Page Content
Q Why has the Association been concerned about the Task Force for Teaching Excellence?
A Fundamentally, the Association is concerned that the “independent” task force is anything but, and that its recommendations have been tainted by the education minister’s ongoing interference in its work. This isn’t paranoia; there is ample evidence.
Let’s start with the fact that the task force, hand-picked by Minister Johnson, began its work several months before the announcement of its establishment in September 2013. That’s right, before its announcement. Loaded up with Progressive Conservative MLAs and several individuals who have an axe to grind against teachers, its efforts to ensure that every student has an excellent teacher have been focused largely on enhancing “accountability” and “assurance” (ie, facilitating termination of employment, recertification) and “teacher governance” (ie, gutting the ATA’s professional functions). In contrast, only scant and superficial attention has been paid to enhancing supports for teachers (for example, providing adequate time for preparation and collaboration and insuring that “wrap around services” are in place).
We know that Johnson has been extensively involved in directing the task force’s work, with regular meetings with the task force chair Dr Glenn Feltham. While the minister has referred to his task force as a panel of experts, or a “blue ribbon panel,” it can’t be said to be either.
The Association was provided no opportunity to serve on the task force by Minister Johnson, who stated that he did not want stakeholder representation included. Compounding this problem was the unwillingness of the task force to meaningfully engage the Association. Feltham, (joined by PC MLA David Dorward and retired teacher Brent McDonough), did meet with President Ramsankar and other Association representatives early in the process to discuss the way forward. Multiple meetings were promised, but at the second and final meeting (with Feltham and McDonough; Dorward was a no-show) only an update on the work of Minister Johnson’s task force to date was provided. Again, additional meetings to discuss recommendations were promised but never materialized.
The Association did make a submission responding to a fairly narrow set of questions posed by the task force to all stakeholder groups. At no time, however, was the Association consulted in any respect on any recommendations, nor was the Association asked for information on any matter, even when it would have been the only source of information relevant to the task force’s deliberations (in particular, information relating to the policing of professional conduct and competence).
Minister Johnson’s task force engaged in a public consultation process which was managed by an external contractor (we believe through a sole-source contract). There are serious questions about the organization of the process itself and the quality of research collected and reported. Both the representation present and the methodology are high dubious.
While Minister Johnson describes his task force as a third-party, arm’s-length effort, there has been very extensive involvement by Alberta Education officials in providing research from the outset. Even more concerning is the fact that Minister Johnson’s task force met with the entire Progressive Conservative caucus weeks ago to share its findings. We also have credible reports that the MLA members of Minister Johnson’s task force were frequently absent from the meetings but were very hands-on in shaping the recommendations at the end of the process.
Too many of the task force recommendations reflect Johnson’s own hostility toward the Association. Shortly after his appointment to the education portfolio, Johnson ordered that an extensive review of teacher professional conduct processes and models be conducted. Johnson has also distributed widely a report highly critical of the Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation’s professional regulation and, based on this flawed review of another province’s regulatory structures, has suggested that the Association should no longer maintain its professional functions.
Johnson has also failed to adequately support processes that are in place for enforcing standards of professional practice. When a teacher’s competence is reviewed by a hearing panel, a member of the public is supposed to be included on the panel. These members of the public are recommended by the minister of education after consultation with the Association and then appointed by Cabinet. The current public members’ appointments expired in September 2012, and there has been no activity by Minister Johnson to replace these public representatives.
Similarly, when a teacher’s professional conduct is reviewed by a hearing panel, a member of the public is normally included on the panel. These members of the public are recommended by the education minister after consultation with the Association and appointed by Cabinet. The public members’ appointments expire next month, and there has been no activity by Minister Johnson to replace the public members.
Johnson has not met with the Association to discuss his concerns, and has chosen instead to undermine the Association’s professional conduct and practice review processes with others. After then-Minister Hancock approved the Association’s Practice Review Bylaw in 2009, which transferred responsibility for practice review of active members from the minister to the Association, the department rewrote the regulation governing professional conduct and practice review of teachers who are not active members of the Association to bring the minister’s processes into line with the Association’s processes. Government officials have expressed no concerns with the Association’s processes and have actively participated in orientation activities for hearing panel members and superintendents.
The final piece of evidence came to light the night before the task force report was released. Rick Bell, a columnist with the Calgary Sun, published an article that reported recommendations from the report, repeated erroneous claims made by Johnson on earlier occasions and quoted the minister of education directly. Shot through with misinformation and misrepresentations, the article was clearly the product of a cynical and manipulative leak of information to a captive reporter by a highly placed government source, if not the minister himself.
The conclusion appears to be quite clear: this minister appears to have an agenda to break up the Association and to make significant changes to employment provisions and certification requirements for teachers. The task force is a vehicle for this agenda. The collusion between Johnson and elements on the task force dramatically undermines teacher trust and confidence in the process, this minister and the Progressive Conservative government.
