One of the main reasons I do not contribute any money to either of my alma maters is the fact that it has become obvious over the years that universities have forgotten the reason they exist. While it may come as a surprise to the ‘visionaries’ who have been busily building their empires over the decades, the base mission of the university is, or should be, teaching excellence, not the forging of partnerships with businesses, not the building of grander and grander buildings, not the endless fundraising efforts, and certainly not the proliferation of already bloated academic bureaucracies (i.e., $500,000 a year presidents, multiple vice-presidents, deans, etc., etc.)
Now that these institutions are facing greater than usual financial pressures, what is their solution? Not to pare down non-essentials (see the above bloated academic bureaucracies), but, of course, to cut teaching staff and increase class sizes. Organizational behaviour is so predictable, not to mention so destructive to the well-being of the organization. I saw the same misguided and short-sighted antics during my 30 years as a high school teacher, when boards would spend outrageous sums on non-classroom personnel (“You have to pay top dollar to attract top people,” they would tell us) while begrudging us the smallest of increases.
I am reproducing below an article from today’s Globe and Mail that details the latest folly of these academic ‘leaders.’
Staff cuts to boost class size on campus
Services hurt as universities strapped for cash
Elizabeth Church
From Monday's Globe and Mail Last updated on Monday, Jul. 27, 2009 03:52AM EDT
A wave of staff reductions at cash-strapped universities will mean larger classes and fewer services for students at campuses this September.
The budget squeeze – the result of falling investment income and rising costs, especially for pensions – has left many universities scrambling to find millions of dollars in savings for the coming school year. With salaries accounting for the lion's share of budgets, job losses are the inevitable result, school leaders say. That's led to a range of actions to reduce head counts on campus, including layoffs, buyout offers, the cancellation of teaching contracts and hiring freezes.
“You've got to know these discussions are going on at every university in this country,” said Harvey Weingarten, president of the University of Calgary, who recently warned that as many as 200 jobs would be lost on campus this fall. Dr. Weingarten said efforts would be made to limit those cuts to areas that have the least effect on students, but he said with so much of the budget spent on salaries and benefits, staff reductions are the only way to meet the province's requirement for a balanced budget.
While many schools say it is too soon to put a firm number on job losses, others are in talks with unions or have already taken action.
At the University of Guelph, as many as 100 teaching contracts and 30 posts for teaching assistants are in question. The exact cuts will depend on course demand and student numbers, a university spokesman said. Earlier this year 145 staff at the university accepted an early retirement package.
The University of Western Ontario was one of the first campuses to implement reductions, offering a buyout package and a phased retirement option this spring, followed by the layoff of 55 staff.
“I think it's fair to say the system is under distress,” said Jim Butler, vice-president of finance and administration at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo. Laurier is using one-time provincial funding to help bridge this year's $8.8-million funding shortfall, but also is cutting casual workers and posts through attrition to make ends meet. The measures will mean the elimination of some smaller classes. “If there is a class of six people in it, we will not be running it,” Mr. Butler predicted.
There will also be fewer campus jobs for returning students. Cuts have already been made at the Special Constable Services, a 24-hour on-campus security hub that last year employed 32 students to work as dispatchers.
The centre responds to student emergencies, whether it's a stolen bike or a bar brawl at the campus pub. During the school year, student dispatchers work six-hour shifts in teams of two, answering phone calls, dispatching officers during emergencies, and keeping an eye on the 236 CCTV cameras on campus.
This fall, the centre will hire 16 students, with only one working per shift.
Second-year business student Jodi Martin was a student dispatcher last year and used her earnings to help pay for tuition. She was hoping to keep the position throughout the summer but was discouraged when her manager informed her of the staffing reductions.
“I was really unimpressed by the fact that they were cutting that,” she said, adding that the centre was actually redesigned last year to accommodate two students per shift. “Especially since they had drilled it into us how important it was that there was two people there for regulations and for being able to do the job properly.”
Other schools are floating proposals for unpaid leave. Lakehead University in Thunder Bay is attempting to require staff and faculty to take days off in December and the idea of unpaid “Queen's Days” was suggested by the administration at Queen's University recently, but was rejected by faculty.
“Clearly all this will inevitably have a significant impact on how we deliver programs,” said Patrick Deane, vice-principal academic at Queen's. Mr. Deane said many, but not all, contract faculty will not have their appointments renewed, and proposals for early retirement packages are being discussed.
