We have been working in education for several decades. Some have always been against a professional teaching order. Others preferred to support the idea of a professional association led by a group of teachers. Recent circumstances lead us to retract. They make us fear for the future of Quebec students.
In the past, we had reservations about a professional order for two reasons. First, this idea had little legitimacy among a majority of teachers. Implementing one seemed counterproductive to us in these circumstances. Then, the Office of Professions, the body which ensures that each professional order ensures the protection of the public, ruled on the unsuitability of such an order for education. It was a long time ago. At the time, sufficient supervision existed.
Since then, the situation has changed a lot. It would be desirable for the Office to examine the file again. Indeed, recent government directions in education, combined with accelerating trends in teacher training and hiring, are changing the situation.
Sacrificing rigor in the name of scarcity
The recent adoption of Bill 23 and the resulting institute gives the Minister of Education unprecedented control. For example, the minister already approves programs that have not been the subject of an in-depth study by independent people competent in initial training and professional development. At the moment, in the name of scarcity, everything is considered acceptable on the basis of almost nothing, and we seem ready to issue certificates (a permanent teaching qualification, remember) at any time. We rely on the deplorable modus operandi of one adult per class.
Would we agree to entrust a loved one to a doctor, a lawyer, a psychoeducator or a financial planner who had only done the equivalent of a fraction of their training? Unfortunately, the education network increasingly confines students to such a context. For example, they are sometimes faced with people without knowledge of childhood or adolescent development, who are little aware of the needs and understanding challenges that arise in the discipline(s) they teach. This is happening before our eyes, without us really questioning the collateral effects that could result from such decisions.
We are also alarmed by the lack of staff and we are saddened by the fact that little is done to retain and promote qualified teachers. We regret that the easy way out is favored to the detriment of concerted in-depth reflection which would consider models of task organization combining the historical pillars of flexibility training. There is an issue to be explored in greater depth during general meetings which are requested by a growing number of people. Otherwise, we fear that emerging directions will give rise to a reductive approach to the profession, which will have a negative impact on student learning.
The Wild West of training and hiring
Furthermore, the recent dynamic of ministerial sanction brings at least two perverse effects in its wake.
On the one hand, a growing number of universities are approaching the minister to have “their little program” approved. In the name of shortages, short-sighted rationality and the race for funding, we pile on principles recognized in teacher training for decades: independent approval of programs, principle of alternation between courses and supported internships and supervised, etc. We are also trampling on management that ensured consultation and consistency between universities. In the corridors, some of our colleagues say that we are entering the Wild West era of teacher training. Everything seems allowed.
Empty and jovial speeches also permeate the academic world: “It’s not the duration that counts”; ” We do not have a choice ! » ; “Others do it, why can’t we?” “. Recognized as masters of the quality of training with the defunct CAPFE, universities are increasingly playing the game of the government market and quality seems to become secondary, while the checks and balances disappear. Are we not forgetting the future of youth through all this?
On the other hand, still under the cover of the shortage, we are witnessing a record number of hiring of people who are not legally qualified. The remarks are not intended to stigmatize these people, who have good intentions and great qualities. The problem rather lies in the lightness with which we view their training. We insist: would we accept that an accountant provides care to a patient by taking “a little course” in nursing here and there? What’s more, a course with little supervision in some cases and without neutral supervision in others. Yet this is what is happening to a growing number of people responsible for the educational success of students. A shortage of personnel also affects other professions, and it would be unthinkable to reduce training in them. Why do we do it in teaching?
If we take stock, it is not so much a professional order to protect students from teachers that we need in the first instance. We must put things in order to monitor the effects of the deregulation in training that we are currently witnessing and the questionable institutional behavior to which it gives rise.
Furthermore, some will say that the National Student Ombudsman exists. However, it deals with specific complaints and does not ensure continuous monitoring of the requirements of the profession, considering the plurality of knowledge and practices resulting from research, including those in terms of training and professional integration.
Faced with the gradual disappearance of supervision, it seems that we must rely on an external entity to preserve the quality of training for professionals in complex work, for the benefit of Quebec youth.
This is where we are with training and teaching staffing. Unfortunately.
* Co-signed this text: Mélanie Paré, professor, University of Montreal; Nicole Monney, professor, University of Quebec at Chicoutimi; Pauline Sirois, professor, Laval University; Marc-André Éthier, professor, University of Montreal; Stéphane Martineau, professor, University of Quebec at Trois-Rivières; Frédéric Deschenaux, professor, University of Quebec at Rimouski; Pascale Thériault, professor, University of Quebec at Chicoutimi; Anderson Araújo-Oliveira, professor, University of Quebec at Trois-Rivières; Isabelle Vivegnis, professor, University of Montreal; Geneviève Carpentier, professor, University of Montreal; Patrick Giroux, professor, University of Quebec at Chicoutimi; Adriana Morales-Perlaza, professor, University of Montreal; Jean-François Desbiens, professor, University of Sherbrooke; David Lefrançois, professor, University of Quebec in Outaouais; François Vandercleyen, professor, University of Sherbrooke; Charles-Antoine Bachand, professor, University of Quebec in Outaouais; Christine Couture, professor, University of Quebec at Chicoutimi; Marie-Pierre Baron, professor, University of Quebec at Chicoutimi; Catherine Dumoulin, professor, University of Quebec at Chicoutimi.