Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-0900.Rogers et al.90-09-12ONTARIO EMPLOV~SDE‘A COURONNE CROWNEMPLOYEES OEL’ONT/IRIO . . GRIEVANCE CQMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT . . Before THE GRIEVANCX SN~LENENT BOARD BETWEEN OPSEU (Rogers et al) : Grievor -__. . The Crown in Right of Ontario ' (Ministry of Education) Employer 7 and - M. Watters -~mVice+Jhairperson -.----~~~ J: McManus Member H. Roberts Member FOR TlH3 GRIEVOR FOR THE EMPLOYER HEARING: N. Wilson Counsel Gowling, Strathy & Henderson Barristers & Solicitors C. Peterson Counsel Winkler, Filion & Wakely Barristers & Solicitors December 22, 1988 August 16, 1989 February 26, 1990 March 19, 1990 This proceeding arises from the grievance of Ms. Diane Rogers dated June 3, 1986. She claimed therein that she was improperly classified as an Education Adviser. The grievor asserted that she should Retroactivity was initial claim was amended at the (20) days prior to the fi be reclassified as an Education Officer. ly requested to January 25, 1977. This hearing so as to ‘1 imit relief to, twenty ling of the grievance. The grievor commenced employment with the Correspondence Courses Branch of the Ministry of Education in 1967. Her work, which was performed at the Independent Learning Centre in Toronto, Ontario, focused generally on the preparation of correspondence courses at the secondary level in the broad area . of’ Arts & Social Sciences. Prior to the’commencement of work at. the Centre, the grievor taught in the provincial educational system for approximately sixteen (16) years. The grievor retired in July, 1987. At that time, she was one (1) of only four (4,) Education Advisors in the Province.--In-contrast, there were then 1 a large number of employees classified as Education Officers both at. the Centre and at the Ministry’s Regional Offices. When the grievor started her work for this Employer, she was classified as’an Adviser Secondary School Correspondence Courses. Her position title then had the same designation. The job title was changed to Program Superintendent in 1~970. In 1975, the Correspondence Courses Branch underwent a reorganization. A 1 , / r I . number of distinct sections were created, including the Program Planning and Development Section which is thesubject of this proceeding. Each section was administered by a Chairperson to whom the Program Superintendents reported. These Chairpersons were classified as Education Officers. A second reorganization occurred in January, 1977. This resulted’in the creation of the Curriculum Coordinator position which was situated between the Chair and the Program Superintendents in the Branch hierarchy.,- These Coordinators were classified as Education Officers 2. The Program Superintendent position tias then‘ renamed Correspondence Education Officer. It retained the former classification. ,The’ I class standards were ultimately revised effective November, 1984. The Correspondence Education Officer position was then classified as Education Adviser while the Curriculum Coordinator. was---~~I- .classified as Education Officer. In or about 1986. the former’ position was also retitled as Education.Adviser. Hereinafter, we will ‘refer to .the Education Adviser as the Adviser and to the Curriculum,Coordinator as the Coordinator. .Similarly.,~.we will -- 1 refer to the classifications as E.A. and E.O. The most recent class standards are attached hereto as Schedules ‘A’ and ‘0’. Additionally, we have appended the position specifications for the Adviser and the Coordinator as Schedules ‘C’ and ‘D’. Briefly stated, it was the Union’s position .that the grievor ,’ was wrongly classified as an E.A. It asserted that the core functions of her position were more accurately reflected in the 2 \ E.O. class standards. Alternately, 1 t was submitted that she did substantially the same job as Ms. Lynn Dunn, a Coordinator for Business and Computer Studies at the Centre during the period material to this dispute. Counsel therefore argued that the grievor should be similarly classified as an E.O. pursuant to the w usage” approach which has been previously sanctioned by this Boa.rd . In response, it was the position of the Employer that the existing classification clearly.encompassed the grievor’s position. Fu.rther, it denied that the two (21 jobs were I substantially similar so as to justify a” reclassification. The grievor and Ms. Dunn gave evidence onbehalf of the ’ Union. Mr. John Harrison and Mr. Terry Boucher presented evidence in support of the Employer’s position. Mr. Harrison was the Coordinator in the grievor’s area as of 1984. Mr . 