REPORT TO THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION
English Schools in Transition:Building Collaborative Leadership
English Schools in Transition:Building Collaborative Leadership
REPORT TO THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION
DECEMBER 2000
ADVISORY BOARD ONENGLISH EDUCATION
ENGLISH SCHOOLS IN TRANSITION:BUILDING COLLABORATIVE LEADERSHIP
REPORT TO THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION
DECEMBER 2000
© Gouvernement du QuébecMinistère de l’Éducation, 2001 — 00-1106ISBN: 2-550-37022-8Legal Deposit: Bibliothèque nationale du Québec, 2001
– iii –
ADVISORY BOARD ONENGLISH EDUCATION
1999-2000
Chair Gretta Chambers
Members Lynden Bechervaise
Lynn Butler-Kisber
Heidi Coleman
Neville Gurudata
Irene Konecny
Mary Liistro-Hébert
Dominic Martini
Dennis McCullough
Michael Palumbo
Frank Pettinicchio
Donald Reid
Thomas A. Reisner
Brian Rock
Patrick Ryan
Johanne Smith
Joan K. Wasserman
Ex Officio Elaine Freeland
Secretary Jim Cullen
Secretarial Support Services Mireille Laroche
Research Lauren Small
– v –
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD: SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS AND CURRICULUM REFORM:A STRATEGIC POSITION (EXTRACT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
CHAPTER 1THE CONTEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
CHAPTER 2THE SITUATION OF ENGLISH SCHOOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
CHAPTER 3GOAL SETTING FOR ENGLISH SCHOOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
CHAPTER 4COLLABORATIVE LEADERSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
• THE NEW DIVISION OF POWERS: PRINCIPALS AND CENTRE DIRECTORS, TEACHERS, GOVERNING BOARDS, SCHOOL BOARDS: NEW ROLE, THE MINISTRY . . . . . . . . . 9
• CHANGING THE CULTURE OF TEACHING AND LEARNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
• VOICES FROM ENGLISH ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
CHAPTER 5ACCOUNTABILITY BASED ON COLLABORATIVE EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP . . . 23
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
APPENDICES:A. Profile of Personnel in English Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
B. Recommendations of the Advisory Board on English Education Report 2000: English Schools in Transition: Building Collaborative Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
C. Individuals Consulted by the Advisory Board on English Education 1999-2000 . . . . . . . 30
D. Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
E. Websites to be Consulted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
– vii –
FOREWORD
SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS AND CURRICULUM REFORM:A STRATEGIC POSITION1
Nicole TardifUniversité de Sherbrooke
The curriculum reform poses a dual challenge for school administrators, i.e. that of concurrentlyimplementing a new management model and the new curriculum.
Toward a New Management Model
In the winter of 1997, the Minister ofEducation launched a plan of action, A NewDirection for Success. One of the lines of actionannounced in this plan involved decentralizingpowers. Schools and their governing boards werethus placed at the very heart of school decision-making. The Conseil supérieur de l’éducationhad made a recommendation along these lines inits 1990-1991 annual report. The Conseil hadsuggested that the division of powers betweenlocal and central authorities be reviewed andthat the regulatory framework be streamlined,especially as regards basic school regulations,budgetary rules and working conditions. Thisrecommendation was consistent with the trendsobserved in several European countries. TheCommission for the Estates General on Educationhad drawn similar conclusions by the end of itspublic consultation. In its final report, The Stateof Education in Québec, it lamented that theeducation system was highly centralized andthat such centralization had negative effects onthe involvement of players at all levels of the sys-tem.
A Concern for Balance in the Division of Powers
The School
The concern that there be balance in thedivision of powers is rooted in the clearly statedconsensus that decisions should be made as
close as possible to the front lines, i.e. at theschool level, and reflected in the sharing of powers and responsibilities between the gov-erning board, the school principal and schoolpersonnel. Thus, the school principal is nowresponsible for implementing the curriculumreform in the school. This responsibility includesensuring compliance with the basic school regulation and phasing in the Québec EducationProgram.
The School Board
The school boards have been maintained asthe intermediate level of authority. It was decid-ed that they should continue to have the powerto levy taxes and that their representativesshould continue to be elected by universal suffrage. The functions of school boards havealso been maintained. These include planning,monitoring, evaluating, rendering accounts andsupporting schools. These functions were, how-ever, adjusted in light of the new powers grantedto schools. For example, school boards mustallocate resources among their schools in anequitable manner and in consideration of theneeds expressed by the institutions. Schoolboards must also make public the principlesgoverning their allocation of financial resources.
The Government
The Government is responsible for the gen-eral orientations of the education system, publicfunding, resource allocation, the basic school
1. Source: Le Point en administration scolaire (Volume 2, no. 1, Automne 99, p. 9) is a periodical developed by the MEQ in collaboration with administrators in the elementary and secondary school system. Nicole Tardif, formerly an official in the programs department of the MEQ, is teaching at the University of Sherbrooke in the Faculty of Education.
– viii –
strategic planning of activities based on con-certed action. For school administrators, thisnew management model involves several majorchanges affecting, among other things:
• their vision of the school and their under-standing of its orientations
• their management style
• the missions and mandates they assume
• the type of evaluation they carry out
It also requires that school administrators:
• play a more active, facilitating role within theschool and community
• take account of the involvement and contri-bution of the personnel with whom they work
• provide visionary leadership
• build community within the school with a focuson the requirements inherent in the mission ofthe school and the attendant responsibilities
• promote and actively support innovation with-in the school
• manage the introduction and application ofthe curriculum reform
regulations, budgetary rules, the negotiation ofworking conditions, programs of study, uniformexaminations and the certification of studies.Overall regulation of the education system isthe role of the political authority, which consistsin taking a long-term view of the future, ensuringboth the system’s stability and its ability toreform itself, guaranteeing the coherence of thewhole while setting priorities and, lastly, ensuringa genuine public debate on the economic andfinancial options involved. (InternationalCommission on Education for the Twenty-firstCentury, Learning: The Treasure Within, UNESCO:Paris, 1996, pp. 155-156. The Commission waschaired by Jacques Delors.)
Toward Collegial Management in Schools
The Conseil supérieur de l’éducation, in La Gestion de l’éducation: nécessité d’un modèle,suggested replacing a management model char-acterized by top-down control, centralized man-agerial powers over routine administration, theabsence of critical reflection on the efficiencyof actions, and the absence of outcomes-basedevaluation, with a management model gearedto the mission of the education system and the
INTRODUCTION
The Advisory Board on English Educationcalls for collaborative leadership to secure theimplementation of the new school-centredEducation Act in the English sector.
The Education Act has placed considerableemphasis on collaborative leadership. TheMinistère de l’Éducation is developing for Québeca new curriculum in response to the broad-basedconsensus that the culture of teaching and learn-ing must change.
In this report, which contains 13 recom-mendations, the Board examines the situation ofEnglish schools and centres, recommending thateach educational institution develop authenticlinks to its communities (chapters 1-3). Chapterfour suggests English school boards align theirgoal setting with the Strategic Plan 2000-2003 ofthe Ministère de l’Éducation. This chapter makesten recommendations on such matters as:
• developing school profiles
• planning and goal setting
• continuing education resources for Englishschool administrators
• teacher and administrator education
• establishing and supporting Parent ParticipationOrganizations
• capacity building in school board organiza-tions
Chapter five highlights conditions that facili-tate collaborative leadership in schools.
Chapter six discusses the implications ofaccountability in the context of collaborativeeducational leadership.
The report concludes with a call for collabo-rative and visionary leadership that begins withsupport for teachers and students.
The Advisory Board wants to express itsappreciation to all those who took time to visitand dialogue on this important topic. The mem-bers of the Board are confident that teachersand students in our schools and centres are wellserved by leaders whose cooperative and vision-ary input we have had the opportunity to experi-ence in drafting this report.
– 1 –
CHAPTER 1
THE CONTEXT
Decentralization of school management and mission; Deconstruction of linear learning by dis-cipline; Refashioning school structures to decompartmentalize and better integrate teachingand learning and to become more receptive to team-building, collaborative teaching andparticipatory management.
The provisions of the Education Act2 and thetime frame laid down for their implementationimpose a rapid and radical rethinking of the management of elementary and secondary edu-cation in Québec. The boundaries3 of traditionallevels of responsibility no longer pertain. Theputting in place of a division of powers reflectingthe new guidelines for a school-centred ratherthen a system-centred decision-making processcalls for a profound change in the structuralorganization of the delivery of education to goalong with the curricular reform that stressescollaborative learning, flexible time tables andcross-curricular teaching rather than the rigiddemarcation of disciplines.4
The school is to become the locus of respon-sibility for what is taught and learned on itspremises. The guiding force and ultimate author-ity for the elaboration and carrying out of eachschool’s or each centre’s educational authorityrests with its Governing Board. “The GoverningBoard shall adopt, oversee the implementation ofand evaluate the school’s educational project.”5
The functions and powers of the board are exer-cised in collaboration with students, parents,the principal or centre director, teachers andother school staff members and community representatives. The interaction and power shar-ing suggested by such a structure in order tofunction effectively and productively requireenlightened leadership with superior skills in
consensus building. The preoccupations of thedisparate constituencies now responsible for themission of each school community may differin accordance with their respective perspectivesand interests. The learning process for allinvolved will vary from school to school and fromcentre to centre.
Perhaps the most important dimension ofeach school’s educational project is a newapproach to teaching and learning that calls forlearner-centred classrooms and teacher-centredschools.6 The required shift from an organiza-tional model that is uniquely based on tradition-al scheduling and one-dimensional logic to alearning community open to reflection, change,growth, innovation and experimentation cannotbe decreed. Parents, especially those on theGoverning Board, have the responsibility to mon-itor the implementation and the results of theschool project. It must be worked out throughinteraction, planning and cooperation amongteachers, administrators and students. It meansabandoning traditionally structured agendas for ateam approach to agenda building7 whereby aschool’s action plan is developed along the linesof a common pedagogical philosophy. Connectingto such a change in a school’s organizationalculture is a challenge that can only be met byexceptionally perceptive leadership and the per-sonal commitment of every member of theschool community.8
– 3 –
2. Education Act. R.S.Q., Chapter 1-13.33. Crossing Boundaries: Collaboration, Coordination and the Redefinition of Resources by S. Sarason and E. Lorentz
(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998).4. Sergiovanni (1994b) Organizations or Communities? Changing the Metaphor, Changes the Theory.5. Education Act S.74.6. Linda Lambert, Framing reform for the new Millenium. Leadership Capacity in Schools and Districts. CJEAP 2000.
