Working Conference Series on Research in Teacher Education in Canada

 

 

 

 

Working Group V:  

The Poligical Context of Teacher Education Programs

 

Group members: Peter Grimmett (SFU), Andrea Martin(Queen’s), Alice Pitt (York ), Jon Young (Manitoba)

 

GROUP REPORT

(by Jon Young)

 

Issue #1: The Agreement on Internal Trade and Teacher Certification
The Agreement on Internal Trade  (www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/ait-aci.nsf/en/home ) was signed in 1994 by the Federal Government and all of the provinces and territories. Its primary purpose, as stated in the preamble to the Agreement is to, “reduce and eliminate to the extent possible, barriers to the free movement of persons, goods, services and investments within Canada”. Chapter 7 of the Agreement addresses Labour Mobility, and this has as its objective, “to enable any worker qualified for an occupation in the territory of the Party to be granted access to employment opportunities in that occupation in the territory of any other Party” (Article 701).

Under this Agreement provinces are required to jointly review their existing teacher certification requirements with a view to agreeing to a Mutual Recognition Agreement that would reconcile to the extent possible differences in certification requirements and maximize teacher mobility across the country.

In 1999 the provincial Ministers of Education, through the Council of Ministers of Education Canada (CMEC) approved an Agreement-in-Principle on Labour Mobility that used the mechanism of provisional or interim certification as the bridging mechanism to support mobility while at the same time respecting provincial differences (CMEC, 1999). The expectation was that this was an interim measure and that the provinces would continue to work to reconcile differences in their certification requirements. Discussions have continued since 1999 led by the provincial teacher certification registrars (Department of Education officials and College of Teachers registrars) but no Mutual Recognition Agreement has been signed.

In July 2008 at a meeting of the Council of the Federation in Quebec City, the premiers confirmed 2009 as the implementation date for the Labour Mobility chapter with full mobility set as the default position for professions and occupations that had not negotiated Mutual Recognition Agreements by that time (Council of the Federation, 2008).

This Agreement was seen by the group as the most pressing political context for teacher education in Canada at the present time and was the issue that the group spent most time discussing. The Agreement is likely to significantly curtail provincial autonomy in the area of teacher certification and has the potential to impact in many ways on university Bachelor of Education programs across the country. While the immediate impact of the 2009 deadline is likely to be small – there are currently few certification barriers to teacher mobility in Canada – the long-term potential impacts are large. The group identified and discussed the following issues:

  • The pressures on provinces under this Agreement to move to a harmonized, national set of standards that could (a) represent ‘the lowest common denominator’ of existing provincial requirements, and (b) remove the long established power of provinces to shape teacher certification requirements to reflect the unique history, character and aspirations of each jurisdiction.
  • The impact on the Agreement on Bachelor of Education program structure (program length, length of practica, required courses, breadth of certification), student enrollments, and relationships with the field/the profession.
  • The issues in teacher education that it will now be more difficult to ask, (a) because educators attention will be focused on the requirements of the Agreement, and (b) because many ways of rethinking teacher education (linkages to practice, induction etc) may be constrained by the Agreement.
  • Implication for the certification of internationally educated teachers.

It was agreed that these topics represent an important area of scholarship, both analytical work on the history of the Agreement and its implications for teacher education as well as tracking its actual impact.

 

Issue #2: Teacher Education’s Place Within the University
To date Canada has largely stood part from developments in places like the USA and UK and (initial) teacher education remains fairly firmly located within the university/public institutions of higher education. This location is, however, fairly recent and not without its challenges. In the UK and more especially in the USA a considerable number of approved “alternative programs” encourage initial teacher preparation to take place outside of the university, delivered by a variety of other “service providers”.

The current context for Canada is one of some volatility. Attention needs to be given to the way in which initial teacher education is perceived within the university.  [Canada is not the USA, but Arthur Levine’s 2006 study Educating school teachers is an instructive study of what happens when main campus and central administration devalue Education as see it mainly as a ‘cash cow’ or ‘donor faculty’ to be tolerated only in order to fund higher status endeavours.]

Around 2015 it is anticipated that there will be an increased demand for teachers at the same time that traditional university enrollments may be declining. The impact of such a context is uncertain, but it is possible that they could create “a cauldron of conditions” that would provoke consideration of alternative programs in Canada.

 

Issue #3: The Justifications for Initial Teacher Education’s Location within the University
Related to Issue #2, the group believes that there is a need for scholarship that explores/lays out the justification for initial teacher education to be housed exclusively within a university location. This would take up the distinctions between notions of ‘teachers as public intellectuals’ and ‘teachers as competent technicians/ professionals’. [The concept of ‘professional’ being co-opted and redefined in the latter case.] John Furlong and Richard Smith’s 1996 book The role of higher education in initial teacher training make an important distinction between pragmatic/convenience justifications and principled ones related to the core functions of universities around theory, scholarship/research, and critique.

Somewhat related to this distinction the group also felt that it was important that CATE provide a critical response to the SAEE report Teacher education in Canada: A baseline study (Crocker and Dibbon, 2008), since by its representation as a baseline study it serves to problematically frame the way in which the quality of initial teacher education in Canada is to be defined and evaluated. As such it has the potential to promote a particular, only moderately positive, assessment of Canadian initial teacher education, that do not do justice to existing programs. “We need new questions for old problems in teacher education”.

 

References

  • Council of Ministers of Education Canada (CMEC) (1999).  Agreement-in-Principle: Labour Mobility Chapter of the Agreement on Internal Trade/Teaching Profession.
    www.cmec.ca/else/agreement. en.stm

  • Council of the Federation (2008). Trade: Building on our strength in Canada and Abroad.
    www.councilofthefederation.ca/newsroom/newsroom.html

  • Crocker, R. & Dibbon, D. (2008) Teacher Education in Canada: A baseline study. Kelona, BC: Society for the Advancement of Excellence in Education.

  • Furlong, J. & Smith, R. (1996). The role of higher education in initial teacher training. London: Kogan Page.

  • Levine, A. Educating school teachers. Washington, DC: The Education Schools Project.