a w - · pdf filea w orld of solidarities ... enhanced suc-cess, and greater relevance to the...

The Development Plan of the Fédération des cégepsWal-Mart of Higher Education


Volu

me 3

no2

•Sp

ring 2

003

A World of Solidarities

Our demands for the next negociation round


Our demands for the next negociation round

EE d i t o r i a l

In choosing “A World of Solidarities” as the Congresstheme, the CSQ is affirmingits opposition to neoliberalglobalization and its will tocontribute to another form ofglobalization founded on jus-tice, democracy, freedom andsolidarity among peoples. TheCongress will provide anopportunity to discuss andexplore in-depth a phenome-non that has dominated thepolitical landscape for severalyears and is transforming theworld in which we live.

Although neoliberal global-ization directly and indirectlyaffects all aspects of society,its impact is more stronglyfelt in higher education, thestrategic sector of the “knowl-edge society.” The Organisa-tion for Economic Coopera-tion and Development(OECD) and the World Bank,capitalism’s apostles, influencenational governments whichjustify their education poli-cies with abundant referencesto these institutions’ studies.As bona fide laboratories forneoliberal globalization, theseinstitutions have sung thepraises of results-based man-agement (school success plansare but one example) and thecommercialization of research.These ideas are adopted byour governments. The ques-tion is: how is it that an insti-tution like the World Bank,which is first and foremost abank, guides and even deter-mines our educational reforms?

At this time, Canada has notundertaken any commitmentswith respect to educationwithin the framework of theGeneral Agreement on Tradein Services (GATS) negotia-tions led by the World TradeOrganization (WTO) whichare to be concluded in 2005.But it could well be tempted

to do so by yielding to pres-sure brought to bear by theMember States that are alreadycommitted and asking otherStates to remove obstacles tofree trade in services. UnderGATS, all services are subjectto liberalization, except for“any service supplied in theexercise of governmentalauthority.” According toGATS, a service supplied inthe exercise of governmentalauthority means “serviceswhich are neither supplied on a commercial basis nor incompetition with other serv-ice suppliers” (article I:3 c).CEGEPs are indeed in com-petition with one or severalprivate suppliers (privatevocational colleges or insti-tutes) and they supply serv-ices on a commercial basis(college research products,commercialized virtual pro-grams of instruction, etc.) If Canada were to sign theGATS, and it still has time to do so, the services pro-vided by CEGEPs would be commercialized.

We are not protected fromthe commercialization ofeducation. Our public col-leges already compete in therace for registrations; they’recompeting with the privateinstitutions. Outsourced andprivatized student serviceshave become commonplace.Partnerships with privateenterprises (such as Cisco) aremushrooming. Online educa-tion services and collegeresearch products are alreadymarketable. Is this really thedirection we wish publicCEGEPs to take?

In a context in which all deci-sions seem to flow from thetop down, in which interna-tional institutions dominatedby economic interests guideeducational policies, how can

we act to safeguard our socialgains and respond to a reduc-tive vision of education? Howcan we resist such an intangi-ble phenomenon as globaliza-tion? We believe resistance ispossible, and this is where the“globalization of solidarities”derives its full meaning.

IndexIndex

3

4

6

Collegial Notebook

Volume 3, no 2

Publication of the Centrale des syndicats du Québec in collaboration with the Fédération du personnel de soutien de l’enseignement supérieur (FPES), the Fédération du personnel professionnel des collèges(FPPC)and the Fédération des enseignantes etenseignants de cégep (FEC)

9405, Sherbrooke St. East, Montréal (Québec) H1L 6P3

Phone. : (514) 356-8888

Fax. : (514) 356-9999

E-mail : [email protected]

Director of Communications : Lorraine Pagé

Chief Editor : Luc Allaire

Contributors : Véronique Brouillette, Nicole Fortin, Jean Ouellet, Marie Racine, Réginald Sorel

Translation : Carolyn Perkes

Secretary : Danielle Gagnon

Graphic Design : Christine Baby

Assistant director, production and distribution : Christiane Gravel

Photograph : Normand Blouin, Paul Chamberland

Illustrations : Paul Bordeleau, Marc MongeauPrinting : Transcontinental

Circulation : 850

Deposited with :

Bibliothèque nationale du Québec

National Library of Canada

Fourth trimester 2002

ISSN : 1496-7979

The CSQ on the Web : www.csq.qc.net

Socio-cultural Activities

According to...

Support Staff

Our demands for the next

negiciation round

5The part-time DCS: Forbroadened access to a

college education

Wal-Mart of Higher Education

8We want respect

STO

CK/

N. B

loui

nPa

ul C

ham

berla

nd


Jean OuelletPresident FPPC

Réginald SorelPresident FEC

Marie RacinePresident FPSES

Support StaffAn opinion rendered by the Conseil supérieur del’éducation pointed out that extra-curricular activ-ities help enrich the meaning of studies, provideyouths with opportunities to explore, help themin making career and academic choices andthereby contribute to success.1 The staff workingfor the animation service at Cégep Ahuntsiccouldn’t agree more. Carmen Brière and DenisBrassard, both recreational activities techniciansand Monique Kadowaki, a former office clerkwith the animation service and today secretarywith student services, share this opinion: anima-tion contributes to creating the soul of a college.