<www.umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap>.7. S. Sarason and E. Lorentz, op. cit., “Epilogue: The Public Schools and the Private Sector.”8. See bibliography resources: Manning and Saddlemire as well as Katzenback and Smith.
– 5 –
CHAPTER 2
THE SITUATION OF THE ENGLISH SCHOOLS
Urban schools; Rural schools; Small schools; Isolation; Pedagogical expectations of English-speaking parents; Making do with fewer community resources; Importance of community schoolsto the socio-linguistic balance of isolated English-speaking communities; The challenge of meet-ing the high expectations of parents for their children’s success in advanced math and sciencewith fewer options in English schools than can be offered in the French sector.
The new Education Act puts the responsi-bility on each school team and each centre teamfor providing the appropriate education packagein a variety of demographic, socio-economic andgeographic situations. It used to be taken forgranted that local communities were not respon-sible for the system. Educational administrationwas system-packaged. It is now to be orderedaccording to an education project put together bythe school or centre team to meet the needs andexpectations of its own clientele. The new law isa framework to guide the move to student-centred teaching and learning. It does not ofitself effect the required changes to structuresand perspectives or provide the leadership thatcan bring them about. That leadership will dependin great part on the financial, human and com-munity resources available to individual schoolsand centres.9
Many of Québec’s English schools are smalland isolated.10 Resources are spread thin andthe distances between schools, often consider-able. Learning and leadership are affected bythese factors. But the expectations of parentsdoes not necessarily shrink to fit the reduced circumstances of isolation. In certain ’mainland’areas of the province, educators take it uponthemselves to help students in difficulty by keep-ing them longer in school in order to finish theirsecondary school diploma. In the French sectorthere are more options, especially in vocational
education. Parents in the English sector continueto insist that their children take the science andmath courses that lead to post-secondary edu-cation, even in situations where there are not suf-ficient numbers of students in a particular schoolto warrant a high-level math or science teacherand in other cases when children are only mar-ginally or not at all qualified to take theseadvanced courses. The challenge is to keep asmany options open as possible to the greatestnumber of students.
The curriculum reform emphasis on turningschools into learning communities11 calls for pro-viding support for schools with limited localresources. In outlying areas, schools are com-munity centres. The loss of the English schoolwould have a devastating effect on communi-ties already dealing with a delicate socio-linguistic balance.12 There is great local resis-tance to the merging of schools over large territories in order to form schools with the critical mass of students needed to justify a fullcurriculum offering and the teaching resources toimplement it. Even in situations where the chang-ing of school boundaries represents a less dra-matic communal loss and transportation bur-den, it is very unsettling for parents. Parentsand students identify with ’their school’ and oftendo not think they will be as well served by someother school. This proprietary attitude cannotbut be strengthened by the autonomy granted
9. Fullan (Chapter 3 “The Complexity of the Change Process”)10. See table 4.2.13 in Appendix A for a profile of personnel in English schools in Québec.11. See Bibliography resources: Lieberman as well as Sergiovanni, (1994a) Building Community in Schools, Chapter 9
“Becoming a Community Learners.”12. Berger, Marie-Josée, (1999), Education Canada 39(3), p. 28-31 “Enjeux de la responsabilisation en milieu éducatif
minoritaire franco-ontarien.”
– 6 –
each school by the Education Act. But as thatnew autonomy raises the required levels ofhuman and pedagogical resources, ways must befound to both raise the generic profile of schoolson the broader horizon and provide schools thatare inevitably small and isolated with the meansto implement an up-to-date educational project.
The English school is a mainstay of Educationfor English speakers in Québec. As clearly indi-cated in an article in Education Canada (Fall1999), which focuses on the special role of theminority language school. “In keeping with themandate of French-language schools, schoolboards must be responsible not only for the stu-dents’ academic performance, but also for thedevelopment of their language and culture.Because of the special relationship between the
school and the minority community, this mandateand the accountability for achieving it must beincorporated into the activities of each school.”13
For Québec English communities too, because of the special relationship between English-speaking communities and their schools, themandate and accountability for responsive andeffective leadership must be built into the mission of each school.14
The Advisory Board on English Educationrecommends:THAT the MEQ and the English school boardsprovide support for each English school as theschool builds authentic links with its com-munities.15
(Recommendation 1)
13. Berger, Marie-Josée, p. 30. 14. The Advisory Board on English Education December 1999 Report to the Minister of Education, Culture and English
Schools in Play makes recommendations directed at helping the English-speaking community transmit its language and cul-ture (72-5017A).
15. See the annual report of the Conseil supérieur de l’éducation (1991-1992), section 3.2.3 … en lien avec une organisationcommunautaire (pp. 47-48)
– 7 –
CHAPTER 3
GOAL SETTING FOR ENGLISH SCHOOLS
Goal setting and accountability have been reallotted by the Education Act. At the local levelschools have the goal of improving the competencies of the greatest number of students. At the system level, the Ministry and the school boards are encouraged to examine commonorientations and provide resources to the schools.
The principal and the centre director areaccountable to the Governing Board for carryingout the mission and project for which theGoverning Board bears collective responsibility.The Governing Board in its turn is accountable tothe community served by the school or centre itrepresents. It is the principal or centre director,however, not the Governing Board, who isaccountable to the School Board in the person ofits Director General and, through him or her, tothe Ministry for the implementation of theschool’s pedagogical project, the teaching andlearning of the substance of the curriculumreform mandated by law and enforced by theMinistry through the School Board.
Teachers are responsible individually andcollectively for the building of the teams16 inwhich they must henceforth exercise their pro-fession. They are responsible for student learningand for complying with the educational project ofthe school,17 but they answer to the principaland, through him or her, to the School Board andthe Ministry. Teachers have a responsibilitytowards the children and their parents, but do notanswer to them in the exercise of their profes-sional duties.
• At the school level
The reform of the curriculum underscoresthe importance of human and technical resourcesin implementing the objective of helping students master subject content and transferknowledge to everyday life. Schools need teach-
ing and technical resources to promote inte-grated learning based on a cross-curricular, com-petency-based approach.18
In elementary school there will be three two-year cycles with programs of study for eachcycle. More formative learning and authentic performance assessment place the emphasison encouraging student progress rather thanthe former emphasis on grade repetition.Teachers work as a team for each level ratherthan in individual grade classrooms. Emphasis isplaced on language instruction, on reading, writing and math. Secondary I, II and III becomeCycle Four during which students will follow thecore courses with more time devoted to theteaching of French, second language, as well ashistory and citizenship education every year, aseries of science and technology courses and theintroduction of an optional third language. CycleFive groups the old Secondary IV and V levels andaims at integrating core learning in languagearts and mathematics, history and citizenshipeducation, understanding the contemporary worldand science. Students also have the option ofchoosing academic or vocational training or acombination of both. In practice the facilities ofschools and centres are not organized to providethese options. Twenty-five per cent of all coursetime is to be used by students to catch up ordevote themselves to enrichment activitiesdeveloped locally by the school. Textbooks will becomplemented by the Internet, CD-Roms, videosand other relevant materials. The Advisory Boardlooks forward to the work of the Educational
16. Katzenback and Smith.17. Education Act, S.2218. MEQ. The Québec Education Program. Preschool Education. Elementary Education, Approved Version (2000).
– 8 –
Resources Foundation sponsored by the Englishschool boards. The mandate of this foundation,which was established in early 2000, is to man-age teaching material development for theEnglish school boards of Québec, as well as thecopyrights resulting from the publication of suchmaterial. Every English school board in Québec isa corporation member and the board of directorsis composed of one representative from everymember board of the corporation. The foundationhas created an Instructional Materials Centre.
• At the system level
At the system level the MEQ and the Englishschool boards must assure that English educationsets standards for all students, teachers andmanagers and that resources are equitably avail-able across the province. In order to harmonizethe effort of the MEQ and the school boards,the English services unit of the MEQ has alreadyestablished a range of support mechanisms,including the Implementation Design Committeeand the Curriculum Coalition. Since the MEQ hasdeveloped a Strategic Plan for the years 2000-2003, it is appropriate that the English schoolboards examine this Strategic Plan in the contexton their own planning.
The MEQ Strategic Plan has five orientations:
• improve the educational achievement of stu-dents by encouraging them to learn as muchas they can and to stay in school until theygraduate;
• ensure that the programs of study are relevantto the realities of today’s world and a changinglabour market;
• provide individuals with qualifications in keep-ing with their aptitudes, with a view to helpingthem enter and stay in the labour force;
• improve the efficiency of the education systemby focusing on results, accountability andtransparency;
• improve the performance of universities asregards the quality of teaching, managementefficiency and responsiveness to the needs ofsociety.19
The Advisory Board on English Educationrecommends:THAT in their planning and goal setting theQuebec English School Boards Association(QESBA), the Association of Directors Generalof English School Boards (ADGESB) and theAssociation of Administrators of EnglishSchools of Québec (AAESQ) take into con-sideration the five orientations of the StrategicPlan of the Ministère de l’Éducation 2000-2003.(Recommendation 2)
19. Strategic Plan of the Ministère de l’Éducation 2000-2003 – Summary (July 2000). 49-1325A available on the MEQ website <www.meq.gouv.qc.ca>
– 9 –
CHAPTER 4
COLLABORATIVE LEADERSHIP
Collaborative leadership; the Division of powers; principals and centre directors facilitatingchange; developing school profiles; school self-evaluation; planning and goal setting; contin-uing education resources; teachers and their learning time; team approach; governingboards, promote the establishment of Parent Participation Organizations; school boards;mission and mandate of organizations for which boards are responsible; the Ministry; policyframework on educational leadership; changing culture of teaching and learning; Voices fromtwo English elementary schools.