While universities say the cuts are necessary, faculty groups are attempting to gauge the severity of the situation, with some questioning the need for drastic action and warning about the effect it will have on quality.
“It's a muddied picture,” said Jim Turk, executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers. “We are trying to separate out legitimate claims of financial hardship from less legitimate claims, but it is not easy.”
Mr. Turk said it is too soon to see trends in the reductions. While some schools are cutting contract faculty, others are using them as a less costly replacement for departing tenured professors. “It's an evolving story,” he said.
As the story develops, faculty members such as Mark Jones, an English professor at Queen's University, are troubled by the departure of talented scholars who have been told they will not be needed next year.
“It's very upsetting,” he said. “There are tremendous losses here.”
Over the past two decades, Prof. Jones said, he has watched seminar classes double or even triple in size and introductory courses swell from 50 to 200 students. He fears what further cuts will do to course offerings and the ability of the department to offer a full program.
Showing posts with label organizational behaviour. Show all posts
Showing posts with label organizational behaviour. Show all posts
Monday, July 27, 2009
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Culture of Concealment - Part 2
In the last post I gave several examples demonstrating the administrative penchant for obscuring unpleasant truths. What are the effects of decisions prompted by policies of parental appeasement, avoidance, and concealment? Beyond the immediate impact of eroding student discipline and respect for rules, which makes the school less safe for everyone, there are much more insidious consequences negatively affecting the educational experience: staff demoralization, cynicism, and, in the case of impressionable younger teachers, the sense that educational principles are fluid and changeable, which, in turn, adversely affects their own judgment and development as educators. One final example will help to illustrate this.
In a specific department I will not identify, the practice existed of having a fieldtrip for the culminating task, which accounts for a certain percentage of the final mark. In this particular instance, because the students had performed so badly in the accompanying activities, the department head changed the assignment’s criteria so that everyone got at least 80%. Consequently, the teachers of students who did not go on the fieldtrip were instructed to make sure that their culminating task was designed so that those students would also achieve a minimum of 80%. Whether this perversion of education principles occurred with the knowledge and consent of the administration I cannot say, but the very fact that it happened should not be surprising, given the kind of environment and mentality arising from the weak leadership I have described here.
It would be easy for readers to dismiss each of my illustrations as isolated and insignificant events, but the truth is that most teachers have similar or worse stories to tell, but are not free to speak about them. Although boards would vehemently deny it, the pervasive organization ethos is that making things difficult or embarrassing for ‘the bosses’ is to invite, at the very least, career stagnation, and at the very worst, retribution, even dismissal. As we were often told by our local federation, criticizing your employer is grounds for dismissal. The fact that I am retired is the only reason I can bring these matters to light, and the reality is that I have presented only a highly selective version of what transpires in schools today; because I have no desire to jeopardize the careers of teachers who are still working, and the fact that some of the administrative transgressions I know of are based only on reliable second hand accounts, I have omitted much.
Without doubt, whenever misdeeds are brought to light, senior administrators and board officials will, as they always have, utter platitudes designed to placate the public, while ignoring opportunities for substantive change. The culture of concealment will, in one form or another, continue unless two things happen:
• Whistle-blower protection for teachers is enacted to spare them the retribution that normally ensues when people dare to speak out
• Board trustees begin to take back some of the responsibility for the day to day operation of schools they have abdicated to administrators and bureaucrats, both of whom often have an agenda at odds with quality education.
Unless and until there is a real desire for improvement at the top, things will, I fear, continue to deteriorate in our schools.
In a specific department I will not identify, the practice existed of having a fieldtrip for the culminating task, which accounts for a certain percentage of the final mark. In this particular instance, because the students had performed so badly in the accompanying activities, the department head changed the assignment’s criteria so that everyone got at least 80%. Consequently, the teachers of students who did not go on the fieldtrip were instructed to make sure that their culminating task was designed so that those students would also achieve a minimum of 80%. Whether this perversion of education principles occurred with the knowledge and consent of the administration I cannot say, but the very fact that it happened should not be surprising, given the kind of environment and mentality arising from the weak leadership I have described here.
