consumer or taxpayer, and it can become so different than what you thought or intended.

So, learning how to smoke that out—the law of unintended consequences—learning how

to minimize that risk is another skill set.

Participants also discussed the issue of what can happen if others in the system, tasked with implementation, do not agree with the decision that has been made. Several participants raised the issue of bureaucrats stalling an issue or delaying it. One participant said:

I remember the premier working on a reform, and the bureaucrat in charge of that

division fundamentally disagreed with our position. And very creatively, for a couple of

years, [this person] found a way to postpone, delay, and obfuscate the issue. The premier

lost his temper at the cabinet table one day and said, “Who the hell do I have to fire

around here? And how can I fire them around here?” We wanted to get this thing done.

And we never did get the thing done.

Another participant said, “One of the best tools that the bureaucracy has is that they outlast the minister.” Another participant commented about the importance of having the bureaucracy and other stakeholders in the system in agreement with decisions. He said:

The minister of finance can tell you he is raising your taxes, and if you don’t like it,

tough. But if teachers are disposed to hate the minister of education, then the minister’s

new initiative is not going to take off.

When discussing the duties of the minister, the situation of being in the legislative assembly did not come up often. Some participants raised points about being in question period but debating budgets or legislative changes did not come up. I probed these issues with a couple of participants. On the issue of question period, one participant said:

I would sit down with my communication people, with my deputy minister, and say,

“What are the issues of the day? What’s going on out there?” And I would know about

those issues and know everything about them before I went in. I could predict with a 95%

certainty what the questions were going to be that day. I went in with the attitude that I

had to simply know more than the opposition critic. And I’m not sounding egotistical or

conceited when I say that, but I had a whole department of people that were feeding me

information about what was going on every day, and the opposition critic didn’t have

that.

And with regard to debating the budget, one participant asked me rhetorically:

In your time as minister, I would bet that you never saw your budget change once it got to

the house. . . .The budget was set by the time it got to the house. Your battle, so to

speak— it’s not a battle, that’s probably the wrong terminology—your presentations were

to [the] Treasury Board. 73

He went on to say how he and his staff used to make presentations to the Treasury Board and that there were often significant negotiations with the Treasury Board on budget allocations.

Being in Education

Education ministers operate, clearly, in the field of education, and participants were asked if being in education was different from being in another portfolio. They provided comments about the portfolio and about their perceptions of the culture in education. One participant said:

Education is the most political portfolio in the government because everyone has been to

school and everyone has a relative who is a teacher. Everyone thinks they know how to

run the system. And if you have a relative who is a teacher, they tend to be quite vocal

about their concerns and issues. And it matters. And you might have a child or a

grandchild or a niece or a nephew in the system. So, there are three reasons why most

people feel very connected to education issues.

The whole system is highly resistant to change. I also want to note that the system

is also full of people who do really care about quality education. And when they talk

about making changes in the lives of kids, through quality education, they literally have

stars in their eyes. And it is wonderful to see. They are passionate, they care, and they

work hard at it. It is an interesting dichotomy. The system is full of people like that—

from the janitor, to the teacher, to the administrator, the principal, to the school board

trustee, you will find many people who have that passion. And this is very good. But the

trouble is that the culture of the sector is highly resistant to change, and while this is a

generalization—but applicable to public sector unions—the culture is out of touch with

the world outside the school, particularly with regard to issues regarding the working

environment and compensation for teachers.

This participant went on to discuss some of the challenges she faced in negotiations with several teachers’ associations. She said, “I don’t think that I have met an education minister yet who didn’t walk through the door thinking that they would have peace in the kingdom or be able to resolve all of these issues.”

One of the participants, who had a background in education, came to the position with an established personal educational philosophy. Early in his career he recognized the impact that the education system could have on the life of a student, and he often used that lens when examining situations as a minister. His experience dealing with the culture of education seemed to be different from the other participants’ experience. He shared stories that illustrated a high level of acceptance by teachers, but he also shared stories of high expectation by teachers.

Participants noted that parents, teachers, and others in society held a variety of views about education; research and recommendations from education experts were not always consistent or conclusive. During one conversation a participant said, “Being a minister is one of those interesting jobs where you have all sorts of power and not necessarily a lot of influence.”

This point was discussed with her and with others. The minister is often in the position for a short time (as indicated in Chapter 3, only 42% of education ministers had served in the position for more than two years from 2000 to 2016), cannot directly hire or fire anyone (possibly with the exception of some personal staff), and has few tools from a managerial perspective.

In discussing a situation in which the direction that he had given was not being followed, one participant shared a story. He said:

I was having a regular meeting with the districts and the superintendents, and I said, “I

just want to be absolutely clear, the next time this happens—I don’t know what I’m going

to have to do to show I’m serious—so the next time this happens I’m cutting someone’s

budget by 5%. I mean it.”

This led to a conversation about the ways and means that the minister can use to influence change, and the participant recalled a story about addressing a situation in his province.

He said:

I remember calling all of the board chairs together and I said, “Here’s my problem, guys:

I only have only one tool. This requires a scalpel. You people have scalpels. I have a

hammer. That’s all I have. I can make you do it. Or, I can refuse to make you do it. Those

are my choices.”

In another situation, a participant was made aware of an issue at a school in the province.

Two organizations were each claiming that the other organization was the entity responsible for addressing the problem. She told the organizations that if they could not resolve the problem, she was going to fly to the community that evening and be there the next morning to address it herself. The two organizations worked through the night to solve the problem.

Being the Voice of the Ministry of Education

Sometimes ministers make their views and positions known through speeches in the assembly or at public events. It has been my experience that the department frequently writes speeches for the minister, and this point was discussed with several participants. All had received prepared speeches or speaking notes. However, most noted that they often edited the speech or changed things to fit the audience or position, or to make a specific point. One participant said, “I

77 never read a speech that the department wrote in my life. So, the department never really knew what was going to come out of my mouth, and they had to respond accordingly.”

Another shared a story about discussing an upcoming speech with a communications person. He said:

The communications person came to me and said, “I have put together some talking

points for that speech you have to deliver tomorrow night.” And I said, “Thank you very

much.” And then he said in a sad, mournful voice, “But you are not going to use them,

are you?” and I said to him, “Believe it or not, the research you do helps me and is

important because I absorb it into my thinking. But, no, I’m not going to be that

minister.” Another communications person dealt with it much better and he said, as we

walked in, “Well, Minister, I guess there is nothing left for you to do now but see what

you say.”

Another participant recommended, “Don’t ever speak because you have the speaking notes or a news release.” She said that it was critical to know about the issue, the background, and possible concerns. She said that she used to keep a book of questions and tried to drill down into the issues that Joe Public would be concerned about. She said, “I always tried to bring it down to the person on the street.

In sharing a story about being at a press conference, a participant said:

I remember facing the media and knowing that the messaging was so important because

there was so much that we were doing. It was a moment when all of a sudden, I realized

the importance of what I was doing, and all of the initiatives we were bringing in and

how I had to effectively let people know. It was a point in time that I remember, we had

put so much work into all those task forces, reports and reviews, and cabinet meetings. 77

And all of a sudden, you realized that you were carrying all of that weight. That was the

only time I really felt an a-ha moment. And, a feeling of relief that we were putting it out

there. I really felt the strain. Now that we had done all of the research and done all this

debate, we made the decisions and we put the money there, I remember thinking, “This

[had] better work.”

Others spoke about editing the speeches prepared for them, removing words or phrases they did not like, and interpreting the message for the audience that they were delivering it to.

One participant confided that near the end of his career, after he had decided to retire, and in a different portfolio, he did not put significant time into preparing for speeches. He said:

At that time, I did not dig into that department, and I probably fell more into the category

of “fake it till you make it.” I knew the lines, and I knew what I had to say, but there was

no depth to my knowledge.

Being a Public Figure

The minister of education, as a public figure, must maintain a profile in the community, so that he or she is known to the voters. On top of that, the minister is the main spokesperson for the Department of Education. As one participant said:

It is your job to continually be out there publicly explaining what you are doing, why,

what are you trying to achieve, where are you trying to go, what the upsides are, and how

you are going to deal with the downsides of it.

Participants were asked about their experiences being a public figure and regularly being in the media. They were frequently interviewed, and their comments were then interpreted and commented on by others, often with negative connotations. Their decisions and actions were frequently (daily in question period) criticized by others. Additionally, elements of their personal 78

79 lives were often made public. People recognized them when they were out in public but not in their role as the minister of education. Several shared stories of being in a personal situation, such as driving their car or picking up dry cleaning, in which they were conscious of being a public figure, which changed how they behaved in the situation. One participant said, “I realized

I needed to be my better self 24 hours a day.” “When you are a public figure, you have to be aware of everything you do. And that is a bit of a burden sometimes,” said another.

Participants commented about how the minister is always on duty and that their private life is not always private. Some shared stories about being stopped while grocery shopping and hearing about issues from their friends and acquaintances. Another shared a story about being aggressively lobbied on an issue by a relative, who was a teacher, at a family funeral.

The participants in this study were in their positions before the advent of widespread social media. It was noted that anonymous blogging and online comments seem to have made being in the position even more challenging. Hateful, personal attacks seem to be “normal” online. This online criticism is now part of the experience of being the minister of education.

What Is It That You Wish More People Understood?

At the end of the first interview I asked participants, “What is it that you wish more people understood about what it is like being the minister responsible for education? Participants had much to say on this topic. One participant stated eloquently, “I wish every discussion about education led back to the students and student achievement, because without students there is no education.”

The idea of the general public’s limited understanding of the role came up frequently.

One participant said,

I would really like people to understand is that we are not all powerful, and we can’t do everything for everyone, and that when we can’t do things, it’s not based on personal likes or dislikes. Our decisions are steeped in the budgetary positions of the government, and they are also steeped in policy and research that the general public might not always know or appreciate. And that we just can’t operate solely as politicians and doing what the loudest mouth, or a special interest group, wants us to do. That we have to listen to everyone, including the special interest groups, but we also have to understand best practices and up-to-date research and work within budgets. And I think that it is that big picture that I would love for people to understand, rather than think that we are just there responding to the day-to-day politics.

This idea was echoed by another participant, who commented,

We can’t solve all of the problems. We can try our best to solve the problems, but we won’t be able to solve them all. And I think . . . a lot of people didn’t understand that they couldn’t call me and say, “Fire my son’s teacher.” They couldn’t call me and say, “My son is being bullied; fix this right now.” A lot of people don’t understand the role of the minister . . . [or] that we have to go through a process and know that there are rules and regulations in place for a reason. I think that that was the toughest part: People thinking that you could fix this, you can fix this right now, and it is easy to fix. But I’ve discovered that sometimes the things that appeared to be the simplest fix were often the most complex. And sometimes the things that seemed to be the most complex were actually pretty simple. I think that was a big part. Just making people understand what my abilities were to solve their problems, and my limitations in solving their problems.

On a similar note, another participant, speaking about stakeholders in the education system, said the following:

They don’t understand, and when I say they don’t understand, I don’t mean to say

that to criticize people, but they don’t appreciate the complexity of the situation. They are

interested in their interest, their want, their need, their desire, their situation, their belief

about what the solution is, whether they are right or wrong, even though what they want

you to do would screw up a bunch of other things. People don’t understand the

complexity, and they don’t want to understand the complexity.

When asked about the expectations of the public, one participant said:

The public will often overestimate our ability to change things quickly and underestimate

the resistance, or the very legitimate barriers to change. The result being that what the

public thinks you should do, or thinks you can do, will be very different from what

operationally you really can do.

Two participants spoke at length about people being quick to judge politicians negatively and unfairly as a result of this limited understanding. One said,

They demonize the politician. And when you show up and appear to be a normal human

being, they seem surprised by it. They demonize, and they forget that they are talking

about human beings who are there trying to make a positive difference. Even the

politicians that I think are awful, nine out of 10 they are there because they want to make

a difference, a positive difference, whatever their view of a positive difference is. But

people don’t give you the benefit of that as a motive. . . . [They do not understand] that in

a democracy, decisions have to be brokered. And that’s both the good news and the bad

news about it. Things get watered down, negotiated, changed, and amended because you 81

82 are trying to reach some kind of reasonable consensus. Usually. There are times when the government has to make a tough decision, even though the public doesn’t like it, but you have to do it because it is the right thing to do.