• The New Division of Powers
As the burden of proof of the effectivenesswith which the new curriculum is being imple-mented now falls to the school, the structureof decision making has also devolved to the indi-vidual school community through GoverningBoards made up of principals, teachers and parents.20 It is they who will decide on whatresource materials will be used to facilitate learn-ing. It is they who have the responsibility ofdeciding on resource materials to keep theGoverning Boards fully informed about theoptions available. The curriculum sets out whatstudents should know and be able to do at various points along the way, but how they getthere is the responsibility of a team of profes-sional educators with the active participation ofparents. The drawing up and carrying out of themission of each school is to be a collaborativeprocess which requires people skills beyond pro-fessional expertise and a personal commitmentto the quality of education.21 Not only is teamwork now required among teachers teaching chil-dren in the classroom, but the thrust, objec-tives and even the form of a school’s educa-tional plan are to be arrived at by consensusamong the three constituencies closest to theparticular group of students in question; however,the three groups don’t necessarily have to shareeach other’s priorities. Principals, teachers, parents and community representatives, as well
as business partners in adult and vocational edu-cation, now share responsibility for the packagingand delivery of curriculum content.22
PRINCIPALS AND CENTRE DIRECTORS
Principals and Centre Directors have increas-ingly played a defining leadership role in themanagement of the schools for which they areresponsible. Leadership is still expected of thembut the context in which it must now be exercisedhas changed in nature. Leadership in a context ofconsensus calls for a different approach thanleadership which depends on a hierarchical rela-tionship. The principals of today must be peda-gogical leaders with sophisticated managementskills in order to get the members of theirschool’s Governing Boards to come up with com-mon objectives and mechanisms for the suc-cessful implementation of an education projectthey have jointly adopted. Principals have theresponsibility of turning the school’s teachingstaff into a collaborative team of interactive edu-cators with a commitment to shared best teach-ing practices, integrated learning and student-centred classrooms. Principals need tounderstand the legal and regulatory context ofQuébec education, which has changed consid-erably in recent years. They must be managers ofhuman relations,23 as well as have skills in finan-cial, material and facility management. Ideally, in
20. Fullan and Hargreaves.21. Sheetz and Benson.22. Sergiovanni (1994a), Building Community in Schools, Chapter 11, “The Challenge of Leadership.”23. Gouvernement du Québec, Ministère de l’Éducation. Accomodating Religious and Cultural Diversity in the School, Québec
(1997) (75-0035A).
– 10 –
the past, a good principal was expected toemerge from the ranks of master teachers. He orshe is still viewed as having a foundation insound pedagogy and a firm grasp of a philosophyof education. But the new regime requires ofthem a much broader experience and expertise.They now have to master procedures and beadepts of strategic planning. As school man-agers, they are charged by the Education Actto carry out a wide range of responsibilities in collaboration with teachers, parents and thecommunity, for which they need decision-makingand conflict-resolution skills.
It is no wonder then, that under these newcircumstances laden with increasingly complexresponsibilities, principals have become hard tocome by, particularly at the secondary level,where the implementation of the new curriculumwill be much more difficult and complicated to putin place. Experienced, devoted teachers withthe pedagogical stature and commitment to beprincipal material are loath to give up what theylove, teaching, for an administrative burden thatfew have been trained to assume. A new andimproved salary scale responding to the lengthyjob description for a principal is helping at the elementary level. Vice-principals, however, arestill underpaid and overworked and these entrylevel positions are hard to fill.
Principals are therefore very much left ontheir own to become what one school boardcommissioner told the Advisory Board was noth-ing short of “miracle workers.” They are calledupon to motivate staff, to build teams, to choosewisely in the hiring of new teachers, to makeconsensus a priority, to communicate effective-ly with parents, to develop a knowledge of thecommunity and the school’s place it, to interactwith complex family situations, to help children bynetworking with social agencies, to handle oldbuildings while keeping in focus the primary mission of the school, all with no departmentheads, few vice-principals, and few consultants orstudent services personnel.
Yolande Nantel, who coordinates a uniqueunit, the Secteur du développement des com-pétences at the Commission scolaire deMontréal, made a presentation to the AdvisoryBoard in which she described the following char-acteristics of today’s school leader:
Facilitating Change24
(Extract – Yolande Nantel)
1. Provide Strong Pedagogical Leadership
Strong pedagogical leadership is neces-sary at all administrative levels, be it theschool board, the school board division orthe school, especially on the front lineswith the school team. Leaders must behigh-profile, visible. They must show theircolours, stand by their pedagogical viewsand principles, and support their schoolteam by developing a common project in which the team believes and a solid structure for participatory management.
2. Promote A Common Vision and A Common Will
• Define clear orientations• Share these orientations with the
school team members• Establish strategies and priorities
with the school team members
School leaders involve their humanresources in the change process andhelp break down barriers so that all mem-bers of the school personnel becometrue partners in change.
3. Accept Turbulence and Chaos andManage Doubt
School leaders allow time for change totake place and allow themselves and theirpersonnel to doubt and to question.
24. Extract: La gestion du changement à la CSDM tout un défi!, par Yolande Nantel, coordinator of the secteur du développe-ment des compétences, CSDM, 1999-2000. (Presentation to the Advisory Board on English Education, 20-01-2000)
– 11 –
tive schools. Of particular general importance,however, is the issue of the quality of Frenchinstruction and the management of school reformat the secondary level where collective agree-ments are still based on disciplines but the cur-riculum and school governance now call for trans-disciplinary cooperation. The availability of guidance-oriented schools and the career optionsapproach they offer help diversify the paths opento secondary-school students. The reform putsmore emphasis on the need for a greater varietyof options for students in the form of technicaland vocational education, which principals arenow charged with bringing to the table for discussion and action. In this regard, generaleducation and vocational education need to worktogether. Principals are responsible for informingstudents and parents of all the options. TheBasic Regulations now allow for young peopleto take courses in general and vocational education at the same time. The complexity ofthis new type of double streaming will have to beworked out and will require collaboration at alllevels.
Principals are also faced with the fact thatgreater importance is being given to indicatorsand statistical profiles. The Ministère de l’Édu-cation is now making statistical profiles avail-able to each school, along with the relevantsocio-economic information. Based on the success plan26 of the school, the Ministry willprovide funding for school improvement activities.Principals must therefore become familiar withhow to use such data and how to interpret theinformation in order to build into their respectiveschool projects the kinds of activities that willgenerate the desired results.
The Ministère de l’Éducation developed Self-Assessment Instruments for Enhancing Success.These instruments have been helpful to schoolprincipals seeking to develop a profile of theperceptions of students, teachers, parents andadministrators.27
4. Facilitate the Emergence of Agents of Change
School leaders initiate reflective discus-sion in various groups and settings, andestablish effective communication net-works in order to ensure that informa-tion flows smoothly throughout theschool, right down to the classroom.
5. Take Risks
School leaders try new approaches andconcepts to create opportunities for teambuilding and teamwork.
Above all, they are willing to changethemselves, i.e. to give up old habitsand ways of doing things.
In a recent study, the Conseil supérieur de l’éducation (CSE) examined the role of the secondary-school principal.25 The Advisory Boardsupports the recommendations of the CSE reportin particular the following recommendations:
• that the MEQ review administrative standardsimposed on schools to improve administrativesupport, streamline procedures, providingmanagement tools and competent adminis-trative support staff;
• that School Boards support principals in theupgrading of their skills for pedagogical lead-ership;
• that principals and teachers support the devel-opment of team leadership in schools;
• that school administrative teams increase tieswith the community and develop strong networks in the community.
The particular concerns of individual principalsmay vary according to the size, location, clienteleand all around circumstances of their respec-
25. CSE, The New Context and Challenges Facing Secondary School Administrators. (1999) Summary available from the CSEwebsite <www.cse.qc.ca>. Summary of CSE (1999), Diriger une école secondaire: un nouveau contexte, de nouveaux défis.
26. Education Act S.83 (Governing Board reports to community.)27. MEQ, Self-Assessment for Enhancing Educational Success in Secondary School (28-2641-06A) and Self-Assessment for
Enhancing Educational Success in Elementary School (82-0012A). The Partnership for School Improvement has been involvedin promoting and supporting sustained, systematic approaches to continuous school improvement that enhance student learn-ing and strengthen the school’s capacity for managing change. The PSI produced School Self-Assessment. Measuring WhatMatters. A Starter Kit in 1999, in cooperation with several schools and school boards, supported by the Services à la com-munauté anglophone of the Ministère de l’Éducation and the Office of Research on Education Policy (OREP) of McGill University.
– 12 –
Prospective principals must show an apti-tude to communicate with parents, teachers andthe community, and a familiarity with informationand communications technologies. They shouldhave experience in areas not directly related toeducation. But, over and above the myriad newresponsibilities they are expected to assume,principals must retain the confidence of teachersin the role of master teacher inter pares.
The Advisory Board on English Educationrecommends:THAT, with a view to facilitating schoolimprovement, the Ministère de l’Éducationand school boards support each Englishschool in developing a school profile.(Recommendation 3)
The Advisory Board on English Educationrecommends:THAT each English school board monitor theprogress of each school and ensure thatschools have access to resources for fair andconstructive self-evaluation.(Recommendation 4)
The Advisory Board on English Educationrecommends:THAT the English school boards and theprincipals of each English school in Québecalign their planning and goal setting with theorientations of the MEQ to improve schoolsuccess, and report the results to their com-munities.(Recommendation 5)
The Advisory Board on English Educationrecommends:THAT the Partnership for School Improvement28
collaborate with the CSE and the École natio-nale d’administration publique (ENAP) to pro-vide English school administrators with con-tinuing education resources, for example:
• the timely English translation of importantCSE reports related to educational admin-istration such as:– “Le rôle des Headmasters en Angle-
terre et les enseignements à en tirerdans un contexte de décentralisa-tion,” CSE Études et Recherches, byHélène Pinard, April 1999.
– “Le renouvellement du curriculum:expérience américaine, suisse etquébécoise,” CSE, January 2000.
• an on-line resource centre for schoolprincipals, modeled on the school-lead-ers’ listserv developed by the CanadianAssociation of Principals and the’Observatoire – Vigie’ of ENAP.29
(Recommendation 6)
The Advisory Board on English Educationrecommends:THAT the MEQ undertake negotiations withthe management board of Le Point en adminis-tration scolaire to examine the feasibility ofhaving Le Point en administration scolairepublished in English and French simultane-ously.(Recommendation 7)
TEACHERS
The traditional view of teacher as an instruc-tor, imparting knowledge to a classroom andguiding his or her students through the learningprocess is being sorely challenged. The latterday trends in teaching practices have led togreater emphasis on more collaboration amongteachers and an intensified interactive approachto teaching and learning. With curriculum andschool governance reform, the trend is beingimposed as the norm. The principal’s role is topromote the collaboration in teaching that isnow required by the Education Act, while respect-ing and encouraging the strengths and approach-es of each teacher. The building of commonthemes and projects across disciplines will
28. The following groups form the Partnership for School Improvement: The Faculty of Education, McGill University, Servicesà la communauté anglophone of the Ministère de l’Éducation du Québec, the Quebec Provincial Association of Teachers,the Association of Directors General of English Schools of Quebec, the Association of Administrators of English Schools ofQuebec, the Quebec Association of Independant Schools.