8oucher ,. was the Chair of the Program Planning and Development Section. The Board does not intend to reproduce all of the evidence submitted to us in respect of the competing~ positions.. Rather,-.-- we elect to limit our comment to the following findings of fact which we believe flow from such evidence. The Independent Learning Centre is involved, inter alias. in the planning, development, and production of correspondence for students who are unable to access the regular school courses system. identif Th i s work has a number of components including the .i on of need for new courses and the revision of icat 3 i . existing ones; the initiation of course proposals; the hiring of external authors to prepare proposals and course related materials; the preparation of such material on an in-house basis; the monitoring and editing of the work of external authors; the hiring of validators to assess course proposals and lesson manuscripts; the ultimate production of course materials; and the ‘hiring of teacher-markers for the examinations which are required in the various courses. All of these endeavors are subject to Ministry policy and to any other constraints on budgetary or production resources. . . It is apparent that the grievor’s job has changed since 1967. A number of:tasks previously performed were no longer ~. required after 1977.. These matte~ra related to copyright.’ . clearance; hiring/firing and evaluation of associate. teachers: assessment of existing courses; hiring of authors: and the direct resolution of student complaints. These functions were transferred -to- other employees at thee Centre. ..~ In determining they~- appropriateness of the grievor’s classification, this Board is naturally inclined to give primary emphasis to the job duties as of the date of the grievance. In this regard; we accept the grievor’s evidence that her job remained largely unchanged between 1977 and 1987. The Board concludes that the grievor was supervised by Mr. Harrison in several respects. Firstly, we find that he assigned 4 Secondly, we are satisfied that Mr. Harrison monitored the grievor’s performance on the projects assigned. While the grievor may have been accorded considerable latitude in working on her assignments given her substantial experience, Mr. Harrison was ultimately responsible for ensuring they were completed in a proper and timely manner. In many respects, he exercised what ion. For example, for the hire of might be descr ibed as a qua1 he rather than the grievor s ity assurance funct igned the contracts 5 I. work to the grievor after consulting with Mr. Boucher. We. accept as a fact that the Coordinator was responsible for deciding which new courses’would be developed and which existing courses would be revised. Ultimately, he would assign the necessary work to the grievor to b8 completed within a specified time frame. While the grievor may have had input as to which projects would be pursued, she was note at liberty to embark on same on her own initiative. The same may be said in terms of the subsequent development of a course. For example, the grievor would only recommend vis a vis the,hire of an external author or the preparation of a proposal or sample lesson. Work could not be initiated until it had been discussed with Mr. Harrison. We are unable to accept the grievor’s claim that this gentleman was’ merely a conduit to Mr. Boucher..~ This assertion was specifically disputed by the Chair who describ8d Mr.‘Harrison as being w autonomous” in his area subject only to the former’s managerial prerogative to:question any decision taken. - .