For the Love of Learning

Volume IV: Making It Happen

Chapter 17:Organizing Education: Power and Decision-Making

In earlier chapters we articulated the basis of our vision of the school system and described the kind of schools we want for Ontario's young people. We now address the question of how the education system should be organized. Our recommendations are intended to strike an appropriate balance of power among the various groups and institutions in the education system, keeping in mind that the overall goal is to increase student learning. The system should therefore be organized to support the teacher-student relationship. The aim is to have an organizational design that furthers educational objectives, makes effective use of resources, redresses inequities, and gives all stakeholders a voice in important decisions about education.

Stakeholders and power

As with so many other educational issues, there are no simple or obvious answers to questions about who should make various decisions, what governance structures make most sense, how authority ought to be exercised, or even what criteria should be used in coming to conclusions. As well, there is surprisingly little research in the area of school governance that could direct us to firm conclusions.

Over the course of our work, we came to believe that the main organizational issues are, first, the high degree of uncertainty and confusion about who is in charge; second, the sense of imbalance in the sharing of power between the key players, with parents and students playing a very minor role. There is also a commonly held perception that the organization of the system is not furthering its goals, accompanied by a belief that drastic changes in governance are required. We carefully considered these concerns, and designed our recommendations to address the problems we identified.

The organizational changes we recommend are all aimed at supporting teachers and students in schools. We recommend giving a stronger voice to students, strengthening the relationship between parents and schools, and ensuring that principals and teachers have greater autonomy in the management of their schools. At the school board level, we stress the need to clarify the roles of trustees as distinguished from supervisory officers, and outline what we see as the school board's appropriate role to support schools in improving student learning.

We also stress the need for the Ministry of Education and Training to play a strong leadership role, setting overall direction for the province's education policy, and connecting education with other areas of public and social policy. We also explain why we reject some commonly suggested solutions, such as giving parents a direct role in managing schools, or drastically reducing the number of school boards in Ontario, or even eliminating school boards entirely.

Although we propose some changes, we found no reason to alter drastically the basic organization structure of the Ontario education system, comprising a Ministry of Education and Training, school boards, and schools. Although this system is not perfect, there is no evidence that any alternative system would be preferable in balancing competing interests, improving student learning, or being more democratic. Therefore, rather than radically changing the way education is organized, we recommend improvements that should make a significant difference for the future.

The ultimate stakeholder in publicly funded education is the public, whose interests must be taken into account. Publicly funded schools belong to everyone, and must serve society's needs. The best case for public education has always been that it is a common good - that everyone, ultimately, has a stake in education. Therefore, any organizational design must protect and promote public interests.

The players

Much of the history of schooling has been an account of how each of the many stakeholders tried to influence the direction and shape of the system. The key players have their formal roles and responsibilities set down in various statutes and regulations. The Minister of Education, for instance, is authorized to set diploma requirements and curriculum guidelines, certify teachers, and require school boards to have policies in specific areas. School boards must operate schools according to provincial legislation, provide educational programs for all students in their jurisdictions, and hire staff.

Principals, as we noted in Chapter 12, are responsible for managing their schools, particularly with regard to the content and quality of instruction and the discipline of students. Teachers are to develop courses of study, instruct and evaluate their students, and report on student progress. Parents and guardians must ensure that children of compulsory school age attend school, while students themselves are required to attend classes regularly, learn diligently, and act sensibly. Under the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, teachers' federations are mandated to conduct negotiations with school boards about their members' working conditions and pay.

It is obvious that some of the language of the Act, especially that referring to the Minister, to boards, and to principals, is often vague, and that a number of key functions (developing curriculum, for instance) overlap. This lack of clarity allows perpetual manoeuvering among players - including the Ministry, school board trustees, school board administrators, universities, principals, teachers, teacher federations, parents, the business community, even students themselves - to increase their own power. Although some ambiguity is inherent in the system, we have tried to clarify somewhat the various roles and responsibilities.

Allocating and exercising decision-making powers

At a practical level, the organization of the school system is a question of how decision-making powers are allocated and exercised. Finding an appropriate balance is a critical theme in our proposals for organizing the school system.

Ontario schools were originally established and controlled by local citizens. With an eye on efficiency and equality of opportunity, however, successive governments slowly developed larger units, culminating in 1969 with the amalgamation of more than two thousand small boards into less than 200 larger school boards, most based on the provincial county as the administrative unit. Today there are 172 Ontario school boards.

All through the 20th century, there have been conflicting pressures toward centralization and decentralization. In Ontario, the 1969 consolidation of school boards not only concentrated authority in a smaller number of larger boards, it also moved authority from the Ministry to these larger boards through the transfer of such functions as supervising and inspecting teachers.

The main arguments in favour of centralization are that a central authority can work out common solutions to educational problems, ensuring program quality across the province; that efficiency and economies of scale are possible with central control; and that central authorities are needed to ensure social justice and equity.

The main argument in favour of decentralization is that local communities should be able to control their own schools, and that they know best what policies and programs suit the community.

There are problems with taking either of these arguments to extremes. The challenge is to find an appropriate balance of power and control at the school, community, Ministry, and provincial levels. In the following sections we indicate how we believe authority and power should be re-allocated in the Ontario school system. In brief, we are recommending a stronger voice for students and parents; greater decision-making authority for principals, with involvement of teachers as well; clarifying the role of school boards; and articulating a strong policy leadership role for the Ministry of Education and Training.

Schools

Because schools are the heart of the education system they must be the centre of change in education. Change can only occur through a re-alignment of roles and responsibilities of the key players at the school level.

Students

In presentations to the Commission, students provided insight and perspective, making common-sense suggestions for improving schools. We believe the school system will benefit substantially by systematically seeking their views and taking their opinions seriously. While it makes sense to do this on an informal basis for students in Grade 6 and younger, we believe it should be formalized for those in Grade 7 and up.

There are three forums in which this should happen. First, all boards should include at least one student member, elected by fellow students. Student trustees should have input into and a vote on all board deliberations, subject to the usual conflict-of-interest and legal requirements. Several Ontario boards, for instance, the Kenora Board of Education and the Stormont, Dundas, and Glengarry Board of Education, have student trustees, although under the current provisions of the Education Act, they cannot be regular voting trustees. Evaluations to date suggest that having student trustees has been successful and meaningful.

Second, student councils should, in addition to organizing social events, be responsible for gathering and presenting student views on schooling in a regular and systematic manner. This might be done through regular forums or surveys or other means, depending on what the student council decides. They should also provide on-going advice to student trustees.

Third, there should be a Student and Youth Council similar to the Ontario Parent Council which the Minister recently created. The membership would include representatives of the three provincial student organizations, a representative of recent graduates, and a representative of young people not in school. Its mandate, like that of the OPC, would be to advise on all educational matters, and to seek further ways to involve students in decisions that affect their lives. A formal training program should be instituted for all students who are elected to be representatives, while part of the professional development of teachers and principals would include training to work closely with the new student leadership.

Additionally, we also suggest that a Students' Charter of Rights and Responsibilities, setting out clearly the kinds of roles outlined above, be distributed each year to every student in the province, and that school time be made available for the student council to ensure that all students are fully aware of the contents and implications of the charter. Although students already formally have rights beyond merely the right to a good education, such as the secondary school students' right to be told in advance about the content of course work and methods of evaluation, we understand these are often ignored. Students need clear statements and explanations of their rights and responsibilities, and of the school's code of behaviour and discipline policies.

Recommendations 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148

*We recommend that all boards have at least one student member, entitled to vote on all board matters, subject to the usual conflict-of-interest and legal requirements.

*We recommend that student councils be given the responsibility for organizing students' views on all aspects of school life, and for transmitting these views to teachers and principals with responses sent back to students in a systematic way, and that they provide advice to student trustees.