It would be easy for readers to dismiss each of my illustrations as isolated and insignificant events, but the truth is that most teachers have similar or worse stories to tell, but are not free to speak about them. Although boards would vehemently deny it, the pervasive organization ethos is that making things difficult or embarrassing for ‘the bosses’ is to invite, at the very least, career stagnation, and at the very worst, retribution, even dismissal. As we were often told by our local federation, criticizing your employer is grounds for dismissal. The fact that I am retired is the only reason I can bring these matters to light, and the reality is that I have presented only a highly selective version of what transpires in schools today; because I have no desire to jeopardize the careers of teachers who are still working, and the fact that some of the administrative transgressions I know of are based only on reliable second hand accounts, I have omitted much.
Without doubt, whenever misdeeds are brought to light, senior administrators and board officials will, as they always have, utter platitudes designed to placate the public, while ignoring opportunities for substantive change. The culture of concealment will, in one form or another, continue unless two things happen:
• Whistle-blower protection for teachers is enacted to spare them the retribution that normally ensues when people dare to speak out
• Board trustees begin to take back some of the responsibility for the day to day operation of schools they have abdicated to administrators and bureaucrats, both of whom often have an agenda at odds with quality education.
Unless and until there is a real desire for improvement at the top, things will, I fear, continue to deteriorate in our schools.
Monday, January 14, 2008
The Culture of Concealment Part 1
Thanks to the recent publication of the school safety panel report investigating violence in Toronto schools, the general public has received a rare glimpse into some unpleasant truths about contemporary secondary education. One of the newspaper headlines, ‘Fears of career suicide stopped educators from reporting violence,’ was followed by the revelation of a board–wide staff failure to report problems due to fears that revealing anything reflecting badly on the board would be “a career-limiting move.” Unfortunately, however, people living outside of Toronto have little reason to feel smug. This culture of concealment is widespread in public education today.
Although now retired, as a teacher for thirty years I witnessed my own share of questionable decisions and behaviour based more on political expedience than educational principle, and most seemed to spring from the almost pathological fear many administrators have of dealing with unhappy parents or having their schools look in any way less than perfect. Sadly, such a short-sighted philosophy incurs both immediate and long- term consequences. A few of my own experiences may help to illustrate.
Years ago I broke up a game of hackey sack in which one student was being physically assaulted by two others; after delivering them to the office with a full report, I was dismayed to later learn that no discipline had been meted out, as the physical abuse had “been part of the game.” When I insisted to the vice-principal that suspension was warranted, he protested that such action would require him “to answer some hard questions from the parents.”
For several years now, smoking has been banned on school property. It is the practice of bylaw officials to inform schools of the date they will be visiting for enforcement purposes. For a time at my school, however, when such a visit was pending, daily announcements were made warning the students that the ‘smoke police’ would soon be arriving. The common perception amongst staff was that these announcements were made to ensure that no student would receive a citation, thereby minimizing the chance of parental outrage.
A strategy of containment is at times practiced by wary administrators. On one occasion, a student who had urinated on the floor outside of the school’s photo developing lab was apprehended by a custodian. I subsequently learned that the perpetrator was ‘punished’ with a week of cafeteria clean-up duty, and when I complained that such an egregious violation of the school merited a suspension, I was shocked to learn that the offender’s parents hadn’t even been notified, as administrators were concerned that there might be “home issues.”
Bullying, despite board rhetoric about zero tolerance, is another problem compounded by administrative ineptitude. In one incident, a vice-principal told me I would be receiving a new student, three weeks into the semester, as she had been the victim of bullying in one of her classes. When I inquired as to why the administrator was victimizing her a second time by revamping her entire academic schedule instead of punishing the bullies, I was told that the identity of her tormentors was unknown. Two days later, I learned from a very reliable source that the administration did, in fact, know who they were.
Perhaps the worst example of administrative indifference to school safety occurred several years ago. A colleague was threatened with death by one of her students, which she immediately reported to the office. The student who made the threat was told that if he ever did it again, he would face suspension. The victim suffered tremendous psychological distress as a result of this event, and was off on a sick leave for a significant amount of time afterwards, fearful that the student would, in fact, carry out his threat.
In Part 2, I will discuss some of the effects of decisions prompted by policies of parental appeasement, avoidance, and concealment.