29. Vigie is published five times a year by the Observatoire de l’administration publique, École nationale d’administration publique<www.enap.uquebec.ca>. Canadian Association of Principals, School leader’s listserv: www.schoolfile.com/cap.htm.
– 13 –
require time for teachers to work together, indi-vidual incentives for them to break down theclassroom isolation in which they have tradi-tionally exercised their profession, and a frame-work within which they can feel secure in thepooling of their resources and expertise in ateam approach to the interdisciplinary require-ments of integrated learning. Teachers havebecome the designated architects of the deliveryof the new curriculum. In consequence, they willbecome major contributors to defining the over-all school mission, its education project, thescheduling of classroom time, the choosing ofteaching materials, the integrating of subjectmatter, the methods of evaluation, and the connecting of what is learned in the classroom toeveryday life. In order to successfully accom-modate the need for interaction among teachers,time must be made available and opportunitiescreated to facilitate a productive collaborationthat enhances rather than diminishes eachteacher’s contribution to the overall thrust of aschool’s teaching and learning process.30
Teachers need learning time of their ownand the leeway to affect structural changes thatwill allow them to collectively set the goals foranimating the school project. Such a culturechange in the methodology of the organizationand packaging of curriculum content cannot beimposed, it must be worked out between teach-ers themselves and led from within the school.Leaders must gain trust and divest themselves of“traditional authority” in favour of “distributiveleadership” in order to effectively facilitate ratherthan direct a consensual approach to team teach-ing and interdisciplinary learning. Principals,teachers and consultants, as well as board officers, all share leadership. The matter of trustcomes at a certain risk to a teacher’s profes-sional security. Shared leadership evolves out ofconstructive dialogue, the recognition of bestpractices and a common concern that teachingand learning should be geared to making schoolintellectually and culturally relevant to students,particularly at the secondary level. Studies showthat the high school drop-out rate is adverselyaffected by a student’s disconnection with cur-riculum content and delivery. Elementary school
teachers are more advanced in the exercise ofteam teaching, evaluation and adapting curricu-lum content to the interests and abilities of theirpupils.
The role of the unions is crucial in regard tothe use of time. Local negotiations should beopen to flexible use of pedagogical days andflexible scheduling. The school must be sched-uled to encourage collegiality. The school projectand mission proposed by the Governing Boardswill influence the ways in which school teamsuse time and develop a collaborative approach toteaching and learning. The elements for workingout these new procedures are outlined in theEducation Act and the collective agreements.There needs to be a process in place in eachschool to manage differences of opinion regard-ing the local application of time use. The processleading to the current province-wide collectiveagreement was marked by moments of widerinput and other moments in which political priorities dominated. Local arrangements willhave to reflect a balance of special interest inputand shared decision making as well as timelyand politically sensitive decisions on the part ofprincipals.
The fostering of curriculum ownership andcontrol by teachers is more difficult to achieve insecondary school, which is rigidly compartmen-talized by discipline. As students move throughthe system from elementary school, where theywill have experienced a greater variety of class-room learning contexts, this cohort of studentswill have a positive impact on the movementtowards comprehensive and collaborativeapproaches to the subject matter.
Practising teachers have not been trainedin the culture of shared teaching agendas. Theyare going to be obliged to learn as they go andwill need a great deal of support along the way. Infuture, teacher training will have to be tailored tothe requirements of a generalist approach thatemphasizes active learning, cross-curricular learn-ing, critical thinking and cooperative learning.31
On the other hand, recruitment of math and science teachers remains difficult. Competition
30. Moller G. and Katzenmeyer M. (Chapter 1, “The Promise of Teacher Leadership.”)31. MEQ/FCPPQ, Something to Talk About… The Quebec Curriculum Reform (Borchure for Parents) 2000 (72-0097A).
– 14 –
teacher’s transition from a learning context to oneof pedagogical responsibility. Maintaining thequality of English and French is another chal-lenge of paramount importance in the Englishsystem. Seventy-five per cent of the Englishelementary schools polled by McGill UniversityFaculty of Education about preschool teachersindicated that they wanted teachers who couldteach in French.
The Advisory Board on English Educationrecommends:THAT the MEQ give particular attention to theuse of time and the exercise of shared lead-ership among teachers and administrators inthe English sector while aligning the MEQ orientations document for teacher educationand in-service with the soon-to-be publishedMEQ orientations document on principal edu-cation and in-service.(Recommendation 8)
GOVERNING BOARDS
Governing Boards are the locus of what theEducation Act defines as the increase in thepower of parents over the education of their chil-dren. At the beginning of the school year, theparents elect parent representatives to serve atwo-year mandate. The focus of Governing Boardsis on the school project and student success.One of the Governing Board’s primary tasks is toidentify the issues on which its members want towork together. The power is not set aside forgroups. It is exercised by the board as a collec-tion of representatives from different groupswho need training to work together. The approachto training governing boards should be consistentwith the Education Act so that the training ismost effective when carried out with all groupspresent rather than through consultations withtheir constituencies. Teachers of the school holda meeting to elect their representatives in thesame time frame as parents and according to theprocedure set out in the collective agreement or,failing that, according to the procedure deter-mined by the principal after consultation withthe teachers.33
for specialists in these subject areas is verystrong, and there are fewer teachers available forteaching the options in the top grades of highschool. Most people trained in the sciences andmath do not want to take another four years totrain for the classroom. And yet, even the bestteaching practices cannot compensate for a lackof in-depth, solid grounding in these demandingsubjects. In its round of consultations, it wassuggested to the Advisory Board that the modelused in vocational education should be examinedwith a view to promoting positive practicumexperiences in general education. In some cases,vocational teachers-in-training are paid for theirwork as they do their practicum. Such arrange-ments are actually in place with the agreement ofparity committees. Perhaps general educationteachers should be offered the opportunity toapprentice in differing contexts such as: otherschools, community institutions, universities,businesses and government, in order to promotecollaborative teaching and boundary crossing.
Support for teachers entering the system isalso an area in need of exploration. In their recentbrief to the Minister of Education, the Conseilsupérieur de l’éducation published College-LevelTeacher Training: A Joint Project Involving theWHOLE College Community (2000).
As indicated in the summary of the report,teacher training and mentoring are given seriousconsideration. Among other things, it suggeststhat new teachers be assigned a lighter workloadfor a period of time to allow them to acquireadequate training, thus enabling them to pro-vide a higher quality of teaching to their stu-dents. To support and provide training for thesenew staff members, the Conseil suggests thatexperienced teachers act as their mentors orassociate teachers.32
The new programs that call for a teamapproach could be helpful in introducing teachersto a school context. The English school systemfaces its own challenges in the recruitment andretention of teachers. A program of mentoringcould have a beneficial effect on easing a
32. The Education Act indicates teachers should collaborate in the training of future teachers and in the mentoring of newly qualified teachers (EA. S.22.6.1).
33. EA. S.48, the MEQ website has information on governing boards. <www.meq.gouv.qc.ca>.
– 15 –
Getting parents34 to participate fully in theprocess is the responsibility of the school team.Parents of students are a large, disparate groupwho can benefit from the Parent ParticipationOrganization (PPO). “The purpose of the (PPO) isto encourage the collaboration of parents indeveloping, implementing and periodically eval-uating the school’s educational project and theirown participation in fostering the child’s academicsuccess.” (E.A. 96.2) This is a period of transitionfor parent representatives. The school premisesand support services are made available formeetings. There has been less emphasis on theacademic role of the PPO, which is more oftenencouraged to raise funds for school activities.The PPO needs support and encouragement towork on the school’s educational project.
Many parents do not yet view the new pur-pose and powers of Governing Boards as a majorincrease of power for parents. The reconfigurationof parent representation has resulted in a lessefficient parent voice on some Boards wherethe number of parent representatives has actuallydiminished. As schools work out the roles of thevarious constituencies that make up the mem-bership of their Governing Boards, parents areadjusting to their newly configured role. Sharedvision is still a challenge for traditional parent representation. Some Governing Boards oper-ate as mini-parliaments, based on votes; othersstrive to arrive at a consensus. The law encour-ages the Governing Board to work on the schoolproject and the plan for the school year.Professionals must be strategic in presentingtheir education and management plans. The lawhas clearly established a framework in whichplanning, negotiation and argument precededecision making and action. The Advisory Boardhas been asked to point out that GoverningBoards in vocational and adult centres need fur-ther study.
The Advisory Board on English Educationrecommends:THAT the English schools promote the estab-lishment of the Parent Participation Organiza-tion (PPO) and facilitate its role in developing,implementing and evaluating the school’seducational project.(Recommendation 9)
The Advisory Board on English Educationrecommends:THAT the MEQ clarify the structure and mem-bership of the governing boards established foradult and vocational education centres.(Recommendation 10)
SCHOOL BOARDS: NEW ROLE
With curricular and school reform, schoolboards have become the facilitators rather thanthe directors of the educational projects in theirrespective territorial jurisdictions. School boardsremain crucial to each school’s stability and suc-cessful transition to its reform-oriented mission.
The massive change in the quality and natureof local responsibility requires guidance as well assupport. The principal has become a key figure inthe life of a school. School boards are responsi-ble for the vetting and selection of principals. Theimportance of this responsibility cannot be exag-gerated. The difficulties associated with therecruitment of principals—uncertainty about thelevel of job security and the arrangements toreturn to teaching if the assignment does notwork out; the expertise and competence fordealing with schools in the midst of governanceand curriculum changes—represent an enor-mous challenge for school board DirectorsGeneral, particularly at the high-school levelwhere there are fewer applicants. Examples ofposted calls for principals are found on schoolboard websites.35
For most practising administrators, the man-agement skills now required, other than in thefield of education, are not sufficiently taught.