*We recommend that the Minister of Education and Training establish a Student and Youth Council, to advise on all educational matters, to seek further ways to involve students in decisions that affect their lives, and to sponsor research about what students can do to improve learning in schools.

*We recommend that the Ministry organize a collaborative process for developing a Students' Charter of Rights and Responsibilities, and that the process include a significant role for students. The essential elements of such a charter must include a description of the kind of information a student is entitled to receive, the programs and services to which a student is entitled, the responsibilities a student is expected to accept, the role that students are entitled to play in the decisions made in the system, and the recourse available if students feel that their rights have not been upheld.

*We recommend that students be involved in developing and regularly reviewing codes of behaviour and other selected policies and procedures that flow from the Students' Charter of Rights and Responsibilities at both board and school levels. These policies and procedures may not take away from the rights and responsibilities specified in the charter.

*We recommend that information about the students' charter and all policies and procedures that directly affect students be made available to all students in a way most students can readily understand.

Teachers and Principal

Chapters 7 through 10 provide the Commission's vision of schools and of the program for students. In Chapter 12, we outline our perspective on the role of principals and teachers in the operation of schools, stressing the responsibilities of principals to stimulate and support improved teaching and learning in their schools. If principals are responsible for creating and sustaining the conditions for effective teaching and learning in school, they need to have the power, within guidelines set by the school board, to make decisions about certain central issues, such as staffing and how funds are to be allocated.

Teachers, as professionals on whom the success of the school depends, should also be involved in areas of school management, particularly those relating to curriculum, instruction, and assessment of learning, as well as to parents and the community. If teachers' professionalism is enhanced through stronger preparation and on-going development, as we suggest in Chapter 12, then their professional competence should be recognized through their participation in school decisions.

We believe that, in their schools, teachers and school administrators should have considerable professional autonomy to judge which school organization and teaching strategies are most likely to lead to high levels of student learning. At the same time, they must be held accountable for student achievement in the school and for reporting regularly to parents.

Throughout the developed world there have been, over the past decade or more, experiments with what is usually termed school-based management or site-based management, in which significant authority is delegated from the central authority, usually the school board, to the school. Various models have been established in countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, and Britain, as well as in Utah and in Florida's Dade County.

It is important to note that the term school-based management might refer to delegation of authority either to the principal and teachers, or, in other cases, to school councils in which much or even most of the authority is vested in parents. At this point, we refer only to models in which staff have increased authority. The decision-making power may be vested primarily in the principal or be shared between principal and teachers.

In Canada, the most well-known example is Edmonton, which in 1976 became one of the first boards to shift some decision-making authority to the school. Many school boards, including some in Ontario, have since moved at least minimally in this direction. The Carleton Board of Education, for instance, expects schools to make many decisions about curriculum, evaluation, reporting, and school structures, as well as determine to some extent how the school operations budget will be allocated.

The arguments advanced for such a shift in responsibility vary somewhat, but are often framed in terms of freeing schools from the constraints of bureaucracy, so that they will be more successful. In Dade County, for example, schools request waivers to exempt them from various school board regulations and collective agreement provisions.

What has been the result of all this shifting of responsibility? Has it made a difference to students? In assessing site-based management, it is important to realize that, for the most part, the shift has taken place for political rather than educational reasons.(1) Joyce Scane, of the Ontario Institute of Studies in Education, has concluded that decentralization does not have substantial effects on school programs:

The important words here are "per se." In other words, just because decisions are made at the school level rather than the board level does not necessarily mean they are better. Sometimes principals and teachers may focus on areas that have no payoff at all in terms of student learning, or may get so caught up in the day-to-day school management and administration that they are distracted from what should be their main activity: providing meaningful educational programs to their students.

This is why, although we recommend that principals have considerable autonomy within their schools, we stress their responsibility to keep student learning as the top priority. Of course, with autonomy and responsibility comes accountability. Principals must not be diverted into focusing on issues that are only incidentally related to improving teaching and learning. Clear expectations from the Ministry and the school board set the overall priorities within which schools decide how to proceed.

Simply sharing power is not enough: schools and school systems must also be redesigned to ensure that teachers and principals actually have the knowledge and skills to make changes, that they get accurate and regular feedback about school performance, and that there is a clear focus on instructional improvement.(3) Staff, under the leadership of the principal, must work together within a framework of agreed-upon goals and standards, to develop and implement their plans for moving toward their goals.

Principals and teachers must use their leadership skills to build and sustain school cultures that focus on student learning. Requiring each school to develop a school growth or improvement plan, articulating school objectives and plans for achieving them, can be an important tool in achieving this. Such school growth plans would be developed within the overall framework of MET and school board guidelines.

We have stressed the importance of linking more closely schools and community, and here too, we believe that principals should have considerable autonomy, deciding how to allocate school funds and design school initiatives to better meet local needs. To do this effectively, school staff must understand the community served by the school. With the help of the school-community councils we propose in Chapter 14, schools should be better able to meet unique local needs. Principals and teachers must reach out to the community to forge strong relationships and partnerships that will relieve some of the non-academic burdens that schools are increasingly shouldering.

As well, we believe that school boards must recognize principals as key members of the senior management team, with a major role in policy development as well as implementation.

Recommendation 149

*We recommend that the Ministry phase in a policy requiring school boards to turn over an increasingly significant portion of the school budget to principals, on the condition that the school have a school growth plan; that this plan be monitored by the board; that teachers participate in decision-making concerning curriculum, assessment, professional development, and staffing; and that the school demonstrate how it reaches out to students, parents, and the community.

One more staff role that is relevant in secondary schools should be addressed. The departmental structure could be altered to help the principal meet new responsibilities in running the school. We heard stiff criticisms of some departments for their insularity and territorial mentality, a situation that can hardly be tolerated. Department heads are needed to provide leadership, both in the school as a whole and within their departments to create a collegial professional culture that is especially helpful to new teachers.

As we said in Chapter 12, we see three important new roles for department heads. In the first place, because of their subject expertise, we want them to assist the principal by helping to evaluate teaching performance as well as helping teachers improve. Second, they should assist the principal in managing the school. With many new responsibilities for budget management, school-based as well as board-wide policy development, promoting better relationships with parents and community alliances, principals need to be able to rely on a capable group of department heads to assist them in all these areas. Third, department heads must take on a strong leadership role in developing and implementing the new curriculum we are recommending. Department heads together should encourage teachers to work co-operatively across grade levels and broader program areas. At the same time, their subject expertise will help them to ensure that the essential elements of each subject are strengthened, not lost, in the more collaborative and integrated approach to curriculum.

Parents

We believe that it is crucial for schools to work more collaboratively with parents. As we have stressed throughout this report, parents have a central role to play in the education of their children. In recognition of this role, we recommend the development of a Parents' Charter of Rights and Responsibilities.

The Ministry should develop such a charter, in consultation with the regular stakeholders, to be distributed annually to each student's family. The charter should clearly set out the rights of parents to be made welcome in the school, the kind of regular, personal contact they can expect from teachers, and the kind of support they can expect to enable them to be more helpful to their youngsters' school life.

Recommendations 150, 151, 152

*We recommend that a Parents' Charter of Rights and Responsibilities be developed at the provincial level as a result of collaboration among parents, teachers, administrators, and political decision-makers.

*We recommend that parents be involved in developing student codes of behaviour, and other policies and procedures that flow from the Students' and Parents' Charter of Rights and Responsibilities at both board and school levels.

*We recommend that information about the students' and parents' charters and all policies and procedures that directly affect students and parents be readily available to parents.

Parents vary in the degree to which they want to be involved in their children's schools, and also differ in the type of involvement they want to have. On balance, it appears that only a small minority of parents want to participate in school governance or decision-making. Most parents want to be able to communicate their concerns and aspirations, and to have schools respond in a respectful and helpful manner. Parents want, and are entitled to, information about the policies and goals of their child's school and board, and about their child's progress. If there are learning problems, they want to be informed and want the school to address such problems.