- an outside author. This enabled him to determine that all requisite action had been taken to that point, Similarly, subsequent developmental work on .a course could not be undertaken until Mr. Harrison was satisfied that everything wa,s in order. Several instances were referred to in the evidence which were illustrative of the.monitoring function performed by the Coordinator. These maybe summarized as fo’llows: (il Exhibit 14 was a note from Mr. Harrison to the grievor dated June 11, 1985 in which he outlined..a deficiency in ~her work in respect of a particular course proposal. The grievor testified that she likely followed.the directive contained therein. ,: . . (ii)’ Exhibits 15, 16, and 19 related to an incident in the fall of 1985 involving’authors .N. Sheffe and 8. Wil,liams. These individuals had written to Mr. Harrison to complain about the Centre’s~ procedures -:~1 _~ ~... which they viewed to be onerous. After seeking the ‘.~~ -“., grievor’s reaction to this correspondence and.meeting with the authors, the Coordinator gave a number of instructions to the grievor as to the procedure to. be followed in future regarding the project. ” (iiilExhibit.20 was a memo from Mr. Boucher to the grievor dated Ju.ne 26, 1986. He expressed a concern- therei ti-- ----- that she had entered into- a--contract-to-shave an--- ~- ~ - existing course reviewed after she had been assigned the task of developing a new course. He was especially concerned that this step had been taken and completed before it~was presented to Mr. Harrison for authorization. Mr. Boucher concl~uded the memo by stating: “I ,have asked John to monitor the progress of your projects more closely.” (iv) Exhibits 17 and 18 were status reports of the grievor’s work as requested by Mr. Harrison. We have concluded that the above-cited examples were not atypical but, rather, reflect the essence of the working relationship between the Adviser and the Coordinator. These 6 ’ instances c~ontradict the grievor’s assertions that Mr. Harrison did not review her work or give her instructions as to the manner of its completion. She suggested that he was kept informed as to the progress of her work as a matter of “courtesy” and that their relationship was merely consultative in nature. While this may have been the grievor’s impression, the Board considers the relationship was more formally structured in the sense that the Coordinator did assignand monitor her work to ensure it was completed in an appropriate fashion. In this regard, we see no reason to reject Mr. Harrison’s statement that~ he read the proposals, lessons ‘and validations performed in respect of the grievor’s courses to determine they were consistent with the ori’ginal proposal. The Board accepts the submission that the Coordinator was responsi.bJe~for~.the~~f.low. of the grievor’s work. We note that Mr. Harrison did not appraise the grievor on an annual basis. We concur with Mr. Boucher’s comment that this . would have been improper given that both employees were within the bargaining unit. -.~_~..-. The supervisory or monitoring element described above would not be present in those sections’where the Coordinator worked without the assistance of an Adviser. 3 We were informed that there was just one (l), or possibly two (2), sections where the Coordinator functioned in conjunction with an Adviser. As stated below, Ms. Dunn did not have the benefit of additional staff in her section. - It is apparent that there was some overlap in the responsibilities exercised by the grievor and,Mr. Harrison. This resulted ‘from the fact that both employees exercised Adviser or “course officer” functions in respect of particular developmental projects. Both were responsible for hands-on work on certain identified courses. Notwithstanding this similarity, there were several material distinctions between the’ rble of a Coordinator and that of an Adviser...The Coordinator was responsible for the work of their entire section, which in the case of Mr. Harrison was Arts and Social Science. It‘was Mr.‘ Harrison’s tasks to establish then objectives and policy for his area in consultation with the Chair. These were published in report form following semi-annual planning sessions at which the Adviser had some opportunity for input; Additiona,Jly, the Coordinator was’ responsible for the monitoring ofexisting courses to see-if revisions were required; the preparation of a budget in respect of the work of ,the section: the provision of a projeot schedule _.... L__..- ~~~~ ,. -__.