Violence in Ontario Schools

Violence in the classroom is emerging as a significant issue for teachers’ working conditions and students’ learning conditions.

In the United States, a national survey of 2998 teachers from 48 states noted that 80% of teachers reported at least one incidence of violence with 94% of respondents stating students as the source (McMahon, Martinez, Espelage, Rose, Reddy, Lane, & Brown, 2014). In another US study, 2324 teachers reported at least one occurrence of student generated violence against teachers. These incidences where not consistently reported even with teachers experiencing multiple occurrences. This was especially significant when there was a lack of administrative support (Martinez, McMhan, Espelage, Anderman, Reddy & Sabchez, 2016). Several authors noted an increase in students’ aggressive behaviour shifting to ever lower age brackets including those students in Kindergarten (Emmerová, 2014; Kirves & Sajaniemi, 2012).

Emerging Trends in the Media

The media has also highlighted the emerging trend of increases in students’ aggressive behaviour. In February of 2019, CBC Radio’s The Sunday Edition posted a commentary, “I felt helpless”: Teachers call for support amid escalating crisis’ of classroom violence, summarizing a teacher’s reluctance to report violence in schools over “fear of repercussions”. Sherri Brown, director of research and professional learning at the Canadian Teachers’ Federation (CTF), described the current state as an “escalating crisis” and also noted that much violence in the classroom goes under reported.

In 2018, a national organization compiled the results of a survey conducted by Elementary Teachers Federation (ETFO) showing that of its 81,000 members, 70% of elementary teachers reported experiencing or witnessing violence at their school workplace during the 2016-17 school year. In addition, the survey results noted that 80% of ETFO members noticed an increase in school based violence and 75% of ETFO members reported school based violence becoming more severe.

The People for Education’s Annual Report (2017) stated that principals reported significant increases in students’ mental health needs and behavioural issues. Principals stated that mental health issues were taking an increasing amount of their time and that schools had inadequate levels of support from social workers, psychologists, and guidance counsellors. The report went further highlighting that “in 2017, 47% of Ontario elementary schools reported having no access to child and youth workers, 15% did not have access to social workers, and 13% did not have access to psychologists.” People for Education also addressed the increased importance of social and emotional development for students which included self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, interpersonal relations, and decision making.

At this point, I’ll state my concerns about the response of Ontario school boards in advocating for students using self-regulation and mindfulness strategies in order to address the increases in behavioural needs. Self-regulation and mindfulness strategies do help some students develop their social and emotional capacity but self-regulation and mindfulness strategies do not compensate for the myriad of causes and complex intersectionality of environmental, developmental, intellectual, social, emotional, economic, and mental health needs that may be at the root of students’ behavioural outcomes. Students’ behaviour needs have complex and multi-causal roots. Using mindfulness strategies as a treatment to these significant student behavioural issues is like putting a bandage on a gushing wound.

Violence against teachers significantly impacts classroom and school cultures. When students become verbally or physically aggressive against their teachers, this creates an unsafe environment for learning. A teacher’s job is not just to teach students, their job is to also keep their students safe. When the teacher, who is the adult that keeps students safe, is dealing with aggressive student behaviour, the other students do not feel safe. Further, aggressive behaviour interrupts learning and wastes valuable classroom time.

When dealing with aggressive behaviour, teachers have many options. Often teachers ignore aggressive behaviour to disengage the offending student. The next step in disarming student behaviour includes removing the student from the classroom, contacting administrators, and contacting parents. Even with these steps, students often continue with their behaviour. Parents may or may not engage teachers in their outreach for support. Based on personal experience, when parents hold their children accountable, student behaviour often improves. But when parents do not hold their children accountable and blame the teacher for the behaviour, students often continue forward, sometimes escalating in their actions. When aggressive behaviour significantly escalates, teachers must act to protect their students and themselves from harm.

Disciplinary actions are often a result of continuous issues with students’ behaviour and are administered by school principals. Here, progressive discipline comes into play. The approach of progressive discipline is to provide a continuum of interventions, supports, and consequences that are clear and developmentally appropriate in order to reinforce positive behaviours and help students succeed in school. Interventions include verbal reminders, contact with parents, withdrawal of privileges, referral to counselling, and possible suspension and/or expulsion. Within the context of disciplinary actions, the student’s Individual Education Plan (IEP) is also considered. As part of the student’s IEP a Safety Plan and a Positive Behaviour Intervention Plan (PBIP) may also be in place.