There are several kinds of problems that may arise between parents and the school. Some parents may be intimidated by unwelcoming or unresponsive staff members; some may be concerned about their own levels of education or their imperfect English or French. Some may have only small amounts of time because they work long hours. Many just want a meaningful relationship with their children's school. Whatever the circumstances, there is much that can and must be done to make schools more welcoming. Schools must continue to reach out to parents who, for whatever reason, are uninvolved or uninterested in their children's school life.

We believe all principals and teachers must become aware of the research on the value of parent involvement with their children's school life, and act upon it. Principals and teachers must learn and practice the many effective strategies for successfully reaching out to parents, particularly those who are unlikely to become involved on their own.

Certain kinds of parent involvement pay handsome dividends: higher student achievement, higher aspirations, better attendance, improved classroom and school climate, and more positive relationships between parents and teachers - a welcome list of benefits indeed. The key activities that appear to lead to these happy results are, first, following the child's progress at school and helping at home with homework and projects; second, attending various school performances and sports events; and third, acting as a volunteer in the classroom. Research strongly suggests that such activities have a more direct and positive impact on the student's progress than does active participation in parent organizations, valuable though this may be for the school in general.(4)

We believe it is crucial for schools to seek out parental opinion on important issues. Well beyond the occasional meet-the-teacher sessions, parents need regular mechanisms through which they can give input and raise concerns, not only in relation to their own children, but also in relation to education and other school issues. For instance, when choices are being made about the use of multi-age groupings, or about smaller class sizes as opposed to specialist teachers, parents should have a chance to give their views.

Although we believe that the school's teachers and principal should make decisions about staffing and instruction, their judgments should be informed by knowledge of parental preferences and concerns. In Chapter 12, we also recommend that schools and school boards develop ways of systematically eliciting parental opinion about teaching and school climate.

In Chapter 14, we recommend the formation of school-community councils, in which we see parents playing a vital role. But, because their mandate is primarily to forge community alliances, we do not see these councils as having a decision-making role in relation to school management, although we would expect them to participate and be consulted in many aspects of the life of the school.

We noted earlier that many recent education reforms have included a transfer of decision-making authority from the school board to the school. In some, but by no means all, of these jurisdictions, parents and community representatives are given significant decision-making power, usually through a parent or community council for each school. Education reforms in New Zealand and Chicago, for instance, have resulted in strong parental roles in governance, with significant decision-making powers vested in parent councils. In Canada, Quebec has legislated parent councils in every school, but in an advisory capacity only.

In terms of student achievement,

This conclusion leaves a number of unanswered questions; for example, would the results be different if parent councils operated differently, or if parents and teachers were better trained for their new roles, or if other changes were made? Nevertheless, we have concluded that, at present, there is no solid basis for establishing parent councils as governing bodies for all schools in the province.(6)

In reaching this decision, we carefully considered many factors. Only a small minority of parents seem to want greater decision-making powers in their children's schools, as suggested by the very small number who now are active in home-and-school associations and the relatively small number who indicated a desire for such active involvement. Also, there is little or no evidence that local parent councils improve learning - the touchstone for all our deliberations. The professional qualifications of the school staff suggest they are in the best position to know what constitutes good teaching and learning. Such councils would place an unneeded additional burden on principals. Furthermore, given all this, we feel that a parent council with a mandate to manage schools and make decisions would constitute a serious diversion of resources and energy from the real priorities that should mark greater parental involvement in schools. That being said, wise principals and interested parents can, and indeed must, find many ways to ensure that parents are involved in the life of the school, and to seek out parental concerns and advice.

Recommendation 153

*We recommend that all schools in Ontario be accountable for demonstrating the ways in which they have strengthened parents' involvement in their children's school learning.

The school growth plan described earlier in this chapter is the most likely vehicle for ensuring that schools do this; at the next level of accountability, annual board reports will disseminate the information.

The community

The relationship between school and community is so central to our vision of reforming the education system that we have made it one of our four engines driving the change process. The school-community councils we recommend are new institutions that we believe will be absolutely essential if Ontario schools are to create an improved learning environment for all students.

In Chapter 4, on the purposes of schooling, we distinguished between primary and shared school responsibilities. While academic learning is the primary purpose of the school system, meeting the varied non-academic needs of children is a responsibility the school shares with the broader community. Teachers and schools can fulfil these social responsibilities only if they are supported by appropriate resources from the community outside the school. Helping to organize and mobilize those resources is the general function of these new school-community councils.

In a real sense they would be the eyes and ears of the school in the world outside. Led by the principal, and comprising teachers, parents, students, and community members, they would identify the needs of the school and of the community. They would create the alliances that serve the non-academic needs of the students, so that teachers could concentrate on better teaching. They would help carry out career-day programs, as well as help find students more opportunities and placements in co-operative education schemes.

School-community councils might recommend to the principal certain community themes for the school's locally determined curriculum content. We see these councils as monitoring the charters of rights and responsibilities for both parents and students. Inevitably they would want to advise the principal, in general terms, on ideas for school improvement. And finally, it only makes sense, given their mandate, that they would have the right to be consulted by the school board when a new principal was being chosen. But we stress that their role in relation to the management of the school is only advisory.

There are many benefits of collaborative links with the community. They

• strengthen school programs by drawing on new pools of expertise;
• build public support for schools by giving non-educators direct knowledge and experience of schools;
• show students their school is important enough to motivate other adults to take time to contribute to it;
• contribute to a culture that encourages mutual concern about quality of life.(7)

For these reasons, among others, we identified school-community alliances as one of the levers of change, and recommended in Chapter 14 that school-community councils be created in all schools.

School boards

Between the province's schools and its Ministry of Education and Training stand the school boards. As in so many other parts of the education system, dealing in depth with boards is more complex than most Ontarians might expect. To begin with, depending on how they are counted, the province is divided into 172, 169 or 168 school board jurisdictions; of these, 128 operate more than one school. A board jurisdiction may be a municipality, a county, a region, or even a hospital treatment centre. Depending on the size of the total population it represents, a board can have from three to more than twenty elected trustees.

Boards range in size from the few that operate no schools at all (purchasing educational services for the few students in their jurisdiction) and boards such as the Murchison and Lyell District School Area Board with fewer than twenty students, to the Metropolitan Separate School Board with approximately 100,000 students, the largest in Canada. Some boards have no administrative staff beyond the school level, while others have large and highly sophisticated bureaucracies.(8) Most of the discussion that follows refers primarily to the 128 Ontario boards that have more than one school.

School boards, governed by locally elected trustees, decide on the facilities, programs, services, and resources that will be made available in a locality, and they also set the level of local education taxes. Their responsibilities are outlined in the Education Act, as well as in relevant Ministry regulations. School boards also hire teachers and other staff, and negotiate collective agreements. They develop and deliver programs and curricula for all students, including those with special needs. By setting budgets and requisitioning taxes, boards share with the province the responsibility for financing education.

School boards occupy a somewhat precarious place in the public consciousness. We suspect that few people know either the name of their local trustee or the nature of the trustee's role. In most urban areas, the media give little attention to the day-to-day operations of the school board, although they may publicize crises of various sorts. The voter turnout for school-board elections is notoriously low (even less than for other local offices), and, as an apparent reflection of public interest, many trustees across the province are not challenged in elections but are acclaimed with no opposition. These unfortunate realities may well call into question the legitimacy of the trustee role. This lack of public awareness seems particularly inauspicious, given that such a large proportion of taxes at the municipal level go directly to support education.

The term school board may refer to trustees, who are elected to represent local constituents for three-year terms. When the term is used more inclusively, it refers to the trustees and the staff in a given jurisdiction. In addition to the elected trustees, the other key people in the central offices of the school boards are the supervisory officers, including the director of education, who are the senior administrative staff.

