Multileveled Autonomy in Canadian Schools: Exploring the Impact of School Boards and Teacher Unions on School-Level Autonomy

• In Event: Education Reforms in High-Performing Systems: Canada, Finland, Hong Kong, and Singapore

Abstract

This paper focuses on the role of school boards /divisions/districts and teacher unions/associations in the practice of school autonomy. Reporting on Canadian education is no easy matter as education is a provincial responsibility in Canada. Consequently, this paper will present a review of autonomy policies in two Canadian provinces.
According to Evans (2011), division-level autonomy is a powerful force in the actualization of provincial policy initiatives. Individual school divisions are more than administrative units, they also represent “brands” that are powerful conveyors of meaning associated with the divisions’ exercising of local variation and autonomy. This type of multi-leveled autonomy is not adequately captured by, for example, the TALIS (Vieluf, 2012) definitions of school autonomy.
The labour context for teaching Canada is significant in understanding the autonomy of individual teachers and the relatively equal power distribution between teachers and administrators in Canadian schools. In several provinces school principals are members of the same bargaining unit or teachers’ union. This has resulted in a context in which the power differential between teachers and principals is small. Teaching practice in Canada is characterized by high autonomy over instruction, pedagogy, resources and materials, and formative assessment. Additionally, the policy and political influence of teacher unions is significant. It is dangerous to overstate this, as there is great variability from province to province; however, in most contexts, teacher labour unions are seen as equal partners with government and school divisions in a variety of policy, curriculum, and regulatory environments. In fact, teacher unions are usually included in policy development processes along with representatives from government, school divisions and community stakeholders (Newton, Burgess, & Robinson, 2007).
It is clear that autonomy in the Canadian context cannot be understood only at the school level and must include an account of teacher autonomy within the school context, school autonomy within the division context, and division autonomy within the provincial context. It becomes clear that an account of autonomy cannot be limited to the school site level. Autonomy is a phenomenon that emanates from the state and is exercised at multiple levels. In particular, the role of the division and the teaching profession in the Canadian context may be more significant than in some other jurisdictions. This means that “principal-centric” explanations of school autonomy may be limited for understanding school autonomy.

References
Evans, R. (2011). Is the Canadian model right for UK schools? The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/jan/04/education-policy-canadian-model
Newton, P. M., Burgess, D., & Robinson, S. (2007). Chapter 3: Saskatchewan. In A.S. Chan, D. Fisher, & K. Rubenson (Eds.), The evolution of professionalism: Educational policy in the provinces and territories of Canada (pp. 49-64). Vancouver, BC, Canada: Centre for Policy Studies in Higher Education and Training.
http://www.wncp.ca/media/39327/10to12frame.pdf
Vieluf S., Et Al. (2012), Teaching Practices and Pedagogical Innovation: Evidence from Talis, OECD Publishing. Retrieved November 3, 2014 from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/teaching-practices-and-pedagogical-innovations_9789264123540-en

Authors

• Paul Newton, University of Saskatchewan

• Jose da Costa, University of Alberta