-__ for all courses;~ and lastly, the performance of a qua1 ity assurance role. Mr. Boucher stated that the core functions of’ the Coordinator’s job were planning; establishing priorities; decision making on which projects would, go forward; and budget and qua1 i ty control. After considering all of the evidence, we have been persuaded that this was an accurate assessment. Conversely, the Board, is satisfied that the grievor was not responsible for comparable duties. More specifically, she was not resoonsible for the work of the entire section. Her primary, 8 ‘if not exclusive, role was with respect to the courses then assigned to her. It would seem that the grievor, on average, worked on about six (6) courses at any one time. This figure represented approximately one-third (l/3) of the Arts and Social Science caseload. Her duties did not include a monitoring function in respect of “courses on the shelf”. While the grievor may have had some informal input into Mr. Harrison’s decision on budget, she did not in the strict sense set a~final budget for her courses. It was the Coordinator’s responsibility to construct a budget after assessing the needs of his section. Mr. Harrison, not the grievor, wquld meet with Mr. Boucher to discuss financial issues. Similarly, it was his responsibility to ’ establish which courses would be pursued subject to the limitations set out earlier in this award.. In contrast,. the mum grievor did not possess ‘the requisite authority to dictate the work plan for. the section. Ultimately, she would have to,, . function within the plan devised by Mr. Harrison. The Board has no doubt, however, that the grievor advocated for projects which were of interest to her. Indeed, we think this was reflected in her statement that there was a large measure of bargaining or negotiating in her relationship with Mr. Harrison. Having structured an appropriate work plan, it was the Coordinator’s responsibility to establish realistic time lines for the completion of the various projects. As noted by Mr. Boucher, Mr. Harrison was assessed on the ability of his section to conclude the work within the schedule established. If the grievor had 9 . difficulty in meeting this schedule in respect of her courses, she would have to discuss the matter with Mr. Harrison. In certain instances, he had the authority to unilaterally alter release dates. In other cases, he would consult with Mr. Boucher to determine an appropriate course of action. The grievor did not have any authority to adjust release dates. Finally, we have been unable.to find that she had a policy making function for the section as a whole. As stated above, the Coordinator aTso served asa “course officer” in respect of certain courses. It is clear that in so ,, doing Mr,: Harrison did not ,report to another Coordinator. Further, his work was not reviewed by another’coordinator. It : would ,appear f.rom the evidence that- it was not .subject to * :. extensive review’ by.the Chair. We think that this degree of : independence constitutes a material distinction between the course work undertaken by these two (2) employees. In our j~udgment, Mr. Harri-son had significantly.more-freedom and .-‘- authority to proceed through the several stages of course production. The grievor, however, requi red authori zation as she worked through the production process. It is our assessment that she was called upon to make recommendations in respect of the development of courses within her portfolio. Her recommendation would then be considered by Mr. Harrison, possibly in consultation with the Chair, and a decision would then be taken. This absence of decision making authority represents a material ‘distinction in the two (2) positions under consideration. The signing of author contracts evidences this point. These documents were not signed by the grievor. Rather, they were forwarded to Mr. Harrison for his signature and that of the ’ Chair. In summary, the Board agrees with the opinions expressed by Mr. Boucher and Mr. Harrison to the effect that the POSi,tiOn’ specifications found in Schedules ‘C’ and ‘D’ accu~rately reflect the duties and responsibilities Rerformed by the grievor and Mr. Harrison. Additionally, we accept Mr. BOWher’S evidence that Schedule ‘D’ would properly describe the work of Coordinators in other sections,. We do not view the omissions referred to by the grievor as material.; Our conclusion-isconsistent.with the.: Course Development Manuals for 1984. 