HomeMy WebLinkAboutSwan jeqs 1978 Wed Mar 18 2009 17-11-28.443memo to
All Community College Academic
Local Executives
from
Simon Renouf,
Research Officer
to
August 14, 1978
StriVeaus.„,.
Simon Renouf,
Research Officer
;ally,
‘rrtaflo lc Sartice G ?r:33yL2s U8icn
subject Classification Review Committee
Attached for your information is a copy of the final
report of the Classification Review Committee which
has investigated the Instructor classification.
As you will see, a new definition of Instructor is
included on pages 5 and 6.
On page 7 the committee has set out the method by
which any reclassification is to be carried out.
Please note in particular that "by March 1, 1979,
each Instructor in the CAAT system shall have received
formal notice in writing of his or her classification
status, and any time limits specified in the collective
agreement for the filing of grievances shall begin on
receipt of that notice." Such reclassification is to
be retroactive to September 1, 1978.
You should be aware, and make your administration aware,
that this does not prevent the reclassification of
instructors to teaching masters prior to March. In
fact, requests for reclassification should be made, if
appropriate. We may have a number of classification
grievances by March 1, and there will be an attempt
made to co-ordinate those grievances through head office.
More information concerning this aspect of the issue
will be forthcoming in the fall.
SR:cas
att.
HEAD OFFICE: 1901 YONGE STREET TORONTO, ONTARIO M4S 225 PHONE: 415) 482-7423
ONTARIO COUNCIL OF REGENTS OF
COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY
AND
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES' UNION
INTERIM REPORT OF THE
CLASSIFICATION REVIEW COMMITTEE
Herbert Jackson cUc?Sean O'Flynn
Kenneth P. Swan, Chairman
January, 1978.
1. THE FUNCTION OF THE COMMITTEE
The Classification Review Committee was established
by the parties to the collective agreement which sets the
terms and conditions of employment for academic employees in
the Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology by a provision in
the collective agreement for the 1976-77 academic year. The
terms of reference set out in that provision are as follows:
Classification Review Committee
5(a) The Classification Review Committee to
be established to conduct a system-wide
study of the functions and duties for
which Instructors are employed or
performing or which Instructors may or
should be employed or performing. On
the basis of such study, the Committee
is to consider the possible formulation
of a new Instructor classification
definition if there proves to be a
necessity for two functional classifica-
tions and if the present Instructor
classification proves to be inappropriate.
(b)The implementation and reclassification
aspects of the Committee's decision will
be separated from the substance of the
issue and therefore the appropriate
time frame for completion of any
reclassification will be considered
separately. It is understood that no
reclassification shall take place prior
to August 31, 1977 and will not
necessarily take place thereafter at a
uniform date across the Colleges, but
not later than a date specified by the
Committee.
(c)The Classification Review Committee
shall be composed of Professor Kenneth
P. Swan as Chairman and one person
nominated by each of the Union and the
Council, who shall be selected from other
than their bargaining Committees. Each
party shall pay the remuneration and
expenses of its own appointee and one-
half the remuneration and expenses of
the Chairman. The Committee shall
- 2 -
decide its own procedure and will
hear oral or written representations.
Its decision shall be final' and
binding on the parties and the
employees.
(d) The Statutory Powers Procedures
Act, 1971 does not apply to proceedings
of this Committee.
The Committee was subsequently appointed, and began
its review by asking for certain information from the
individual Colleges, the Council of Regents, and the Union.
Written briefs were also requested, a number of which were duly
submitted, and the Committee met with the parties and made
itself available to receive submissions from any interested
person or institution in Toronto and in Kingston on a number of
occasions in June and July, 1977.