Another stated,

People would say that I was arrogant in how I was explaining it, explaining how the system worked, some of the things that I said here were very close to things that I would have said in interviews. And I always would say, “You know, the reason I’m that blunt about the trade-offs isn’t to be difficult or to be argumentative, but I think that is a way to give citizens more power.” I could nod and say yes to everything, and give you the usual

BS answer that politicians usually give you—that we are informed and that our government is going forward with a plan and we have to balance the demands. . . . But there are times when I would say no and tell you why and explain the trade-off.

I wish people understood how little free money there is in the system. Free as in the sense of available to be redirected. And how difficult those choices are. If we simply screamed for what we want, then ultimately politicians make the best choices they can. If you want to give meaningful input, then our sense of trade-offs are important. If the public really wanted something and were accepting of the trade-off, they would probably get it. But often by not understanding the trade-offs, they are providing input on a topic that really isn’t on the table. And I wish there was an easy way to explain that. It is a lot easier to make decisions in a vacuum, I get that. Maybe that is the luxury that those of us who aren’t minister enjoy. But I do wish that people understood that with each choice often comes an opposite reaction, and we have to choose between the best of a number of

good options. Rather than believing that their option is always the best and that all good

people should pick their option.

Heroic Expectations

Several participants shared stories about being praised by citizens for their actions. After a public function, a woman approached one of the participants and told her,

I just wanted to say thank you. You don’t know who I am, and that’s okay, but when you

were minister you made a decision that saved my family’s life. And I promised myself

that if I ever had a chance to meet you, I would go up and say thank you.

Another participant shared a story of a small boy presenting him with a medal that the boy had won. The boy told him, “You are my hero.” Tiernan and Weller (2010) wrote that the electorate has heroic expectations of ministers, and in The Rhetoric of Heroic Expectations,

Mercieca and Vaughn (2014) posited that politicians portray themselves as the hero needed to solve the problems of the electorate (p. 9). I thus explored the role of politician as hero with participants.

One participant said that when he was younger, he was ready to jump into any situation and try to solve all of the problems in the world. He accepted the idea that “here’s the minister, and he’s here to fix this.” He went on to say that this kind of expectation, which is frequently the expectation of some in the public, was unrealistic. He realized that he could not be the hero and solve everything; he had to make compromises and decisions about which situations were possible to change. When asked about being a hero, another participant said:

That is a recipe for disaster, if they believe that they should approach politics like that.

Because you are not going to have all of the answers, and you can be a hero to some and

a villain to others. . . . It is funny, because a lot of people want you to be that hero. Like I 83

said, they’ll ask you to be their champion; they will phone you up and say, “Be my

champion; fix this for me.” And you can’t; you can’t always do that. If people start to

bend the rules, or change the rules to accommodate a particular individual’s situation,

then that is the worst kind of politics, in my view. It undermines the whole process, and

you have to respect the process. . . . People thought you were a hero, and sometimes you

were by default, because you made a decision.

One participant said that it was important for ministers to solve problems quickly. If the minister is unable to do so, she or he would likely lose respect.

Being Changed by the Experience

At the end of the second interview, I asked participants if they felt that they had been changed by the experience of being the minister of education. All said that they had been changed to some degree. One suggested that he was a better decision maker now. Others spoke of more personal changes. A couple mentioned gaining weight (as this researcher did), becoming less social and more insular, and becoming more cynical. One participant suggested that “most jobs do not provide the experiences, the intensity, the highs that are higher, the lows that are lower, that you get in politics.” Another commented, “As negative and as cynical as I might sound sometimes, I have no regrets. It was incredibly rewarding.” Others echoed his comments about the position being rewarding and fulfilling.

As the interviews wrapped up, several participants thanked me for the conversation and questions. It seems that for some, the last time they had discussed these topics was the last day they were in office. Additionally, several commented that upon leaving office, they made as much of a transition as they had when they entered office.

Summary

My intent in this chapter was to present the data I collected without interpretation; to present the data as said. As a researcher, I was honoured to have had the participants share with me so many of their stories and very candid comments, and I wanted to present these comments to the reader.

A significant amount of information was collected in these interviews. I believe that whole dissertations could be written about many of the comments provided. But, the intent of this project was to provide an understanding of the experience of being the minister of education.

I wanted to give an understanding of the whole experience, one that involves being a politician, being part of a political body, being in the public, being in education, and being responsible for decision-making and for the decisions of others. The following chapters provide an analysis of these data and conclude with insights developed from this work.

Chapter 5: Thematic Analysis

I chose an interpretive methodology for this study as it involves studying lived experiences, drawing interpretations from them, and presenting a different understanding of the matter under scrutiny. The literature review presented a technical analysis of the process and duties of the minister of education and the previous chapter explained, in the words of people who have experienced the position, how the experience was lived. I now present a thematic analysis of the data obtained.

Van Manen (1990) explained that “theme analysis refers to the process of recovering the theme or themes that are embodied and dramatized in the evolving meanings and imagery of the work” (p. 78). The process involves, as Moules et al. (2015) put forward, a deconstruction of the data and a reconstruction of meaning (p. 129). Moules et al. also suggested that the

“interpretation occurs throughout the multifaceted engagement with a topic via literature and research interviews, transcribing the interviews to text and reading and re-reading them, developing interpretive conjectures and writing about them” (2015, p. 118). Van Manen (2011) also recommended a process of multiple reductions as helpful in identifying themes. But, he also counselled that “grasping and formulating a thematic understanding is not a rule-bound process but a free act of ‘seeing’ meaning” (van Manen, 2011, para. 1).

I was excited when I read the transcripts of the conversations. The participants had captured elements of the experience of being the minister responsible for education in vivid detail. They explained the experience in ways that, although familiar to me, were still new.

During my analysis, I thought about what they said and considered how they answered the same questions. I thought about the comments from different perspectives (such as thinking about what I would make of the statement if I had not been through the phenomenon of being a 86

87 minister of education). I looked at the data through theoretical and philosophical orientation lenses (particularly with respect to governance and identity issues), and then questioned if this approach was leading me to broader concepts, the eidos, of the phenomenon of being the minister of education.

Early in the analysis process, my writing was focused on the procedure and actions of the minister, the phenomenological part of the process. These writings focused on the constraints that the minister of education is under, examined the influence of stakeholders, looked at the role of the minister being both the representative of the people and the representative of the department (including examining multiple leadership theories), and explored the impacts of being a public figure. They did not, however, illustrate the poetic spirit of the position that is often present in a hermeneutic phenomenological study. Recognizing that I had a strong understanding how different people experienced the common aspects of the phenomenon, I then focused on developing a more interpretive understanding of the position.

As the concepts of being changed by an experience and the importance of self and identity were becoming apparent, I conducted additional research. Kirby (1991) suggested that

“the self, as implied subject, appears to be inseparable from the narrative or life story it constructs for itself or otherwise inherits. . . . It is from this story that a sense of self is generated”

(p. 6). The stories, the narratives, that the participants in this study shared illustrated much about their identities and about who they had become when they became minister responsible for education. I do not want to suggest that everyone who becomes a minister of education becomes the same person. But, the data illustrate that becoming minister creates a change in people’s identity—how they see themselves and how others see them.

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defined identity as “personal or individual existence. The fact of being who or what a person is” (“Identity,” 1978, p. I8). In a later online edition, it added, “who or what a person or thing is; a distinct impression of a single person or thing presented to or perceived by others” (“Identity,” n.d., para. 2b). I examined the concept of identity further and came to a greater understanding the factors that influence identity and how identity is constructed. Hogg et al. (1995) suggested that personal identity is established within the perception of self as derived from thoughtful reflection on communicative interactions between oneself and others from the societal environment.

Tajfel and Turner (1986) maintained that identity is not fixed. Rather, it is influenced by people’s experiences, social interactions, and group memberships. As people begin to feel they belong in a new group, they tend to define themselves in terms of that group membership. It is worth revisiting Hogg et al.’s (1995) idea that

a social category (e.g., nationality, political affiliation, sports team) into which one falls,

and to which one feels one belongs, provides a definition of who one is in terms of the

defining category—a self-definition that is part of the self-concept. (p. 259)

The study participants became members of new groups (cabinet, the Department of

Education, the Council of Ministers of Education Canada), and being part of these groups contributed to their identities (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). As well, others began to recognize and define them by their association with these groups. Ashforth and Mael (1989) also suggested that membership in a group influences the perception of those in the group and those not in the group.

With this refined understanding of identity, I continued to study the transcripts. I kept in mind the concepts of fusion of horizons and the hermeneutic circle and examined the situation from the near and the far, from the micro to the macro. During this process, several themes were 88

89 developed. I have titled them changing identity, voicing identity, educating identity, and trusting identity. They are not discreet separate topics but rather intertwined parts of the whole. However,

I have separated them for ease of more focused analysis.

In changing identity, I examine the experiences of becoming and being the minister of education and how this event influences a change in how people perceive themselves and are perceived by others. Voicing identity examines how the voices—the thoughts, opinions, and beliefs of the various groups that the minister is a member of—were expressed. In educating identity, I explore the how the minister of education influences the development of individuals and the province. And, trusting identity considers how trust was experienced and how it influenced decision-making.

One important element of being the minister responsible for education is that the minister plays a dual role. The minister of education is trusted by community members to act in their best interests and to voice the concerns of the community to the Department of Education. As well, the minister of education is expected to act in the best interests of the Department of Education and to voice of the concerns of the department to the people. I explore this dual role throughout the different themes.

Changing Identity

During the discussions with the participants in this study, one participant shared a story about being called to account for something he had said before becoming the minister of education. He then told the audience that he was now looking at situations differently, through a political lens—the lens of the minister. Although he might have been the same human being who made the comments years earlier, he was different now that he was the minister. He now had different responsibilities, different obligations, and different criteria with which to evaluate 89

90 situations, and he was part of a different group. He had changed. The process of changing identity—changing how one looks at things and how one is perceived by others—is a significant factor in being the minister of education.

The individuals in this study identified that they were changed by the experience of being the minister responsible for education. Several participants said that they began a new life when they became the minister; people interacted with them differently, they could no longer make comments the way they had earlier in their lives, and they made decisions differently. Becoming

“the minister” involves accepting a new role and a new identity.

The process of becoming the minister of education involves significant steps that add complexity and layers to the position. These steps include the transition from engaged citizen to party member, to candidate for the nomination, to candidate for election, to MLA, to member of cabinet, and ultimately to the minister responsible for education. This process, especially the affiliation with various social organizations, contributes to how people construct their identity as the minister.

Before the participants in this study became politicians, they were active, engaged, employed citizens in their community. Loat and MacMillan (2014a) noted that politicians were generally highly involved in their communities prior to officially entering the field of politics.

The participants in this study were no different. They were involved in many community, social, occupational, religious, sport, recreation, and other organizations in diverse, often leadership, positions. They were accomplished professionals prior to their career in politics, and all had significant life experiences that influenced who they were as human beings.

It seems that the personal histories and characteristics of the participants influenced their decisions and actions. Their values and beliefs influenced their decision to become politically 90

91 involved, to join a specific political party, and, ultimately, to become a candidate. The experiences of the participants prior to their participation in politics affected who they were and often influenced their beliefs, decisions, and actions as minister of education.

Being a member of a political party involves aligning with a political orientation, accepting a political philosophy, and accepting common positions. This is not to say that everyone in a political party agrees on everything all the time. Regular political party conventions and policy debates demonstrate that there are often a wide range of views expressed by party members and that opinions are not homogeneous. The views expressed by the party as a whole are often a compromise of opinions. These compromises can be influenced by members’ knowledge of the issues, philosophical beliefs, and other pragmatic concerns. Party members must reconcile that they are part of an organization with core values but that there can also be a diversity of opinions within it. Additionally, representatives of the party may find themselves in a situation where they are responsible for implementing a party position even if it differs from their own personal position. Most participants mentioned having personal opinions that sometimes differed from the party position and having to follow the party direction in some situations.

Being a member of a political party also brings with it many of the social attributes of being part of a team, such as creating relationships, sharing tasks, and feeling intrinsic characteristics such as inclusion and loyalty. This was illustrated by the participant comment,

There is a sense of belonging to a tribe; to being part of something that is larger than

yourself; trying to do something that makes a difference in the world, that matters, that

leaves a legacy—either personally or as a group, that you frequently don’t get in most

normal jobs. 91

Being a member of party had some influence on the participants in this study. For the most part they agreed with the values, beliefs, and positions of their party. For some, membership created a sense of belonging and common purpose. And, for some, it also formalized a political ideology to use in decision-making. It is important to note that it is not uncommon for people, even seasoned politicians, to experience a feeling of incongruity and change political parties. The personal test of whether one continues to align with the group can be a difficult one.