Although now retired, as a teacher for thirty years I witnessed my own share of questionable decisions and behaviour based more on political expedience than educational principle, and most seemed to spring from the almost pathological fear many administrators have of dealing with unhappy parents or having their schools look in any way less than perfect. Sadly, such a short-sighted philosophy incurs both immediate and long- term consequences. A few of my own experiences may help to illustrate.
Years ago I broke up a game of hackey sack in which one student was being physically assaulted by two others; after delivering them to the office with a full report, I was dismayed to later learn that no discipline had been meted out, as the physical abuse had “been part of the game.” When I insisted to the vice-principal that suspension was warranted, he protested that such action would require him “to answer some hard questions from the parents.”
For several years now, smoking has been banned on school property. It is the practice of bylaw officials to inform schools of the date they will be visiting for enforcement purposes. For a time at my school, however, when such a visit was pending, daily announcements were made warning the students that the ‘smoke police’ would soon be arriving. The common perception amongst staff was that these announcements were made to ensure that no student would receive a citation, thereby minimizing the chance of parental outrage.
A strategy of containment is at times practiced by wary administrators. On one occasion, a student who had urinated on the floor outside of the school’s photo developing lab was apprehended by a custodian. I subsequently learned that the perpetrator was ‘punished’ with a week of cafeteria clean-up duty, and when I complained that such an egregious violation of the school merited a suspension, I was shocked to learn that the offender’s parents hadn’t even been notified, as administrators were concerned that there might be “home issues.”
Bullying, despite board rhetoric about zero tolerance, is another problem compounded by administrative ineptitude. In one incident, a vice-principal told me I would be receiving a new student, three weeks into the semester, as she had been the victim of bullying in one of her classes. When I inquired as to why the administrator was victimizing her a second time by revamping her entire academic schedule instead of punishing the bullies, I was told that the identity of her tormentors was unknown. Two days later, I learned from a very reliable source that the administration did, in fact, know who they were.
Perhaps the worst example of administrative indifference to school safety occurred several years ago. A colleague was threatened with death by one of her students, which she immediately reported to the office. The student who made the threat was told that if he ever did it again, he would face suspension. The victim suffered tremendous psychological distress as a result of this event, and was off on a sick leave for a significant amount of time afterwards, fearful that the student would, in fact, carry out his threat.
In Part 2, I will discuss some of the effects of decisions prompted by policies of parental appeasement, avoidance, and concealment.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
The Leaders and the Led – Final Installment
For the last three posts, I have tried to demonstrate what I feel is the gulf that exists between the executive of organizations such as OSSTF and the general membership. Today I would like to discuss ways of narrowing that gap.
First, I think the most difficult thing for the executive to do is to acknowledge that this chasm exists.
Second, I think they need to work toward conquering the fear they seem to have of somehow losing control of the organization if ‘the great unwashed’ become more involved. Now critics of my thesis might claim that there is ample opportunity for involvement if people care to sit on district committees, etc. While this is true, I think we have to acknowledge the fact that people lead very busy lives today and while they might not have the time to commit to regular meetings and other obligations that attend committee work, they may still have something worthwhile to contribute to the organization. For example, a former colleague of mine, from whom I learned a great deal, is especially skilled at dealing with unreasonable parents. I know he would be willing to give a workshop on his techniques, but, not being part of the 'power structure,' I'm not sure his input would be welcomed by the executive.
Next, each local should do a needs survey of its membership. The one I discussed in the previous post was essentially designed to determine both the strengths and the weaknesses in the local unit, as well as solicit suggestions for constructive change that might lead people to want to become more involved. An addition might be asking people to list the email address that they use regularly, in order to keep in touch with the membership on a regular basis, asking their opinion on issues, etc.
Another suggestion is to divide the district into quadrants; each executive member with release time would be assigned a portion, his/her responsibility being to contact each new member, introduce her/himself, and personally extend an invitation to the annual new members’ night. This night could feature a light meal or wine and cheese, or beer and pretzels and something new: the provision of the historical context within which OSSTF operates. In other words, it would educate them about battles fought in the past that have been instrumental in achieving the benefits that teachers today enjoy. Some appropriately chosen video would help to provide this context. It would also be a good idea to have some retired teachers on hand to tell a few ‘battle stories.’ New teachers must be given the opportunity to understand that ‘management rights’ and ‘teachers’ rights’ need not be bases for conflict, but when conflict does occur, it is right and proper to turn to the federation for help and not simply try to placate ‘the boss.’