The classification problem which confronts the parties
to collective bargaining in the Colleges is a long-standing one,
which has proved nearly intractable and which has complicated
negotiations almost from the first. The classification of
Instructor was initially established in 1972 as an exercise of
the Council of Regents' then unfettered authority to determine
classification, an authority conferred by s. 17(1) of the Crown
Employees Collective Bargaining Act, S.O. 1972, c. 67. Since
that time, the classification definitions have been a matter of
continuing friction, and since the introduction of the Colleges
Collective Bargaining Act, S.O. 1975, c. 74, which does not
contain restrictions on negotiations about classification, have
been the subject of collective bargaining as well.
The establishment of the present Committee is an
- 3
unusual approach to the resolution of a bargaining impasse,
and before turning to the problem before is we wish to set
out our views as to the scope of our authority. By virtue
of the terms of reference, the parties appear to have set up
our Committee as a kind of specialized interest arbitration
board. The matters which have been confided to us, in other
words, are matters affecting the content of the collective
agreement which will bind the parties, and whether that
content is apprcpriate or ought to be altered. We are not
concerned with the interpretation of the agreement, nor with
identifying whether conduct is in breach of its terms,
except to the extent that interpretation is essential to our
main task. To assist us in a difficult and sensitive task,
the parties have given us considerable scope to set our own
procedure and to take a sweeping look at the use of
Instructors in the Colleges across the province. In addition,
they have encouraged us, by their submissions to us, to
consider the issues before us in the light of educational
philosophy, employment relations, economics and organizational
theory. We have accordingly attempted, within the limitations
of our collective expertise, to take a wide view of our
mandate, and to consider as broadly as possible the
implications of the problem presented to us for resolution.
In the final analysis, however, our function must be seen as
fundamentally linked to the collective agreement which
established us as a Committee, and we are therefore primarily
charged with solving a problem of employment relations.
Although we have attempted to carry out our deliberations as
much as possible in the rich context provided by the parties,
we have been principally concerned with considerations of
good employment relations and sound employment practices in
an academic community.
2. THE CLASSIFIED PROBLEM
The classification definitions which concern the
Committee are those for the classifications of Teaching
Master and Instructor. These definitions are as follows:
TEACHING MASTER
Under the direction of the senior
academic officer of the College or his
designate, a Teaching Master is
responsible for providing academic
leadership and for developing an
effective learning environment for
students. This includes:
a) The design/revision/updating of
courses, including:
- consulting with program and
course directors and other
faculty members, advisory
committees, accrediting
agencies, potential
employers and students;
- defining course objectives
and evaluating and validating
these objectives;
- specifying or approving
learning approaches, necessary
resources, etc.;
- developing individualized
instruction and multi-media
presentations where
applicable;
- selecting or approving text-
books and learning materials.
courses by the students" (Instructor) is clearly directly
related to, and co-extensive with, "selecting or approving
textbooks and learning materials" (Master). It may also bear
a close relationship to "specifying and approving learning
approaches, necessary resources, etc." and "developing
individualized instruction and multi-media presentations
where applicable" (Master).
The real difference between the two classification
definitions, and the one on which both parties relied in their
presentations to us, relates to the "curriculum development"
aspects of the Master definition, especially "consulting with
program and course directors and other faculty members,
advisory committees, accrediting agencies, potential employers
and students" and "defining course objectives and evaluating
and validating these objectives". There are, of course,
other differences, including those which appear to establish
a supervisory hierarchy in which Masters supervise and control
Instructors, but those are also directly related to the matter
of curriculum development, since the supervision is entirely
related to the presentation of the academic program.
The Union's position is, and always has been, that
the Instructor category should be eliminated and that teachers
now classified as Instructors should be reclassified as
Masters. The Regents oppose this view, and argue for the
retention of the classification, but the Regents speak for a
system comprising 22 colleges, each with an administration
which, in some respects at least, has a great deal of
autonomy. Individual colleges have therefore responded to
- 10 -
Instructors are differentiated with respect to compensation
in two ways: first, their maximum attainable salary is
lower by $6,550 - or approximately one-quarter of the
Master maximum; and second, the scale makes no allowance for
differences in educational qualifications. These diff-
erences are very important to add context to the arguments
put to us by the parties.