Once the individual has made the decision to run for office, the next step usually involves seeking the party nomination from the local constituency association to become a candidate for the political party. The nomination process can be simple if it is uncontested or more complex if it is contested. If contested, it typically involves candidates rallying support from current party members and selling party memberships, and local constituency members voting. Nomination may be the first time for some to face the situation, as with a job interview, of convincing people that they are the best person for the position and facing the public risk of not being successful.

Being a candidate is a significant step in the transformation. Now, in addition to being identified with one’s own unique history, values, and beliefs, the individual is also identified as a proponent for a political party, one with its own history, values, and positions. Reflecting upon becoming a candidate, one participant, who had been politically active behind the scenes, commented:

There was a part of me that really wanted to see if I could do it. “Okay, you think you are

so shit hot? Let’s go see if you really know what you are doing. Can you really take it?”

It’s funny; it was amazing how much of it felt like throwing myself off a cliff to see if I

could swim. 92

Being a representative of a party often means that attributes and characteristics of the party, or people’s perception of the party, are ascribed to the individual. One person once told me, “Oh you are one of them. You must believe that the new school should be a plain, off-the- shelf box.” This was not a position that I ascribed to, but it was one that was expected of me because of my party affiliation. Expecting all members of a group to behave the same simplifies decisions for voters, but it also camouflages the complexity of the individual. As one participant said when asked about adopting a specific political orientation in all situations: “You can’t put decision-making in silos, and you can’t say that because every decision is different, every situation is different. I may be libertarian in one particular area but socialist in another area. Who knows?” As a representative of a political party, however, the candidate must endorse and support the party, its positions, and its platform.

In examining the idea that all members of a party are expected to behave the same way, I am reminded of a conversation, not related to this study, that I had with a deputy minister. The deputy was reacting to a cabinet shuffle and had a new minister. She was surprised by the new minister and his positions. She commented that she did not expect someone from the same party, same platform, same premier, and same budget to approach things so differently. Although there was an expectation of some sameness, this minister, as an individual, behaved differently.

The next step in the transformation process is being a candidate in a provincial election and seeking the support of voters in the riding. Convincing voters that one is the best person for the job is usually a complex process and typically includes a campaign team. Having people passionately commit their time, money, and energy to supporting one as a candidate can be a humbling and daunting experience. Organizing a campaign, on a constituency level, can include activities such as fundraising, creating local messages and promotional material, liaising with the 93

94 provincial office, organizing volunteers, and getting the message out. The candidate may be involved with knocking on constituents’ doors, meeting with groups of constituents, participating in public meetings or debates, following up on constituent comments and concerns, conducting media interviews, and participating in other promotion activities. The role of the candidate is to convince the electorate that he or she is the right person for the job. This may include an affiliation with the right political party, platform, or leader. It may involve taking a stand on an issue, promising a particular approach or initiative, or employing some other campaign tactic.

And once again, voters have their own reasons for casting their ballot that may or may not involve the personal suitability of the candidate, the suitability of the party platform, their party affiliation, or who the leader of the party is.

Few participants in this study had any involvement in the creation of the platform that they initially ran on. Participants commented that once elected, the platform gave them a “road map” for their work and that there was a strong expectation to carry out the commitments in it. It should be noted that political platforms are often written by political strategists who are often not specific subject matter experts (including education experts). They are often written by political operators who are crafting a platform, influenced by political ideology, designed to entice voters.

Platforms may include specific education activities, such as a pledge to increase literacy scores, open more schools, or lower student–teacher ratios. They are often structured to gain the support of the electorate and win votes and may not be based on current research in education.

Participants in this study experienced the phenomenon of being a candidate in an election. They engaged in the process of working with others to organize a campaign and were successful in their attempt. Some knocked on thousands of doors in their riding, engaging with people in their homes. Others applied tactics such as public meetings to get their message across. 94

Their experience of campaigning made the participants aware of the thoughts, desires, and expectations of the people in the community.

Being a candidate is a busy and emotionally engaging activity. It often involves rallies with applause, cheering, and public adoration. It involves talking to many different people and is often stressful. Some compared it to a job interview on every doorstep. Some people told participants that they had their support, whereas others would tell them they did not; some people would welcome participants in and want to put a sign with their name on it on the lawn, and others would slam the door in their face. One was told, by an old friend, “I hope you lose” because she was of a different political stripe.

By becoming a candidate in an election, people become identified as a politician. Even if they consider themselves to be outsiders to the system—and as Loat and MacMillan (2014a) noted, many new to the process considered themselves outsiders—they are now by definition politicians. Being a politician has taken on a negative connotation with some. As one participant said:

I think it is what it is because we’ve allowed, as a society, the media and the general

public to paint us all as liars and cheats. And that we are only in it for ourselves and that

we can’t be trusted.

This characterization is now part of their new identity and may change how they are perceived by others. Another participant shared her view on some people’s perceptions of politicians. As noted in Chapter 4, she said:

They demonize the politician. And when you show up and appear to be a normal human

being, they seem surprised by it. They demonize, and they forget that they are talking

about human beings who are there trying to make a positive difference. Even the 95

politicians that I think are awful, nine out of 10 times they are there because they want to

make a difference, a positive difference, whatever their view of a positive difference is.

But people don’t give you the benefit of that as a motive. And I guess that relates to the

complexity.

It was suggested that this perception was something to be “brushed off” and ignored. I personally found this to be a challenging situation. On the one hand, elected officials are supposed to care about what their constituents think, and on the other hand, they need to ignore or dismiss some criticisms that they do not agree with. One participant shared an incident related to becoming a politician and how it changed a relationship.

It was interesting when somebody who really got angry and animated with me, not

because I chose to run for politics, but because of the party that I ran for. He couldn’t hate

that party any more. He just hated our party and by extension, suddenly he hated me.

As Tajfel and Turner (1986) would suggest, some people were not favoured as they were not part of the constituent’s ingroup.

To continue the process of becoming the minister, the candidate must win the riding race and the party must win the election. Upon winning the election, the candidate now becomes a member of the provincial legislative assembly and a representative of the geographic constituency. Being elected was an important event for the participants. It was often described as an honour and as a humbling experience. It was a situation where, as one participant commented,

“People place their trust in you.”

Participants said that their constituents’ opinions, concerns, and beliefs influenced them—including those who did not vote for or support the person as a candidate. In some cases, this input reinforced what the participants believed and in others it caused them to present a 96

97 different opinion or change their mind. Constituents influenced the issues that the participants brought forward, the positions that they presented, and the votes that they made.

Also, it should be noted that constituents do not necessarily have a unified voice. The

MLA may hear a variety of opinions and must decide which voice to carry. Several participants mentioned making decisions consistent with what they had committed to doing, being influenced by what they now knew in their position, and making decisions that they were able to defend to their constituents. In addition to being recognized as the member for their constituency, the elected person is now also recognized as an MLA (or the province-specific title) and identified as being part of the collective body responsible for making provincial legislation.

By becoming an MLA, the individual also becomes a member of caucus. Caucus is the collective body of MLAs of a party. In some cases, advisors, assistants, and other staff are considered to be part of caucus. This group works together to identify issues, identify positions, and make group decisions affecting their party.

Additional changes occur on a personal level when one becomes an MLA. As MLAs are required to work in the provincial capital, they may have to establish a residence in the city. This means that, for at least part of the week, MLAs are away from their typical residence, family, and friends. This change may involve leaving their former occupation, place of employment, and work colleagues. The business attire of an MLA is often different from that of other occupations, and new MLAs often find themselves wearing a new wardrobe. Thus, soon after the election,

MLAs are expected to leave their families, friends, and colleagues; move to a new city; start a new job with new people; and even wear new clothes.

The appointment from the premier is the next step in the transformation from engaged citizen to minister responsible. The minister holds the office at the pleasure of the premier and 97

98 the premier decides which department(s) a minister will be responsible for. By taking the oaths of office, a minister is now responsible for duties prescribed by law and practiced by convention.

The appointment to cabinet comes with a new title: minister. The once-engaged citizen is now addressed, sometimes even by friends and colleagues, as “Minister.” Several participants commented that since they have left the position, people still address them this way; sometimes, people do not know what else to call them.

“Minister” is a title that conveys significant importance, status, and esteem. The title can be a reminder of a hierarchical relationship; the minister is the head of the department. Some of the participants sometimes balked at being referred to as “Minister,” at least in private or semiprivate situations. One participant recalled saying to one of his senior staff, “First of all, you don’t call me Mr. Minister; you call me [by my first name]. And I’m a [former occupation] who happens to be minister. So, let’s start from that point of reference as we work together.” This quote is particularly important as it illustrates the tension that new ministers can feel in balancing their former identity with their new role. Some do not want to be recognized as being more important than others in the system.

Deference is frequently shown to a minister, and in some cases, ministers are treated differently than other people in government. This deferential treatment caused some tension for some of the participants. As the head of the department and the public voice of the department and government, what the minister says is public policy. Ministers become accustomed to hearing the phrase, “Yes, Minister.” But this practice of deference and the attitude that the minister is always right frustrated many of the participants. Several told stories of trying to find out if their ideas really had merit or if they were the recipients of insincere obsequiousness. One participant said: 98

I’ve watched enough episodes of “Yes, Minister,” where I said to my staff, “Look, if I

have an idea, and you don’t think that it’s a good idea, tell me that you don’t think it’s a

good idea. If I have an idea and you think, ‘Okay [qualified or concerned tone], but there

are some challenges to implementing it,’ tell me. I want to know.”

Deferential treatment can include being ushered into a room without waiting in line, being served first at formal dinners, or being presented with a gift for attendance at a function.

One participant told a story of a previous minister of education travelling by helicopter to rural areas. Some suggested that these were the trappings of the position and not something to become accustomed to, as such perks would end with the conclusion of their term in office. Several commented about their discomfort in being treated preferentially.

Becoming a cabinet minister also involves becoming a member of another new group: cabinet. This is the collective body of ministers, led by the premier, that is responsible for the government. Being part of cabinet includes following the concepts of cabinet solidarity and cabinet confidentiality: Once a decision is made by cabinet, it is deemed to have been made by all, and no public diversion is allowed. All discussions in cabinet, including disagreements, are kept confidential. Ministers must present and endorse decisions made by cabinet even if they do not personally agree with them.

Becoming the minister of education involves becoming responsible for the Department or

Ministry of Education and embracing the concept of ministerial responsibility. Due to the democratic process and the Westminster style of government, the once-engaged citizen is now, without any special education, training, or experience (either in leadership or the field of education), the head of the department and becomes responsible for all the decisions and actions of those in the department. People in the department ultimately report to the minister. From an 99

100 identity perspective, it is important to note that the minister is now part of the provincial

Department of Education and is identified as its leader; the minister’s picture and greeting are frequently on the home page of the department’s website, and his or her name is on the budget.

The minister is thus recognized as being part of the government, the Department of Education, their party, and their constituency. They are now members of these groups, some by their own personal choices, and some because of the decisions of others.

These new layers of identity, affiliation, and perception are added to characteristics of the minister’s previous identity and are woven into a new one. The participants all commented on how they personally approached things and how they were influenced by their past. Most mentioned examining the situation as they would as a practitioner of their former occupation.

Several shared stories about looking at the situation as if they were a parent: “I’m a father, I try to draw on that”; “As a parent, would I send my child to that school or that teacher?” Many relied on personal experience to inform their position on issues.

In addition to the changes already noted, participants discussed several other changes that they noticed in their experience of being a minister of education. Several noted a change in lifestyle that caused them to be more sedentary and lead a less healthy lifestyle. Most revealed that they had gained weight while in office and that since their time in office, they were taking steps to return to a healthier lifestyle. Many were also away from their family a significant amount of time. Several commented about losing a sense of personal freedom. Their days were scheduled for them and to a degree they seemed to lose control over things in their life. They seemed to lose their freedom and personal agency.

Several noted that they lost contact with friends and personal acquaintances while in office. It was challenging to continue personal activities like stopping at the pub after work while 100

101 they were the minister. One mentioned that as he felt that he was always under public scrutiny and always had to “be his better self,” he could not react like a typical citizen in some situations.

One participant shared a story of being in a small vehicle accident and rather than making an issue out of it and possibly creating a public issue, she paid for the repairs herself. She also commented that:

Being a politician is an identity. It’s not a job you do. It’s not a 9:00 to 5:00 job. You are

a politician 24/7. You are never really—certainly outside your house and sometimes even

inside your house—a “normal” person. You have to understand that. You are always in

the public eye. Even in your off hours or on vacation—and you see some politicians get

nailed on this. You are always on. You always have to act like you are in the public eye.