34. See QESN website <www.qesn.meq.gouv.qc.ca> for information on leadership in English schools.35. Websites of all nine school boards are found in an appendix to this report.
– 16 –
Boards are having to provide some of this extra-curricular learning.
The Faculty of Education at McGill Universityhas developed a 15-credit graduate certificatewhich can be accessed from off-campus loca-tions. Courses in this program are taught byexperienced educators and can become thebasis of a masters degree.36
Several boards offer regular professionaldevelopment for principals. Local practicumssuch as ten days of shadowing administrators aremade available to interested teachers. More andmore young people are showing an interest inleadership courses. Promising administratorsare being appointed with only five years experi-ence in the system and are expected, with sup-port, to learn on the job.
The fact that training and internship oppor-tunities for prospective candidates from theteaching corps are few and far between preoc-cupies school board officials, as teachers shouldnot be dropped or lured into the job of principalwithout adequate preparation. Formerly, the posi-tion of vice-principal was used for training. Butvice-principalships are under paid for the workinvolved and find few willing takers. School boardscannot wait for a large pool of experienced candidates for principal posts who meet the newjob description. The implementation of the curriculum reform has to take place while princi-pals adapt to major changes. In the interim, thestrong candidates for the job must possess thepedagogical qualifications and proven organiza-tional expertise. Prospective principals must beprepared to take risks. School boards are exam-ining ways to make senior officers responsible forthe implementation of the reform. Such resourcesare an important support in complementing theskills and the drive of these emerging principal-leaders.
In the regions, principals are more isolated.The emphasis on team building and pedagogicalsupervision can be more stressful for rural andisolated schools. Candidates are recurrentlyneeded in far away areas. Costly travel toMontréal generates a great need for distance
education support, especially for principals. Thesupport must be applicable to the actual situationof the particular principal who cannot leave for anextended period of time. The Littoral and EasternShores School Boards, for instance, have headteachers who could be good candidates for thepost of principal, but their training needs requiresome form of distance education. School boardcommitment and support should make such dis-tance education available.
The relationship between school boards andschools is in transition and principals need the fullsupport of their school boards when they takerisks. It is up to the boards, therefore, to buildnetworks of resources, to monitor the changesand to support their principals in practical ways asthey lead their school communities through thereform process. The Internet is an effective toolfor building on-line resources for principals.Creation of clusters could reduce the isolation ofprincipals. School boards should ensure thatprincipals meet regularly with one another andencourage peer coaching.
School board commissioners and officersmeet regularly for workshops focusing on plan-ning for the support of principals and schoolsin their own wards. For several school boards,especially the Eastern Shores School Board, thecost of meeting is very high due to the dis-tances that must be covered. But commissionersneed to understand the progress of the reform inorder to shape school board policy and allocateresources appropriately. Principals are asked totell the school board what services they need.One board has not hired a Deputy DirectorGeneral with a view to empowering the principalsto assume the role of instructional services direc-tor. There are risks in decentralizing instruction-al services. Board officials continue to play animportant role in this regard. On the other hand,there is a need to separate out the differenttypes of management support needed at theschool level. For instance, the usefulness ofappointing a school manager along with the principal to look after sectors such as links tosocial workers, counselling, career services andbuilding management needs to be considered.Such proposals may require negotiating arrange-
36. McGill University website. <www.mcgill.ca>
– 17 –
school population. School boards must devel-op a coordinated approach to manage real estateand information resources, and most important-ly human resources.
One of the issues that is affecting and willcontinue to affect the English school system isthe fact that at present, only three per cent ofschool administrators are under 40 years of ageand that 65 to 70 per cent of English schooladministrators are expected to retire over thenext five years. Strategies for meeting this challenge are needed across the system. Schoolboards need to improve their advocacy and rep-resentation to the government, their collaborationwith universities and their wide disseminationof information, all more productively undertakenat a regional and provincial rather than a locallevel.
Several boards convene cross-board peda-gogical days to promote networking. Mentorsare assigned to each principal providing oppor-tunities to shadow and exchange with a range ofservices at the board and in the community.Where there is a lack of critical mass, schoolboards cooperate to provide wider professionaldevelopment. The school board/University part-nership of the Québec Learning Consortiumbrings together three English school boards andBishop’s University. Consideration is being givento distance education services for principalsamong three other school boards.
With regard to human resources, instruc-tional services directors working out of schoolboards can provide a buffer for principals. Theycan form sub-groups and work as a team.Evaluation is facilitated by this structure. Schoolswith similar structures can be grouped and occa-sional useful meetings between elementary- andsecondary-school personnel can be organized.
School boards have a significant part to playin getting general and vocational education sectors to work together. Principals are respon-sible for informing students and parents of all theoptions. The Basic Regulations now allow forstudents in the youth sector to take courses ingeneral and vocational education at the sametime. The difficulty is that principals see thissplit registration as a loss of funding.
ments in line with the Education Act and collec-tive agreements. To facilitate the decentralizationprocess, one school board has hired a businessmanager to help sort out and coordinate themanagerial complexities at the level of schoolboard administration with a view to being ofassistance to principals as they take on theirnew responsibilities.
School boards and their super structure, theQuébec English School Boards Association(QESBA), are responsible for getting the struc-tural reforms up and running. One observationheard during the ABEE’s consultations with educators and administrators closely involvedin mapping the transition process was that suc-cess in meeting the challenge would be gaugedby the speed and effectiveness with which schoolboard administrators “worked themselves out ofa job.” Many of the issues facing schools acrossthe English schools network have wide implica-tions and are not conducive to piecemeal solu-tion. School boards singly or in conjunction withone another are and will always be better placedto speak and negotiate for the whole.
The development of good working relation-ships with the French boards is both easier andmore generally productive at the board or asso-ciation level where the French and English sectorsface the same preoccupations and issues.Building upkeep and real estate problems areoften way beyond the scope of a single schooladministration. The $25 million made available bythe MEQ for upgrading and repairing schools isnowhere near enough to do the job. QESBAnoted that Canadian Heritage department of thefederal government has supported constructionof schools based on a 50-50 cost-sharing formula. Collaboration with municipalities for theprovision of land and common services throughschool buildings goes beyond the resources ofthe school proper. There is also the question ofthe data on schools, which must be accurate,timely and informative. To be of use, it must bevalidated and interpreted in accordance with thevarious missions and differing demographic andsocio-economic clienteles lumped together inthe overall data. For example, data on specialneeds students should be treated in a way thatdistinguishes them in order that reliable indicatorscan be developed across the heterogeneous
– 18 –
Collaboration with the French sector is being fur-ther considered. In many areas, English-schoolstudents have few choices. Options are missingso students complete their vocational studiesin French. Some English boards are workingtowards getting more options in technical andvocational education.
Several boards are struggling to keep theirsmall schools open. That effects the assignmentof principals and imposes a considerable trans-portation burden. The Ministère de l’Éducationtransportation standards are difficult to applyacross the widespread English school boards.The issues of transportation and distance edu-cation need more consideration and study byschool board and ministry officials. School boardsin conjunction with the Ministry must addressthe exorbitant costs of school telephone linesused for the delivery of distance education andInternet connections, impediments that cannotbe overcome by individual schools.
A school principal should know his or herconstituency and be familiar with the local socialand employment services and other governmentagencies. But the task of coordinating thesemyriad services goes beyond the school’s sphereof influence. The principal often faces a multitudeof agency contacts from many different jurisdic-tions. Running meetings with all these peopleand services is very expensive. Governmentagencies assume that schools and school boardscan handle information from an infinite number ofsources to address the social and communityneeds of the children. One-stop agencies do notexist for anglophone children except the school.One school board deals with 26 CLSC’s. A singleschool does not have the resources, no matterhow well organized its principal, to deal with thisfragmentation or to oblige government agen-cies to find solutions by talking to each other. Itfalls to school boards to provide their schools,particularly small and isolated schools, with linksto the myriad government agencies and socialservice centres across wide geographical terri-tories and jurisdictions. In many regards, a schoolboard’s professional relations committee pro-vides principals with a valuable support and link-age system.
The Advisory Board on English Educationrecommends:THAT the Directors General of the Englishschool boards specify the mission and man-date of the organizations for which they arecollectively responsible (CACR, PROCEDE,CASER, etc).37
(Recommendation 11)
The Advisory Board on English Educationrecommends:THAT the Directors General of the Englishschool boards in the interest of capacity build-ing and public accountability require an annu-al report from each of the organizations forwhich they are collectively responsible (CACR,PROCEDE, CASER, etc).(Recommendation 12)
THE MINISTRY
The English sector is well served by having itsown Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) and depart-ments (Direction des politiques et des projets(DPP) and the Direction de la production enlangue anglaise (DPLA)) of the Services à la com-munauté anglophone (SCA) of dedicated andexperienced professionals in constant touch withevery facet of Québec’s English schools network.Since the appointment of an English sector ADMin 1992, English schools have been able to relyon a support system at the Ministry level thathas become indispensable to school board DGs,school principals and English educators in generalfor collecting for analyzing, evaluating, and dis-seminating information and managing resourcesdevoted to strengthening and improving overallschool education in the English sector.
As of December 1998, the DPP of the SCA,under the direction of Assistant Deputy MinisterElaine Freeland, was given responsibility for theimplementation of the reform in the English sector. The DPP began the process of transitionby setting up two structures, an ImplementationDesign Committee (IDC) and a CurriculumCoalition specifically designed to provide guide-lines for, on the one hand, approaching and
37. CACR (Committee of Anglophone Curriculum Responsables)PROCEDE (Provincial Organization of Continuing Education Directors, English)CASER (Committee of Anglophone Special Education Responsables)
– 19 –
carrying through the reorganization of schoolmanagement and, on the other, adapting thenew curriculum, in conjunction with the Frenchsector, to the pedagogical requirements anddemographic realities of Québec’s English-speak-ing schools.
The transition strategy included the setting upthe IDC as well as addressing a variety of demo-graphic community needs by collaborating with 16“Lead Schools” to test best practices with theactive monitoring of Québec’s three English uni-versities. McGill University and Bishop’s Universityhave been asked to develop two series of multi-media material, one on outcome-based learningand the other on the integration of learning, to beused by school teams in the reorientation of theteaching and learning process called for by the reform. Other initiatives have been the“Curriculum Countdown,” a useful pamphlet pro-viding information about the progress of theimplementation of the reform in the English sec-tor. And a joint initiative of McGill University andanglophone sector of the Federation of ParentCommittees of Québec (FCPPQ) has produced aseries of three pamphlets published in Frenchand English, for the information of parents.