There is a list of activities that can lead to suspension which include uttering threats of bodily harm on another person, swearing at a teacher or a person of authority, bullying/cyberbullying and any other activities identified in school boards’ policies (i.e. Safe Schools). Principals must consider a number of factors before deciding upon a suspension including students’ age, cognitive ability, social/emotional history, special education needs, and ongoing education.

The challenge with progressive discipline is that students’ circumstances may dictate no suspension and instead initiate a need for increased student support. The challenge with obtaining increased support for students with behaviour needs is that there is inadequate funding to provide this support. Without support to deal with significant aggressive behaviour, students return to their classrooms and the teachers must deal with future aggressive behaviours (see Suspension and Expulsion: What parents need to know.)

Violence tends to be underreported in schools for many reasons including a lack of adequate reporting venues, a lack of time to complete requirements for reporting, a fear of reprisals from administration, and a lack of understanding of the seriousness of  the behaviour upon which it should have been documented before it escalated  (one in which I have been complicit).

Putting Students’ Aggressive Behaviour into Real Life Context.

In the late spring of 2019, the Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers Inc. (OHCOW) conducted a survey to measure the psychosocial factors of elementary teacher members in Ontario. This survey was based on the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire which was developed as part of a survey of the psychosocial work environment among Danish employees. Specifically, this survey used the COPSOQ II (Short) and COPSOQ III (Core) surveys with additional survey questions from the Mental Injury Tool (MIT) Group 2017 edition. Various versions of the COPSOQ survey have been translated into many different languages and are used to measure psychosocial factors in workplaces around the world. The survey participants were members of an ETFO teacher local.

Although the survey results are not a direct representation of the population of all members, it can be used to the gage working conditions in this ETFO teacher local. A total of 496 participants accessed the survey and 396 participants completed the survey. This accounts for an approximate response of 6% of the member population for this local. This sample of ETFO members had a variety of teaching assignments including approximately 33% Primary/Kindergarten, 15% Junior, 12% Intermediate, and 12% Physical Education/Health in participant identification. The majority of teacher participants had 16 to 20 years of experience (28%) followed by 24% of participants with 11 to 15 years, 23% over 20 years, and 19% with 6 to 10 years of experience. Over 85% of the survey participants identified as a woman which is slightly over the 81% of ETFO members who identify as a woman. The majority of participants (96%) worked full time.

In addressing issues regarding offensive behaviour, the participants indicated:

  • 47% experienced threats of violence from students
  • 48% experienced physical violence from students
  • 17% experienced bullying from students
  • 10% experienced discrimination from students
  • 86% experienced any offensive behaviour overall

Survey participants showed high levels of burnout with 69% indicating much worse than average Canadian workers as represented by feeling worn out, physically /emotionally exhausted, and tired.  Survey participants expressed significant signs of stress, irritability, problems relaxing, and feeling tense with 57% indicating much worse than average Canadian workers. Participants indicated challenges with sleeping (46% much worse), somatic symptoms to stress and anxiety (40% much worse), and  cognitive/concentration issues (46% much worse).

In measuring workplace their Psychological Health and Safety climate, participants indicated it was not so good (25%), poor (21%), or toxic (13%). Further, participants agreed (37%) or strongly agreed (28%) that their board’s organizational culture tolerated behaviours harmful to mental health. Participants disagreed (38%) or strongly disagreed (25%) that their board had enough resources and disagreed (43%) or strongly disagreed (36%) that there was adequate staffing. A total of 44% of participants never or hardly ever felt comfortable discussing workload issues with their immediate supervisor. Finally, when asked about the effectiveness of their board’s violence and harassment policies, 42% disagreed or strongly disagreed that these policies were effective.

In this survey, it is not surprising that these teachers were experiencing signs of stress and burnout – given that the participants showed that they were dealing with significant levels of students’ offensive behaviour in a climate with poor psychological health and safety supports. This paints a picture of teachers’ poor working conditions as they were dealing with inadequate resources and staffing to support teachers. And I posit that poor working conditions for teachers result in poor learning conditions for students.

Under the Workplace violence under the Occupational Health and Safety Act workplace violence is clearly outlined. Further, the Workplace violence in school boards: A guide to the law outlines specifics on how to deal with violence in schools.

Teachers should not have to deal with workplace violence issues as part of their job. But it is becoming a commonplace occurrence in Ontario classrooms. In the 2018/2019 school year, I personally experienced being bitten, being repeatedly kicked while protecting another student, had items thrown at me, being sworn at, had my personal property damaged and destroyed, and being threatened with being stabbed and killed with a knife. All of this behaviour came from students who were in the primary grades.

I write this blog because I care deeply about the impact violence in schools has on teachers teaching and students learning. I understand what it is like to experience violence from students as I have personal stories to tell.