There are a number of contentious issues relating to school boards. They are:

• establishing whether school boards are needed, and if so, what their roles should be;
• the relationship between trustees and administrators;
• the remuneration of trustees;
• the number of trustees;
• the way school boards relate to schools; and
• the number of school boards.

The need for school boards

In many jurisdictions, school reform has involved eliminating or sharply curtailing the power of boards, regional decision-making, or administrative bodies in education. This has been the case in Britain, with its Local Education Authorities (LEAs), in New Zealand, as well as in the City of Chicago. The justification has been that eliminating a layer of bureaucracy increases efficiency and accountability and strengthens local control of schools. The effects of such changes are not always clear, but there is no compelling evidence to suggest that they are positive. It must also be noted that generalizing from one country or educational context to an entirely different one is dangerous indeed.

We do not support elimination of school boards in Ontario. Particularly in such a large and diverse province, we see no way in which five thousand schools could be administered either individually or by the Ministry of Education and Training. We regard boards as having an important democratic function; moreover, education is a significant enough public activity to merit its own locally elected representatives, with responsibilities that neither municipal councillors nor members of the provincial legislature can handle properly.

While we describe it in more detail later in this section, the relationship between school boards and their schools can briefly be described as crucial for creating and sustaining the kinds of schools we need. We also believe that local control of education is best exercised by the public election of trustees, who are expected to be knowledgeable about community priorities and local conditions.

Nonetheless, we believe it is important to clarify what the school boards' role should be, as distinct from that of the Ministry on one hand and individual schools on the other. We have recommended that more responsibility for determining school budget allocations be delegated to principals, and we see a strong policy leadership role for the Ministry. Therefore, school boards are necessary for translating provincial policy into local contexts, for setting local priorities, and for providing co-ordination and support for their schools.

Clarifying roles of trustees and administrators

Like so many elected office holders and civil servants, trustees and administrators co-exist in a state of almost permanent tension and mutual dependence. Trustees rely to a great extent on the advice and expertise of the supervisory officers, who are senior educators with board-wide management responsibilities. Although trustees are responsible for overall policy, and supervisory officers for administration, the line between the two functions is not always clear.

Over the last few years, the distinction has become increasingly blurred, and senior administrators frequently find their time taken up carrying out unimportant tasks for trustees, tasks that seem unrelated to educational issues. Overlaps, gaps, and competing obligations in both groups may detract from the main teaching and learning purposes of schools.

The difficulty for most school boards, therefore, is distinguishing between policy-making and policy implementation. Obviously, the two parties will disagree about what exactly policy is and what is administration. We were told that trustees tend to get too involved in the micro-management of operational details that are better left to supervisory staff. Moreover, the problem seems to be made worse by Ministry regulations that require school boards to ratify many decisions that staff could handle.

For instance, boards must now ratify all teacher hirings. It would seem to make more sense for them to develop and approve hiring policy, leaving staff responsible for hiring teachers within such policy guidelines. In turn, staff believe they often spend too much time preparing material for trustees, rather than concentrating on supporting education in schools.

It is time to clarify the roles and responsibilities of both the elected trustees and their administrations; therefore, drawing on considerable recent research and writing, we suggest a clearer distinction between them.(9)

In brief, trustees should not interfere in operational matters, but ought to set the broad parameters, and then let staff get on with managing the system within them. This includes articulating the mission or vision of the board, which usually includes some indication of the values the board wishes to infuse throughout the system. Good policy development does not prescribe how a policy is to be implemented, but does set some limits; for example, a board will specify a cost figure that is not to be exceeded, conflict-of-interest guidelines that are not to be breached, or ethical frameworks that are not to be disregarded. It is then up to senior administrators to find the best way to achieve the required results in different circumstances. Administrators can then be held accountable for the results they achieve.

Given that current regulations do not always support a clear division between the roles of elected and appointed officials, and in view of the complex issues trustees must face, we suggest that they be offered well-developed professional development programs, as is already the case in many school boards. We note the helpful Handbook for School Trustees in Ontario, published jointly by the province's school trustees' associations and the Ministry of Education and Training.(10)

Recommendation 154

*We recommend that the Minister of Education and Training, in consultation with the provincial trustees' associations, review and revise the legislation and regulations governing education, in order to clarify the policy-making, as distinct from the operational, responsibilities of school board trustees.

Trustee remuneration

Our recommendation on clarifying trustee responsibilities has implications for trustee remuneration, a topic that has been a matter of public controversy for the past few years. Although elected school board trustees have frequently been accused of living high off the public purse, the facts, for the most part, paint a quite different picture.

While most media attention has focused on a relatively few boards whose trustees suddenly proposed to greatly increase their own stipends, in fact, in 1992 about half of all Ontario boards paid themselves less than $10,000 a year per trustee, and in many cases, far less.

In only 17 boards did trustees receive more than $15,000. And only in the following seven boards did they pay themselves as much as $20,000: Etobicoke, Scarborough, Peel, Metro Roman Catholic Separate, Metro French-language Board (all between $20,500 and $30,000), North York ($32,000), and the City of Toronto, far ahead of the field at $49,383.

The incomplete data available for 1994 indicate only small province-wide changes from the 1992 figures, including North York, where trustee pay has risen to $33,330, and Scarborough. Scarborough trustees decided to raise their pay from $22,000 in 1991 to $30,000 in 1992, which was then to have increased to $33,000 in 1993 and to $36,000 in 1994. When these decisions caused a media and public uproar, the trustees revisited their original decision and settled for $30,000.

In the midst of recent generalized attacks against high-priced trustees, too little attention has been paid to the fact that this province is blessed with hundreds of dedicated trustees who spend many hours a month carrying out their board duties, often for distinctly modest reimbursements.

Our view is that our recommendation that the Ministry clarify and distinguish more clearly between the functions and responsibilities of trustees and administrators will mean that the role of the trustee can be defined as part time. If trustees focus on their responsibility to articulate a vision or mission to guide the board and its schools to set overall policy, and focus on results rather than on process and management, there would seem to be little justification for treating their responsibilities as a full-time job.

Therefore, we believe that, as part-timers, all trustees should be paid accordingly. While most boards actually do provide remuneration consistent with the part-time nature of the position, we believe that other boards should follow suit; in our view, a reasonable maximum would be $20,000. To gain a perspective on this figure, we note that 95 percent of all trustees in Ontario fall below it - many of them well below.

Recommendation 155

*We recommend that the Ministry set a scale of honoraria for trustees, with a maximum of $20,000 per annum.

Numbers of trustees

What should be the maximum number of trustees elected for each board? At the moment the numbers range between 8 and 23. Some research on effective boards suggests that, because large boards can become unwieldy, caution should be exercised in deciding on boards of more than seven people.(11)

However, Commission members are not of one mind on the right size of a board; some of us feel strongly that between 8 and 12 trustees is the optimum, while others believe that any number is bound to be arbitrary. Certainly, two relevant factors in determining board size should be its geographic location and the population it serves. We conclude only that there should be continuing efforts to reduce the number of trustees, once consistent criteria have been developed.

School boards and schools

Important as it is to clarify the respective roles of trustees and administrators, there is still the question of the role of school boards in relation to the schools they administer. Aside from the obvious personnel and finance functions, including collective bargaining, what part do boards play in developing and implementing programs and instruction?

We noted earlier that, on their own, schools would find it difficult to sustain excellence and continue to improve; most need significant support from outside the school. In a province as large as Ontario with 5000 schools, it is not realistic to expect that such support can be directly provided by a provincial agency. This is where the school board, through its supervisory officers and other professional staff, has a role.