The availability of teaching material in English,which continues to be problematic, is beingaddressed by the English Educational ResourcesFoundation (EERF). Instigated by the schoolboards in collaboration with the SCA-DPP, theEERF is a non-profit organization created by theDirectors General of the English school boardswith Ministry representation, to develop teachingmaterials to be used by the English sector. Someof this material is more than likely to be aimed atsecond-language learning, given that so muchof English education takes place in French, par-ticularly at the primary level.
The MEQ has consulted school authoritiesand is preparing a policy and orientation papers toset a framework for educational leadership. Thereport Les nouveaux besoins de perfectionnementdes directions d’écoles (November 15, 1997)specifically recommends that MEQ policy mustaddress the French and English sectors: “It will be
up to the relevant authorities to determine…<whether it is appropriate>… to design profes-sional development activities specifically gearedto French- and English-speaking groups.” (p. 24;free translation).38
It is important that this new policy take intoaccount the needs of management officials, espe-cially principals in the English sector.
The Advisory Board on English Educationrecommends:THAT the MEQ specifically take into accountthe English sector in developing a set of orientations on school leadership.(Recommendation 13)
• CHANGING THE CULTURE OF TEACHING AND LEARNING
The structural and pedagogical changesimposed on the school system by the EducationAct are radical but not revolutionary. The overallreform is in large part the sanctioning of many ofthe best teaching and learning practices thatschools and teachers have been developing ontheir own for some time. Today, everyone work-ing in the system is called upon to collaborate inthe building of a structural framework in which anintegrated approach to teaching and learningcan be adapted for the benefit of students atdifferent levels and with various needs in thecontext of each particular school population.39
Therein lies the real challenge. There can be nofactotums in the system. The teaching and learn-ing process is no longer dictated by the rules ofthe curriculum; it cannot be simply applied acrossthe board. It must be worked out to fit the par-ticular clientele of a school community.
The reform is as much about how to learn(competency) as about what to learn (the subjectmatter incorporated in the course of study).Learning by rote from a text book devoted to aspecific and isolated discipline is not sufficient initself to assure the competency that studentstake into the world. The principal objectives ofcurricular reform are to enhance student learning
38. Henry J. & J. Cormier, Les nouveaux besoins de perfectionnement des directions d’écoles. Document produit pour le Comitéde perfectionnement des directeurs d’établissements d’enseignement (DISCAS), Québec, November 15, 1997
39. Fullan, Chapter 4 “The School as a Learning Organisation.”
– 20 –
• VOICES FROM ENGLISH ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
Anne-Marie Léveillé-Shields gave her views onleadership to the Advisory Board. Ms. Shieldsproposes five competencies for improving edu-cational leadership.
1. Find and use knowledge. Leaders should beable to:
• articulate the culture of the organization, itsnorms and values;
• develop knowledge about the reform, gov-erning board and other issues affectingschools;
• find information from various sources;
• find time and means to inform and beinformed;
• have knowledge of regulations, policies,board procedures and collective agree-ments;
• be informed about and develop skills incomputer technologies to be used as atool for information and knowledge.
2. Be a strategic planner
• develop organizational shared vision;
• support a student-centred focus;
• plan appropriate and effective staff devel-opment;
• organize and support dialogue for learn-ing;
• network with universities and other schools.
3. Be a team leader
• develop communication skills;
• be a group process facilitator;
• be a conflict mediator;
• create and model effective dialogue;
and to better prepare students for learning ontheir own throughout their lives.
A school system based on the acquisitionof skills and competencies rather than on a pro-ficient subject-by-subject knowledge can onlysucceed if educators work together in the devel-opment of an integrated approach to the acqui-sition of competencies. Proficiency is not sacri-ficed for competency acquisition, but ratherenhanced by it. The leadership needed to bringthis new perspective into focus at the level ofevery school is of a different kind than the hier-archical leadership of traditional school struc-tures. Leadership is no longer a top-down man-agement exercise. Leadership fosters coordinatedcollaboration at every level of school life, from thesetting of common goals to time allocation and ashared teaching load.40
In the Advisory Board consultations acrossthe network, the question of enlightened lead-ership was a recurrent preoccupying theme. Acommon thread ran through all the briefs, pre-sentations, discussions and reports on the sub-ject. Anne-Marie Léveillé-Shields,41 the Principalof Elizabeth Ballantyne Elementary School whichbegan moving towards a collaborative teachingmodel some time ago, provided the ABEE with arepresentative view of the skills and competen-cies required of the educational leaders of today.The model used by Ms. Shields was based on thereform model of competencies for studentsadapted for use by administrators. Based on apackage of required competencies, then, pro-grams could be developed to focus on leadershippractices that address the real situations facingthose in charge of getting the new methodsworking and in gear.
40. Fullan, Chapter 2 “Moral Purpose and Change Agency.” 41. Anne-Marie Léveillé-Shields, recently retired Principal of Elizabeth Ballantyne School in the English Montréal School
Board, won the Montréal Island School Council Woman of Merit Award in the Administration Category.Anne-Marie Léveillé-Shields has a Master’s Degree in Counselling from State University of New York and Bachelor Degreesin Human Development and Computerized Statistics from McGill University and in Education from Concordia University. Sherepresented the EMSB at the Ministère de l’Éducation for the Co-ordination à la condition féminine.She and Marzia Michielli, Centre Director of the Rosemont Technology Centre, are founding members of Women inEducation (WE), started in February 1999. Composed of women from the English School Boards in the MontréalMetropolitan Region, it is committed to the advancement of women in leadership positions and promotes the contributionof women in the workplace. It also promotes pay equity for groups such as secretaries.
– 21 –
• support positive team effort;
• develop relationships which enhance learn-ing, understanding and co-operation;
• involve all partners in programs, activitiesand accomplishments.
4. Implement and carry-out decisions
• be a mentor;
• develop models of supervision;
• demonstrate effectiveness in financial,administrative and organizational manage-ment.
Ms. Shields added one dimension to thereform competencies (certainly applicable toleadership).
5. Become a reflective educational leader
• model reflective behaviours–share read-ing, discuss in small groups issues of con-cern;
• support innovations;
• support leaders within the organization;
• monitor implementation;
• develop assessment tools;
• mentor;
• develop accountability strategies and prac-tices;
• develop a reflective practice.
Dialogue with Andrew Aitken,Principal, Ste-Foy Elementary School
Andrew Aitken, principal of the Ste-FoyElementary School in the Central Québec SchoolBoard, dialogued with the ABEE about schoolleadership. Mr. Aitken responded to several ques-tions, including the following:
What was the impetus for change?
Aitken: Five years ago, the staff had a hardtime making decisions and there was not enoughcommitment to innovation. Teachers expresseda concern about being isolated in their class-rooms and wanted to get together more.
The main goal became to get teachers tobe part of a team and to work together for moreeffectiveness.
We invited Ann Kilcher to help the staff withthe process of realizing a common school visionand for establishing action plans.
Every year we built in time to work togetherduring school hours. For example, we hired super-visors to do recess supervision, reorganized theworkloads and thus provided an extra hour aweek to do professional development. It cost us$8 000. It was the teachers who decided on theincentive of paying others to do yard duty.
In the first year we established a lot of ourskills as team members and it was a fairlydemanding time. We learned to listen, not to putdown another person’s ideas or the person, andhow to come to decisions. We now decide byconsensus how to run things in the school. We arenow well positioned to implement this new reform.
Newcomers to the school integrate easilyinto the culture of teamwork.
What is the principal’s role?
Aitken: To create the working situation and doaway with the barriers to doing what it is youwant to do. The principal is the facilitator–he orshe finds the time and the money and keeps theteam on track towards the goal. In the first year,I ran the meetings, but it was very onerous interms of preparation. In the second year, theresponsibilities for pre-planning were divided upand in the last two years the teachers have runthe meetings. I share the responsibility of lead-ership with the staff.
Place of the Governing Board?
Aitken: The process started before the insti-tution of governing boards, but we did include theparents in a randomly selected focus group. Theparents wrote the educational project to matchthe vision. The parents inform other parentsabout the reform, so it is the selected groupthat is receiving information on the reform.Currently, we are conducting a focus group withthe children on the organization of teaching bycycle. It was a staff decision to move towardgrouping by cycle. We did not involve the par-ents, which in hindsight was an error. They ques-tion the decision a lot and are not comfortablewith it.
– 22 –
The children are comfortable with the moveto cycles. They identify themselves by cycle.There are 66 students in the first cycle withthree teachers. Teachers plan, teach and evalu-ate together. The model forces teachers to worktogether and breaks down the isolation.
Is this going to become THE model?
Aitken: The model works for our school, butcould be more difficult to organize in a largerschool.
Teachers often feel that the presence ofanother teacher is threatening. The looping model(one teacher with a group for more than oneyear) may become more prevalent.
In our model we have the flexibility to createdifferentiated learning situations and this givesthe teachers an opportunity to use their particu-lar expertise well. I believe that the model willalso help with the early identification of learningproblems, as there are three teachers monitoringeach child.
– 23 –
CHAPTER 5
ACCOUNTABILITY BASED ON COLLABORATIVEEDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP
Effect of decentralization; administrative accountability at the local and school board level; collaborative leadership; value-added self-assessment.
The principal is accountable to the schoolboard for the school’s pedagogical results andcurriculum, as well as the sound management ofthe school budget, previously negotiated withthe school board. Once the negotiated budgetenvelope has been turned over to the school, nopart of it remains under school board control. Butthe principal, as the representative of the localschool government, becomes accountable tothe school board government for its judicioususe.
Decentralization changes the former hierar-chical structures into a multi-level system ofshared decision-making and responsibilities forthe delivery of education. Standards, the pro-grams of study to be followed and the evaluationof province-wide examinations are still governedby uniform rules. For meeting the overall stan-dards, the Ministry is accountable to the gov-ernment and the final arbiter, the people.
The school boards are accountable to theMinistry for meeting the standards set for ele-mentary and secondary education, for puttingin place and supporting the reform managementsystems needed to monitor and verify thatschools are following the basic school regula-tions and meeting the pedagogical objectivesset out in the Education Act. School boards havethis overall responsibility because they are localgovernments whose members are elected bytheir respective communities to which they areaccountable.
