The indefinite strike called by the Autonomous Federation of Education (FAE) is now over, but it will undoubtedly leave after-effects on many people, notably education students, young teachers and other employees interested in a career in teaching.
The FAE had to make spectacular gestures, such as temporarily blocking the ports of Montreal and Quebec, in addition to its marches and other completely harmless demonstrations, to illustrate the extent to which this government was unwilling to tackle the roots of students’ learning difficulties, as well as the working conditions of its staff, who nevertheless play a leading role in the future of its “electrical ambitions”.
This historic five-week standoff between David and Goliath will not have left only bad memories. It will have made it possible to highlight all the distress that exists in several schools in large urban centers in Quebec and to what extent the learning delays of students in difficulty have become an inevitability without the ministry paying serious attention to it. Several influential people, from the late Jacques Parizeau to Égide Royer, wrote public letters to speak out against the social unacceptability of producing functional illiterates. Ultimately, no decision-maker acted to correct the situation.
This is the essence of the miracle of this strike: all of Quebec is now aware of the urgency of acting with regard to the composition of the class, academic delays and the burden of the teaching task.
Minister Bernard Drainville’s catch-up plan was well received by the Federation of Parents’ Committees, by representatives of school management as well as by the two teachers’ union bodies. But this plan, in fact, should not be qualified as a catch-up plan to compensate for the days missed due to the strike. The Drainville plan should have been called “Emergency intervention plan to address the shortcomings of recent decades of lack of comprehensive planning for adequate educational interventions for students with learning difficulties”! A great title, which perfectly sums up the real reason for this plan.
During the pandemic, let us remember that students were also deprived of school for several weeks before remote teaching was organized, the real effectiveness of which was called into question. However, despite the anxiety created by deaths, closures of public places and curfews, the ministry at the time did not see fit to put in place a catch-up plan of this scale.
It took a five-week strike to unlock the safe and find at least 300 million to invest directly with students in difficulty. The strike has broad backs, it was nevertheless useful for concrete means to be quickly put in place to take care of these students in difficulty who are too often neglected.
I am pleased that this plan is being put in place, although I consider that it has many blind spots, such as the uncertain mobilization of students outside of school hours and the number of tutors needed, given that we are in shortage . The strike clearly highlighted the difficulties of students, but it also highlighted the heaviness of the task of teachers. In this context, was it necessary to maintain step 2 in order to delay it? Evaluations will need to be made as well as corrections, reflections and data entry!
Did we need a report card to document students’ difficulties or successes? Inter-stage communication based on observations could have done the trick and above all demonstrated that the minister has finally understood that we must avoid overloading newly returned teachers.
In conclusion, this strike was a revelation for several aspects of education. First of all by showing that the government did not have a precise plan to conduct successful negotiations. Offering less than 10% increase over five years was a ridiculous start. To use a famous expression born from the pandemic, the government built the negotiation plane in mid-flight! This lack of consideration has made the population lean towards the side of education stakeholders.
Another revelation was the lack of long-term vision of what education should be in Quebec. However, a communication plan to promote the teaching profession and other related professions seems essential. The Drainville plan is a “temporary bandage”. To heal the wound, it will be necessary to make professions in education more attractive, rethink the school schedule to provide an integrated recovery period of 30 minutes daily (under the supervision of the teacher and a teaching assistant or of a trainee or resident in education).
It will be necessary to review the training of teachers so that the 4e year of the baccalaureate or the qualifying post-master’s degree or the year following the end of the short training either like a residency in medicine (and paid) so that future teachers develop a reflective approach under supervision before being thrown out alone into the pasture in a class.
Finally, it will be necessary to put forward pilot projects to take advantage of artificial intelligence in the creation of intervention plans which will propose means based on evidence to try to correct the problem(s) detected in the student. It is up to you, Mr. Drainville, to carry the torch of structuring changes in education so that its light is a source of inspiration for the next generation and parents so that, all together, we can act to preserve the future of education in Quebec!