The problems in the education system are numerous, we know that, but which ones are currently dramatically affecting our ability, as a society, to offer our children and our fellow citizens an education commensurate with our aspirations? collective? Why do some groups of students find themselves without a qualified teacher? Or without a teacher at all? Why do some groups of students see teachers succeed one after the other throughout their school year? Why do parents have to turn to the private sector to obtain support services for their children?
The extremely difficult working conditions, scientific research shows, scare away more than a quarter of female teachers even before they have practiced for five years, or even earlier. Sick leave is increasing and the oldest leave before retirement age, worn out by the persistent harshness of their working conditions. School service centers are struggling to fill the positions of psychologists and daycare technicians, and management, which has become a transmission belt, is beginning to desert public schools for the private sector.
The actions of the Minister of Education should urgently improve the working conditions of school staff. It is obvious. However, it is precisely the opposite that the reform he proposes is likely to generate. In fact, among the characteristics of the work environment known to lead to the deterioration of the mental health of school staff, their absenteeism, their intention to leave, or even their professional dropout, we find in particular the lack of recognition, the low latitude decision-making, the high psychological demands and the impossibility of finding meaning in one’s work.
Everything indicates that the bill will aggravate these psychosocial risks at work when this same government adopted, in 2021, a project obliging organizations to prevent these same risks.
Lack of recognition: the creation of the National Institute for Excellence in Education (INEE) and the mechanisms planned to guide the continuing education of teachers reflect a flagrant lack of recognition and confidence in the professionalism of teachers and school teams .
Low decision latitude: the creation of the INEE opens the way to a major encroachment on the professional autonomy of female teachers. By his own admission, the Minister, with the powers conferred on him by this law, might want to impose the adoption of specific teaching practices (recognized as “effective” by the INEE) in schools which have success rates that are too low for him. .
High psychological demands and meaningless work: the proposed reform, with its data “dashboard” aimed at monitoring student progress, will accentuate the accountability measures already in place on academic success as it is measured by numerical evaluations. However, these measures put undue pressure on teachers when they do not control the factors that predict success (for example, social and economic disadvantage, lack of means to do the job, etc.). Reducing their work to such quantified evaluations runs the risk, moreover, of contributing to the meaninglessness of the exercise of their profession.
Call to parliamentarians
While Bill 23 claims, with the creation of the INEE, to want to put science at the heart of the pedagogical and managerial practices that apply in education, it ignores the scientific knowledge available on the effects of the type of measures that it underlies.
We appeal to the lucidity of parliamentarians. This reform risks plunging the already highly weakened education system into an unprecedented crisis situation. There is still time to defeat this bill.
In the process, in order to base collective decisions on “proven data”, we invite Minister Bernard Drainville to take advantage of the current negotiation of collective agreements in education to improve the working conditions of those who are responsible for transmitting our children on a daily basis our culture and the knowledge necessary to promote their integral development and that of society. This is the most urgent step to take to respond to the challenges facing our education system.
* Co-signatories: Nancy Goyette, professor in the education department of the University of Quebec at Trois-Rivières; Mylène Leroux, Full Professor in the Department of Educational Sciences at the University of Quebec in Outaouais; Jessica Riel, Full Professor in the Organization and Human Resources Department of the School of Management Sciences at the University of Quebec in Montreal; Céline Chatigny, retired full professor, associated with the department of specialized education and training at the University of Quebec in Montreal; Geneviève Baril-Gingras, Full Professor in the Department of Industrial Relations at Université Laval; Frédéric Yvon, professor in the department of administration and foundations of education at the University of Montreal; Marie-France Maranda, retired full professor from the School of Counseling and Orientation at Laval University; Louise St-Arnaud, Full Professor at the School of Counseling and Orientation at Laval University; Angelo Soares, Full Professor in the Department of Organization and Human Resources, School of Management Sciences of the University of Quebec in Montreal; Jean-Noël Grenier, Full Professor in the Department of Industrial Relations at Université Laval; Vanessa Rémery, professor in the department of specialized education and training at the University of Quebec in Montreal; Emmanuel Poirel, professor in the administration and foundations of education department of the Faculty of Education at the University of Montreal; Catherine Le Capitaine, Full Professor in the Department of Industrial Relations at Université Laval