3. THE UNION POSITION
The Union has taken the position that the Instructor
classification has been abused, not in the sense that there
have been deliberate mis-classifications, but that the
classification has been applied so as to downgrade teaching
positions by an artificial application of the classification
definition. The Union contends that a distinction between
classifications based entirely on curriculum development is
unrealistic, since every teacher must constantly evaluate and
improve the curriculum as experience and reflection indicates
its shortcomings; that in any case most Instructors now in
the system have a formal and continuing involvement in
curriculum development on a broad basis; and that finally
that part of curriculum development which can properly be
abstracted from the teaching "job" represents a small
proportion of that job, certainly not enough of a proportion
to justify the establishment of another job classification,
and particularly not a classification compensation so
dramatically differently as is the case here.
To advance these arguments, the Union put forward a
- possession or development of
expertise in curriculum design
- the task of designing curricula
to meet certain explicit criteria
-monitoring and supervision of the
implementation of curricula
-reporting to administration on
curriculum effectiveness and
efficiency
-counselling or in-service
training of other staff in
curriculum design.
This summary is taken from a paper by Dr. David Pratt, of the
Faculty of Education at Queen's University, which was a part
of St. Lawrence College's second brief, and which we have
carefully considered during our deliberations.
The basis of the St. Lawrence model is that there
exists a wide spectrum of teaching tasks, that it is
unrealistic to assume that each teacher is equally talented
and proficient at each, and that it is unrealistic to assume
that each task requires the same level of knowledge and skill.
Differentiated staffing, therefore, where higher order tasks
are assigned to one senior classification and lower order tasks
are assigned to a junior classification, permits efficient use
of teaching resources through specialization and differential
assignment of responsibility.
The hallmark of the St. Lawrence model is that it is
advanced, at least theoretically, as being of universal
development and design may be separated entirely from the
teaching process - or, what is perhaps more important to
this report, that teaching can successfully be carried out
by persons who have had no part in the curriculum design.
St. Lawrence College's briefs urged us to distinguish
carefully in our deliberations between "curriculum development
and design" and "daily lesson planning", and so we shall
proceed to a discussion of this distinction. The College has
referred extensively to scholarly work on differentiated
staffing and curriculum design, including the helpful survey
by Dr. Pratt, but we cannot, with respect, limit our
consideration to scholarly definitions. Our mandate is to
study the classification definitions presently in force, and
we are thus restricted to a meaning of "curriculum development"
(which is not a term of art in any case, but merely a handy
expression, as used in these proceedings, to denote the
difference between Masters and Instructors) which can be
gleaned from the classification definitions. The exhaustive
list of factors which comprise "curriculum development",
- therefore, is:
The design, revision and updating
of courses, including:
- consulting with program and course
directors and other faculty members,
advisory committees, accrediting
agencies, potential employers and
studehts;
- developing individualized
instruction and multi-media
presentations where applicable;
- selecting or approving textbooks
and learning materials.
We hasten to note that this list does not exhaust
the differences between the Master classification and the
Instructor definition. It does, however, appear to include
all of the factors which, for our purposes and for the purpose
of applying the classification definitions, may properly be
subsumed under "curriculum development".
5. OUR FINDINGS
Having set out the nature and scope of the dispute
which has been consigned to us for resolution, we turn next
to our findings and conclusions on the issues before us. We
have already noted that our Committee represents an unusual
approach to an unusual problem. We should also observe that
the problem is not only unusual but extremely difficult, a
classical polycentric situation where considerations of
educational policy, educational economics, academic staff
employment relationships and collective bargaining influences
all conjoin and overlap to produce a multitude of diverse
tensions which must be resolved in a simple and workable
solution. We have already observed that our mandate appears
to us to require our report to concentrate on employment
three things. First, we are "to conduct a system-wide study
of the functions and duties for which Instructors are employed
or performing or which Instructors may or should be employed
or performing". Within reasonable bounds of economy and
efficiency, and with the assistance of the parties, we have
completed this study; our findings we shall set out
decisively below in the course of explaining our deliberations
and conclusions.