1985 and 1986 which i’sdlated the major functions.of Advisers and Coordinators. We note that the grievor did not challenge the accuracy of same’when she was previously confronted with.the descriptionsoontained therein. The Board cannot accept her assertion that the distinctions found in the manuals are “artificial”. It was the Union’s position that the grievor was improperly classif’ied as an E.A. It was submitted that the .E.A. class standards were deficient in several respects. More particularly, counsel argued that they did not make reference to the following aspects of the grievor’s work: initiation of proposals: research: 11 J making of recommendations; control of courses; discipline of authors; budget; policy input; and the hiring and assessing of course validators. We were urged to find that the E.O. class standards were more appropriate to the job in question. The Board is unable to give effect to this submission as, in our judgment, the E.A. class standards clearly encompass the position formerly occupied by this grievor. Fundamentally, we think that she “assisted” in the development and delivery of correspondence education as described therein. Further, we believe that the responsibilities listed in the first and .third paragraphs of Schedule ‘A’ under ‘Characteristic Dutjes’ provide a good description of the.type of work engaged inby the grievor. More ‘to the point, the Board finds that.the grievor made “rec,ommendations outlining the objectives, format, materials. and. content of course programs”; interviewed authors and made recommendations for their hire; supervised &hors work for style and content; edited, wrote or rewrote as necessary: referred lesson plans prepared in-house or- by authors -to senior staff -f~oc-:~ approva 1; identified sources and trends in common problems; made recommendations for action in respect of the need for a new or revised course; coordinated the preparation of testing material; provided educational expertise; acted as a resource person; and resolved problems related to her particular subject area. Lastly, the Board agrees that the ‘Skills and Knowledge’ required well defines the abilities necessary to perform the job of Education Adviser. 12 The Board does not find it significant that the E.A. class standards do not speak to the initiation of proposals and budgeting as we have previously found that these matters fell within the authority of the Coordinator. Any input that the grievor might have on questions of policy would be covered by the opening sentence under ‘Characteristic Duties’, that is, the Adviser “may present recommendations outlining the objectives, material and content of course programs.” We were not persuaded that the grievor spent much of her time disciplining authors. However, given the power to recommend which is bestowed on the Adviser, and their role in the hiring process, we think that a limited right to engage in the discipline process may be implied from the standards. Similarly, the Board concludes that any research required would likely flow from the responsibility to write and rewrite course materials: Wee con&r with the submission that the hiring of course validators is not expressly provided for in the E. A. class standards. It is arguable that _- -. .,_ .- such cou?d be considered asan-implementation’-of an evaluat.ion procedure which is ~contemplated by the standards in question. In any event, this omission, if it is one, is insufficient to deter US from our conclusion as to the appropriateness of the E-A. class standards. The Board does not accept the submission that the E.O. class standards better reflect the job actually performed by the grievdr. In contrast to the E.A. standards, the language in Schedule ‘8’ is somewhat vague and imprecise. Indeed, it is 13 , ‘difficult to say, with any degree of confidence, that they reflect the demands of the Coordinator position. This is likely as a consequence of the fact that the E.O. class standard was designed to catch a wide variety of employees both internal and external to the Independent Learning Centre. Notwithstanding this imprecision in the language employed; we are unable to conclude that the grievor “engaged in the provision of professional services for the.deveiopment and evaluation of educational policies and procedures.. “as contemplated by the class standards”. Further, the Board f ihds that the ran’ge of contacts specified therein exceeds that required of an Adviser. In summary, we find’ that the E.O. class standardsprovide for a broader, and more’ pol’icy based, role in comparison to the job of an Adviser. This is reflected by the expectation that ,-~~ correspondence education specia1’ists will be involved in planning, production and evaluation of~correspondence education .