Some research suggests that school boards can be a significant factor in how successfully schools in their jurisdiction manage student learning. In general, the strategy seems to involve frequent communication between schools and the central office (as well as among schools), with little reliance on bureaucratic rules and structures.(12)

Through their supervisory officers and other professional staff, boards can provide direction and focus for schools, communicating clear policy guidelines and helping them set priorities, often among a multitude of conflicting demands. School boards can assist principals and teachers to establish professional networks outside their own schools, and can mediate in school-community conflicts. The increased emphasis on monitoring and reporting on student learning and on other indicators (as recommended in Chapter 19) will make it particularly important for boards to help schools act on the results of board-wide program reviews and student-testing programs. Schools will need assistance in using the results of such monitoring to improve their programs and teaching. Supervisory officers, as well as principals, may need to develop their own skills and understanding of these new roles.

Within Ministry and board guidelines, we believe that school boards should give principals maximum flexibility to organize and operate their schools as they see fit, with the considerable involvement of teachers, and always considering input from parents, students, and the community.

A commonly raised criticism of school boards and of the education system in general is that the system is top heavy, that too much money is spent outside the classroom and too high a proportion of staff are in non-teaching positions.(13) The validity of this criticism is difficult to establish, partly because the data on staffing allocations across school boards are rarely comparable. School boards do not always classify staff with similar functions in the same way.

Although making judgments about available data is not easy, the information we have suggests that the problem is not as serious as has been commonly claimed. In some boards, for instance, staff classified as non-teaching are classroom teaching assistants. Although such staff do not have teaching certificates, they work directly with students under the general direction of teachers.

We have already pointed out in Chapter 12 that the responsibilities of supervisory officers will have to be reviewed in light of our recommendations. Staffing decisions must be made with a view to strengthening teaching and learning functions, and there may well be room for further reductions in central office staff.

The number of school boards

Throughout our public hearing process, we were often told that there are too many school boards in Ontario. Many, including the Minister of Education, have suggested that some boards should be consolidated to provide more efficient delivery of educational services. Other provinces - for example, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Alberta - recently have drastically reduced the number of school boards. Given the frequency of the suggestion and the vigour with which it was usually made, we examined this issue carefully.

At one time Ontario had more than four thousand small school boards, many responsible for only one school. Following a series of consolidations, the 1969 amalgamation reduced what were more than two thousand school boards to fewer than two hundred. Since then there have been further reductions in the number. Many people may be surprised to learn that, on average, school boards in Ontario are already larger than those in any other province. As shown in Table 1, Ontario has more schools per board and more students per board than other provinces. In a 1986 report on trustee apportionment, a research team from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education warned that large boards, those with more than 40,000 students, may be in danger of losing their connection to the community.(14) Ontario already has 13 boards in that category (see Table 2).

The recent consolidation of school boards in other provinces has still resulted in boards considerably smaller than most of those in Ontario. Because of the size and complexity of this province, there is no reason to assume that the move to more centralized control elsewhere would be appropriate here. Ontario has 40 percent of the elementary and secondary students in Canadian schools, located in an enormous geographic area and in communities that are remarkably diverse.

Table 2 shows the size distribution of those 128 Ontario boards that have more than one school (as opposed to schools that purchase services from other boards, or boards that operate only one school, or special boards that run classes only in care and treatment centres).

There is no formula, nor do there seem to be any objective criteria, that would allow us to conclude that there are too many school boards in Ontario. It is true that removing the French-language sections to form separate French-language school boards, as we recommend in Chapter 15, would result in some boards so small that their viability would be dubious, and we encourage such boards to amalgamate with those adjacent to them. In fact, the same may be true of some other very small boards. Here, as everywhere in this report, we encourage communities to use local strategies and solutions to fit local situations. Any more general consideration of amalgamation of school boards must take into account their incredibly varied nature and size, and must also consider mechanisms for sharing services, as well as for dealing with political representation.

Service delivery organizations

There are a significant number of areas where all boards should be seeking greater efficiency; indeed, many already do so. For example, a number of smaller school boards are not in a position to provide the kind of support teachers and schools need to provide good programs to all their students. Nor do they have the critical mass to deal efficiently with transportation, purchasing, payroll, and other business functions. In those same geographic areas, health and social services agencies also often lack the numbers needed to provide good services to school children in every school area. Recognizing this problem, some boards have already banded together in co-operative efforts, and in one project the Ministries of Community and Social Services, Education and Training, and Health have jointly set up a program to provide integrated services to children in the North.

Whatever their size, many school boards in Ontario and elsewhere are turning to co-operative alliances through which they can develop curriculum resources, co-ordinate services with other ministries, purchase such services as transportation or supplies, provide professional development, or focus on a range of other areas. We see this as a desirable development, and strongly urge school boards across the province to increase such joint ventures. We believe that in many boards there is scope for even greater efficiency through sharing such important but costly services, and by achieving economies of scale through joint purchasing. Such co-operative arrangements may make more sense than amalgamation. Money is saved, while local representation and control of schools is maintained.

Although such partnerships and alliances will be essential in meeting varied student and community needs in the years ahead especially given the remote possibility of any increase in financial resources - they are not problem free. Territoriality is a powerful force; sometimes a neutral third party is necessary to establish and maintain working alliances. As well, unless the responsibility for these alliances is specifically assigned to particular positions, they may remain reliant on the interest and good will of individuals, and thus become vulnerable to staff changes. Nonetheless, we strongly support the continued growth of a range of co-operative initiatives among boards, and between boards and other agencies.

The case of the Metropolitan Toronto (Public) School Board

The structure of education at the local level in Metro Toronto is quite different from other urban centres and was brought to our attention as an issue of concern. Metro public schools have a two-tiered system of governance: the Metro Board with representatives from seven area boards - Etobicoke, York, East York, North York, Scarborough, Toronto, and the Conseil des Ecoles Francaises de la communaute urbaine de Toronto (the French-language board). Separate schools for the whole of Metropolitan Toronto are governed by the Metro Separate School Board. Our comments here relate to the public school boards.

The Metropolitan Toronto School Board was established in 1953 to provide co-ordination of activities across all the public school boards in Metropolitan Toronto. Much of the justification related to the unequal bases for assessment in the different boards, with some capable of raising tax revenues much more readily than others. In order to equalize services across Metro, a decision was made to have a super-ordinate umbrella board, with trustees from each of the member boards, to apportion resources equitably and to provide a common level of educational service. Although the individual boards continued to make decisions about many areas of policy, the Metro Board made decisions about apportioning tax revenues.

The Metro Board is a steering committee of all seven boards, with legislated responsibility for teacher collective bargaining in relation to salaries and working conditions. Such an arrangement precludes local boards agreeing to quite different contract provisions for their teachers. The individual boards continue to have separate negotiations to deal with various local issues, as well as bargaining with non-teaching staff.

Currently, the Metro Board continues to collect and distribute tax revenue to achieve greater per-pupil equity across Metro, and also deals with capital grant allocations for building and renovating school facilities. As well, Metro continues to deal with collective bargaining. Although the board operated schools for the developmentally challenged, responsibility for these schools is being divested to local boards. The other function it serves is a co-ordinating one; a variety of co-operative initiatives are carried out through the Metro Board, including producing some curriculum materials and offering the Supervisory Officer Qualification Program for aspiring supervisory officers on a cost-recovery basis.

Although the proportion of Metro education costs for the additional tier of the Metro Board is not large, the yearly administrative costs are still considerable. Given the current financial constraints, as well as the public concern about value for money, is the continued existence of the Metro Toronto School Board justified? If the present funding situation continues, it would probably make sense for the Metro Board to continue as well, since it serves a valuable function in redistributing tax revenues across the local boards, and thus ensures greater equity. The fact that the local boards are part of the Metro Board lessens any feelings that redistribution is being imposed on them.