Second, we are to resolve the substantive dispute
between the parties. This requires answers to three questions:
a)Is there a necessity for two
functional classifications?
b)If so, is the present Instructor
classification definition
inappropriate?
c)If so, what new classification
definition should be formulated?
As can be seen, one response to each of the first two questions
would obviate any further inquiry. We shall therefore
proceed to answer these questions in the order in which they
are set out.
Finally, we are. asked to consider the implementation
and reclassification aspects of any substantive changes we
might propose separate from the questions of substance, to
ensure the provision of a realistic time frame. We shall thus
return to this issue at the end of our report. We turn, then,
4-r, +he three q uestions of substance before us.
Although tnis is cieariy the most fundamental question
put to us, we have found it virtually impossible to answer.
The test of "necessity" is one which can be construed in a
thousand ways, and the parties have offered us no real guide-
lines for our deliberations. As we conceive of our role as
that of a specialized interest arbitration board, we might
begin by suggesting adaptations of the criteria which interest
arbitrators have traditionally applied for public sector
employment.
First, we consider it appropriate that teachers in
the Colleges should not have to subsidize either their students
or the taxpayers of Ontario by accepting working conditions,
including classification systems, which are substandard by
reference to other employment of a similar or comparable sort
in the community. On the other hand, the community has no
obligation to maintain extravagant or unnecessary terms and
conditions of employment; the community is similarly under no
obligation to subsidize the teachers.
Second, although collective bargaining is a powerful
force for ensuring the development of fairness and justice in
employment, and ought to be encouraged as an important aspect
of the public policy of this Province, it ought not to be a
conservative or counter-progressive influence which prevents
flexible and economical responses to change and challenge.
Although hard won rights ought not to be lightly cast aside,
thought on educational organization. He sets out four
critical conditions if curriculum design at a local level
(where he clearly asserts it is best done) is to be
effective:
1.The curriculum designers must have
the support and encouragement of the
administration.
2.The designers must be provided with
adequate resources, the most
important of which is time (as a
rough rule of thumb: at least one
hour of development time for each
hour of instructional time).
3.The designers must have expertise
in curriculum design, as well as in
their teaching subject.
4.The designers must have incentives,
which may take the form of rank,
remuneration, promotion, public
recognition, or some other reward
system.
Dr. Pratt goes on to state that it seems unlikely
that the conditions for effective curriculum design can be
established if:
1.it is assumed or pretended that all
teachers are presently competent and
are engaged in curriculum design.
2.there are no special rewards or
recognition for those who are
competent, and do engage in curriculum
design.
3.the task of curriculum design is
fragmented among all the individual
teachers.
Even accepting these strictures at face value, and
classification system can foster the effective development
of a cadre of curriculum designers at a local level. There
are a number of types of "rewards" proposed by Dr. Pratt,
and his list is not intended to be exhaustive. It may be
that a combination of release time, recognition of formal
curriculum design training for promotion and salary purposes
on a common salary scale, and the simple satisfaction of
creating vehicles for delivery of knowledge would suffice to
provide the impetus required to develop a curriculum design
team.
At the same time, moving to an area where we have
rather more expertise among us, we are not sure we can accept
at face value Dr. Pratt's assumption that curriculum design
is inevitably a more valuable skill than the actual teaching
of the substantive subject. In some areas where complex and
sophisticated material is being taught, it is at least
possible that curriculum design is the easiest part of the
educational delivery task structure. We do not, of course,
know this for sure, but we are auspicious of the assumption
that curriculum design is inevitably the paramount skill.
