Last week, the province of Ontario made an interesting decision regarding teacher education programs in the province. As of next year, programs will double in length (2 years instead of 1) and the intake will be halved. The government says the extra year will mean higher quality graduates which – whether true or not – is an enormously amusing argument for the government to make so soon after former Minister Glen “3 years” Murray swore blind that degree length and degree quality had nothing to do with each other.
Anyways, more interesting than the length issue is the government’s rationale for reducing student intake. Essentially, given the fall in the youth population, they don’t believe it necessary to train so many future teachers. There’s a reasonable case to be made for this: some statistics suggest that Ontario is producing 2000-3000 more teachers than the labour market can bear.
There are many third parties who think this is a great idea. Andrew Langille, for instance, whose blog Youth and Work is ground zero for attacks on the over-production of graduates is all in favour of the cut , as indeed is everyone’s favourite higher education commentator Margaret Wente.
But let’s not kid ourselves: those 3000 kids we’re suddenly excluding from teacher’s college aren’t all going to give up the dream of being a teacher. They’re just going to get teacher education somewhere else; most likely at places like D’Youville College in Buffalo which offers BEds according to the Ontario curriculum to Ontarians who can’t get into schools at home. There are over a thousand Canadian students at D’Youville’s already; last week’s announcement seems sure to enrich the school’s coffers by several million a year (all the more ironic since Ontario schools are losing money on the deal).
I understand the desire not to spend money paying for training for jobs that may not exist; I also agree with the need to warn students going into professional schools about things like job placement rates. But if people really want to pay for something, they’re going to do it, whether Minister Duguid wants them to or not. And so it seems silly to force them over the border to do it; why can’t Ontario institutions charge full fees to students who miss out on a funded place but still want the education? Why should only American institutions be able to benefit from that?
So sure, cut back on funded places. Make institutions publish not just post-graduation employment rates but the rates at which graduates get full-time teaching jobs. But don’t deny Ontario institutions the chance to compete with American ones for precious dollars.
Tweet this post
In the mid 1990’s, Nova Scotia cut teacher training programs at Saint Mary’s and Dalhousie, closed the Nova Scotia Teachers College and doubled the length of the BEd from 1 year to 2 years. Enrolments at New Brunswick and Maine institutions jumped to pick up the unmet demand. Now as many students earn their credential out of province as in and the oversupply of teachers is still enormous. It is hard to change demand.
One observation: The Ontario government cannot regulate the production of ‘border college’ graduates wanting to enter the Ontario teaching market. These graduates receive Ontario College of Teachers (OCT) certification (required to teach in Ontario) by applying individually to the College, like any other international graduate. The fact there are hundreds of them applying from the same place doesn’t matter. One aside: OCT data indicates that the employment rate for border college graduates is far worse than that for graduates of Ontario publicly-funded universities.
Seems like an opportunity lost to simple solutions. Doubling the study period only brings Ontario in line with other provinces, and other provinces do not produce better teachers, or fewer for that matter. Why not raise the admission standards instead? This would likely reduce intake, but it would certainly improve quality, and raise the prestige of the profession for reasons other than its great pension plan. Students and society would benefit from better outcomes. Require an Honours degree in a subject as a prerequisite for admission to Teaching programs, keep it to one year, and cut intake to some degree: get fewer instructors who know their subject areas better. Do we want teachers who have two years of teacher training, but only a pretty minimal grasp of what they teach? Just cutting places is a low-imagination strategy, though perhaps it will itself drive up admissions standards–if we are lucky.