There is no decentralization of educationalobjectives. The curriculum sets out what stu-dents should know and be able to do at various
points along the way. The reform accents theprocess by which teaching and learning takeplace to meet the objectives. The team of pro-fessional teachers work together on the waysand means of dispensing education, providing acertain autonomy in the setting of targets, thechoosing of values to accent and the forging oflinks with the wider community. The school is theinstitution with the closest ties to the communi-ty which depends on the school for the educationof its children. The school is the crux of thewhole operation, where the system itself suc-ceeds or fails. The principal is therefore primari-ly accountable to the DG but he or she is alsoaccountable to several other constituencies in thecommunity focused on the education provided byhis or her school, rather than on the generalthrust of the education system.
The decentralization of powers and the takingof responsibility by those who assume thosepowers demands that mechanisms be put inplace to assure the good use of the allottedresources. “Management by results” is a priorityin the Québec government’s philosophy of man-agement, for education and for all other sectorsof the civil service. Work will no longer be judgedonly on doing the job responsibility, by the rules.The quality of the results of the work is judgednot by the doer but by those to whom he or sheis answerable. The MEQ and the school boardsmust protect the school sector from the dangersand injustices of evaluating the performancesof schools simply by comparing across the boardresults rather by a more nuanced interpretation ofwhat constitutes a value-added for each school,based on school self-assessment. It would seemimportant not to impose accountability42 for
42. Association des directeurs généraux des commissions scolaires report L’Adigecs et l’imputabilité dans le réseau scolaire(29 mars 2000).
– 24 –
evaluation is where any open system of evaluationbegins.43
results, setting standards at the top, but rather topromote school self-assessment and collaborativeefforts across the school network. A school’s self
43. Purkey and Smith.
As curriculum reform progresses throughthe cycles of elementary school toward morecomplex implementation at the high-school level,teachers will be forced to carry the heaviest bur-den of proof. Strong but enlightened and flexibleleadership exercised by school boards and prin-cipals will be a vital component in the successfulcompletion of the required reorganization of themanagement of the school system, as a wholeand school by school. Territorial adjustments,legal and regulatory issues, the provision of edu-cational services, the hiring of personnel, thetracking involved in the production of successplans are all issues that call for efficient andvisionary leadership. School leaders must providethe climate and resources for promoting a varietyof pedagogical models, from the design of anintegrated Cycle One to the mapping of themosaic of disciplines in Cycle Five. But at the endof the day, teachers will deliver the educationalservices to the students in the classrooms. Thereform will not work without planning. But theplanning in itself can have little effect on a child’smind or an adolescent’s language skills or inter-est in physics. The impact on teachers of the newcurriculum and structural reform cannot be exag-gerated. And the impact of teacher preparationand in-service training on student academic suc-cess has been amply shown in research find-ings.
Teachers need time, resources and peda-gogical support to help them work out for them-selves and among themselves how they canbest contribute and adapt to the process, pro-cedures and objectives spelled out by the reform.But they also need incentives to develop theleadership capacities that will ensure school suc-cess.44
Teachers are not only being required to takeon several new layers of responsibility, they arealso required to take on the teaching of a cur-riculum which many of them were not academi-
cally prepared to teach. This is not a Québec orCanadian phenomenon. There is today, forinstance, an international penury of math andscience teachers. It is not because teachers inthe past were not interested in or encouraged tolearn about mathematics and science in order tobe able to teach these subjects. It is more theeffect of an approach to the education of teach-ers that emphasized pedagogical skills and reliedon a good general education to provide an exper-tise that only needed “topping up” to produce thenecessary expertise to teach the subject matter.Today’s more holistic, integrated approach tolearning has in no way downgraded the impor-tance of pedagogy. Rather, it is being more andmore widely recognized that to awaken and kin-dle the intellectual interest of students in the nat-ural sciences, a teacher of those subjects shouldhave a passion for and an in-depth knowledge ofthe disciplines. It is, however, unrealistic toexpect practising teachers to go back to schoolfor the years required to get another subject-based degree at their own expense.
We acknowledge teachers as a preciousresource for our communities and for society.45
To prepare teachers for what is being asked ofthem we must recognize their worth and spendthe necessary resources. When the recruitmentof principals became difficult, teachers who lovedtheir profession were approached to take on theadded work and responsibilities associated withbeing a principal. The teachers turned down theopportunity because the pecuniary rewards inno way made up for the professional rewardsthey would have to forgo. The problem wasaddressed by making it financially worthwhile fora master teacher, well qualified for the job, to puthis or her experience to work, as principal, for theschool as a whole rather than the individual class-room. It is perhaps time, and a propitious time, toexamine the remuneration, financial support andeducational upgrading of our teachers. The qual-ity of the school system depends first and fore-
– 25 –
CONCLUSION
44. Moller and Katzenmeyer. 45. Fullan and Hargreaves, Chapter 4 “Interactive Professionalism and Guidelines For Action.”
– 26 –
most on the quality of what is taught in theclassroom. Society will not get the best possibleeducation for its children if it is not prepared toprovide the best possible educators to teachthem. A love for the profession is certainly anincentive to practise it well, but being recog-nized socially and financially as an essential ser-vice cannot but draw more qualified people intothe profession and keep those already engagedin it abreast of its more and more demandingrequirements.
Principals and centre directors, governingboards and school boards, and the Ministère del’Éducation can make the curriculum reform anopportunity to support teachers and studentsin the primary activity of education: teachingand learning. Our recommendations in this reportsupport collaborative leadership and account-ability. Visionary leadership starts with support forteachers and students.
– 27 –
Appendix
A
PROFILE OF PERSONNEL IN ENGLISH SCHOOLS
Table 4.2.13 published in Statistiques de l’éducation. Enseignement primaire, secondaire, collégial et universitaire. Édition 2000
Table 4.2.13Personnel in school boards, by sector, category of employment,
gender and language of workplace, in 1998-1999ALL PERSONNEL
French English Native Not Languages Specified Total
YOUTH AND ADULT SECTORSTeaching staffGeneral education Men 19 988 2 380 43 3 22 414in the youth sector Women 51 744 6 317 167 3 58 231General education Men 1 133 158 3 6 1 300in the adult sector Women 2 835 444 2 6 3 284Vocational education Men 4 473 233 4 706
Women 2 532 276 2 808YOUTH SECTORAdministrative staff Men 684 96 1 781
Women 220 57 1 1 279School principals Men 1 771 221 1 1 1 994
Women 1 228 154 1 382Managerial staff Men 382 62 3 447
Women 193 25 2 1 221Non-teaching professionals Men 1 618 133 8 57 1 816
Women 2 567 271 21 121 2 980Support staff Men 12 414 1 651 101 247 14 413
Women 32 649 5 047 157 218 38 071ADULT SECTORAdministrative staff Men 82 13 1 96
Women 24 8 32School principals Men 228 24 252
Women 128 16 144Managerial staff Men 17 1 18
Women 15 4 19Non-teaching professionals Men 216 28 3 5 252
Women 255 35 1 1 292Support staff Men 542 67 7 9 625
Women 1 206 205 17 14 1 442
TOTAL Men 43 548 5 067 170 329 49 114Women 95 596 12 859 368 365 109 188Total 139 144 17 926 538 694 158 302
Source: Personnel des commissions scolaires (PERCOS II).Note: All persons that had an employment relationship with a school board between July 1 and June 30 are included in these
statistics.
– 28 –
Appendix
B
Recommendations of the Advisory Board onEnglish Education Report 2000: EnglishSchools in Transition: Building CollaborativeLeadership
Recommendation 1
THAT the MEQ and the English school boardsprovide support for each English school as theschool builds authentic links with its communi-ties.
Recommendation 2
THAT in their planning and goal setting theQuebec English School Boards Association(QESBA), the Association of Directors General ofEnglish School Boards (ADGESB) and theAssociation of Administrators of English Schoolsof Québec (AAESQ) take into consideration thefive orientations of the Strategic Plan of theMinistère de l’Éducation 2000-2003.
Recommendation 3
THAT, with a view to facilitating schoolimprovement, the Ministère de l’Éducation andschool boards support each English school indeveloping a school profile.
Recommendation 4
THAT each English school board monitor theprogress of each school and ensure that schoolshave access to resources for fair and constructiveself-evaluation.
Recommendation 5
THAT the English school boards and the prin-cipals of each English school in Québec aligntheir planning and goal setting with the orienta-tions of the MEQ to improve school success,and report the results to their communities.
Recommendation 6
THAT the Partnership for School Improvementcollaborate with the CSE and the École nationaled’administration publique (ENAP) to provideEnglish school administrators with continuingeducation resources, for example:
• the timely English translation of importantCSE reports related to educational adminis-tration such as:
– “Le rôle des Headmasters en Angleterre etles enseignements à en tirer dans un con-texte de décentralisation,” CSE Études etRecherches, by Hélène Pinard, April 1999.
– “Le renouvellement du curriculum: expé-rience américaine, suisse et québécoise,”CSE, January 2000.
• an on-line resource centre for school princi-pals, modeled on the school leaders’ listservdeveloped by the Canadian Association ofPrincipals and the ’Observatoire – Vigie’ ofENAP.
Recommendation 7
THAT the MEQ undertake negotiations withthe management board of Le Point en adminis-tration scolaire to examine the feasibility of hav-ing Le Point en administration scolaire publishedin English and French simultaneously.
Recommendation 8
THAT the MEQ give particular attention to theuse of time and the exercise of shared leadershipamong teachers and administrators in the Englishsector while aligning the MEQ orientations docu-ment for teacher education and in-service with thesoon-to-be published MEQ orientations documenton principal education and in-service.
Recommendation 9
THAT the English schools promote the estab-lishment of the Parent Participation Organization
– 29 –
(PPO) and facilitate its role in developing, imple-menting and evaluating the school’s educationalproject.
Recommendation 10
THAT the MEQ clarify the structure and mem-bership of the governing boards established foradult and vocational education centres.
Recommendation 11
THAT the Directors General of the Englishschool boards specify the mission and mandateof the organizations for which they are collectivelyresponsible (CACR, PROCEDE, CASER, etc).