A detailed task analysis would be necessary before we could
be convinced of this.
In some circumstances, on the other hand, the dual
classification approach may well be the appropriate avenue
by which to approach curriculum design. We are unable to
contexts, be the best method of achieving the results for
which Dr. Pratt argues. The question can only be finally
answered by a careful assessment of the benefits and costs
to be experienced in each context from a dual classification
system: benefits and costs which may go far beyond the
efficiencies of curriculum design. For this reason, we have
considered it best to avoid providing a categorical and
universal answer to the first question posed to us, since we
are not convinced that such an answer would provide a whole
truth. We shall pass instead to what we consider the more
meaningful question before us: whether, in the context of
the Colleges as constituted, the present Instructor
classification is an appropriate one.
b) Is the resent Instructor classification definition
appropriate?
We begin our discussion here by setting aside two
initiatives, one by St. Lawrence College and one by the Union,
which we consider not to bear on our determination. First,
St. Lawrence College put forward a great deal of argument to
the effect that the present classification definitions were
carefully bargained for and constituted a package deal, from
which the Union is now attempting to resile. We do not
consider that the evidence before us supports this view of
the history of the definitions, and we think it appropriate
4-knra, ;a ne. an;Aanamfl the ilninn ac an
of the 1975-76 collective agreement which St. Lawrence
describes as a "breakthrough". Moreover, we do not consider
that such participation would have been material to our task
in any event, since collective bargaining ought properly to
include opportunity to escape from bad bargains no matter how
carefully negotiated.
Second, the Union brief raises serious allegations
of sexual discrimination in the employment of Instructors,
although in the long run it does not directly rely on this
point. While some of the statistics presented are, if
accurate, enough to be a source of concern, we have not been
presented with any concrete evidence of sexual discrimination.
There exist other forums which can provide effective remedies
for proscribed discrimination if the allegations are justified.
Because of the possibly prejudicial nature of these allegations,
however, we consider it important to state that there is not
evidence on which we could rely, that we have not taken the
allegations into account, and they do not form any basis for
our decision. We turn therefore to the question before us.
A multi-faceted array of job tasks, like a
classification definition, cannot be considered on its merits
divorced from the application and interpretation to which it
has been subjected. In determining the appropriateness of
the Instructor classification definition, therefore, we
consider it proper to assess it in light of its most extreme
features of the Instructor classification. We have already
indicated that the hallmark of the St. Lawrence model, as
compared to less extreme views of some other colleges, is
that it presumes that curriculum development is a factor
which can be abstracted from the teaching job at any level,
for any subject matter, and in any pedagogical mode.
If this were correct, it might be expected that the
increase in remuneration to be utilized to differentially
reward those who are engaged in curriculum design would be a
constant, or near-constant, amount of money based on the
abstracted responsibilities. In other words, if Instructors
could reasonably be employed at any level of sophistication
of subject matter and in all pedagogical modes, it would be
reasonable to expect that they receive the same differential
remuneration for qualifications, in addition to experience,
as is provided for Teaching Masters. As the St. Clair
College brief rather tersely puts it, job content normally
includes such factors as "know-how, problem solving, and
accountability", and it is on differences in job content
that salary distinctions are made in a well ordered system
of salary determination. In the present system, however,
no allowance is made whatsoever for the different skills and
knowledge which Instructors hired to teach in radically
different subject areas might bring to their duties, nor for
the considerable differences in educational formation which
It is therefore arguable, and we have concluded,
that the salary structure used is more in accord with a more
restrictive use of the Instructor classification, where it is
Limited to areas of simpler subject matter, at lower levels,
or in less demanding pedagogical modes, than with the St.
Lawrence model where theoretically, and to a certain extent
in practice, it can be used anywhere in the program.
A second major consideration is the operation of the
model itself, and we have had the opportunity of meeting with
both Instructors and their supervisors at St. Lawrence College.