You have to understand that. And the rules are different. And the rules aren’t fair.

Some of the participants shared that while they were in office, they became less trusting of people. They became leery of people approaching them, and they frequently questioned other people’s motives. Several shared stories about being approached and lobbied outside of their office or outside of official functions by people with specific agendas. One participant shared a story about being lobbied about teacher contract issues by another relative at a funeral. Another shared a story about how going grocery shopping had become difficult as he was constantly being stopped by people who wanted to raise an issue with him. For some, they were regularly being stopped by people who wanted to argue with them and tell them what they were doing wrong.

The process of becoming the minister of education includes the decision to become involved, one’s unique personal history, one’s knowledge and beliefs, the support of a political party and its values and positions, the support of voters in a constituency, the support of the 101

102 electorate, and the support of the premier. The participants in this study all successfully completed the transition from being an engaged citizen to party member to candidate to MLA to cabinet minister. At the beginning, they were recognized because of their talents, personality, and other attributes. Through the process they were recognized, endorsed, and trusted by people in their party, their constituents, and the premier. They were additionally encumbered by carrying the views of their party, its platform, and the views of their constituents.

I believe that becoming a minister of education is a transformative process that, as was discussed at the beginning of this chapter, structures a change in identity. It involves coming to a new understanding of what it means to be a representative, to be trusted and to be a decision- maker. It involves coming to a new understanding of oneself, a revision of belief systems, and significant behavioural changes. It involves becoming part of various diverse groups. And it also changes how others recognize and perceive the individual.

This change does not end or revert to the original state after the individual concludes his or her time in the position. Several participants shared stories about being called minister after being out of office and still being held in a different regard. One participant shared a story about a comment she posted in an online forum. Her comment was then publicly reported by the media under the headline: Former [political party] cabinet minister says this is heartbreaking. Another participant said that he felt like the proverbial elephant in the room and that people often questioned why he was involved in certain things.

The theme of changing identity also appeared evident in the participants’ rationale for participation in politics. Several noted that they became involved in politics to create a change in their community and in their province. Some noted that they did not like the direction in which their province had been going and wanted to change it. They wanted to make a meaningful 102

103 difference in the province, to change its identity. I discuss this idea further under education identity.

Additionally, the theme was demonstrated when people changed their minds. Several participants noted situations in which they had changed their mind or position on an issue.

Sometimes it was because someone had made a logical, convincing argument; sometimes it was because they gained new knowledge on the subject. Examples also included coming to an understanding that many people did not hold the same view that they had held.

I believe that the process people use to change their minds is an interesting one— especially when leaders and politicians are concerned. Changing one’s mind could be seen as an admission of being wrong, which can be a fatal flaw. It can be seen as flip flopping on an issue, which is also not a positive characteristic. However, not changing one’s mind can also be seen pejoratively as not listening to the facts or to the will of the people.

Changing identity is an important theme in the experience of being the minister of education. People often become involved in politics to change the identity of a community (or to prevent it from changing in a direction they do not agree with). Political parties often put forward a vision of what their ideal community would look like and offer a path to its creation. Education involves helping to create the identity of individual students; helping them to learn to know, to do, to live together, and to be, as the United Nations’ (1990) World Declaration on Education for

All suggests. Public education systems make an impact on the identity of a community by influencing the manner and content of the system. Changing identity is also an important theme in how people experience the position of minister of education. Throughout the experience, they are enabled and constrained by multiple forces and can no longer react or behave as they would

103

104 have prior to the experience. As well, it will continue to influence their identity far into the future.

Voicing Identity

The minister of education is welcome on many stages—on the floor of the legislative assembly, at the podium of public meetings, and in front of a reporter’s microphone. As a representative, the minister speaks for many people. The theme of voicing identity examines the different voices the minister is expected to represent.

As was identified in changing identity, ministers are members of multiple social structures and are expected to represent them, to share their thoughts and opinions with others, and to ensure that their voice is heard. These ministers were once unencumbered citizens, members of a profession, members of a community, and one with their own identities. They were free to express themselves however they felt. But through the process of becoming ministers, these individuals become encumbered with other identities and are expected to voice them.

The minister of education is a representative of the Department of Education, a member of cabinet, an official in government, a representative of a constituency of people, and a member of a political party. The individual holding the position is expected to act in the best interests of everyone and to represent them in a variety of situations. Whenever the minister speaks, in the assembly, to the press, or to someone on the street, he or she is recognized as presenting the position of the government; what the minister says is public policy.

As noted in Chapter 4, one of the participants said that her a-ha moment about being the minister of education came one day when she was facing the media:

I remember facing the media and knowing that the messaging was so important because

there was so much that we were doing. It was a moment when all of a sudden, I realized 104

105

the importance of what I was doing, and all of the initiatives we were bringing in and

how I had to effectively let people know. It was a point in time that I remember, we had

put so much work into all those task forces, reports and reviews, and cabinet meetings.

And all of a sudden, you realized that you were carrying all of that weight. That was the

only time I really felt an a-ha moment. And, a feeling of relief that we were putting it out

there. I really felt the strain. Now that we had done all of the research and done all this

debate, we made the decisions and we put the money there, I remember thinking, “This

[had] better work.”

Always being on and always being expected to be the voice of government requires that the minster be knowledgeable about many issues and stay consistent with established messages.

As one participant said, “You are put in situations where you have to respond very quickly, and you do so with conviction.” When discussing question period, one participant said:

I went in with the attitude that I had to simply know more than the opposition critic. And

I’m not sounding egotistical or conceited when I say that, but I had a whole department

of people that were feeding me information about what was going on every day.

This comment suggests that the minister has access to all the knowledge of the department and that many in the department (and in the political offices) provide the minister with information. The minister is thus expected to be knowledgeable about a given topic. Several participants discussed saying the wrong thing, or making a mistake about a fact or figure, and then having the media report it. They reacted by studying their briefing materials more and by trying to become an expert in everything within their purview. Sometimes they would defer questions to experts in their departments. Sometimes they would be more careful in what they said. And in some cases, they would avoid being in positions where they could be put on the 105

106 spot. Being careful in what one says can lead one to start sounding like the “typical politician”: saying a lot, but not saying anything. Being careful can be a defense mechanism; not wanting to say anything to harm themselves, the government, or the department.

Ministers expect to be put on the spot during question period, in front of the press, and at formal events. They prepare for these scenarios by researching issues, preparing responses, and practicing delivery. But being on the spot often extends to their private life. Constituents and members of the public may expect them to be “the minister” at a coffee shop, at the grocery store, or when they are out to dinner with family. Some participants shared that they spent less time going out in public and started to lead more insular lives because of the situation of always being expected to be a representative of government.

The importance of staying on script was a topic I discussed with the participants. They all agreed that having the right message, the right facts, and the right information was important.

But some differed in their delivery. Departments would frequently prepare speeches or speaking notes for the minister to deliver. One participant said that he never gave a speech that someone else had written. Another said that although he would not give a speech that others had written, he often used the material that they had prepared in crafting his own speech. This statement illustrates the minister’s role as an interpreter: The minister interprets the information presented and then shares it with others. This interpretation also served to send a message to the department. Department staff were expected to question why the minister had not said what was prepared, to identify what was said instead, and to consider how this departure should influence the department.

Being the voice of government also means communicating messages that the minister may not personally believe in or support. However, due to the collectivity of cabinet, ministers 106

107 are expected to endorse all positions of the government even if they do not believe in them. This expectation can be challenging, but most participants accepted it as the compromise necessary to be in a position of influence.

In addition to being the voice of government, the minister is expected to be the voice of the people. Ministers are democratically elected representatives and are expected to carry the people’s voice into policy, budget, and legislative decisions. They are representatives of specific constituencies and are expected to voice the concerns of the citizens in their riding. At the same time, they are trusted to act in the best interests of all in the province.

The issue of being the voice of the people can be examined on micro and macro levels; being the voice of individuals and the voice of a society. On the individual level, many people bring issues to the minister. The minister is often seen as the last hope for people whose issues have not been resolved to their satisfaction. In reference to dealing with individual requests, one participant said:

It’s all about vulnerable people in vulnerable times of their life. You are not dealing with

rich powerful tycoons or rich powerful unions. As a minister, you are their hope at the

table. I used to feel that quite keenly. If I screwed up, they were out of luck, or at least

had fewer options.

The minister is often the voice at the table trying to resolve things to the individual’s satisfaction. When examining policy decisions, many participants suggested that they looked at the situation from the perspective of the citizen who would be ultimately affected. This approach influenced how they drafted programs, policies, and legislation. Two participants suggested that they tended to side with the individual citizen rather than with the department or with the government. One said that, on occasion, he was too quick to agree with citizens and should have 107

108 investigated why the policy was the way it was and the circumstances of the cases before committing to being of assistance.

In addition to putting forward individual cases to the department, the minister is a representative of everyone in the province and has to make decisions in their best interests.

Participants recognized that there is often a diversity of opinions about issues and that even the voices of those who did not vote for the minister needed to be carried into discussions.

Participants suggested that their decisions were often tempered by a recognition that they were governing for all in the province.

The minister is a member of a political party and that association is typically shared with other members of cabinet. They are part of the same team, the same party. Tajfel and Turner

(1979) indicated that people behave differently when dealing with members of the same group than when dealing with members from outside of the group. People tend to agree with those within the group and disagree with those outside the group. Participants attested to this behaviour when we discussed dealing with the opposition. Several examples of looking for and exploiting differences in party approaches were discussed. Being part of a party was part of the identity of the minister, and participants were expected to act in accordance with party decisions and positions.

The minister of education is the voice of the Department of Education. Or, as I was once reminded by a teacher, “You are the one that works for me.” The minister caries the knowledge, needs, and capabilities of the department into debate. At the budget table and in the cabinet room, the minister presents the position of the department and lobbies for it. One participant suggested that the best debates happened in cabinet. He said that in this less structured, more

108

109 private setting, people were inclined to share their personal views and vigorously debate their position, and that through this process, public positions could be established.

In the legislative assembly, the minister is called upon to be the voice of the Department of Education. This includes answering questions on behalf of the department and accounting for the expenditures and actions of those in the department. In this forum, the minister hears criticism and must decide whether to act. Being the voice of the department extends out of the house and includes interviews with the press; representation at intergovernmental, community, and public events; and meetings with stakeholders and citizens.

The members of the groups that the minister is a member of often expect the minster to be loyal to that group; based on the common group membership, they expect their representative to be on their side. For example, participants were reminded that because they were a particular gender, they should be on the side of that gender, or that because they were a parent, they should be on the side of all parents. Some participants were approached by others with whom they shared a common characteristic and were lobbied to become a champion for them, to speak on their behalf, to be their voice, and to be their representative.

One participant shared a story about being asked to be a champion. A group with strong feelings about an issue had thoroughly researched the issue and presented a well-reasoned case.

The participant presented their argument in deliberations, and the decision was made in their favour. He was then heralded as a hero by the group, including the presentation of an award. In another situation, he presented a different group’s argument and the decision did not go in their favour. He was then vilified and compared to a mass murderer. Being recognized as a hero or villain was often subject to the perspective of the group making the characterization.

109

110

Participants also shared that there were other voices or perspectives that needed to be considered. In one conversation, a participant and I recognized that he considered the views of finance officials, lawyers, political staff, fellow politicians, citizens, subject matter experts, and teachers in making a decision. In another situation, he recognized that he was the voice of the

Constitution, reminding officials that it had precedence over factors such as the budget or the collective bargaining agreement. In other conversations, participants said that they often had an affinity to be the voice of parents and the voice of the children.

In conclusion, on the stage—and the minister is always on a stage—the minister of education is expected to voice a complex identity and perform a complex role. Before ministers speak, they must consider the position of the government, the capacity and position of the

Department of Education, the philosophy of their political party, the opinions of people in the province, and their own personal knowledge and beliefs. They must express common values and beliefs of the multiple groups that they belong to. Being trusted by others to be their voice is a significant responsibility and significantly influences the minister.

Educating Identity

As was identified in Chapter 2, philosophical perspectives play an important role in education. Indeed, one of the significant questions in education is, “What is the purpose of the education?” When this topic was discussed with the participants in this study, several suggested that the purpose of provincial education systems is to help prepare people for their future in our society. In other words, the purpose is to help prepare them to be: to help them create their identity. In this section I present the theme of how the minister of education is responsible for helping to create or educate identity.