However, we are recommending significant changes to the funding structures in the province. If theses changes are implemented, many of the Metro Board's functions would no longer be required. In Chapter 18, we recommend a shift in education financing so that funding would be determined by the Ministry, with very limited additional revenue raising permitted at the local level. With regard to capital allocation for building and renovating schools, the Ministry would also determine and distribute these funds. We have already noted that with the transfer of schools for the developmentally challenged, the Metro Board no longer has any direct program responsibilities.

With the removal of these responsibilities, it would seem both logical and efficient to gradually move to one level of public school board in Metropolitan Toronto. We believe there is every reason for the individual boards to co-operate as much as possible, but through a consolidation and sharing of resources and services, rather than through another layer of political decision-making.

In the preceding section, we note and give our strong support to current initiatives in cost sharing among school boards. Co-operative arrangements are applicable to small and large boards. The Metro Task Force on Cost Savings Through Co-operative Activities, established by the Ministry in 1994, is intended to create such institutionalized co-operative arrangements. The task force - which includes the Metro Separate School Board, in addition to the public school boards - is currently investigating ways for the area boards to cut costs without cutting levels of service, by collectively purchasing resources and services, by centralizing some functions, and by sharing and co-operatively developing others. We fully support this work, which is an excellent example of the kind of service-sharing arrangement discussed above.

As well, we are particularly concerned that the advantages of collective bargaining with teachers should not be lost. If boards bargain individually, negotiation costs are higher for both boards and federations. If Metro is eliminated, provincial legislation should ensure that combined collective bargaining is retained.

On balance, then, we believe the two-tiered system of political governance will no longer be necessary, following the proposed changes in educational funding. In our view, an administrative consortium, rather than another layer of political decision-making, would better meet the needs of the public schools and school boards in Metropolitan Toronto.

Recommendation 156

*We recommend that following the proposed shift to the provincial government of the responsibility for determining the funding of education, the two-tiered governance structure of the public schools in Metropolitan Toronto be phased out, with the Metropolitan Toronto School Board being replaced by an administrative consortium of school boards in the Metropolitan Toronto area.

The Ministry of Education and Training

Role of the Ministry

Considerable dissatisfaction has been expressed about the role of the Ministry of Education and Training. Both the public and the education community seem somewhat confused and uncertain about what part the Ministry plays and what part it should play, not only in relation to elementary and secondary education, but in relation to the other elements of its mandate: colleges and universities and workplace training. As well, there is uncertainty about the Ministry's responsibilities vis-a-vis other ministries that deal with children and youth.

Elementary and secondary education:
Much of the confusion about the Ministry's relationship to elementary and secondary education centres on control and the way it is exercised. The Ministry, like other government agencies, has traditionally exercised highly centralized control over Ontario education, relying primarily on regulation and monitoring to ensure compliance from boards and schools. In the 1960s and 1970s, however, control was so decentralized that school boards had a high degree of autonomy in the way they organized, set programs, and made a host of other educational decisions. Consolidating school boards, eliminating provincial school inspectors, and abandoning provincial Grade 13 examinations contributed to a shift of the balance of power toward school boards.

In addition, the Ministry no longer discharges all the responsibilities granted by legislation; for example, certification of teachers now seems to be semi-automatic, de-certification of teachers is almost non-existent, and there is a lack of follow-through on monitoring policy implementation in some areas.

In recent years, some large urban boards, especially in Metropolitan Toronto and Ottawa, have become financially independent of the Ministry, leading to further confusion about leadership in the education system. Because of educational funding provisions in Ontario, these boards raise money through local property taxes, and thus do not rely on funds from the province. This enables them to act on their own to some extent, without getting Ministry approval for all projects, or even to ignore Ministry policy directives. Some of these boards developed innovative educational programs, such as schools for the arts and for sciences, alternative schools, and other special programs which make them leaders in the province's education system. Although policy autonomy was not officially sanctioned, the Ministry seemed unable, or unwilling, to ensure compliance with many of its directives.

The result has been a considerable diversity of educational programs and experiences across the province. Although such diversity can be positive, if carried to extremes it has certain costs. In the opinion of many, there is too much variation in program and quality, and costs are not easily controlled.

During the '80s and early '90s, the Ministry also mounted a series of initiatives, such as destreaming and the Learning Program Secretariat, which seemed to further erode its credibility among various stakeholders. In the early '90s, many educators saw provincial policy as characterized by fragmentation, lack of coherence, lack of consistency, and probably most crucial, lack of accountability.

Although the Ministry has produced some excellent resource materials, these have less impact than might be expected. We were told that over the past decade the Ministry has prepared some remarkable documents: guidelines, resource guides, curriculum supports, and the like. The problem is that, reflecting the tensions between the Ministry and the school boards, the boards often pay little attention to the Ministry. As a result, few classroom teachers even know that this material is available, and students are denied the benefit of its existence.

We believe that in a province with the scale and diversity of Ontario, and especially in such uncertain times, there must be a clear and consistent direction for education, achieved through common learning outcomes, a common curriculum, and standards across the province. Therefore, the Ministry must play a clearer role.

However, it must exercise its authority thoughtfully and systematically, using the power and influence of a central authority to generate a sense of common purpose in the educational community. This will reduce the fragmentation of many local school boards and schools "doing their own thing," and ensure that there is some shared understanding throughout the province. The Ministry must strengthen the links between elementary and secondary education and the broader community.

The challenge for the Ministry is to respond to the need for local differentiation, while providing the necessary direction and clear expectations. It must set general policy guidelines to be followed by the system; setting the direction means setting the agenda for the province's education system. The Ministry must set the priorities for Ontario education, clarify goals, and define the desired outcomes. That would give everyone in the system targets to work towards, and criteria by which to decide among the many competing priorities.

The Ministry must also be responsible for providing equitable funding for all students across the province, setting guidelines to ensure that students' voices receive serious attention. They must ensure that teachers play a central role in running schools, that parents are welcomed into schools, that the common curriculum is followed, and that the system is truly accountable to the public.

By setting guidelines in these different areas, the Ministry can divest itself of direct control and the need to over-regulate. It also gives principals and teachers the mandate to make schools work better, and makes the proposed College of Teachers responsible for teacher education and professional development. Furthermore, by taking seriously the advice of advisory councils, such as the Ontario Parents Council and the student and youth council we recommend, the Ministry would demonstrate that real influence can be exerted on the system through consultation and without formal powers.

The Ministry's accountability for elementary and secondary education:
In our view, the Ministry must work in a more systematic and collaborative way than it has done in the past, with both old and new stakeholders. Right now, it often seems to operate in isolation from its clients and other stakeholders. It is seen as placing demands on the school system in a confused and disorganized fashion, with constant reorganization and major policy shifts, many of which are delivered without an adequate and compelling rationale.

Throughout the course of our work, we heard complaints about the many changes of direction made by the Ministry of Education and Training, and the additional demands it has placed on schools and school boards in the past few years. Educators are particularly concerned about the lack of professional expertise in the Ministry to ensure expert input into the Ministry's decision-making process and to help boards when they need assistance.

We sympathize with these concerns, and believe that the Ministry needs to pay attention to its constituencies and, as we have stressed, communicate clearly the overall direction of education in Ontario, as well as the intended outcomes of policies. At the same time, the Ministry has to take a leadership role, knowing full well that policy may have to come before consensus has been reached.

The Ministry must be more accountable to the public and to the education community. In Chapter 19, we propose a format for an annual report from the Minister that we believe will be an effective way for the public to get enough information to make informed judgments about elementary and secondary education in the province.

We caution educators and the public that they may be hoping for the impossible if they believe that the Ministry can issue a complete and unambiguous educational plan for the whole province that will receive universal acclaim.

In Chapter 20, when we discuss implementing reforms, we stress that although the Ministry must be clear and firm about the general principles of its educational vision, people on school boards and in schools will have to apply these principles in ways that make sense in the local context. And because the situation is dynamic it is difficult - if not impossible - to predict in advance just what circumstances will arise.

