Photo by Sarah James/ The Phoenix News
On December 17, the UBCO Senate voted to continue the Elementary Teaching Education Program for the 2016 season and enact much needed changes as of 2017.
The controversy surrounding the university’s decision to pause the program for 2016 in order to enact changes was prominent. Local media outlets, such as Castanet, and social media outlets were involved in protesting this pause. Yet, despite this attention, questions remain. The Phoenix approached the University to have these questions answered.
- In choosing to enact changes to the ETEP program the University has recognized that the current program is inadequate in preparing Students for teaching in BC. Yet, the Senate’s decision means that students will still be graduating from this program. Despite its broken state, will these graduates be offered teaching careers after finishing the program?
While UBC Okanagan’s education program is well respected, the university is expected to revisit its programs to ensure that it remains competitive and its graduates highly employable.
As a result, the Senate’s recent decision to postpone the suspension of the elementary programming to 2017 (which was moved from the original target of 2016 at the request of the faculty of education), professors and staff will need to take on a heavier workload in the 2017/18 academic year…
Students who graduate from the programs that begin in 2016 will indeed be recognized as qualified teachers and be eligible to apply for available job opportunities advertised in school districts.
- If graduates of the current system will be offered these teaching opportunities, why did the University intend to pause the program in the first place? Was the pause required in order to most efficiently or effectively enact these changes? If so, what will the consequences of the Senate’s decision be?
New education programming will see both existing programs (elementary and secondary streams) combined and the curriculum renewed. As the creation and instruction of the new curriculum anticipates using the same number of resources (professors and staff) as teaching the two separate streams, it was felt that beginning the new program when both existing streams had a common end date (both the two year elementary program and the one year secondary program are scheduled to end in the 2016/17 year) would provide a more seamless transition.
It is this recognition in combination with student requests that more time for transition be given that the faculty asked senate to postpone the intake suspension for elementary programming from September 2016 to September 2017.
As a result of the Senate’s recent decision to postpone the suspension of the elementary programming to 2017 (which was moved from the original target of 2016 at the request of the faculty of education), professors and staff will need to take on a heavier workload in the 2017/18 academic year as the first year of the new program and the second year of the final elementary program will run in tandem.
- It seems to have been well understood that the program was going to be changed. However, students claim academic advisers assured them that there would be a 2016 program. Did the administration change their minds or were the academic advisers misinformed? Or is there another explanation?
While the faculty started giving notice that changes were coming to education programming in 2014, it is clear that Education could, and should, have done a better job of communicating the change process and what students should have expected. It is with this recognition, in combination with student requests that more time for transition be given, that the faculty asked the Senate to postpone the intake suspension for elementary programming from September 2016 to September 2017.
It is clear that more Education could and should have done a better job of communicating the change process and what students should have expected.
Summary (in my words)
While it was certainly unfair for the university to abruptly pause the ETEP program for 2016, it would seem that there was a valid reason for the pause. Enacting reformation while simultaneously continuing with the current program, as the Senate has ruled, will place a heavier workload on staff and professors. As such, one might argue that it will impede and limit such reform. Thus, while the Senate’s decision seems to find an advantageous middle ground, it has the potential to limit further growth of the educational program. We must ask ourselves whether this short-term compromise is worth the long-term risk. Yes, the University is responsible for fulfilling its promises, yet surely it is also responsible for providing adequate and sufficient education. Thus, the controversy surrounding the ETEP program points to a much more poignant question: does the University prioritize quality or quantity?