Well, those are a few of my observations and suggestions, and thus ends this series. I would love to hear what others have to say about this or any other issue related to education.
First, I think the most difficult thing for the executive to do is to acknowledge that this chasm exists.
Second, I think they need to work toward conquering the fear they seem to have of somehow losing control of the organization if ‘the great unwashed’ become more involved. Now critics of my thesis might claim that there is ample opportunity for involvement if people care to sit on district committees, etc. While this is true, I think we have to acknowledge the fact that people lead very busy lives today and while they might not have the time to commit to regular meetings and other obligations that attend committee work, they may still have something worthwhile to contribute to the organization. For example, a former colleague of mine, from whom I learned a great deal, is especially skilled at dealing with unreasonable parents. I know he would be willing to give a workshop on his techniques, but, not being part of the 'power structure,' I'm not sure his input would be welcomed by the executive.
Next, each local should do a needs survey of its membership. The one I discussed in the previous post was essentially designed to determine both the strengths and the weaknesses in the local unit, as well as solicit suggestions for constructive change that might lead people to want to become more involved. An addition might be asking people to list the email address that they use regularly, in order to keep in touch with the membership on a regular basis, asking their opinion on issues, etc.
Another suggestion is to divide the district into quadrants; each executive member with release time would be assigned a portion, his/her responsibility being to contact each new member, introduce her/himself, and personally extend an invitation to the annual new members’ night. This night could feature a light meal or wine and cheese, or beer and pretzels and something new: the provision of the historical context within which OSSTF operates. In other words, it would educate them about battles fought in the past that have been instrumental in achieving the benefits that teachers today enjoy. Some appropriately chosen video would help to provide this context. It would also be a good idea to have some retired teachers on hand to tell a few ‘battle stories.’ New teachers must be given the opportunity to understand that ‘management rights’ and ‘teachers’ rights’ need not be bases for conflict, but when conflict does occur, it is right and proper to turn to the federation for help and not simply try to placate ‘the boss.’
Well, those are a few of my observations and suggestions, and thus ends this series. I would love to hear what others have to say about this or any other issue related to education.
Monday, September 17, 2007
The Leaders and the Led – Part 3
Continuing with my theme of the gulf that often exists between the executive and rank and file members of organizations, I would like in a moment to discuss a personal experience that illustrates this problem. First, however, I should emphasize my belief that it is not enough to provide good service to the members; if the organization is to truly thrive, it must always have an eye toward the future, when a new generation will have to assume the executive positions. In my view, the only way to do that is to make the members feel welcome, to take seriously their suggestions and input, and to continuously demonstrate to them the importance of the organization. Unfortunately, often the ensconced upper echelon pays little heed to the membership, assuming that securing a reasonable contract is all that anyone expects, along with good representation in grievance matters.
A few years back, at the local Annual General Meeting, we had a large turnout of young teachers. Unfortunately, I suspect they left singularly unimpressed by the proceedings. The constitution is such that one can only ask questions of the executive that pertain to the various tabled reports included in the program. For example, any questions to the Vice President had to pertain to his report. Many people were turned away at the microphones because their questions were broader in nature. Later I proposed an amendment so that a fixed time could be allotted for more general questions. The former President, a retired teacher who continues to work under term contracts, spoke against the motion, and voting was postponed until after our dinner, by which time many of the young ones had left. My proposal was defeated, but as I made clear to the executive, I thought that they had squandered a real opportunity to get the newer teachers more involved in the Federation by making them feel valued for their input.
Near the end of my career, I took it upon myself to send out a survey to a large number of teachers with the board, trying to ascertain the things that they liked about how the local was operating, and areas where they thought things might be improved upon. Within two days, the President and Chief Negotiator paid me a visit, wanting to know why I was doing this, what I was upset about. I tried to explain that even though I had very much appreciated the support I had received during a grievance, I felt that more outreach was needed in order to involve people more and to demonstrate the vital nature of the Federation. Needless to say, the meeting did not go well, as we wound up shouting at each other, etc. I maintain to this day, as I told them, that they take everything too personally, and should welcome the activism of people outside the inner circle.
In my next post, I’ll offer a few suggestions as to how greater member involvement might be achieved.