Teachers' unions in Ontario also belong in this discussion. Through collective agreements, negotiated locally with each school board, the federations have a significant influence on education practice at both the elementary and secondary levels. They affect policy in many ways and are actively involved in professional development for teachers.

The relationship between the Ministry and the federations is important but difficult. It seems obvious to us that, if the education system is to improve in the many ways we have prescribed, it is essential that both sectors must focus on building collaboration within the system. The Ministry, boards, and the federations must work together in the service of better learning for students.

Recommendation 157

*We recommend that the Ministry clearly set out its leadership and management role, especially in relation to school boards, teacher federations, and faculties of education, and that it develop a plan for more complete communication with all those interested in elementary and secondary education.

Beyond elementary and secondary education:
In addition to schools and school boards, there are several other partners in the broader education community. All have interests in, and power over, some aspects of elementary and secondary education. None can be ignored.

In this regard it is important to note that in 1992 the Ministry of Education became the Ministry of Education and Training, incorporating the three former Ministries of Education, Colleges and Universities, and Skills Development. It now has responsibility for post-secondary education and, through the Ontario Training Adjustment Board, for training as well. The Ministry's broader mandate has significant implications in relation to its place in the elementary and secondary education system. The Ministry is directly responsible for policy governing education and training at all levels; this should considerably ease the difficulties of aligning related policy areas that, until recently, operated as distinct and separate entities.

The Ministry's responsibilities to the broader educational system also suggest to us that it must make a priority of better transition programs between the various sectors. We think it is important for the Ministry, in the next several years, to be actively involved in assuring a significant increase in partnerships and co-ordination among schools, colleges, and universities, so that educational services are better articulated and structured as an accessible continuum.

As well, through the training board, the Ministry has a strategic role in rationalizing education and training policies and resources. And, as a super-ministry responsible for one of the two largest areas of social policies and programs, it is a central and crucial part of the provincial government.

We strongly urge that the Ministry use its power to influence government planning so that the needs of learners of all ages are addressed in a more co-ordinated manner.

Colleges and universities are a powerful influence on elementary and secondary education. Beyond the particular interests of colleges and universities in relation to high-school students and graduates, universities - and faculties of education, in particular - have an impact through their control of many aspects of teacher education, including admission to teacher preparation programs and development of the curriculum for student teachers.

As we noted in Chapter 12, because they control admissions, universities and faculties of education act as gatekeepers to the teaching profession. The Ministry can make significant strides with these partners to bring about more collaborative action in support of educational reform.

Our proposed College of Teachers (see Chapter 12) will play a key role in the education system we envisage. We recommend that an Ontario College of Teachers be established, with responsibility for setting professional standards for the teaching profession. This would include accreditation or recognition of teacher education programs and establish the requirements for initial and continuing certification. The formation of the college is intended to grant teachers control over many aspects of their professional lives. The college should not be controlled by any special interest group.

Given the mandate of the new Ministry of Education and Training, elementary and secondary education is now a force in the larger world of education and training. Educators in the Ministry's various sectors cannot afford to act in isolation, either fiscally or educationally. The era of autonomous sectors is gone, and all concerned must learn to take account of the wider education community.

With its very broad mandate, the Ministry of Education and Training is ideally placed to ensure that elementary and secondary education policies are more closely integrated with policy relating to higher education, with workplace training, and with lifelong learning.

The Ministry and the rest of government - beyond education and training:
Throughout this report, we emphasize the need for a more comprehensive approach to education. Learning takes place within a social context and, while educators must focus on their prime responsibility - ensuring intellectual development - we also discuss their shared responsibilities in meeting a whole host of needs that are part of the lives of children.

In Chapter 14 we discuss community education as one of the engines for change and define the roles and responsibilities of principals, schools, and school boards in creating community alliances to support the learning process. The Ministry also has a critical role and responsibility in this regard. Because it is responsible for education and training in this province, the Ministry is in a unique position to understand the needs of learners and particularly the blocks to a successful educational experience. We believe that a key priority for the Ministry must be the co-ordinated development of government policies, programs, and services to create a more effective network of support services for learners and their families as a means of ensuring the healthy development of all children.

This has a number of implications for the Ministry. Just as teachers cannot isolate themselves within the world of the classroom, the Ministry can no longer isolate itself within the world of education. It must have a significant interest in, and build the capacity to play, a key role in shaping all public policies related to the healthy development of children.

This includes policy areas with which the Ministry has traditionally been associated - social services and health, for example - as well as less familiar areas, such as recreation, employment, and culture. Just as principals and schools must be leaders in building community alliances to better support student learning, so too must the Ministry take a leadership role in building provincial alliances that better support learning in this province.

At the provincial level, that means active participation in reviewing policies, programs, and funding structures to create a more co-ordinated and comprehensive network of supports for children and their families. Locally, it means active participation in assessing local needs and planning local approaches to service delivery.

In the same way that all stakeholders in education must find new ways to collaborate, the Ministry must develop new collaborative approaches with other government players. Provincially, that involves assuming responsibility for developing collaboration among various government and provincial interests. Locally, it means assuming responsibility for developing collaboration among various local interests and education partners.

Minority participation and influence in the Ministry's decision-making:
We know that some stakeholders do not perceive the Ministry as being representative and inclusive of all individuals and communities in the schools - not even of those formally granted constitutional rights, such as the Roman Catholic and Franco-Ontarian minorities. While we address the question of representation of our diverse communities in several parts of the report, here we consider the issue of sharing power within Ministry structures.

First, the formally recognized components of the education system must also be formal parts of the Ministry. Although, over the years, slow recognition of the Franco-Ontarian minority led to the development of what the Ministry calls a team, there is no parallel body for Roman Catholics. That is why, in Chapter 15, we recommend that a team be established with special responsibilities for and expertise in Catholic education concerns, similar to the francophone team. We hope, of course, that these teams will not be reduced to speaking only about their specific issues, but will become part of the Ministry's mainstream.

But we want to go further than such basic organizational recognition of minority constituencies. We also recommend that influential representation from the Catholic and Franco-Ontarian educational milieux be put in place at all levels of professional and managerial Ministry staff.

We note that the francophone minority has had an assistant deputy Minister (ADM) position for some 15 years now. But, as observation and experience show - despite titles and functions a structure can always informally marginalize certain players, especially those with responsibilities for minorities. The more significant the representation, the less likely the marginalization. Indeed, we believe that over the years such senior positions will be filled by individuals recognized as outstanding leaders.

It is therefore only natural that, in the near future, a person from the Catholic or francophone educational world will become the deputy minister of Training and Education for Ontario, with responsibility for managing the entire system.

As a group, assistant deputy ministers should be truly representative of the grassroots of the educational community. Although there is no magic formula for creating true political participation, we have already recommended that, at all times, ADMs should formally include one Roman Catholic and one francophone of influence. Of course, there may well be more than one of each - we are not promoting mere tokenism.

Recommendation 158

*In order to maximize their influence within the Ministry, we recommend that assistant deputy ministers representing particular constituencies be placed in charge of the portfolio of issues related to their respective constituencies, as well as being responsible for other important dossiers related to education for all Ontarians.

A Ministry presence at the local level:
In a province as large and diverse as Ontario, the Ministry clearly cannot govern education entirely from downtown Toronto. As we note later, the Ministry must link with other ministries, as well as with others in the broader educational community, and must do so at the provincial and local levels.

As well as the central Ministry of Education and Training offices in Toronto, there are six regional offices throughout the province: central, eastern, mid-northern, northeastern, northwestern, and western. Because the offices are located in communities around the province, they are well placed to take a lead role in co-ordination at the local level, where as we stress in Chapter 14, action is most crucial. We would encourage the Ministry to make this a priority for all its regional offices.

