I lost out on a 0.5 permanent job last week. I had been in the position for 2 years, at a school I had been supplying (substituting) at for a couple years before that. How did that happen? In short, the job was posted with "French an asset" tagged on. The principal knew I was not French qualified. The position had never been a French position (it's a French Immersion school). School enrollment is down, so she wanted to ensure any new staff would be as flexible as possible in what they can teach. Another applicant had French qualifications, so I was not selected. It sucks. I always seem to be at the wrong spot at the wrong time. Let's back up.
In 1847, the first "Normal School" opened in Ontario. This was a school to train teachers. To enrol, you had to be 16 years old, present a certificate of good moral character from clergyman, and provide evidence you had skills in reading, writing, and arthmetic. The first year, only men were accepted and it was for 5 months. In 1865, you could get a 2nd class certificate in 5 months, or a 1st class certificate in 10 months. Subject knowledge was a priority, and to teach in secondary schools, this meant a university education. However, there was a shortage of university educated applicants, so a 1st class certificate was acceptable.
The School Act of 1871 made elementary education mandatory and created a greater need for teachers. A new type of high school, the Collegiate Institutes, demanded even more rigorously trained teachers. By 1920, there were 7 Normal Schools in Ontario.
1n 1885, 54 Collegiate Institutes were designated as teacher training facilities. It was an intense program, lasting 14 weeks and included a few different things (2 weeks of general theory and organization, and 6 weeks of observation and practice teaching). However, the instructors were ill-equipped to be teachers of teachers.
Another option appeared for a 3rd class certificate. This was the County Model School. The certificate would only be valid in that county. This meant many schools would be staffed with teachers barely older than the students, and with little training.
Secondary teachers were offered much more training, beginning in 1890 with a School of Pedagogy. High school graduates earned a 1st Class certificates, and university graduates were awarded Ordinary or Specialist High School certificates.
Right from the early days, the province had a big say in teacher training and certification.
In 1906, secondary teacher education was moved to the University of Toronto, and in 1907, a faculty opened at Queen's University in Kingston. It was a year long program, with 50 days of observation and 20 days of practice teaching, among other things. It did not go smoothly. About 75% of the students had only a high school diploma and did not seem prepared for a university program. In 1920, the Queen's program ended, and the University of Toronto program became the Ontario College of Education and was entirely under the control of the provincial Department of Education.
The Second World War and subsequent baby boom created a teacher shortage. Students with high school diplomas could teach on a Temporary Certificate upon completion of two six-week summer courses; they could then qualify for a permanent certificate after another year of teaching. Also, diploma expectations for candidates with high school diplomas were diminished from nine Grade 13 requirements down to five. Ontario had a grade 13 (or later, and equivalent year) from 1920 to 2003.
"In 1956, the Elementary School Teacher`s Certificate replaced 1st Class for teachers who had completed Grade 13. The Elementary School Teacher`s Certificate was then divided into four levels in 1961. For Standard 1, a teacher needed to complete a one year program. To be promoted to Standard 2, a teacher also needed to have taken five university courses. For Standard three, ten university courses. Standard 4, conferred on certified teachers who had completed a bachelor’s degree, served as an incentive for elementary teachers to become highly qualified professionals." https://journals.library.brocku.ca/teachingandlearning/index.php/home/article/download/426/381
As if this wasn't confusing enough, training of "vocational teachers" (technical studies, which could include subjects such as hairdressing and typing, as well as auto mechanics, etc), was even more confusing and best left out of this post.
Even in the early 1950s, there was a great debate about pedagogical training vs subject knowledge, and which was more important. Not much actually changed, except the Normal Schools were renamed as Teachers' College in 1953.
The Report of the Minister’s Committee on the Training of Secondary School Teachers (1962), implored that teachers be "a participating, creative responsible person who must be skilled in the complexities and subtleties of the educational process in a democratic society” (p. 17). Ahhh....there's the jargon talk. How many on that committee could actually define that? No matter, The University of Western Ontario and Queen's University opened teacher education programs. However, another report in 1966 stated that the one year program was not enough due to new subjects in the curriculum.
At this time, teacher education was transferred to universities, with the idea that some focused on elementary and some on secondary. The ideal model for elementary teacher training, was concurrent--university courses in subjects at the same time as teacher training. The ideal blend was 75% subject knowledge and 25% teacher knowledge--or, a 3 year Bachelor program and 1 year of teacher training leading to a professional certificate. For secondary school, it was preferred that the Bachelor degree was earned first, then the secondary teacher professional certificate.
