Page Content
Taking a closer look at the task force recommendation on recertification
Question: Minister of Education Jeff Johnson’s task force has recommended a certification maintenance scheme based on a five-year cycle. Why is the Association opposed to this? Don’t we want to ensure we have strong teachers in the profession?
Answer: You are quite right that the Association wants strong teachers in our profession. However, Johnson’s task force recommendation adds layers of inspection to the current system. Let’s take a closer look at the current structure.
The provincial Teacher Growth, Supervision and Evaluation Policy (TGSEP) requires teachers to develop an annual professional growth plan together with their principals and to take steps to achieve the goals set out in the plan. As well, when teachers begin their careers or are new to a school board, an extensive evaluation process takes place to ensure that they meet Teaching Quality Standard (TQS) and board requirements. Permanent teaching certificates and continuing contracts of employment are not granted without multiple evaluations to ensure expectations are met. Throughout the year every year, principals are responsible for supervising teachers. Through this supervision, principals exercise educational leadership and the key responsibilities outlined in section 20 of the School Act. When a principal believes a teacher should be evaluated, the evaluation process is initiated. If the evaluation indicates concerns with the teacher’s teaching, the teacher is responsible for meeting the requirements of a remediation notice within the timelines allowed. Failure to meet the expectations of the notice would, in all likelihood, be grounds for termination of employment and possibly for practice review. A potential challenge to certification would come through a practice review based on evidence assembled through the teacher evaluation.
Johnson’s task force proposes a very different teacher evaluation scheme. Growth plans would not reflect the individual teacher’s plan for professional growth. Rather, they would be dictated by the board or a central office based on district or school priorities. Feedback would be provided throughout the year, and a formal written assessment would take place at year end. In the fifth year of the cycle, a teacher would again be evaluated. Teachers who fail to “pass” the evaluation would lose their certification. Loss of certification means loss of employment.
The existing structure—growth, supervision and evaluation—is highly workable and can lead to an employment decision about the teacher’s practice or a practice review. Teaching certificates are not renewed without an attestation from the superintendent of schools on the basis of the formal evaluation. The task force’s suggestion that their recommendation is simply maintenance of certification is disingenuous; it is more about inspection and surveillance. Maintenance of certification or continuing education requires the documented completion of certain courses; failure to provide the documentation will lead to a decision to cancel a permanent certificate.
The TGSEP is very clear and functions well. Of course, principals could always use additional preparation and dedicated time to address these very important duties. While we absolutely want strong teachers as members of the profession, we do not support dictated growth, annual evaluations and five-year recertification. We believe professional capacity and culture are best supported through genuine growth, engaged supervision and evaluation when it is required. Scarce human and financial resources can be focused on the teachers who need assistance, not in the huge task of stamping every teacher’s forehead with the word “competent” on an annual and five-year basis. ❚
Questions for consideration in this column are welcome. Please address them to Gordon Thomas at Barnett House (gordon.thomas@ata.ab.ca).
