Skip to main content
ARTICLE

Reforming the College of Teachers – Half Measures are Not Acceptable (OTF Report)

Hilda Watkins
Summer 2006

Tags

The   Liberal  party  campaigned  on the platform  of  revitalizing  the  Ontario College of Teachers. Indeed, Liberal politicians seemed to  comprehend the teachers’ dilemma  – that  teachers  could  only  support and respect the College if it were truly a self-regulatory professional body.

This  spring  the  government  introduced  Bill 78, the Education Statute Law Amendment Act (Student  Performance).  The  Bill  addresses  a wide variety of issues. Particularly significant for OTF – and of grave concern – are the proposed changes to the governance of the College. The new law proposes to:

  • Increase in the number of elected classroom teachers to 23 from 17
  • Create a public interest committee
  • Give the College responsibility to determine, through regulation, who is eligible to be elected and what constitutes a conflict of interest
  • Shorten the maximum term of office to six consecutive years from 10 years
  • Introduce an oath of office.

Although  the  legislation  affords  teachers  six additional seats on  the governing council, this equates to a simple majority of one. (Other council positions include 14 government appointees, and  one  from  each  of  the  designated  groups – principal, supervisory officer, private school representative and faculty representative.) No other professional college has a  governing body with such a slim majority of members.

The proposed public interest committee would be comprised of people who are not members of the College. They would be government appointees who would provide advice relating to the duty of the governing council and its members to serve and protect the public interest. This committee seems  redundant given that the mandate of the governing council, since its inception, has been to serve and protect the public interest. Further, the existence of such a committee could be potentially costly and the teachers of Ontario would have to bear this expense. Additionally, no other professional college has a public interest committee.

The  proposed  eligibility  requirements  are punitive and excessive. Teachers would not be allowed sit on the governing council if they were employed, elected or appointed at either the provincial or local level by any teachers’ federation. Such language has the potential to disenfranchise any member who participates as a delegate at an annual general meeting or serves on a provincial or a local committee. Indeed, even local commit- tee members who liaise with crisis centres could be deemed ineligible.

Equally distasteful is the language around the definition of a teacher that  could  potentially make teachers on maternity and other leaves, as well as occasional teachers, ineligible to stand for election to OCT.

The six-year limit on the term of elected councilors will hamper the acquisition of experience and the smooth transition  between those who are experienced and those new to the council.

OTF and the affiliates have a short time frame in which to address the difficulties inherent in Bill 78. In particular, the issue of eligibility must be resolved prior to the election of the fourth council, which is scheduled to begin on September 5.