Below I’ve noted some excellent downloadable resources provided by the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario which may help teachers, like me, deal with violence in their classrooms – I have the poster in my classroom.

As always, Collaboratively Yours,

Dr. Deb Weston, PhD

ETFO Action on Violence in Schools Print Resources

  • A Glossary of Workplace Violence Definitions for ETFO Members
  • Brochure – ETFO Action on Violence in Schools
  • Poster/Wallet Card –  ETFO Action on Violence in Schools

ETFO Action on Violence in Schools Video Resource

ETFO Flowchart for Reporting Workplace Violence and Serious Student Incidents

References

Emmerová, I. (2014). Aggressive Behaviour of Pupils against Teachers – Theoretical Reflection and School Practice. The New Educational Review, Vol. 35. No. 2, pp. 147–156.

Kirves, L., & Sajaniemi, N. (2012). Bullying in early educational settings. Early Child Development and Care182(3-4), 383-400.

McMahon, S. D., Martinez, A., Espelage, D., Rose, C., Reddy, L. A., Lane, K., & Brown, V. (2014). Violence directed against teachers: Results from a national survey. Psychology in the Schools, 51(7), 753-766.

What is the Rand Formula and why it matters to teachers?

The Rand Formula provides legislation that all members of trade unions must pay union dues regardless of the worker’s status.

The Rand Formula was established by Supreme Court of Canada Justice Ivan Rand which was introduced in 1946 as a result of the Ford Strike of 1945 in Windsor, Canada. The Rand Formula is also referred to automatic check-off or compulsory check-off meaning that in provinces where the Rand Formula is not mandatory, an automatic check-off of union dues may become part of the collective bargaining agreement if the employer and the trade union agree.

Union dues to be deducted

This means that collective agreements include  “a provision requiring the employer to deduct from the wages of each employee in the unit affected by the collective agreement, whether or not the employee is a member of the union” and that this amount will be forwarded to the union.

Religious objections

If an employee has objections to this due to “their religious conviction or beliefs, objects to joining a trade union or to paying regular union dues to a trade union”the employee and/or their Board can, directly or through a deduction from their wages, send the equivalent funds to a registered charity.

Purpose of the Rand Formula

The purpose of the Rand Formula is to establish the legality of automatically collecting dues from trade union members covered by collective agreements. This means that workers in a trade union cannot benefit from the activities and protections of their union if they choose not to pay mandatory union dues. Even when members choose not to participate in their union or are not a registered member of their collective bargaining workforce, the worker still must pay union dues.

Why do teachers pay union dues?

In Canada unions are formed when the majority of workers in a workplace vote to become unionized. Once a union is established, members gain the benefits and wages negotiated by their union through the collective bargaining process, their professional advocacy for working conditions, and with professional representation.

Unions have a legal duty to represent their members and be accountable on how these member dues are dispersed. Union dues are democratically set by the members of the union who, in turn, receive the benefits of belonging to this union. Union dues are used to fund the cost of collective bargaining, to fund the cost of enforcing the collective agreement, and to fund the cost of campaigns union members instruct their union to support. Union dues are also used to defend workers in a workplace grievance as investigations and/or arbitration can be very costly. Further, if a union strike or lockout were to occur, members receive strike pay.

Can workers dispute paying union dues?

Legal Challenge: Freedom of Association (Lavigne vs Ontario Public Service Employees Union)

In 1991, Francis Lavigne, an Ontario community college teacher, complained that the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) was not using their union’s dues for purposes in which he agreed. Lavigne was not a member of OPSEU but was required to pay dues as per the Rand Formula and stated it violated his rights of freedom of expression in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (section 2b).

The Supreme Court ruled that there was no violation of Lavigne’s Charter rights (Lavigne, 1991) as the use of the union dues did have an expressive content but the payments of these union dues did not imply any support of union causes and did not prevent union members from expressing their own personal views. So there was no violation of the freedom of expression under the Charter and union dues were to be continued to be paid under the Rand Formula.

Connecting the Rand Formula to Teachers’ Real Lives

Teaching is a very public profession. Even when teachers are not teaching, they are held to high ethical standards. At or away from school, teachers’ choices and behaviour can impact their employment. Regardless of how professional teachers conduct themselves, they are always at risk of adverse complaints. When belonging to a union, teacher members receive the union support and resources they need to defend themselves in the case of an adverse allegation. Due to their professional and public vulnerability in their roles, teachers need this support in order to do their jobs. When political parties put pressure on governments to abstain from the Rand Formula, this puts teachers at great risk by impacting their collective bargaining rights and privileges.