A few years back, at the local Annual General Meeting, we had a large turnout of young teachers. Unfortunately, I suspect they left singularly unimpressed by the proceedings. The constitution is such that one can only ask questions of the executive that pertain to the various tabled reports included in the program. For example, any questions to the Vice President had to pertain to his report. Many people were turned away at the microphones because their questions were broader in nature. Later I proposed an amendment so that a fixed time could be allotted for more general questions. The former President, a retired teacher who continues to work under term contracts, spoke against the motion, and voting was postponed until after our dinner, by which time many of the young ones had left. My proposal was defeated, but as I made clear to the executive, I thought that they had squandered a real opportunity to get the newer teachers more involved in the Federation by making them feel valued for their input.
Near the end of my career, I took it upon myself to send out a survey to a large number of teachers with the board, trying to ascertain the things that they liked about how the local was operating, and areas where they thought things might be improved upon. Within two days, the President and Chief Negotiator paid me a visit, wanting to know why I was doing this, what I was upset about. I tried to explain that even though I had very much appreciated the support I had received during a grievance, I felt that more outreach was needed in order to involve people more and to demonstrate the vital nature of the Federation. Needless to say, the meeting did not go well, as we wound up shouting at each other, etc. I maintain to this day, as I told them, that they take everything too personally, and should welcome the activism of people outside the inner circle.
In my next post, I’ll offer a few suggestions as to how greater member involvement might be achieved.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
The Leaders and The Led – Part 2
The other day I wrote about what I perceive to be the chasm that exists between the executive and the general membership of organizations such as the Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation (OSSTF). Before continuing, I want to make it clear that I am a firm supporter of unions and federations, and believe that the people they represent would be in far less desirable positions than they are today if they did not exist. My concern, however, is that if the current divide continues, the long term survival of such entities is in jeopardy.
Today, during a time of increasing conservatism, many of the people best served by their organizations have attained a degree of affluence that, paradoxically, seems to be leading them to adopt a more conservative mentality. How many times, for example, have we heard people who should know better say, “Well, there was a time when unions served a purpose, but that time is over. We really don’t need them anymore.” Whether the speakers are teachers or tradespersons, the irony is that they would not be in a position to make such statements were it not for the success achieved by their bargaining units. They seem to forget that the salaries and benefits enjoyed did not arise out of the magnanimity of the employer, but were the result of often hard-fought battles. I can remember many times during the last few years of my career hearing young teachers utter such anti-union sentiments, some going so far as to say they resented ‘being held back’ by the federation. Few seemed to understand that even though they might be management’s ‘pet of the month’, the vagaries of administration are such that circumstances can change quickly, and falling out of favour can carry with it consequences that, without the protection of a federation, can be rather severe. The notion of individual ‘rights’ over the well-being of the collective is indeed a worrisome trend.
From my perspective, the best way to combat this is to make the membership feel like a valued and essential part of the organization. While it may seem that I am stating the obvious here, unfortunately, there is an attitude amongst the upper echelon that they have nothing to learn from the rank and file. In my own experience, the executive is often either condescending or defensive when advice is given by someone outside the power structure of either the executive or a federation committee. Indeed, they can get downright hostile if a member shows some initiative in trying to effect some changes in thinking. I’ll discuss my personal experience with this in my next post.
Today, during a time of increasing conservatism, many of the people best served by their organizations have attained a degree of affluence that, paradoxically, seems to be leading them to adopt a more conservative mentality. How many times, for example, have we heard people who should know better say, “Well, there was a time when unions served a purpose, but that time is over. We really don’t need them anymore.” Whether the speakers are teachers or tradespersons, the irony is that they would not be in a position to make such statements were it not for the success achieved by their bargaining units. They seem to forget that the salaries and benefits enjoyed did not arise out of the magnanimity of the employer, but were the result of often hard-fought battles. I can remember many times during the last few years of my career hearing young teachers utter such anti-union sentiments, some going so far as to say they resented ‘being held back’ by the federation. Few seemed to understand that even though they might be management’s ‘pet of the month’, the vagaries of administration are such that circumstances can change quickly, and falling out of favour can carry with it consequences that, without the protection of a federation, can be rather severe. The notion of individual ‘rights’ over the well-being of the collective is indeed a worrisome trend.