~, and that they will contribute to the development of educational do1 icy. This ~larger role~.is also contemplated -in the greater skills and knowledge required.~ We are not satisfied that the E.A. would require the same skills and knowledge to complete their responsibilities. The Union also argued that the grievor should be reclassified as she performed substantially the same job as MS. Lynn Dunn ‘who was classified at the higher level. Us. Dunn was the Coordinator for Business and Computer Studies in the period 14 September, 1964 to June, 1988. She was then classified as an E.0.2. Ms. Dunn testified that she performed.between eighty . percent (80%) and ninety percent (90%) of the duties and responsibilities listed in Schedule ‘D’. Ms. Dunn, unlike Mr. Harrison, did not have an Adviser in her section to assist with course development. After assessing all of the evidence produced in support of.the usage argument, we conclude that there were material differences between the jobs performed by Ms. Dunn and the grievor. these,differences were as follows: (i) Ms. Dunn was responsible for all of-the courses in the Business Studies area. In’consultation with the Chair, she. would determine.which coursesYwould be developed in a given year. This required that, she priorize, needs and plan accordingly. (i?) Ms. Dunh would develop new courses and monitor.existing- courses. In exercising,this-responsibility, she was--. not under the direction- of another Coordinator:- In this regard, she did not have, to review course proposals, sample lessons or.obntracts with another Coordinator. (iii)Ms. .Dunn would prepare the Master Schedule for here, area. She.was not.responsible to another Coordinator for ensuring that the time lines contained thersin~ were ‘~~-.~- mat. (iv) As Coordinator, Ms. Dunn prepared an annual budget for submission to Mr. Boucher. (v) Ms. Dunn signed author contracts. (vi) Ms. Dunn did not have to obtain the consent of another Coordinator in the event of a need to change a release date. (vii)Ms. Dunn acted for the Chair when he was away. She estimated this had been done on at least ten (10) occasions over the four (4) year period in which she served as Coordinator. It was her evidence that this role was rotated amongst all of the Coordinators at the Centre. 15 ’ The Board has previously determined that the grievor did not perform these functions. Further, it is apparent to us that she did not exercise the same degree of responsibility as Ms. Dunn. We therefore disagree with Ms. Dunn’s conclusion that they both engaged in similar work. Simply put, the two jobs were not sufficiently similar to justify the reclassification sought. Notwithstanding the result in this case, the Board was ., impressed with the knowledge this grievor possessed in respect,of correspondence education. We believe that she was extremely committed to this method of learning. As has been stated by prior panels of this Board, cases of this nature are not to be decided on the superior attributes~possessed by an incumbent. . . Rather, classification issues fal 1~ to be determined. on the language contained within the applicable class standards or on , ., the evidence that another employee in a higher classificatio~n is performing substantially similar work. In this instance, the Board has found against &Union on both grounds..‘-The-grievance- must therefore be dismissed. Dated at Windsor, Ontario this 12th day of September p199O. m, .&&I L’. iL’&e M.V. Watters, Vice-Chairperson 16 , Member TIC AND SP-02 CDIJCATION CDUCATION ADVISER tDiJCATIOH ALVISER F;np!oytea c.looolfieA lo pesLcioar fu tb!c elera may ~~~frent re~ommjn&cio~~ Ouclinlug the objcctivco, fomot, eatcriol 00d iOnrCnt ‘if cour;rc programa. .~hev interview proopetcfvc course urthorr , l ;ke recoweudoclonc fcr th.zir Mr;, ooperviur outhorr’~ work for content and rtglr, an? rdif, vrite or revrice mui’8ec. l a Occe880r9. They &-orAi6oCe prepore?i% of aater:al , crmcc ecl;icvusenc teoca 0nA cvoluorion 0ufJer for Dnuroe& they deuigr c6uponc;lte for, atid .revf me looming pachges. Somplt IcrsmJ’prcpircA by . authors or the itr.um!cntn are referred CO l enfor l teff fur l ppprovrl. P.mplnpase 1~ mm pof4t3ouo tire involved la the development of 8oterlal co oscai.Iirh cunsls~cnc atondarAo’ood procedures. for Cht quality of instruction onA the evoluotlo6 of iuafciace teachers. They implemeni. l voluatlon .’ proseduree ond l seess resulce. They refer dif@cul,$ problems t? their ouprrviror uich 0 recn~enAmtion for corr~cclve action. EI other pcsitlons Chede rmployaca resolve, problem referred by Antsochte &&crC, feet SuFcr\rlaors, correspoudence cuur#e otudent couaaellor’b, CI- uhlch crict frw cocnpiaints involving mottera ouch 0s. adequacy Of Ssureae Or I wuree mate:‘Lols, problems Of student retention and competency of oawride teeclwrs or test r.ipervl~ors. They decide the mo(l2 abyropriace 031~ .iou, / yrovldc st*rice and guldawe to esaociate tebcherb, @at suprvisr rt; a!ucaf iof ~wmIlore co resclve lsnue6, or refer co others uirh rrr:ower~da?zon6 for 02Slon. ,~:rv.,.oTf.-,~-a~~~epanslbls for identifying ocwtes oti LreuAs f.? I._ c~%aon prcblema and maki,ng rccommendaclow for l ctlon, e.g., the ne+d frr 0 np nr reylserl c:‘wr se e 111 at1 posfClui.6, emF:Oyceb provide educatlunal mr~urtlsc, act as rcwir‘cc prr~~ns and rcaolve problems related Lc 0 particular wbject cPc.cial.V area. _: . : . .- s .~. -’ . . . . : Y . SP-CD tDUCAIION Sklllr end Xnoulcdgc: Work-er-tl~l~ .Ievel ngo~~cr-a~durtion fromy w~~~re~,t~~-cy-amkcd mrrndingsa~3 l ,ralid Oot~rlo ruchlng Ceertlflcr:$. A ccrtlflcate in l subject rpecl~licetlon ta uso rcqulrcd LO provldc expertire In l ubjeet artaa. Dcmonrtratcd ok111 in the rcicnce of teaching end ln curriculum development 1s neermry to ensure that progrew derlgncd maintain l high level of l cholarrhlp. Knowledge of dlrtance education end the verloue tcchnlqucr l rrocieted with it ouch es, lnrrlnilc pbtivation, dcvelopmcnt of lndlvldualltcd or relf-contained rtudy programI, lm rrqulrcd. Lcaderrhip end edmlnletratlon rklllr l rt ncereary to co-ordlnstc the timely production of progreme, provide dlrlction to authora in the development of wtcrlal end to rerolre varlobo problems relating to profcrrlonel end rtudent l dolnlrtrrtlon problema. Creativity end vrltlng * eWkle are aeceoeory to odlt courses, wlte.rPr aewyito a.9 aecersary. E~ccllcatizarlom:+kUW~%re’ required to llrl~a~,m:h ether . srofcsslomel ~rtaff of the ~nlrtry,~~‘~~~e~~lon~~ @ue~ato;rin tee‘ fiela,~io l xcnange xardrmatlon, rcsoii& i’ia?ifijizf-problems end to n&e reconnnendatlons for korrectlve action. ,’ . . L Dau Of law Ilovemlmr 1. 1986 PJW 1 of 1 L chJrrcrcrle.tfc Rtticr: (cmcfmed) . Sk1111 rod Iawledge: The perforuau of th!s aark teqsfr~ grdlvtfon frm l mrfrcrnft7 of recognfrcd reading ud a nUd Ontario Te~chinf Ccrtfficate. In addition. en uut~~frr Loarledge og gbe lcgel. adalmietretln urd aoeratlonal. uwccs-d C& ul~tfna mtem ed mroceso, facludlog th.. -.-~- _,_ Eduutfon kc. ~e~htfoas ad related mewruxda fsieWred. Some porl.910~ la tbla char ry nqufrm porsearfon d l peclfic areaa of knowledge and/or qsalfffutloa. for rr~rpk. l mbjcct ~pecirlft~tioo and/or a Suptvfrory UfffccPr QrUffut8.m hover, rbfllr in ddnfrtrrtioo ad kdrrrhfp are luceru~ to encrate end ulotafo credlbllfty u&n ~mtiotf~ tb MafrCrY amone otkr. eduurerr: to uka ucwatsb& decf~fooa Um urerrrog probleu, progrw ad pollclee. end m eacmram respuibXe egenciu to prooore program developem. .- . . -. balytical ekilla ore requfrod 0 fnterpret the l8tter and intent of Mlnlrt~ pollcfcr. re~latfoaa 8.~3 gdde.lfner. to partfcfprre In the rcvleu process. and to preparm aomd reports & reco~~cndrtlonr with rcrpuf to rtvfeu ud otlnr policy or propn frmu. . i .- f”* piG-Li PW@ u lambe 1. 1984 2of 2 I .- .--0 uuuw *or csc _, _ .._..,._. _-..-~ UN* LhAt ‘C ’ I TO assist the Chair. Program Planning and Dwelopment and Curriculum coordinators in the development of learning materiels. 