Imagine being in fear of being fired when a student complains to a parent about an assessment or an adverse statement supposedly made in class. It’s happened to me many times and my administration and my union were there to back me up. My board respects the role of all their member unions, not just those belonging to the teachers’ unions (ETFO & OSSTF). It is in following the collective agreements that boards of education and their teachers can make student success a reality.

In solidarity and collaboration,

Dr. Deb Weston, PhD

 Why Collective Bargaining Matters to Teachers

CUPE Fact Sheet: Union dues and the Rand Formula

 Additional Resources

Advance Cutting & Coring (2001): The Supreme Court upheld mandatory union membership in the Quebec construction industry. R. v. Advance Cutting & Coring Ltd., 2001 SCC 70, (2001) 3 S.C.R. 209

B.C. Health Services (2007): The Supreme Court recognized collective bargaining as a constitutional right under the freedom of association guarantees. Health Services and Support – Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. British Columbia, (2007) 2 S.C.R. 391, 2007 SCC 27

Lavigne (1991): The Supreme Court upheld mandatory dues. Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, (1991) 2 S.C.R. 211

 

Evaluating e-learning

Comp-44

Like many things in our lives, using technology to learn online does not seem out of place. In business and in education, adults take courses online to upgrade their skills and knowledge. Indeed, online e-learning for Additional Teacher Qualifications is a thriving business.

In March 2019, the Ontario government announced that high school students would be required to take four online course credits (4 out of 30 credits) as part of their high school course requirement to graduate (Government of Ontario, 2019). Before the change, school boards managed and delivered their own online courses and enrollment criteria. The boards paid a fee of about $773 per student to take online courses provided by organizations such as TV Ontario or other Ontario school boards (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2018). The Ontario government states it will centralize the delivery of high school e-learning courses (Naylor, 2019).

In order for across the province high school e-learning to be successful, the infrastructure needs to be firmly and consistently in place. This means that all high school students need to have access to technology in order to complete online course work. Access to technology means access to the hardware of computers/devices and reliable high speed Internet.

Use of technology

In their report, Connecting to success; Technology in Ontario Schools, People for Education site that currently 97% of elementary schools and 100% of secondary schools report at least some teachers using technology to communicate with students (People for Education, 2019). In addition 33% of elementary schools (i.e., grades K to 6), 40% of middle schools (i.e.. grades 7 & 8), and 66% of secondary schools (i.e., grades 9 to 12) encourage students to bring their technology/device (i.e. BYOD – Bring Your Own Device Peel District School Board, n.d.) to school every day (People for Education, 2019).

Access to devises

For access to computers and devices, students living in high income areas will likely have this opportunity as 85% of elementary schools in high-income neighbourhoods fundraise for technology (People for Education, 2019). For students living in low-income neighbourhoods, only 54% of elementary schools fundraise for technology (People for Education, 2019). Challenges also occur in schools as technology hubs are usually facilitated by librarians. In 1998, elementary schools had at least one full-time or part-time librarian. In 2019, this number dropped to 54% of schools with librarians (People for Education, 2019). Access to technology in elementary schools develops skills in using computers and interacting with online interfaces. Cutting funding for teacher librarians cuts students’ access to technology.

Access to Internet

If students live in or near cities, these requirements will likely be fulfilled (although I have personally had trouble with my own Internet access while living within 25 km of a major city).  If students live in rural areas or in remote areas, it can be a challenge to get high speed Internet. Internet challenges in these areas include reliable access and adequate speed. Internet can also be significantly more expensive to access in rural and/or remote areas as Internet lines, cables, fiber optics, over-the-air, and phone lines may not be in place.

Lack of research to support e-learning efficacy

The idea of e-learning holds great promise, especially given that its business model advocates greater personalized student achievement with less cost. The lower costs for instructional personnel and facilities are not supported by peer-reviewed research.

The National Education Policy Center (NEPC) at the University of Colorado at Boulder published a report Virtual Schools in the U.S. 2019 suggested that there should be a moratorium on virtual education (Molnar, Miron, Elgeberi, Barbour, Huerta, Rankin Shafer, & King Rice, 2019). The report looked at the efficacy of full-time virtual and blended schools. The NEPC Virtual Schools report stated that there is little or no pedagogical evidence justifying the benefit of e-learning model or to the empowerment of student learning (Molnar et. al., 2019).

Inequity for at risk, low-income, and racialized students

Many students are not prepared for the demands of online learning as they lack the learning skills and persistence needed to complete e-learning course work. With face to face teacher support, students who are at risk have greater success in learning and completing in-person courses (Bettinger & Loeb, 2017). The NEPC Virtual Schools report also noted that fewer low-income and racialized students were enrolled in e-learning (Molnar et. al., 2019).