From my perspective, the best way to combat this is to make the membership feel like a valued and essential part of the organization. While it may seem that I am stating the obvious here, unfortunately, there is an attitude amongst the upper echelon that they have nothing to learn from the rank and file. In my own experience, the executive is often either condescending or defensive when advice is given by someone outside the power structure of either the executive or a federation committee. Indeed, they can get downright hostile if a member shows some initiative in trying to effect some changes in thinking. I’ll discuss my personal experience with this in my next post.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
The Leaders and The Led
The year was 1997. There were five of us left on the bus, returning from a protest against Bill 160, education legislation that teachers opposed for a variety of reasons. Present were the local OSSTF president, the treasurer, and the vice-president, me, and a fellow teacher. The president turned and said, “Do you guys want to go for a beer?” There was only one thing wrong with the invitation – it was made to the executive, but not to we remaining two teachers, even though I knew the executive well.
That same year, a member from the provincial executive addressed about 500 teachers at a meeting convened at my school, to determine the next step in our escalating protest against the Mike Harris government’s assault on education in Ontario. The possibilities ranged from a strike to a mass resignation. When the time came for questions and comments from the attendees, I went to the microphone and said the following:
“I’ll do anything you folks want. If you tell us to strike, I will. If you tell us to submit our resignations, I will. But the problem is, you people ignore us until you need us. Then you are here holding meetings, rallies, etc. The provincial executive has to cultivate the membership much more effectively than they have been.”
To illustrate my point about provincial aloofness, I relayed how at one time I could go to the Federation website to obtain the email addresses of everyone, from the President on down, in order to send them my thoughts. I told them that now, all one could get was a general email address, feedback@osstf.on.ca. The response of the guest was that he would make sure the problem was rectified as soon as he got back to Toronto. Ten years later, I am still awaiting that rectification.
Again in 1997, I had occasion to speak to Earl Manners, at the time President of the Federation, when he was in town for a function. I asked him how OSSTF planned to harness and channel the deep anger teachers felt over the ill-advised actions of the provincial government. He told me they were planning to put up a series of billboard ads. I guess he didn’t understand the true nature of my question.
Occasionally, a member of the local executive would join us for a beer after school on Fridays. All was well and convivial until a member of the provincial executive would come in. It was invariably at this point that the local executive member would leave our table and go off to another table with his provincial counterpart for a ‘private consultation.’ Not only was this bad manners, it was also bad politics.
What does each of the above situations demonstrate? First and foremost, they amply show the chasm that exists between the leaders and the led,” the washed” and “the great unwashed.” In my view, it is this gulf that will ultimately threaten the long-term viability of organizations such as OSSTF. In my next post, I will discuss why I believe this.
That same year, a member from the provincial executive addressed about 500 teachers at a meeting convened at my school, to determine the next step in our escalating protest against the Mike Harris government’s assault on education in Ontario. The possibilities ranged from a strike to a mass resignation. When the time came for questions and comments from the attendees, I went to the microphone and said the following:
“I’ll do anything you folks want. If you tell us to strike, I will. If you tell us to submit our resignations, I will. But the problem is, you people ignore us until you need us. Then you are here holding meetings, rallies, etc. The provincial executive has to cultivate the membership much more effectively than they have been.”
To illustrate my point about provincial aloofness, I relayed how at one time I could go to the Federation website to obtain the email addresses of everyone, from the President on down, in order to send them my thoughts. I told them that now, all one could get was a general email address, feedback@osstf.on.ca. The response of the guest was that he would make sure the problem was rectified as soon as he got back to Toronto. Ten years later, I am still awaiting that rectification.
Again in 1997, I had occasion to speak to Earl Manners, at the time President of the Federation, when he was in town for a function. I asked him how OSSTF planned to harness and channel the deep anger teachers felt over the ill-advised actions of the provincial government. He told me they were planning to put up a series of billboard ads. I guess he didn’t understand the true nature of my question.
Occasionally, a member of the local executive would join us for a beer after school on Fridays. All was well and convivial until a member of the provincial executive would come in. It was invariably at this point that the local executive member would leave our table and go off to another table with his provincial counterpart for a ‘private consultation.’ Not only was this bad manners, it was also bad politics.
What does each of the above situations demonstrate? First and foremost, they amply show the chasm that exists between the leaders and the led,” the washed” and “the great unwashed.” In my view, it is this gulf that will ultimately threaten the long-term viability of organizations such as OSSTF. In my next post, I will discuss why I believe this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