The regional offices can also play a vital role in helping to foster better relations between the Ministry and the school boards. They can ensure that provincial policy directions are understood, that implementation takes local realities into account, that exemplary practices are shared, and that pressing problems are jointly addressed and resolved.

The provincial government

We have discussed the issue of co-ordinating the efforts of all those who deal with the needs of children and youth. The Ministry cannot act alone; the provincial government must play a significant part in co-ordinating the many ministries that have an impact on the well-being of children. Without commitment and co-ordination at the top, it will be impossible to succeed. There is no question that such inter-ministerial co-ordination is difficult to initiate, and even more difficult to sustain - as demonstrated recently by difficulties in maintaining an inter-ministerial committee established for the purpose of co-ordinating services for children.

Yours, Mine, and Ours, the report of the Children and Youth Project Steering Committee of the Premier's Council on Health, Well-Being, and Social Justice, was specifically concerned about ensuring such inter-ministerial links. It reported that

While we endorse this statement and urge the government to move ahead on these lines as quickly as possible, we go further. If large numbers of children continue to suffer the effects of poverty; if teachers and schools are made responsible for delivering an increasing number of social programs, in addition to traditional academic programs; if agencies funded by other departments of government continue to define their responsibilities as separate from schools; then the government, which has the power to re-deploy resources and to change mandates, has failed.

While we call on the Minister of Education and Training to provide leadership within government, we know that only when government at the highest levels decides that inter-departmental collaboration is non-negotiable will it occur. And without that decisiveness and that leadership, the best teachers and the best principals will be unable to meet the agenda we have set for them: to develop and nurture high levels of literacies in all our children.

Conclusion

We believe that, in spite of changes in society and in education, the overall organizational structure of education in Ontario still makes sense. It is important to start with the teacher-student relationship and build the system to support it, with the bottom line being student learning. While schools, school boards, and the Ministry of Education and Training have important roles to play, there is an important need to clarify these roles, and to shift power and responsibilities, as appropriate, to better suit changed circumstances.

Henry Mintzberg, a well-known organizational theorist at McGill University, writes "Power is a major factor, one that cannot be ignored by anyone interested in understanding how organizations work and end up doing what they do."(16) All those with a stake in the school system - the Minister of Education and Training; the ministry's civil service; school board trustees and administrators; universities; principals; teachers; teacher federations; parents; the business community; even, from time to time, students themselves - try to increase their own power.

Our proposals, here and in Chapters 15 and 16, are attempts to find a better balance among all these forces, a balance that will achieve system goals, promote effective use of resources, redress inequities, and respond to the needs of different parts of the system and of Ontario's various geographic regions.

Although we do not recommend any radical changes in the overall organizational structure of education in the province, we do recommend a review and redefinition of some roles and responsibilities. We are also suggesting a shift of some responsibilities away from school boards. In some cases, these would move to the schools, in others to the Ministry.

We anticipate a reorganization or downsizing of central office staff as a result of other recommendations in the report, particularly those related to curriculum development (see Chapters 7 to 10) and taxing powers (discussed in Chapter 18). That may be countered somewhat by increased responsibilities in relation to community education alliances (as discussed in Chapter 14).

On balance, we try to ensure that, within clearly understood and agreed-upon provincial guidelines, local communities and their schools have the scope to meet their needs as they see fit. Our proposals protect students and the public by ensuring high standards, as well as clarity about curriculum and intended learning, right across the province. At the same time, they allow teachers, principals, parents, and their local communities not only the freedom, but the resources, to craft their own solutions and programs. In other words, we see the school system as combining stability and flexibility as much as possible.

__________
Endnotes (Chapter 17)

1. Betty Malen, "Enacting Site-based Management: A Political Utilities Analysis," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 16, no. 3 (1994): 249-67.
2. Joyce Scane, "What the Literature Tells Us about School-based Management in Selected Jurisdictions: Implications for Ontario," p. 22. Paper written for the Ontario Royal Commission on Learning, 1994.
3. Priscilla Wohlstetter, Roxane Smyer, and Susan Albers Mohrman, "New Boundaries for School-based Management: The High Involvement Model," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 16, no. 3 (1994): 268-86.
4. For a good summary of the research, see Suzanne Ziegler, The Effects of Parent Involvement on Children's Achievement: The Significance of Home/School Links, report 185 (Toronto Board of Education, 1987).
   For more detail, see reports by Joyce L. Epstein, one of the more recent ones being "School and Family Connections," in Families in Community Settings, ed. D.G. Unger and M.B. Sussman (New York: Haworth Press, 1990).
5. Michael G. Fullan with Suzanne Stiegelbauer, The New Meaning of Educational Change (Toronto: OISE Press, 1991), p. 237.
6. We acknowledge that the Chicago reforms have received mixed reviews from observers, participants, and researchers. On balance, however, we are aware of no compelling evidence that would suggest Ontario should follow this kind of school governance model. See, for instance, Anthony S. Bryk and others, "The State of Chicago School Reform," Phi Delta Kappan 76, no. 1 (1994): 74-78.
7. B. Wilson and T. Corcoran, Successful Secondary Schools: Visions of Excellence in American Education (Philadelphia: Falmer Press, 1988).
8. Of the 170-odd Ontario boards, 20 are called District School Area Boards. These and another eight very small Roman Catholic Separate School boards operate mostly in remote areas of the province, usually with only one school, with fewer than 100 students under their jurisdiction. Most of them have no administrators beyond the school principal, and are physically distant from other boards. There is also a Protestant separate school board in Penetanguishene and a board operating only a secondary school in Moosonee. Four boards do not operate schools at all, usually buying education for the students living in their area from other boards. Others are care and treatment centre boards connected with hospitals or other treatment centres in half-a-dozen cities. There are, therefore, only 128 Ontario boards that fit the image of what most people probably mean when they speak of school boards, that is, boards operating a number of schools, and having some central board administrative staff. Much of the text in this section refers, unless otherwise noted, to these 128 boards.
9. For example:
   John Carver, Boards That Make a Difference: A New Design for Leadership in Nonprofit and Public Organizations (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994).
   Michael Kirst, "A Framework for Redefining the Role and Responsibilities of Local School Boards" (Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership, 1993).
10. Ontario, Ministry of Education and Training, and Ontario school trustee associations, Handbook for School Trustees in Ontario (Toronto, 1992).
11. Carver, Boards That Make a Difference, p. 222.
12. For instance:
    Linda LaRoque and Peter Coleman, "Quality Control: School Accountability and District Ethos," in Educational Policy for Effective Schools, ed. Mark Holmes, Kenneth Leithwood, and Donald F. Musella (Toronto: OISE Press, 1989), p. 168-91.
    Karen Seashore Louis and Matthew B. Miles, Improving the Urban High School: What Works and Why (New York: Teachers College Press, 1990).
    Susan Rosenholtz, Teachers' Workplace: The Social Organization of Schools (New York: Longman, 1989).
13. The Metropolitan Toronto Board of Trade circulated figures in December of 1993 claiming that a large proportion of staff in various Metro boards was non-teaching. In particular, they reported that only 46.1 percent of Toronto Board of Education employees were "on grid teachers." However, according to Toronto Board sources, the percentage of teaching staff is 65 to 75 percent, depending on how staff such as classroom teaching assistants are classified.
14. Edward Humphreys and others, Alternative Approaches to Determining Distribution of School Board Trustee Representation, vol 2. (Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Education, 1986), p. 61.
15. Premier's Council on Health, Well-Being, and Social Justice, Yours, Mine, and Ours (Toronto: Ontario Children and Youth Project, 1994), p. 46.
16. Henry Mintzberg, Power In and Around Organizations (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1983), p. 1.

ISBN 0-7778-3577-0
©Copyright 1994, Queens Printer for Ontario