Another report, in 1968, declared “The focus is more on how to learn and think, and less on what we know and remember. Education is becoming a process, rather than a thing” (p.123) As an elementary student in the 1970s, I think my teachers missed this memo, LOL.
The running of education faculties were to be shifted to the universities that housed them, but the government was still going to be in control of teacher certification, and the 1968 report recommended the founding of the College of Teachers of Ontario.
Regulation 269 was put in place in 1974. This defined teachers as primary/junior, junior/intermediate/senior, and Technological Studies. It also defined Additional Qualifications, Specialist courses, and Principal's Qualifications. The province still controlled teacher certification, that just meant graduates of Faculties of Education got a certificate.
By 1990, there were 10 Faculties of Education in Ontario. Five offered only consecutive programs, 1 offered only a preservice program, and 4 offered both concurrent and consecutive programs. I am unsure when it became mandatory for elementary teachers to actually have a Bachelor degree, as the last mention was 1961, there was encouragement to have one. I'm also unsure when the programs started granting Bachelor of Education degrees.
To put this in perspective, I graduated high school in 1990 and headed to Queen's University. I had been planning to become a teacher since kindergarten. I entered Queen's in the Bachelor of Music program, which was not offered as part of the concurrent education programs (which were now 5 years). I did transfer out of that program after the first two years but could not transfer into the "con ed" program. I could get into some Teachers' Colleges (there were still known as such colloquially) with a 3 year Bachelor of Arts, but many required a 4 years Honours Bachelor of Arts.
In 1994, I headed to Teachers' College at Nipissing University, for one year. Upon entering the program, everyone was excited and optimistic for our futures. Then, in January 1995, the 18 month long Royal Commission on Learning was released. It was if a grey veil was suddenly hung over the faculty. To add to that, a provincial election was called and experts felt the Conservatives would win, and their leader, Mike Harris, had plans to dramatically change education in Ontario. As such, we did not even have a job fair. At graduation, in June, only about 3 or 4 in my class of 30 (intermediate/senior) had jobs lined up for September--some going to remote northern communities where they had done a practicum, some over seas. On top of all this, my long term boyfriend broke up with me mid-year. His dad was the head of one of the subjects that I was training for, at our old high school--so kind of an important connection that I lost. I was totally devastated by this surprise break up and it impacted me greatly.
The Ontario College of Teachers became the regulatory body for teacher education certification programs. Although they accredited programs, they weren't really involved in the creation of programs. It was simply another layer of bureaucratic regulations. The OCT seems to be a money grab--yearly registration fees, a fancy office in a very expensive part of Toronto, a glossy magazine. We no longer get actual membership cards, or the magazine. Teachers were split on the usefulness of the magazine. I appreciated it for keeping me in touch with education when I wasn't teaching. Most teachers always read the "Blue Pages" (perhaps they were blue as a throwback to the "Blue Book" directories of Ontario's teachers), which detailed teachers' infractions and punishments.
Ontario's government decided to expand the teacher training program to two years, in 2015. This coincided with a 50% reduction in acceptances, in an attempt to reduce a teacher surplus. The years leading up to that was indeed, a difficult time to get a job as a teacher, and many worked for 5-7 (even 10+) years as short term and long term supply teachers before getting permanent positions. I left supply teaching after a short two years, in June 2000, to start my family. I kept my OCT membership active for a while, but then new requirements for continuing education were put in place and I could not manage that, as I had no income. I let my membership lapse for a while, and rejoined in around 2013. I was working as a lunch room supervisor and heard there were changes coming again and to re-instate now so I wouldn't have to go through a re-instatement process that was predicted to be expensive and might involve a math test.
The math competency test has come and gone, and is coming back. Originally it was supposed to cover up to grade 6, but reports from people taking it was that it covered grade 9 math. I'm so glad I didn't have to do it. I had no plans to teach math, and had barely passed grade 12 math! The government brought this test back. The history of math education is worthy of its own post. Because math test scores were dropping, schools got extra training--in the same methods. The Conservative government decided a few years ago to "Get Back to Basics" and brought out a new math curriculum. There were no resources for teachers, no textbooks, nothing. However, from what I've seen, students do seem to be doing better with this, rather than the older, more exploratory ways of math. Teachers though are divided--they want students to understand the "why" which can create multiple "how" (My own child really struggled with multiple ways of doing things in math).
The two other players in the education field in Ontario are the unions and the school boards. Originally, school boards were approximately the same as the county they covered. As part of Mike Harris' restructuring of education, school boards (like some municipalities) were amalgamated. This created humongous areas for some boards to cover. This is perhaps one of the biggest differences with education in the United States. We don't have neighbourhood school districts (we do have "home" schools). School boards are bound to provincial and union rules as far as hiring and funding. All schools are funded on the same formula in Ontario. While this sounds fair, it means that schools that need greater resources in one area (like special education needs), don't get it.