1. Participates in the planning. development and production of independent study courses by: - undertaking the day-to-day manaqemen~ of course devslopnent projects which e.re identified by either e Curriculum CWrdientoF or the Chair of Program Plsnninq end DeveLopnent end es outlined in the Course &welopment me&al es the'hties of the Course Officer - writing course materiels under the supervision of e Curriculum Coordinator or the Cheir - where en outside eothor is to be used to develop metarisla, reccmaanding to either the CurriNlum Coor&neto~or the Cheir, Pr~qrmn Plenninq end mvolopnent the hiring of a I spxific author - rupervising the author'8 work for pedagogy, content. style and appropriateness by seeking outside validation of eo"ree proponaIs and lesson mmscript, and editing and rewritinq, I : i 4. c Where necsssary, the suChor's-work - working to a Reject Schedule which has been prepared by the Curricullrm Coordinator or 32 .a the Chair . where terqets an in jeopardy, diecussing the problem8 with the Coordinator Or Chair. and proposinq strateqies for.ensurinq that qosle er* mat - developing, oz supervising then development of, tests, teaching guidas,~kits; audio or ~. visual materials. pamphlet8 and other supplamentery learning materials - updating cod otberui*e making minor revisiohs to existinq leernifiq msterials prior to reprinting - preparing manuscript for production by mstiing that it rmets the standards set by the. ProdUction Heoeqer. !. Other duties ae~atmiqmd. 5\ Skilh m!d hIal* mquhd to pr(m jotI It f"" ror)liq lwd. IlndkaI. mmawcw mew** OI lipna. if #wIk%Lw lniversity degree: "slid Onterio teaching certificate: subject specialist: teaching *xparieoC*: ability to provide competent direction to profeseional per~onnsl Who mite PSTmes eouod ore1 mnd written comrmnicstion skille; sound administrative skills. h* ?- "u u ~ b%S Dw MD"," IW P I ,IPC rq/ IL' IU 0. ruwv~d ".111, T$d lk,.b nuna ,na ml, T.A. Boucher B.F. Ahrens,, Executive Hamper Clalr tllo*tion CU" ml* CI." EM, cJ~W"c.uI wuo ""rnbw EIICW, .s.II SP-02 On Montn V.U Education Advisor 07489 c : f 86 mv. CIWih1d lb0 W‘lliM in mCorM."Ith m* C"il %rwc. cQmmi"ion CmummM SUMId, JO, Ill, Iallrn,~ rewon: Under general direction, responsible for assisting in the developlrent of cOrreSpondenC* education progrems. ,' Responsibilities/dutier perfornrd ere typical of those identified in the class standard. i.e. present recoraendations on course format and content, identify and recommend Course euthorS# oversee author?, work including editing end revritinqs. develop end co-ordinate euPPlementaW learning material for ~our888. urilire educational expertise, ace as resource person end resolve problems related to Program development in the subject specialty area. .-. particular areas; - disseminate through wminars/robskbp~ consisting of Branch Stiff. a5SOciatC teachers, autters, the ccmtcnt, approach and goals of new or revised progrslat; - directing the dcvelopcnt of each new course by identifying either unilaterally or in conju&ion with assigned cwrse officer potential course Writers (may be axternsl requiring contract or within BranchIt - preparing a Project Schedule which 4t?duleS CDUIS~ developPent activities for the current year a,,d the tuD subsequent years; meeting thz deadlines described in the Project schedules: - supervising the project schedules of course Officers developing cowces In the i I I -‘ i .j ,/ i ! 5. .:‘,. ..,. : S-ry of hties ana Besponsibilities IContinued . - revitwlnp progress for adherence to de~dl~nrl/proc+d~rr/policy and co-ordlnsting t*utwrk of ‘"pprt luff. I.,mrtici~tw in the evaluation of corrempmdence l ducation byr . ! *- developing evslu~tion criteria: - evaluating existing proprams through wrkshops and program development seminars; J5\ - co-chairing the latter which conrist of associate tebcbers, prospectivr CDUISC nitera, text sutbcxr, and curriculum erprtsr - identifying trends or recurring problems, ,I - initiating studies of content, methods, materials. 3. ASsists.in the resolution of problems in other areas as they relate to own subject rpecislty byr - providing guidance if required to studeni counsellors; * providing inplt to Educational Services in assessing suitability of teachers ID\ being contracted for mvicas~ " assisting vith pre-service training for new l ssoclrte tucheri and with teacher evaluation, ., - providing input for the dcvelopnent of provi&ial education policies, regulations, curriculum, identifyinp problems and rccomending changes; - IMY be NquiNd to perform my or all of the above duties for any assigned period .r>f time. 4. Other duties as assigned. 5% . Skills and XnovJedpe IContinued . Sound saministrstive/OaMg~mant skills, academic excellence and leadership ability. dev6Rqaed analytical. interpersonal, and somunicotion loral and written) skills.