Lower on-time high school graduation rates

The NEPC Virtual Schools report found that the overall US 84% on-time high school graduation rates were significantly lower for virtual schools at 50.1 % and for blended schools at 61.5% (Molnar et. al., 2019). The elearning business model may cite efficiency in performance but the graduation rate numbers do not perform as well as traditional high schools.

Challenges with instructional quality and sustaining qualified teachers

The NEPC Virtual Schools report also found that there were challenges with instructional quality and sustaining highly qualified teachers in e-learning (Molnar et. al., 2019).

Linking the research to the real world

While researching this blog, I spoke to a number of teachers who have experience teaching high school courses online. The teachers agreed upon their concerns about student success and their own working conditions.

The teachers cited up to 36 students in their online courses with at least half of the students dropping out before the course end date. The teachers also stated that they could be teaching multiple subjects at the same time (e.g., teaching grade 11 Media Arts and Grade 11 & 12 Computer Science).

The teachers noted that the majority of students struggled with self discipline and completing work in a timely manner. There were many concerns about plagiarism and confirming that student work was actually being done by the student and not another person like a parent, peer, or sibling (i.e., concerns about students cheating).

Teachers faced challenging working conditions as there was an expectation that teachers were available at all times even though they were only being paid for 10 hours a week. Poor working conditions for teachers mean poor learning conditions for students. Maybe this is why the NEPC report cited e-learning having challenges in sustaining highly qualified teachers?

Finally, one online teacher wondered if there was a challenge with the pedagogy of the e-learning courses as the courses focused on curriculum and lacked the creative components, collaboration, and contextual problem solving in face to face course work.

The summary of high school e-learning challenges:

  1. Lack of access to technology for all students
  2. Lack of access to reliable Internet for all students
  3. Lack of peer-reviewed research to support e-learning claims of efficacy
  4. Lower graduation rates as compared to traditional learning
  5. Lack of inclusion and equity for low income, at risk, and racialized students
  6. Sustainability of highly qualified teachers
  7. Potential of poor working conditions for teachers
  8. Cost-benefit models show poor e-learning outcomes as an insolvent educational policy

The human factor of learning

Finally, there is the human factor to consider in education. I have always believed that school is not just about curriculum, it is about being with people. Teachers do not just teach curriculum, they also motivate students and help students discover who they are as learners. We all have stories to tell about how teachers changed our lives and inspired us to go further and to not give up when learning gets hard.

School is also about learning to play and collaborate with other students.  School is about making friends.

As I was researching for this blog, I had a Twitter comment from a parent in the US. The mother stated that her daughter, in Grade 5, was going to school only 2.5 days a week and doing the rest of her learning online. The mother stated that the child had fewer friends at school and was making most of her friends through extracurricular activities. The mother further stated that she had less time to work as her daughter was now at home instead of at school.

For my last comment I state that it is particularly sad when business models forget about the human impact e-learning can have on making friends at school.

Collaboratively Yours,

Dr. Deb Weston, PhD

References

Bettinger, E., & Loeb, S. (2017). Promises and pitfalls of online education. Economic Studies at Brookings Evidence Speaks Reports, 2(15), 1-4. Accessed at https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ccf_20170609_loeb_evidence_speaks1.pdf

Government of Ontario. (2019, March 15). Education that works for you – Modernizing classrooms. Newsroom. Accessed at https://news.ontario.ca/edu/en/2019/03/education-that-works-for-you-2.html

Molnar, A., Miron, G., Elgeberi, N., Barbour, M.K., Huerta, L., Rankin Shafer, S., & King Rice, J., (2019). Virtual Schools in the U.S. 2019,  National Education Policy Center (NEPC), Boulder: University of Colorado. Accessed at https://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/virtual-schools-annual-2019

Naylor, N. (2019, March 15). New Vision for Education (Memorandum to Directors of Education, Secretary/Treasurers of School Authorities). Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Education. Accessed at https://efis.fma.csc.gov.on.ca/faab/Memos/B2019/B08_EN.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2018). E-Learning Ontario: Provincial Funding and Fees. Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Education. Accessed at http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/elearning/funding.html

Peel District School Board. (n.d.). Bring Your Own Device: How Parents Can Partner for Student Success. Mississauga, ON: Peel District School Board. Accessed at http://peelschools.org/aboutus/21stCentury/byod/Pages/default.aspx

People for Education. (2019). Connecting to success; Technology in Ontario Schools, People for Education. Accessed at https://peopleforeducation.ca/report/connecting-to-success-technology-in-ontario-schools/