Recommendation 12
THAT the Directors General of the Englishschool boards in the interest of capacity buildingand public accountability require an annual reportfrom each of the organizations for which theyare collectively responsible (CACR, PROCEDE,CASER, etc).
Recommendation 13
THAT the MEQ specifically take into accountthe English sector in developing a set of orien-tations on school leadership.
– 30 –
Appendix
C
INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED BY THE ADVISORY BOARD ON ENGLISH EDUCATION 1999-2000
Meeting guests
Andrew Aitken Principal, Ste-Foy Elementary School
Spencer Boudreau Professor, Faculty of Education, McGill University
Noel Burke Director, Instructional Services, New Frontiers School Board
Ron Canuel Director General, Eastern Townships School Board
Scott Conrod Deputy Director General, Lester-B.-Pearson School Board
John Cyr Director General, Central Québec School Board
Diane Fyfe Director General, Western Québec School Board
David Hogg President, Association of administrators of English Schools of Quebecand Principal of Merton School, English Montréal School Board
Cyrus Journeau Director General, Eastern Shores School Board
Patricia Lamarre Assistant Professor, Education Department, Université de Montréal
Anne-Marie Léveillée-Shields Principal, Elizabeth Ballantyne School
Charley Levy Deputy Director General, English Montréal School Board
Lucy Mendonça Representative of Medric O’Brien, Administrator, Du Littoral SchoolBoard
Maria Michielli Centre Director, Rosemont Technology Centre
Yolande Nantel Coordonnatrice, Secteur de développement des compétences,Commission scolaire de Montréal
Alexander Norris Reporter, Montreal Gazette
Diane Ratcliffe President, Québec English School Board Association (QESBA)
André Reid Coordinator of the Education Management Sector of Faculty ofEducation, Université de Sherbrooke
Richard Schmid Chair, Department of Education, Concordia University
Howard Schwartz Principal, Souvenir Elementary School, Sir-Wilfrid-Laurier SchoolBoard
Howard Simpkin Director General, New Frontiers School Board
Jim Sullivan Responsible for teacher pre-service and in-service, MEQ / SCA-DPP
David Wells Program Coordinator, Educational Technology, Concordia University
– 31 –
Appendix
D
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BERGER, Marie-Josée, (1999) Education Canada39(3), pp. 28-31 “Enjeux de la responsabi-lisation en milieu éducatif minoritaire franco-ontarien.
BITTLE, J. (1995). Primary Responsibilities ofSchool Administrators. The High SchoolMagazine, September, p. 38-42
BROOKER, J. (2000). A top educator in ourmidst! The Informer Montreal West, June.
CONSEIL SUPÉRIEUR DE L’ÉDUCATION, (1993).Rapport annuel 1991-1992. La Gestion del’éducation: nécessité d’un autre modèle.
CONSEIL SUPÉRIEUR DE L’ÉDUCATION, (1999).Diriger une école secondaire: Un nouveaucontexte, de nouveaux défis. Québec.
CONSEIL SUPÉRIEUR DE L’ÉDUCATION, (1999).L’évaluation institutionnelle en éducation:une dynamique propice au développement(Rapport annuel), Québec.
CONSEIL SUPÉRIEUR DE L’ÉDUCATION, (1999). Lerenouvellement du curriculum: expériencesaméricaine, suisse et québécoise. Québec.
CONSEIL SUPÉRIEUR DE L’ÉDUCATION, (1999). Lerôle des headteachers en Angleterre et lesenseignements à en tirer dans un contextede décentralisation, Québec.
CONSEIL SUPÉRIEUR DE L’ÉDUCATION, (2000). Lareconnaissance des acquis, une respons-abilité politique et sociale. Québec.
DRUCKER, P. F. (1999). “My mentor’s leadershiplessons.” In F. Hesselbein & P.M. Cohen(Eds.) Leader to leader: Enduring insightson leadership from the Drucker Foundation’saward-winning journal. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
FULLAN, M. G. & Hargreaves, A. (1991). What’sworth fighting for? Working together for yourschool. Toronto: Ontario Public SchoolTeachers’ Federation.
FULLAN, M. G. (1993). Change forces: Probingthe depths of educational reform. Bristol,PA: The Falmer Press.
GAUTHIER, R. (1998). Planification stratégique ouimprovisation stratégique dans un contextede turbulence au sein des organisationspubliques? Source ENAP, 14(1), p. 1-4.
GIBTON, D., Sabar, N. & Goldring, E.B. (2000).How principals of autonomous schools inIsrael view implementation of decentralizationand restructuring policy: Risks, rights, andwrongs. Educational Evaluation and PolicyAnalysis, 22(2), p. 193-210.
GOUVERNEMENT DU QUÉBEC, Ministère de l’Éducation (2000). The Québec EducationProgram – Preschool Education Elementary(cycle one) approved version ElementaryEducation (cycles two and three). Preliminaryversion. (13-0003-01A).
GOUVERNEMENT DU QUÉBEC, Ministère de l’Éducation. Strategic Plan of the Ministère del’Éducation for 2000-2003. Summary (49-1325-A).
GUAY, M-M. (2000). Le Mentorat. Source ENAP,15(1), p. 2,4.
HENRY, J. & J. Cormier. Les nouveaux besoins deperfectionnement des directeurs d’écoles.Document produit pour le Comité de per-fectionnement des directeurs d’établisse-ment d’enseignement (DICAS), Québec,November 15, 1997.
KATZENBACH, J.R. & Smith, D.K. (1993). Thewisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization. NY: Harper Collins.
– 32 –
KATZENBACH, J.R. (1999). In F. Hesselbein &P.M. Cohen (Eds.) Leader to leader: Enduringinsights on leadership from the DruckerFoundation’s award-winning journal. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
KERNAGHAN, K. (1994). The emerging publicservice culture: values, ethics, and reforms.Canadian Public Administration, 37(4), p. 614-630.
LEE, V.E., Smerdon, B.A., Alfred-Liro, C. & Brown,S.L. (2000). Inside large and small highschools: Curriculum and social relations.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,22(2), p. 147-171.
LIEBERMAN, A. (1996). Creating intentional learn-ing communities. Educational Leadership,54(3), pp. 51-55.
LINDQUIST, E. A. (1994). Recent administrativereform in Canada as decentralization: whois spreading what around to whom and why?Canadian Public Administration, 37(3), p. 416-430.
LINN, R.L., and Baker, E.L. (1998). Back to basics– Indicators as a system. The CRESST Line,Winter, p. 1-3.
LUSTHAUS, C., Anderson, G., and Murphy, E.(1995). Institutional Assessment: A Frame-work for Strengthening OrganizationalCapacity for IDCR’s Research Partners.Ottawa: International Development ResearchCenter.
MABRY, L. & Ettinger, L. (1999). Supportingcommunity-oriented educational change:Case and analysis. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 7(14), p. 1-19.<http:/epaa.asu.edu/epaa/vol7n14.html>
MANNING, M. L. and R. Saddlemire (1996).Developing a sense of community in secondary schools. NASSP Bulletin,December, pp. 41-48.
MOLLER, G. & Katzenmeyer, M. (Eds.) (1996).Every teacher as a leader: Realizing thepotential of teacher leadership. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
PAYETTE, A. (1997). Gestionnaires formateurs.Sources ENAP, 13(6), p. 1-4.
PERRENOUD, P. (1999). L’établissement, principal garant du renouveau pédagogique. Le Point de Réflexion, in Le Point en adminis-tration scolaire, 2(1), p. 1-16.
PURKEY, S. C. and M. S. Smith (1983). EffectiveSchools: A Review. The Elementary SchoolJournal 83(4), pp. 426-452.
SARASON, S.B. & Lorentz, E.M. (1998). Crossingboundaries, coordination and the redefini-tion of resources. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
SERGIOVANNI, T.J. (1994a). Building commu-nity in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-BassPublishers.
SERGIOVANNI, T.J. (1994b). Organizations orCommunities? Changing the Metaphor,Changes the Theory. Educational Administra-tion Quarterly, 30(2), pp. 214-226.
SCHEETZ, M. and T. Benson (1994). StructuringSchools for Success: A View from the Inside.Thousand Oaks, CA.: Corwin Press Inc.
SHIELDS, A-M. Personal communication. June 9, 2000. E-mail on qualities of schoolleaders.
SMITH, W.J. et al. (1998). Student engagementin learning and school life: Case reports fromproject schools. Montréal: Office of Researchon Educational Policy, McGill University.
SMITH, W.J. et al. (1998). Student engagementin learning and school life: National projectreport. Montréal: Office of Research onEducational Policy, McGill University.
TARDIF, N. (1999). La Direction d’établissementet le renouveau pédagogique, Positionstratégique. Le Point en AdministrationScolaire. 2(1), p. 9-14.
– 33 –
Appendix
E
Websites to be consulted
www.schoolfile.com/cap.htm The Canadian Association of Principals (CAP)represents and serves the Principals and Vice-Principals of schools across Canada. TheAssociation has a School Leaders Listserv thatdelivers messages on a regular basis to all listmember schools
www.enap.uquebec.ca/Observatoire/Vigie/accueilvigie.htm This newsletter provides periodic updates oncertain reforms currently under way, as well asinformation on significant events in public admin-istration in other jurisdictions and on interestingpublications related to these themes.
www.acea.ca Canadian Education Association
www.casa-acas.org Canadian Association of School Administrators
www.umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap Canadian Journal of Educational Administrationand Policy (electronic journal)
www.qesn.meq.gouv.qc.ca Quebec English Schools Network
www.meq.gouv.qc.ca Ministère de l’Éducation du Québec
www.qesba.qc.ca Quebec English School Boards Association(QESBA)
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/ Educational Policy Analysis Archives is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal published entirely onthe Internet.
www.middleweb.com/ash.html The principal as Chief Learning Officer by RuthAsh and Maurice Persall
English School Boards
www.csnewfrontiers.qc.ca – New Frontiers SBwww.wqsb.qc.ca – Western Québec SBwww.cqsb.qc.ca – Central Québec SBwww.etsb.qc.ca – Eastern Townships SBwww.easternshores.qc.ca – Eastern Shores SBwww.emsb.qc.ca – English Montréal SBwww.lbpsb.qc.ca – Lester-B.-Pearson SBwww.rsb.qc.ca – Riverside SBwww.swlauriersb.qc.ca – Sir-Wilfrid-Laurier SB
72-5020AMinistère
de l’Éducation