110

111

Education systems play an important role in the development of individuals and of societies. In his examination of the moral purpose of education, Fullan (1999) identified that education has a dual duty: a duty to the individual and a duty to society. The duty to the individual includes increasing the individual’s chance of having a successful life, and the duty to society includes preparing people so that they can make contributions towards our collective needs, societal development, and democracy. Manzer (2003) summarized that “schools are not only places where people teach and learn; they are also institutional expressions of the values and beliefs of their political community” (book jacket). Education systems contribute to the creation of identity for individuals and to the identity of the communities that they serve.

Participants in the study spoke about taking actions to affect both individual students and situations, and to better the overall system.

Manzer (2003) examined the relationship between democratic governance structures and their education systems. He wrote:

Beyond their primarily individual and collective activities of teaching and learning,

schools have a threefold significance for Anglo-American democracy—instrumental,

expressive, and constitutive. First, they are means by which people in a democratic polity

collectively strive for civic virtue, economic wealth, social integration, and cultural

survival. Second, schools are expressions of the fundamental beliefs, attitudes, values,

and principles that underlie Anglo-American democracy. In how they are governed and

what they teach, schools express conceptions of human needs, make statements of moral

principles, and convey visions of individual and collective development. Third, because

they institutionalize ways of thinking and acting in a crucial domain of public and private

life, schools are constitutive of Anglo-American democracy. (Manzer, 2003, p. 1) 111

112

These complex factors combine with other life influences in developing individuals and ultimately to developing communities of people.

The theme of educating identity has both a micro and macro consideration. A successful education system must allow individuals to develop their unique potential and fulfill their exclusive destiny. And, the system must produce the kind of citizens desirous to the society and assist it in transforming into what it is desirous to become.

As this study was influenced by hermeneutic phenomenology, I am cognizant of the hermeneutic circle: the concept of understanding the whole by examining the parts and understanding the parts by examining the whole. When I think of educating identity, I see an interplay between societal policies influencing the development of individuals and educated individuals influencing the direction of society. In the process of education, collective decisions are made through a democratic process to influence education policy, which changes the education system to influence the development of students and ultimately society.

Education systems are complex and contain many actors. Education ministers play an important part in directing the system and therefore influence educating identity. In interpreting education policy decisions, the minister serves as both a mirror of societal belief, asking the question, “Is this the direction that society wants to go?” and as an agent of change, asking the question, “Is this the direction that society should go?” As one participant summarized, “In many ways, this is about moving the consensus point amongst those forces pushing on the system.”

Several participants noted the challenge in establishing a consistent vision or purpose of education. Expectations of the system are diverse: parents want “the best” for their children— and these expectations can be very different for different children—and there are multiple philosophical perspectives present in Canadian society. Participants shared stories and incidents 112

113 that illustrated how their actions influenced the education system and thus influenced the creation of identity. These incidents included activities involving language of instruction

(English, French, and others), changing curriculum, changing testing and assessment practices, opening and closing schools, allocating costs and resources, encouraging participation in specific programs, rewarding specific behaviour, and intervening in decisions made by others in the education system. Providing specific details about these incidents would risk identifying the participants. In some cases, the changes were campaign commitments that they had promised to implement if elected. In other cases, the changes were made based on consultation with the public, educators, and subject matter experts.

Historically, there are many examples of changes in education policy that changed societies, such as the change from church-based education systems to public systems, the inclusion of females in the school system, the reduction of racial segregation in the school system, and the change from localized school funding to provincial grants. Other recent examples include changes in curricula to address topics such as the inclusion of First Nation languages, and changes to sex education curricula. Changes in policy are often done to create a change in behaviour to ultimately create a change in society

Changes to sex education curricula seem to be particularly politically active areas. For example, Alberta recently passed Bill 24, An Act to Support Gay–Straight Alliances

(Government of Alberta, 2017), which amends the Alberta School Act and affects all schools, including private and faith-based ones. Ontario, with a recent change in government, has removed the sex education curriculum instituted by the previous government.

While examining literature related to educational leadership, I was struck by the often- negative opinion held of politicians. They are described with attributes such as ill informed, at 113

114 best misguided and at worst malicious. One leader in the field suggested that politicians introduce measures to meet the short-term targets that get them through the next election and keep them in office. Others expressed the position that politicians often meddled or interfered in the public education system.

During the interviews I asked the participants whether they did things to get themselves reelected and whether they made decisions to gain favour with the electorate. One of the participants said that he had not and that he felt confident he would be reelected in his riding as long as he wanted to be the representative. He said:

In my riding I was extremely popular. I could concentrate on making what I thought was

the right decision for the right reasons as opposed to saying, “Is this decision going to get

me reelected?” There were some tough decisions. And I always knew that when I would

go back to my constituency that I would have their support.

When making decisions, this confident minister expressed a sense of freedom. He suggested that his constituents had faith in his ability to make the right decisions. Others did not share this confidence or feeling of security in being reelected, but they did express some degree in freedom in making decisions. Several mentioned being in changeable ridings, ones that did not historically reelect its member. One commented, “My attitude was always, ‘I’m not here so I can lose an election [for reasons outside my control]’ and go home and look in the mirror and say,

‘What the hell did I get done?’”

On the issue of meddling or needlessly interfering, I was reminded that politicians are expected to get involved, expected to express their constituents’ concerns, and, in an area where there is significant public expenditure, expected to scrutinize the inputs and outputs.

114

115

Participants expressed a belief that they were legitimately empowered by the electorate to carry out their duties. But, they also expressed that they did not have “carte blanche” for change and that they had to consider what everyone in the community thought about an issue. Several commented that they still had a responsibility to those who did not vote for them. Considering what the entire population thought, and not just what they thought or what their party position was, often tempered or compromised decisions.

I believe that education ministers are supposed to be a voice for their constituencies and get involved in their portfolio. Education ministers, like other leaders, are expected to be both leaders of the people and followers of the people. Citizens do not always like decisions made by people in the system and want them to change. In this regard, education ministers are often a reflection of the people.

Although education ministers play a role in establishing the direction of education, the participants’ comments showed that they did not develop and implement their vision for education in isolation. Education systems are not greenfield exercises with a new system built in the vision of one person. They are complex, established systems affected by history, culture, convention and influenced by multiple perspectives and philosophies. Education systems are affected by their relationship with religious organizations and language issues (both characteristics are included in Canada’s Constitution and are still controversial today), and individual actors have historically had a sense and practice of academic freedom. Additionally, education can be a contested space with stakeholders having a diversity of beliefs, philosophies, and practices. Education ministers do not usually have the opportunity develop the mission and vision of education on their own, but rather must ensure that it is developed with the multiple

115

116 valid perspectives in the province, recognizing its unique history and context, and their own legitimate political objectives.

I believe that one of the important questions community leaders need to reconcile is,

“What kind of society do we want to live in?” And consequently, “What kind of changes do we need to make to live in such a society?” Provincial governments establish legislation, programs, and policies to address the needs of a province and to shift the province to a more desired state.

And, as education is a provincial domain, the provincial governments have a duty to become involved in education to shift it in a direction consistent with public expectations.

The theme of educating identity is an important one. It is important to recognize that the decisions and actions of the minister of education influence the lives and outcomes of students and ultimately influence society. These ministers play a role in the creation of identity for individuals and influence the collective identity of the society.

Trusting Identity

Being the minister of education involves being selected by others to make decisions and working with others to accomplish specific functions that affect students and society. Trust is an important issue in this position. The minister needs to be trusted and needs to trust others. I examine the issue of trust, related to being the minister of education, further in this section.

The OED (“Trust,” 1978) has several definitions and related synonyms for trust, defining it as “to have faith or confidence; to place reliance; to confide” (p. 432, definition 1), “to give credence; to believe; to rely upon the veracity or evidence of” (p. 432, definition 4), and “to commit the safety of” (p. 432, definition 5). The online version added, “firm belief in the reliability, truth, or ability of someone or something; confidence or faith in a person or thing, or in an attribute of a person or thing” (“Trust,” n.d., para. 1a). Trust involves believing or 116

117 accepting something without seeking verification or evidence for it. This process can involve confidence or faith placed in a person or persons into whose possession assets, property, etc., are put, to be held or administered for the benefit of another.

The concept of trust has been examined from multiple fields of study, including sociology, psychology, organizational behaviour, and political science. Weber and Carter (2003) examined the concept of trust further from a social construction perspective. They defined trust as

an orientation between actor and other whose object is the relationship. This orientation is

premised upon the belief that the other will take one’s perspective into account when

decision-making and will not act in ways to violate the moral standards of the

relationship. (Weber & Carter, 2003, p. 18)

Education ministers are involved in many different relationships that involve trust, relationships in which they are expected to take another’s perspective into account when making decisions. They are trusted by party members, constituents, and the premier in the process of becoming the minister of education. They have a relationship with cabinet colleagues, one that is influenced by the concept of cabinet solidarity. As appointed leaders, they have relationships with their department and those involved in education, including subject matter experts, administrators, and teachers. As participants in the provincial budget process, they have a relationship with “the taxpayer.” As those ultimately responsible for the education system, they have a relationship with students. And, they have relationships with staff, other stakeholders, the media, and others. The participants in this study shared several stories that related to the concept of trust.

117

118

When making the decision to become involved in politics, one of the participants said,

“There was a gentleman that I didn’t feel represented my interests. So, I made the decision at that time to run against him.” I find the phrase “didn’t feel represented my interests” to be a very interesting one. It suggests that voters have specific interests that they want protected and want to vote for people who will take steps to ensure that they are protected or enhanced. When discussing the situation of having people vote in one’s favour, one participant said, “People place their trust in you.” Some participants said that this trust resulted in them feeling that they had a duty to their constituents and a duty to address or resolve their specific concerns.

I am reminded of a conversation that I once had with a politician (one not involved with this study) when we went outside for a smoke break. I commented about her smoking, and she told me that her riding had a high number of tobacco farmers in it and that someone had to keep buying tobacco to keep them from going broke. The duty to defend actions that others might see as being questionable is an interesting one to consider. Different people have different views, beliefs, knowledge, and interests, and politicians are elected, and trusted, to represent those issues too. The topic of how politicians experience trust is outside of the scope of this dissertation, but I find this topic, and the issue of being a representative of what history might call the wrong side of the issue, of significant interest.

The issue of whether an MLA is a trustee or a delegate—one who votes as constituents direct or one who exercises his or her own judgement—was discussed with some of the participants. Several said that even though they felt that it was important to represent their constituents, they often had the opportunity to study issues in more depth than most constituents.

They had a responsibility to look at an issue from multiple perspectives (including the perspectives previously examined in changing identity and voicing identity) and that in the end, 118

119 they had to use their own judgement. At the end of the day, they had to make a decision that they could personally live with; they had to trust their identity when making decisions.

Participants shared stories about tough decisions, including closing schools, reducing budgets, and overturning the decisions of others. They had many factors to consider when making these decisions, such as the party position, campaign promises, the premier, cabinet, the budget, legislation, reactions from staff, reactions from stakeholders, and reactions from the public. But they also had to consider their personal beliefs, their knowledge, their experiences, and their situation. As one participant said, “You walk out of it, at the end of the day, being able to sleep at night.” The question of whether an MLA is a delegate or a trustee is not a simple one to resolve. Participants found themselves in complex situations that required situational, contextual consideration. Ultimately, the individual members had to choose how to vote.

Participants shared stories of overturning decisions made by others—including decisions of teachers, principals, school boards, department staff, and former governments. Even though others in the system were trusted to make decisions, these education ministers involved themselves in situations and directed that different courses of action be taken. Reasons for overturning decisions included the belief that the decision was not consistent with the good of the public, that the decision was inconsistent with legislation, strong public opinion against the decision, strong personal beliefs that the decision was wrong, and to satisfy other stakeholders in the system.

Examples came up during the interviews of situations where others in the system were expected to make decisions or take action and did not. One participant said that if others in the system did not act, it was her duty to get involved. Others said that they would tell the expected

119

120 decision-maker that they would intervene as minister and make a decision if none was made.

This step often encouraged the decision-maker to commit to a course of action.

The issue of not agreeing with a collective decision of cabinet was discussed with some participants. One identified a situation as potentially being “a hill to die” on: She could not compromise on the issue and would have likely resigned if the decision had not gone in her favour. Another was more cryptic and said, “Thankfully, I didn’t have too many of those.”