It is clear that St. Lawrence has purposefully and ingeniously
set out to use the Instructor category to the fullest extent
possible, and decisions in planning and staffing have been
made to accommodate to the classification structure, as
broadly interpreted. We have attempted to marshall our
impressions of the operation of this model, and we shall set
out a few of our observations.
First, we are leSs than fully convinced that the model
can work successfully in all areas and at all levels of
instruction. The evidence available, from all sources,
indicates a certain uneasiness and a distinct sense of
artificiality when it is applied, for example, to academic
post-secondary course areas, and there is evidence that the
clear distinction between teacher and curriculum designer begins
r nrriculum designers appear to
are handed over to Instructors, and a sense of collegial
responsibility for course development begins to emerge.
Both the observations of the Instructors and of one
or two of the administrators whom we interviewed left us with
two deep impressions: that curriculum development in post-
secondary areas, at least, is difficult and unsatisfactory
when done alone and without the participation of the entire
(or nearly the entire) teaching staff; and that often every-
one, including Instructors, appears eventually to become
involved in curriculum development work. St. Lawrence College
answered these impressions by pointing to their concerted
efforts to erect water-tight compartments between the two
functions. Every Instructor is, we are told, carefully
briefed on the limitations of the job. Annual faculty
evaluations are carefully phrased to ensure that, even when an
Instructor has been involved in curriculum design and that fact
"et,r is recognized, it is made clear that it was not a part of the
't • .1c,, job but a contribution beyond the requirements of the
classification. Finally, we were told that, however curriculum
design may be done, the Teaching Master assigned to the course
bears the full responsibility and is fully accountable for the
course and its success.
After much reflection, we are not really satisfied
with these answers. Neither what we have been told, nor our
own considerable teaching experience, leads us to believe that
the proper place for the sharp division between curriculum
design and mere course preparation which St. Lawrence College
urged on us, and we were unable to see much more than a
semantic distinction in some of the specific examples
presented. In addition, where the distinction had been care-
fully made and preserved, the sense of artificiality (and
perhaps even some sense of wasted educational resources) made
us think that the model had been shaped to fit the
classification definition, rather than that the classification
definition had been designed to accommodate modern educational
theory.
"Accountability", for example, is a meaningless concept
if a conscientious teacher is unable properly to meet course
objectives without intimate involvement in their design. In
the same vein, carefully worded annual evaluations are merely
window dressing if they conceal the fact that Instructors must
participate in curriculum development. And the pressures to
participate are apparently very strong. In addition to the
professional influences already postulated, St. Lawrence
College made it clear that participation (on a voluntary basis)
in curriculum design was an important aspect of career
development, and would be a factor to be considered in
promotion and other career decisions. In other words, it is
arguable that the only Instructors who do not have to
participate in curriculum design in the St. Lawrence model
or those who can both avoid the professional need to
participate on a collegial basis and who have no need or desire
for career advancement. Given these pressures, and given the
impressive quality of the Instructors we met, it would be
hardly surprising that Instructor participation in curriculum
development is frequently encountered.
For these two major reasons, the non 7 parallel systems
of compensation and the artificiality of the result when the
Instructor classification is used at the edge of the extreme
interpretation of its application, we have concluded that the
present classification definition is inappropriate. Our
conclusions are based chiefly on considerations of the
reasonableness of the academic employment relationships which
the model creates, but we have been unable to ignore the
other two factors, economics and management efficiency, which
St. Lawrence advances on behalf of its model.
Certainly the St. Lawrence model is economical. It
is always cheaper to perform the same functions with lower paid
workers than with higher paid ones. As we indicated above,
however, it is a fundamental precept of public sector
collective bargaining that public employees should not have
to subsidize the public through substandard working conditions,
and we think we can infer from the number of times on which
that principle has been applied by interest arbitrators under
narinna StAtfltitie 1aniclaF4In0 intearnonFinn 4-5,4 44-