Unions. Love them or hate them, they are here. Several times I have lost out on jobs due to rules like Regulation 274. This regulation created a hierarchy of seniority that was the ruling factor in hiring practices. For years, you had to start as a supply teacher and get a certain amount of experience. Then, you could apply to the LTO (Long Term Occasional) List, which included a rigourous interview. You might be lucky to get an LTO without being on the list but it would usually be small, or at a difficult school. Once you were on the LTO list, you got first pick at the LTO jobs. These jobs were more than two weeks, and up to a year long. If a teacher went on a year long maternity leave in April, you were hired for April to June, and then the job would be reposted for September. After working in LTOs, you could apply for permanent jobs. There were stipulations such as they had to interview the 5 candidates with the most seniority. It didn't matter about experience, or ability. Once permanent, you were still subject to moving around as you'd have the lowest seniority at the school so would get surplussed easily each year (not always, but many newly permanent teachers would change schools every year for 5 years!).
Regulation 274 was struck down and boards have been in the process of creating new procedures for hiring. We are back to the "It's who you know" days. Which is very hard for supply teachers because you often don't get to interact with principals and VPs when you're in a school for a day. I've spent the past 3 years supplying primarily at one school. I've been to a few others, but didn't make a connection with the VP (other than being requested).
The school I've been at the most was just a fluke. Four years ago, the new VP recognized my name from when she worked at my kids' school and was on the SERT team when we started the IEP process for my youngest. She said she'd request me if I'd like. Sure? I wasn't entirely sold on the school, I just went there for the music jobs. Going more frequently though became awesome. In Oct 2022, the music teacher got Covid and I filled in. She was teaching music, some art, and grade 7/8 science--something I knew nothing about. Then she had a death in the family and took a leave. Due to union rules, although I was granted it as an LTO, I never knew when it would end, and it had to keep getting extended every few weeks. Stressful. The teacher got a LTL in May. This meant the principal (who had been the VP), could post the job over the summer, as a Sept-June LTO. The teacher originally did music and English. I did not want the English. Another supply teacher could do the English but not music. So, they were able to split the job. We both applied and got 0.5 LTOs.
At the start of Jan 2024, the grade 7/8 math/science teacher went on maternity leave. To try to cover it while they looked for a teacher, the english teacher and I each took a half day. If it had been possible to split the schedule so that I could do science only, it would have been good. But it couldn't be done. I am NOT a math teacher. The other supply had done it for a while the year before. They tried to find a French teacher to replace the original math teacher, but there was no one suitable. So, the English teacher took on the math/science job and they hired a new English teacher, and I stayed 0.5 music.
In mid-February, I was told the music teacher had been instructed that she had to come back. She would be on a return-to-work program and when ready, take over full time. The principal wasn't optimistic, but I had no choice. The teacher indeed, said she was ready (though actions speak louder than words...), and took over at the end of March (I was kept on for two weeks as back up). I was out of a job, despite a contract. We have no idea why she took over the music half and not the English (the new English teacher was very new to teaching), or even both. Students were so upset. It was heartbreaking when I'd be there and they'd be begging me to come back as the music teacher.
In mid-May, she announced she was transferring to another school for Sept. That meant her job could be posted as permanent!! Of course, I'd get it, right?
It wasn't posted until the end of the summer. The job posting said "Intermediate Instrumental music, French an asset." The lack of some punctuation makes it a bit open to interpretation. In Ontario, you do not have to be music qualified to teach elementary music, but the posting made it look like that was required--except it didn't actually state it was. I was still optimistic, thinking all the French teachers would have jobs by now.
I didn't get the job!! The principal said the other candidate was really strong, and willing to take the French proficiency test.
What?! The job hadn't needed French previously. It wasn't scheduled to have French this year. Further investigation into the new teacher makes me wonder if she even has any music qualifications. I won't get into that.
Because I had been waiting for that job posting, I didn't apply to other jobs.
In my early days, Reg 274 kept me out of the LTO list. Now, not having Reg 274 lost me a job. Argh.
Anyway. There's a brief history of education in Ontario, and my experiences. By no means, an extensive article, LOL. It's been really interesting seeing how few teachers are 1995 grads. Most I meet are 1994 or 1998 (or newer). I feel like I've been getting signs all these years that maybe I shouldn't be a teacher. I keep running into roadblocks and let downs. The thought of going to other schools now, fills me with great anxiety. I'm out of practice! Sometimes I wonder if I should just stop.
Comments
Post a Comment