In addition to trusting the premier and other cabinet ministers, the minister of education must also trust the senior staff of the department. When asked about this situation, one participant said that when she first started in the position, she questioned who these people were, who they held allegiances to, and if they were aligned with another political party. However, she soon realized the professionalism of the public servants that she worked with and trusted them.

Another participant shared a story of how a person in his department, who had been at the centre of an embarrassing issue for the government, later campaigned for an opposition party. It seems that the minister is required to trust the department for information, and except for the most exceptional circumstances, that trust is well placed. This is not say that ministers do not test or question the advice that they receive. One participant made a point of asking specific questions about briefing materials to test the quality of the information presented. Another participant suggested that although it was important to trust the system, it was also important to test the system. She put forward the position that people needed to have solid evidence so that they could have trust in the system. This position may be inconsistent with the concept that trust involves believing or accepting something without seeking verification or evidence.

When discussing the trustworthiness of the system, one participant commented:

120

121

I could have stayed at home, and licensed school bus drivers on inspected, safe vehicles

would have picked up children and delivered them to safe schools where trained people,

who had degrees from accredited universities, would spend their days teaching them. And

the world would go on, largely quite well.

As was noted in Chapter 2, many duties are delegated to others in the education system and modern leadership theories (such as distributed leadership or constructivist leadership) are often practiced. Nevertheless, the minister is still accountable for the outcomes of duties delegated to others and is held accountable for the actions of those in the department.

Participants shared stories of situations where others in the system did something that some citizens did not agree with. In some cases, the minister defended the actions of the individuals and in others the minister overturned the decisions. People in the system were trusted to carry out their duties, but if they did not carry them out in a manner that was satisfactory, the minister

(either directly, or through subordinates) was expected—trusted—to become involved.

Regarding being trusted by the general public, as was noted in Chapter 4, one participant commented on the apparent decline in trust placed in people in positions of authority. He said that he had a hard time explaining to people that he had thoroughly researched and analyzed issues before making decisions. Others shared this perspective and suggested that part of being accountable was including others in the process of reaching the decision and providing a reasoned argument for the decision.

Public opinion polls from organizations such as Ekos Politics (2014) and Edelman

Insights (2018) have suggested that the general public has a low trust of government and of government ministers, but a high level of trust for teachers. The situation of not being trusted because of being a politician was experienced by several participants. One participant, who had 121

122 been involved in education prior to his political career, said, “We’ve allowed, as a society, the media and the general public to paint us all [politicians] as liars and cheats. And that we are only in it for ourselves and that we can’t be trusted.” He went on to share a joke: Politicians are like lawyers: Everybody hates them, but boy, when you need them for something, they are your best friend.

In this section on trusting identities, it is interesting to note that my research to identify potential participants indicated that slightly more than half of the education ministers from 2000 to 2016 had a background in education. As noted in Chapter 4, when discussing this with a participant who had a background in education he commented, “The premier had always believed that a teacher should be education minister. He thought that it sent the right message to the teachers’ association and to the teachers in general.” I find it interesting that the identity of being a teacher was used in this manner. This participant went on to say:

I think that it is important to have someone at the table who understands teaching. I think

it is important to have someone at the table who has an education philosophy. I think that

teachers, by nature, are always trying to find common ground, are always trying to

explore all sides of the issue. I think that is part of what we do every day in the

classroom. And I think teachers are accustomed to working with a number of different

issues in the education field; whether it is working directly with the students themselves,

administration, the school board, the community, the department.

This comment illustrates how people’s identity is often tied to their occupation. It also shows how the participants in the study often used language and perspectives from their former occupation when discussing their experiences as minister.

122

123

The matter of how politicians experience trust—being trusted, trusting others, building trust, and recovering trust—is a large issue, and one suitable for more research. The theme of trusting identities is an important one in understanding the experience of being a minister of education. As has been demonstrated, ministers need to trust themselves and have confidence in their abilities. They need to be aware that they need to be trusted by others and take steps to build that trust. They need to be able to trust the roles and systems that they interact with. And they need to intervene when others have a lack of trust or a feeling that their interests are not being served.

Summary

The thematic analysis illustrated the data in new ways. The application of this technique has helped to interpret the stories and responses from the participants and create new insights into the experience of being the minister responsible for education.

One of the key characteristics of being the minister of education is that the minister is expected to play a dual role. The minister of education is the voice of the people to the

Department of Education and the voice of the department to the people. The minister is expected to carry the voice of the people (often by implementing the platform that was endorsed by the people) when making legislation, regulations, policies, budgets, and operational decisions. The public voice may not be consistent, may not be informed, and may be based on inaccurate information, but people’s opinions must be considered. The comment “evidence rarely trumps politics” highlights this point.

Additionally, the minister is expected to carry the voice of the Department of Education when making decisions and when representing the department—in the house, in the cabinet, and in the public. The stories of how participants gave speeches that were prepared by departmental 123

124 officials but presented with personal interpretation illustrate how the minister executes this dual role. In this dual role, the minister of education is often a test for public policy. Can the minister, as a representative of the people, be convinced by those in education that the course of action being recommended is the best one for the province? And then, as a representative of the

Department of Education, can the minister convince others that this is the best course of action for the province?

The views of the public evolve over time. Beliefs that were once common change.

Significant examples include the treatment of people of different race, gender, and sexual orientation. Political leaders, including ministers of education, are often arbitrators and instigators of change, both following and leading the views of the public.

The minister of education does not have the unrestrained ability to make changes. The minister is strongly influenced by several enabling and constraining forces. These forces include their political party (ideology), the platform, constituents, the premier, cabinet, voters, oaths of office, legislation, budgets, and operational factors. One participant illustrated this complexity when he said, “Please don’t confuse my ability to fix this for you with whether or not I care about your situation.”

Education is a contested space, and different people have different views, beliefs, and expectations. Diverse philosophical perspectives are often present and influence practice, programs, and policies. Compromises and pragmatic solutions are often implemented over purely principled decisions.

The success of an education minister is difficult to determine. In some cases, the minister was deemed successful if he or she calmed a contentious issue (often issues with bargaining units) or made a significant change. Linking student performance to ministerial action is 124

125 challenging, if not impossible. Additionally, the success of an education minister does not necessarily increase overall support for the political party or the support for an MLA. In other words, being a successful education minister does not necessarily lead to being reelected or being returned to government.

The education system has many stakeholders, with different perspectives, positions, and power to influence. Participants cited many situations in which stakeholders acted in their own best interests, often to the detriment of the overall system. Education is political, in that people are engaged, active, and take sides. As such, education research is not consistent and is often political. This was illustrated by one participant saying, “I met with education think tanks. . . . I met with those on the left and those on the right.” It is challenging to find solutions and recommendations that are based on reliable research and not influenced by stakeholder perspectives or political ideologies.

Others in the education system are trusted to make decisions or recommendations but ultimately, the minister is publicly accountable for accepting or overturning these decisions. The decisions of others must meet the test of the minister of education: Can the minister stand in the assembly and defend the decision? This situation was illustrated several times by stories of when ministers overturned the decisions of principals, school boards, departmental officials, and others.

The minister of education will regularly be lobbied by people with opinions about public education and those affected by the system, often in seemingly inappropriate situations, to support their position. This occurs even though the decision that will affect the lobbyist will be made by others in the system. People often expect that as the one ultimately responsible for decisions in education, the minister should be involved in all decisions. This regular pressure 125

126 from people to change situations can have an effect on the minister. Many decisions are made in the domain of education, at a variety of levels in the hierarchical system. People are trusted to make decisions, and decisions are influenced by multiple external and internal factors. Not every decision made by every actor in the system can be reviewed by the minister. Others in the system are expected to intervene if someone responsible to them acts inappropriately. In some cases, this lack of intervention causes the issue to rise to the minister. This can result in the minister “letting the system play out,” intervening, or, begrudgingly, accepting the decisions of others.

Having looked at the experiences of five former ministers of education through different thematic lenses, I have developed a new understanding of the role. Personally, I wish that I had known much of what I know now when I was first appointed to the position. I examine these insights further in the following chapter and present insights, implications, and conclusions.

126

127

Chapter 6: Insights, Implications, and Conclusions

I now have a greater understanding of the position of minister of education than I had when I was in the position. By reviewing the literature related to the office, by reflecting on my own experiences, and by carefully studying how others experienced being the minister responsible for education, I have developed and presented new ideas and perspectives. In some areas this involved making explicit what was frequently understood and in other areas more focused interpretation was required. I learned a great deal from process and from the participants.

The participants, who unfortunately cannot be publicly thanked for their significant contributions, each described the position as lived, not necessarily as planned or designed. Their narratives illustrated the complexities of the lived experience and helped to create a nuanced understanding of the experience of being a minister of education.

With this informed knowledge of the experience of being a minister of education, I have reflected on what this means for education in Canada and given carful thought to the future. The issues of anxiety, authority, and accountability have become apparent. These issues have a significant impact on education. I appreciate that these may be contentious topics, especially coming from a former minister of education who researched the experiences of other former ministers of education. But after attentive consideration these are the points that I believe are important to share. This hermeneutic inquiry has led me to conclusions that I did not expect to make. I examine them in depth in the following sections.

Anxiety and the Future

Canadians feel passionately about education. Most adults have been through the education system and most children are in the system. People have memories of their experiences, both good and bad. Parents see their children experiencing the education system 127

128 daily, and again, this exposure can be both good and bad. Education affects people in significant ways for years at a time. It plays an important role in the development of young people and in the trajectory of their life. Education influences the composition of people in our society and influences society in general.

People want the best for their children and the best for our society. These expectations place substantial demands on the education system. The system is expected to play a significant role in children’s development; prepare students intellectually, emotionally, physically, socially, culturally, morally, and aesthetically; and prime them for life after they graduate—to participate in the economy, democracy, and society. Canadians expect the education system to help individuals develop into what they can become and to produce good citizens for our communities.

When I was the minister of education, I was bombarded with expectations and demands.

Parents, stakeholders, and others would frequently share their opinions and beliefs with me.

Their comments were often framed by their experiences and emotionally laden:

• “My child needs this [factor] to be successful. Add it to the curriculum!”

• “Racism is a problem: We should become a leader in social justice education.”

• “Our children don’t know how to manage their money. What is the education

system doing to increase financial literacy?”

• “People aren’t prepared for jobs when they graduate: You need to change the

system.”

• “Children are dying from drug overdoses. The education system must do more to

inform young people about the risks of substance use!”

128

129

• “I don’t want my child to be bullied like I was. What are you going to do to stop

it?”

I was constantly engaged by well-meaning citizens with demands such as these and presented with diverse perspectives and increasing expectations of the education system. The same was the case with the participants. One of the participants of the study said, “Government has the responsibility for resolving problems in society.” This is especially true of education. The education system is expected to address problems in our society. It is a common refrain that problems with our economy, environment, and society can all be solved by more education. Our collective anxiety about the future is held in education.

People are anxious about the future, and they see the public education system as the answer for preparing people for whatever is to come. The belief that more education is the answer for addressing problems suggests, ironically, that our current education system is to blame for our current situation. Education is often seen as a scapegoat for ongoing problems in society. As the one responsible for education, the minister of education is therefore responsible for the problems of today and for solving them for the future. Education ministers are expected to prepare people for the future and to put in place education programs to ensure that everyone behaves as they should so that individual and societal problems are remedied. It is no wonder that few people want to be in the position and that most in the position last fewer than two years.

Public education systems are crucial in addressing individual and societal issues, but they are not the only tool in our society. Learning does not occur only when class is in session, and learning does not stop upon graduation. Even with improved practices and efficiencies, if people’s expectations are increased but time and other resources are not, it is unlikely that expectations will be met. Additionally, tinkering may have a negative impact on meeting current 129

130 objectives. For example, if, in the five-and-a-half-hour school day, some time is cut from the reading program to add a coding course (and teachers are not properly trained on how to teach coding), poor outcomes are likely in both reading and coding. Schools cannot teach everything everyone needs to know to lead a successful, contributory, and meaningful life in 12 years.

If this issue around anxiety in education continues: the belief persists that the public education system is the only source responsible for the development of children and the development of our society, and we continue to have growing expectations of the education system and do not make meaningful changes to it, we will likely see a reduction in education outcomes. If we overload the system with expectations, our expectations likely won’t be met.

Authority and Education

Authority has multiple meanings; generally speaking, it refers to power and expert knowledge. Knowledge and power are distributed throughout many areas in education systems.

However, in provincial hierarchical structures, much of the power culminates with the minister of education. Authority in education is an important issue that has a significant impact on the direction, outcomes, quality of decision-making, and other facets of public education. This issue is strongly linked to accountability, which I discuss further in the final section.

The minister of education is expected to be an authority on education and to make decisions affecting the provincial education system. As was identified in Chapter 2, the minister has the authority to establish courses of study, approve curriculum, set funding priorities, and exercise other significant powers. However, as was also illustrated, expert knowledge of education is not a requirement for being the minister of education. Ministers are appointed to the position for multiple reasons. They may face situations in which they lack specific subject matter

130

131 knowledge to make informed decisions. They must rely on the advice of others, consider the other previously discussed forces that influence decision-making, and often trust “their gut.”

Education is a contested space with multiple perspectives, beliefs, and positions. It is strongly influenced by personal experience. Education is also political. Elected decision- makers—politicians—at multiple levels, including school councils, school boards, and provincial assemblies, are trusted with the power to make decisions. Although they use research (often in the form of recommendations from others), many are also influenced by other factors, such as personal experience, public perceptions, and political positioning.

Education is a subject that is widely researched, and this research influences teachers, administrators, and other education professionals. Research is also used to inform practice, assessment, policy, and other issues in education. However, the research is often inconsistent and inconclusive. Additionally, it is often ideologically or politically influenced. There is no one reliable source of education research; there is no recognized authority for education research.

So, where should a democratically elected leader turn for advice? Where should political parties go for advice for their political platforms? When the department officials and the university professors disagree about the direction of a program, who should the minister of education look to in order to help make the decision? As was demonstrated earlier in the study, many of the stakeholders in education are perceived as acting in their own self-interest.

Participants discussed receiving conflicting recommendations and advice, and some suggested that one could find data to defend almost any position. Ministers of education and others in the system would benefit from a trusted source of reliable, unbiased research and advice. Many other fields and professions have such national bodies. They serve as a common source to inform policy and practice, and they depoliticize decision-making. 131

132

Having a Canadian authority on education is not without its challenges. I was on the

Council of Ministers of Education when the funding was cut to the Canadian Council on

Learning. Provincial interests, jurisdictional issues, political issues, stakeholder issues, funding, and other issues were all factors in this decision and would still need to be considered. But, without a source of reliable information, I believe that stakeholders will see political platforms and decisions driven by public opinion, political positioning, personal beliefs, and emotion.

Accountability in Education

This leads to issues of accountability in education. The minister of education is accountable for government expenditures; legislation, regulation, and government policy; and the actions of those funded by government expenditures. The minister is held to account for the performance of the department. In education, this often relates to the performance of students.

But, as was discussed previously, much is delegated to others in the system, and these parties are trusted to make decisions and undertake actions. Those making decisions need to consider if their decisions are consistent with the direction of the minister. They often need to ask, “Will the minister agree with the decision and defend it? Or, will the minister intervene and overturn the decision?”

There are many actors in education: students, parents, teachers, administrators, school boards, departments, and others. All are expected to perform. But from my research and experience, it appears that the minister, due to the hierarchical nature of the system, is ultimately accountable for everyone’s actions. I was once told by a parent that if his son could not read, it was my fault. Decision-making is distributed throughout the system but accountability for decision-making is not.

132

133

My research has identified that decisions that were delegated to others were, on occasion, appealed to the minister. For example, when there was a problem with a teacher, the minister was asked to fix it. When a principal made a decision that was not supported by the community, the minister was asked to create a policy to change the practice. When a school board planned to close a school, the minister was asked to keep it open. When a charge was levied against a teacher and the teachers’ association defended the teacher, the minister was required to hear the case. I see this dynamic as both a success and a failure of the system. These situations were successful because there was an avenue for appeal. Yet, I question why the issues needed to reach the minister’s desk and were not addressed by those trusted to make the decisions, or those trusted to manage others.

Modern news cycles and social media will likely exacerbate these situations. As one participant noted, when faced with a new issue, the minister frequently needs to let the system play out, to let those in the system analyze the situation and take appropriate actions. However, once a story goes viral, or a reporter becomes aware of a situation, the minister is often questioned and expected to have a response. While the effects of social media were not part of this study, and most participants were in office prior to widespread use of current platforms, this could have significant impacts. Ministers will likely be expected to respond faster, without the considered input from others in the system and may take more control of more issues.

All participants in the system need to be accountable for their actions and hold others accountable. The practice of passing the blame to someone else in the system does not improve the overall performance of the system. It is outside of the scope of this dissertation to suggest how stakeholders in the system—students, parents, teachers, administrators, school boards, associations, and others—should have their performance assessed. Even so, if the only one held 133

134 to account is the minister, then the minister will continue to be involved and continue to intervene.

I know from experience as politician that it is difficult to say, “I don’t like the decision that was made, but that person is the one trusted to make that decision.” To increase outcomes in education, however, I believe that others in the system must be trusted to address their responsibilities and held to account if they do not.

Conclusion

I began this dissertation with the question, “What is the experience of being the minister of education?” I was curious about how other individuals have experienced the phenomenon, and

I wanted to inform others about this important position. As I stated in the introduction, provincial and territorial ministers of education have affected the lives of all citizens and influenced the political, economic, and cultural composition of the nation. I believe that people need to understand this position better.

I examined research related to governance and education leadership in Canadian provinces and explored what is known about being a politician and a minister. I did not always agree with what I read; some sources seemed to simplify the nature and constraints of the position. I believed that people would benefit from an insider’s examination of the experience of being a minister of education.

I proposed a hermeneutic phenomenological methodology for this project and once permission had been granted, I conducted the research.

Data were collected from conversations with five former ministers of education. These semistructured interviews were rich with experience, detail, and information. The former

134

135 ministers’ stories told of their experiences in the position and of what it was like to be in the moment. I shared some of their contributions verbatim in Chapter 4, Data from the Interviews.

The data were then carefully examined and analyzed. Themes relating to identity emerged. I considered the data through the lenses of changing identity, voicing identity, educating identity, and trusting identity. This was an important step as it required that the experiences be looked at differently—how the participants experienced the themes identified rather than how they executed the common duties of the position.

This process led to a better understanding of the common experiences of being a minister of education. The observation that the minister plays a dual role became apparent. The minister is trusted by the community to act in the people’s best interests and voice their concerns to the

Department of Education while also being the voice of the department to the people and acting in the department’s best interest. The analysis led to a more nuanced understanding of the position of minister of education and its important characteristics. These included enabling constraints such as political party ideology, the platform, constituents, the premier, cabinet, voters, and other factors such as oaths, legislation, and budgets; challenges of operating in the contested space of education; holding ministerial responsibility in an area of distributed decision-making; being a measure of public opinion; and issues related to being the public face of the department.

Based upon this new understanding of the position enabled by the data analysis process, I presented insights related to anxiety and the future, authority and education, and accountability in education. I expect that these factors will have significant impacts on education in Canada.

I hope that this analysis encourages further discussion about the role and activities of the minister of education. I sincerely hope that it encourages ministers to think about their role and the important issues in education. 135

136

I encourage others to seek out the thoughts and perspectives of those who have been in the position. I believe that the wisdom of the lived experience is too valuable to disregard.

“Elder statesmen/women” can present ideas honestly and without fear. As one of the participants said, “I’m never going to run for office again, so I can say this to you.”

I have presented new information about being a minister of education in a new manner.

Additionally, I have delved deeper into significant issues affecting education in Canada. I trust that the reader now has an improved understanding of what it means to be a minister of education and that these additional conclusions will encourage further dialogue.

136

137

References

Aoki, T. (1993, Spring). Legitimating lived curriculum: Towards a curricular landscape of

multiplicity. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 8(3), 255–268. Retrieved from

https://acurriculumjourney.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/aoki-1993-legitimating-lived-

curriculum-towards-a-curricular-landscape-of-multiplicity.pdf

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. The Academy of

Management Review, 14(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.2307/258189

Aucoin, P., Smith, J., & Dinsdale, G. (2004). Responsible government: Clarifying essentials,

dispelling myths and exploring change. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Centre for

Management Development. Retrieved from

http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/SC94-107-2004E.pdf

Auditor General of Canada. (2009). Public schools and advanced education: Yukon Department

of Education. Retrieved from http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/docs/yuk_200901_e.pdf

Ballantyne, P., Jackson, D., Temperley, J., Jopling, M., & Lieberman, A. (2006). System

leadership in action: Leading networks leading the system. Nottingham, England:

National College for School Leadership. Retrieved from

http://networkedlearning.ncsl.org.uk/collections/network-research-series/reports/system-

leadership-in-action/system-leadership-in-action-book-3.pdf

Bédard, M., & Robertson, J. (2008). A review of oaths of allegiance in the House of Commons

(Background Paper 241-E). Retrieved from

http://www.res.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/bp241-e.pdf

Burke, W. W. (2011). Organizational change: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

137

138

Caelli, K. (2000). The changing face of phenomenological research: Traditional and American

phenomenology in nursing. Qualitative Health Research, 10(3), 366–377.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F104973200129118507

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative

and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Davey, N. (2006). Unquiet understanding: Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics. Albany, NY:

State University of New York Press.

Docherty, D. C. (2001). To run or not to run? A survey of former members of the Parliament of

Canada. Retrieved from Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians website:

http://www.exparl.ca/sites/default/files/Article_2001-Survey_e.pdf

Dowling, M. (2007). From Husserl to van Manen: A review of different phenomenological

approaches. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 44(1), 131–142.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2005.11.026

Edelman Insights. (2018). 2017 Edelman trust barometer—Canadian results [slideshow].

https://www.slideshare.net/EdelmanInsights/2017-edelman-trust-barometer-canadian-

results

Ekos Politics. (2014, January 3). Looking back and looking forward—Part 2. Retrieved from

http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2014/01/looking-back-and-looking-forward-part-

Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press.

Gadamer, H. G. (1976). Philosophical hermeneutics (D. E. Linge, Trans.) Los Angeles:

University of California Press.

Gallagher, S. (1992). Hermeneutics in education. Albany, NY: State University of New York. 138

139

Gallagher, S., & Zahavi, D. (2013). Phenomenological mind (2nd ed.). Florence, KY: Routledge.

Giles, T., & Proudfoot, A. J. (1994). Educational administration in Canada. Calgary, Canada:

Detselig Enterprises.

Government of Alberta. (2017). Bill 24: An act to support gay–straight alliances. Retrieved from

http://www.assembly.ab.ca/ISYS/LADDAR_files/docs/bills/bill/legislature_29/session_3

/20170302_bill-024.pdf

Government of Saskatchewan. (2017). Education act. Retrieved from

http://www.publications.gov.sk.ca/freelaw/documents/English/Statutes/Statutes/E0-2.pdf

Greenfield, T. B. (1986). The decline and fall of science in educational administration.

Interchange, 17(2), 57–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01807469

Higgs, J., Paterson, M., & Kinsella, E. A. (2012). Hermeneutic inquiry: Interpretation and

understanding in research practice. Contemporary Psychotherapy, 4(1), 1–6. Retrieved

from http://www.contemporarypsychotherapy.org/vol-4-no-1-spring-2012/hermeneutic-

inquiry/

Hogg, M., Terry, D., & White, K. (1995). A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of

identity theory with social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58(4), 255–269.

https://doi.org/10.2307/2787127

“Identity.” (n.d.). In Oxford English Dictionary [online]. Retrieved from https://www.oed.com

“Identity.” (1978). In Oxford English Dictionary (Vol. V). Oxford, England: Oxford University

Press.

Ignatieff, M. (2013). Fire and ashes: Success and failure in politics [Kindle ed.]. Toronto,

Canada: Random House of Canada.

Kirby, A. P. (1991). Narrative and the self. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. 139

140

Laverty, S. M. (2003). Hermeneutic phenomenology and phenomenology: A comparison of

historical and methodological considerations. International Journal of Qualitative

Methods, 2(3), Article 3. Retrieved from

http://ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/2_3final/html/laverty.html

Leithwood, K., & Seashore Louis, K. (2012). Linking leadership to student learning. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Linge, D. E. (1976). Editor’s introduction. In H-G. Gadamer, Philosophical hermeneutics (pp.

xi–xxxii). Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Loat, A., & MacMillan, M. (2014a). Tragedy in the commons: Former members of parliament

speak out about Canada’s failing democracy [Kindle ed.]. Toronto, Canada: Random

House of Canada.

Loat, A., & MacMillan, M. (2014b). Welcome to parliament: A job with no description.

Retrieved from https://www.samaracanada.com/docs/default-source/mp-exit-

interviews/welcometoparliament_eng25ef579a50cd6a04a19bff0000c565b1.pdf?sfvrsn=2

MacKay, A. W., & Dickinson, G. (1998). Beyond the “careful parent”: Tort liability in

education. Toronto, Canada: Emond Montgomery.

Manning, P. (2012, March 10). Conference keynote speech: Three challenges for the

conservative movement. Retrieved from https://www.manningcentre.ca/news/conference-

keynote-speech-three-challenges-for-the-conservative-movement

Manzer, R. (2003). Educational regimes and Anglo-American democracy. Toronto, Canada:

University of Toronto Press.

Marleau, R., & Montpetit, C. (Eds.) (2000). House of Commons procedure and practice.

Retrieved from http://www.parl.gc.ca/marleaumontpetit/ 140

141

Mercieca, J. R., & Vaughn, J. (2014). The rhetoric of heroic expectations Establishing the

Obama presidency. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.

Mishler, E. G. (1979). Meaning in context; is there any other kind? Harvard Educational

Review, 49(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.49.1.b748n4133677245p

Moules, N. J. (2002). Hermeneutic inquiry: Paying heed to history and Hermes—an ancestral,

substantive, and methodological tale. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(3).

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F160940690200100301

Moules, N. J., McCaffrey, G., Field, J. C., & Laing, C. M. (2015). Conducting hermeneutic

research: From philosophy to practice. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Noddings, N. (2012). Philosophy of education. Boulder, CO: Westview Press

Privy Council Office, Canada. (2002). A guide for ministers and secretaries of state. Retrieved

from http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/CP22-65-2002E.pdf

Privy Council Office, Canada. (2011). Accountable government: A guide for ministers and

ministers of state. Retrieved from http://www.pco-

bcp.gc.ca/docs/information/publications/ag-gr/2011/docs/ag-gr-eng.pdf

Savoie, D. J. (1990). The politics of public spending in Canada. Toronto, Canada: University of

Toronto Press.

Savoie, D. J. (2013). Whatever happened to the music teacher? How government decides and

why. Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queens University Press.

Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

School Act, British Columbia, RSBC 1996, c 412. Retrieved from

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/consol17/consol17/96412_00

141

142

School Act, Prince Edward Island, RSPEI 1988, c S-2.1. Retrieved from

https://www.princeedwardisland.ca/sites/default/files/legislation/s-02_1.pdf

Smith, D. G. (1999). The hermeneutic imagination and the pedagogic text. Pedagon, 15, 27–44.

Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/42977533

Smith, J. K., & Blase, J. (1991). From empiricism to hermeneutics: Educational leadership as a

practical and moral activity. Journal of Educational Administration, 29(1), 6–21.

https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000002467

Standing Committee on Public Accounts. (2005, May). Governance in the public service of

Canada: Ministerial and deputy ministerial accountability. Retrieved from

https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/archive/paec/inquiries/strengthening-

government/Submissions/23_attachment_2.pdf

Sumara, D. & Davis, B., (2006) Complexity and education. Inquiries into leaning, teaching and

research, Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin

& S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47).

Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S.

Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago,

IL: Nelson-Hall.

Tiernan, A., & Weller, P. (2010). Learning to be a minister: Heroic expectations, practical

realities. Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne University Press.

“Trust.” (n.d.). In Oxford English Dictionary [online]. Retrieved from https://www.oed.com

142

143

“Trust.” (1978). In Oxford English Dictionary (Vol. XI). Oxford, England: Oxford University

Press.

Turnbull, L. (2013, November 28). If ministers aren’t responsible, democracy doesn’t work. The

Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/if-

ministers-arent-responsible-democracy-doesnt-work/article15649542/

United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1990). World declaration on

education for all. Jomtien, Thailand: Author. Retrieved from

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/ 0012/001275/127583e.pdf van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive

pedagogy. London, Canada: Althouse Press. van Manen, M. (2011). Phenomenology online: A resource for phenomenological inquiry.

Retrieved from http://www.phenomenologyonline.com van Manen, M. (2014). Phenomenology of practice: Meaning-giving methods in

phenomenological research and writing. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Yukon Legislative Assembly. (2012). The role of a member of the legislative assembly.

Retrieved from http://www.legassembly.gov.yk.ca/pdf/infosheet5.pdf

Yukon Legislative Assembly. (2017). Standing orders. Retrieved from

http://legassembly.gov.yk.ca/house/so.html

Weber, L. R., & Carter, A. I. (2003). The social construction of trust. New York, NY: Kluwer

Academic/Plenum.

White, G. (2005). Cabinets and first ministers. Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press.

143

144

Appendix A: Project Description

A Hermeneutic Phenomenological Investigation of Being a Minister Responsible for Education

Using an interpretive methodology, I will explore the phenomenon of being a Minister of

Education in a Canadian jurisdiction. I expect to create a greater understanding of what it means to be the minister responsible and what is involved in this position. This will include understanding how the duties and responsibilities were actually experienced.

It will involve gathering information from 4-6 former Ministers of Education. Their identities will be held in confidence. Separate interviews will be conducted by phone, video conference or in person. There will be two interviews each about 1 to 11/2 hours in length, spaced about 1 month apart. The interviews will inquire into situations experienced while being the Minister of Education and reflections on the experience. The interviews will be recorded and transcribed. A copy of the transcript and the initial analysis will be provided to the interviewee for their additional comments. Additionally, I will provide my overall observations and conclusions prior to the completion of the study to all participants for their consideration and comments. I anticipate the opportunity to provide additional comments will allow for clarification of some points, identification of new thoughts and other reflective considerations.

Participation in the study is entirely voluntary and may be cancelled at any time. As it is important to conduct two interviews I ask that if people feel the need to cancel their participation that they do so as soon as possible after the initial interview, if possible.

144

145

I expect that the results of this study will help to inform people about what it is like being a Minister of Education and that the findings will be useful to people who may become Ministers of Education and to those that work with them.

About Patrick Rouble

Patrick Rouble was the Minister of Education for the Yukon from 2006-2011. He was first elected in 2002 and re-elected in 2006. While in office he also held the positions of Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources; Minister Responsible for the Public Service Commission;

Deputy Speaker; Vice Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and Chair of the Yukon Workers’

Compensation Act Review. Mr. Rouble was also the Yukon Party Caucus Chair from 2002-2006.

He retired from political office, by choice, at the general election of 2011.

Since retiring he has returned to school and is a Doctoral Candidate in Education

Leadership at the University of Calgary. He continues to live in the Yukon and in addition to participating on several boards and committees (including Skills Canada Yukon) enjoys motorcycle touring and building a new cabin. He can be reached at [telephone number] or by email at [email address].

145

146

Appendix B: Informed Consent

Name of Researcher, Faculty, Department, Telephone & Email: Patrick Rouble, Doctoral Candidate, Education, Education Leadership, [telephone number, email address] Supervisor: Dr. Dennis Sumara, Dean, Faculty of Education Title of Project: A Hermeneutic Phenomenological Investigation of Being a Minister Responsible for Education Sponsor: This project is not funded by any sponsor.

This consent form, a copy of which has been given to you, is only part of the process of informed consent. If you want more details about something mentioned here, or information not included here, you should feel free to ask. Please take the time to read this carefully and to understand any accompanying information.

The University of Calgary Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics Board has approved this research study.

Purpose of the Study Using an interpretative methodology, I plan to examine the phenomenon of being a Minister of Education in a Canadian jurisdiction. I expect to create a greater understanding of what it means to be the Minister Responsible and what is involved in this position. This will include understanding how the duties and responsibilities were actually experienced.

What Will I Be Asked to Do? The study will involve gathering information from 4-6 former Ministers of Education. Their identities will be held in confidence. Private interviews will be conducted by phone. There will be two interviews each about 1 to 11/2 hours in length, spaced about 1 month apart. The interviews will inquire into situations experienced while being the Minister of Education and reflections on the experience. The interviews will be recorded and transcribed so that they can be studied in detail. A copy of the transcript will be provided to the participant for their review and if they desire additional comments.

Additionally, I will provide my overall observations and conclusions prior to the completion of the study to all participants for their individual consideration and comments. I anticipate that the opportunity to provide additional comments will allow for clarification of some points, 146

147 identification of new thoughts and other important reflective considerations.

Participation in the study is completely voluntary, and you may refuse to participate altogether, may refuse to participate in parts of the study, may decline to answer any and all questions, and may withdraw from the study at any time

What Type of Personal Information Will Be Collected? Should you agree to participate, you will be asked to provide your name, age, gender, political party affiliation, education and employment history. You will be asked about your experiences as the Minister of Education and for your thoughts on being the Minister responsible. Only Patrick Rouble will have access to this information. Following the transcription of the interviews the data provided will be coded and anonymized in order protect your privacy. The original recordings and transcriptions will not be shared publicly and will be destroyed upon completion of the study.

Do you grant permission to be audio taped: Yes: ___ No: ___

Are There Risks or Benefits if I Participate? Understanding how different people have interpreted and lived the experience of being the Minister of Education will be of significant value for those aspiring to the position of Minister of Education and for those who will interact with them. Additionally, as the study will be examining such a significant position, one that has important effects in the areas of provincial, national, and international politics, governance, education, and executive leadership, it may have large, broad benefits to society. By having a greater understanding of the role of such a key position, readers will gain a much greater appreciation of the forces affecting executive decision making in political provincial decision making, especially in the field of education.

While care will be taken to protect the privacy and confidentiality of study participants the population of former Education Ministers in Canada is small and there is a risk that specific points brought up in the research may be attributed, by others, to specific individuals. The confidentiality of participants will be kept and data will be anonymized to prevent the loss of privacy or damage to reputation.

What Happens to the Information I Provide? Patrick Rouble will conduct the interviews and transcribe them. He will store these records on a removable hard drive stored in a locked private office. Transcribed interviews will be emailed, faxed or mailed (depending upon the preference of the individual) to the individual study participants for their review. The data will then be coded and anonymized for further use. Specific quotations will not be attributed to specific individuals.

If, for any reason, you decide to withdraw from the study all data contributed will be disregarded and destroyed.

147

148

Signatures Your signature on this form indicates that 1) you understand to your satisfaction the information provided to you about your participation in this research project, and 2) you agree to participate in the research project.

In no way does this waive your legal rights nor release the investigators, sponsors, or involved institutions from their legal and professional responsibilities. You are free to withdraw from this research project at any time. You should feel free to ask for clarification or new information throughout your participation.

Participant’s Name: (please print)______

Participant’s Signature: ______Date: ______

Researcher’s Name: (please print) ______

Researcher’s Signature: ______Date: ______

Questions/Concerns If you have any further questions or want clarification regarding this research and/or your participation, please contact: Mr. Patrick Rouble Faculty of Education [telephone number] [email address]

Dr. Dennis Sumara, Dean Faculty of Education [telephone number, email address]

If you have any concerns about the way you’ve been treated as a participant, please contact the Research Ethics Analyst, Research Services Office, University of Calgary at (403) 210-9863; email [email protected].

A copy of this consent form has been given to you to keep for your records and reference. The investigator has kept a copy of the consent form.

148

149

Appendix C: Interview Questions

A Hermeneutic Phenomenological Investigation of Being a Minister Responsible for Education

Researcher: Patrick Rouble, Doctoral Candidate, Education, Education Leadership,

[telephone number, email address]

The initial interview will cover the following topics and include questions similar to the ones listed.

1. Demographic information: Could you tell me about yourself? What did you do before

politics? What party were you a member of? What year were you elected?

2. The Appointment: Can you tell me about how you became the Minister responsible

for Education? How did you feel about the appointment? How did your background

prepare you for the position?

3. Becoming the Minister: How did you do to “learn” the position? Based on your

experience, what would you include in the job description for being the Minister

responsible for Education? How was being in the position or living the experience

different than simply conducting the duties identified in the Education Act?

4. The Activities of Being the Minister: Can you tell me about some of the activities and

experiences that you had while in office? What stands out? What were some of the

important things that you did in office?

149

150

5. Being Responsible: Did you ever have an “a-ha moment” or situations when you

understood what it meant to be “responsible” for education?

6. Reflective Understanding: What is it that you wish more people understood about

what it is like being the Minister Responsible for Education?

The interviews will be transcribed, and you will be sent a copy of it. Your additional thoughts, comments or feedback would be appreciated.

The second interview will examine some of the themes identified in the first interviews.

150