If the college succeeds in becoming a stimulatingliving environment for students rather than a coldinstitution that merely dispenses courses andissues diplomas, it’s partly thanks to these people.In fact, the animation service organizes a widevariety of activities and events that help make col-lege life dynamic: intercultural activities, poetrycontests, CEGEP rock music contests, CEGEPshow contests, exhibitions for final year graphicarts students and for natural science students,conferences, concerts given by well-known artists,films at the college’s auditorium, theatre, classicalmusic concerts, etc.

Although the organization and planning of activi-ties and events are an important part of the workof recreational activities technicians, CarmenBrière, Denis Brassard and Monique Kadowaki allstress the human aspect of their work. Studentsoften come to see them in their office to find outabout an activity, to register for a contest or toprepare for an audition. “For most youths whoparticipate in the theatre activity or in the CEGEPshow, this is their initiation, their first experiencewith the stage. Monitoring and supporting stu-dents is very important,” says Denis Brassard. Forother students, these activities are the springboardfor a vibrant arts career: Daniel Boucher, MartinDeschamps and Stéphane Yelle, of the Yelo Mologroup, are former Ahuntsic students who tookpart in the CEGEP show event. “Our goal is notto turn out stars, but to allow students to createtheir own fond memories, and to be proud ofhaving accomplished something memorable,”adds Denis Brassard.

Although participation in activities of scope suchas theatre and CEGEP show may be an excitingexperience for students, the recreational activitiestechnicians must also deal with the difficulty ofbalancing studies and cultural life. “We are likementors for the students who take part in theseactivities. Sometimes that means we have to bringthem down to earth and remind them that theyalso have to consider their studies and academicresults,” says Carmen Brière. A positive aspect of

their work is that students will go to see thembecause they genuinely want to get involved. Butsome situations are more delicate: students don’tsucceed at every audition or win all the contests.“We have to be careful, we are manipulating emo-tions,” adds Denis Brassard. That is why it’simportant to build a relationship of trust with students and to work in a convivial atmosphere.“Accessibility, availability and flexibility are thethree words that best describe us,” according toMonique Kadowaki.

Not only do socio-cultural activities contribute to making the CEGEP a stimulating living envi-ronment, they also make it possible to develop asense of belonging to the college, to motivate stu-dents to attend CEGEP, to develop friendshipswith the students who participate in the activitiesand to maintain contact with the parents whoattend the exhibitions and shows of their children.

Véronique BrouilletteCSQ Adviser1 Conseil supérieur de l’éducation, Au collégial, l’orientation

au cœur de la réussite. Québec, april 2002, p. 41.

Monique Kadowaki, Denis Brassard and Carmen Brière, members of the Syndicat dupersonnel de soutien du Collège d’Ahuntsic(CSQ) with Jacques Pétrin, union president.

3Collegial Notebook • Spring 2003

SS o c i o - c u l t u r a l A c t i v i t i e s A c c o r d i n g t o . . .

STO

CK/

N. B

loui

n

The FEC is ready to negotiate.Negotiations will begin as soonas the newly elected governmentis ready to undertake prelimi-nary talks. Following consulta-tion in our assemblies, threemajor sectoral priorities haveemerged: working conditions incontinuing education, workloadand the renewal of staff.

Working conditions in continu-ing education: no job security,no social benefits, no right toleaves or professional develop-ment, no office to receive stu-dents or to prepare courses,often problematic access to lab-oratories and essential teachingmaterials. The FEC’s demandsare designed to correct thisdeplorable situation. These cor-

rections are primarily concernedwith defining the status ofteachers in this sector, whichwill enable them to benefitfrom a degree of job securityand the professional and socialbenefits that their colleagues inthe regular sector enjoy.

The collective agreement signedin December 1999 provided fora joint study to be conductedon changes to teachers’ dutiesresulting from the reform of1993 and the implementationof new technologies. This studyrevealed a strongly increasedteaching workload caused bythe total reorganization ofteachers’ work. The FEC is pro-posing solutions that specifi-cally address this problem.

Lastly, the upcoming negotia-tions constitute the last chanceto prepare for renewing nearlyhalf the total number of teach-ers. We must provide for creat-ing conditions conducive to thetransmission of expertise andthe integration of new staff. Ifwe are to facilitate recruitmentin the context of a labour short-age, we must offer new teacherseasier access to permanent status.

Nicole FortinFEC Adviser


NN e g o c i a t i o n

As CEGEP professionals, we have formulateddemands based on two major areas. First of all,they reflect the will to fully participate in the evolution of the public college network towardgreater quality and accessibility, enhanced suc-cess, and greater relevance to the needs of Québecsociety. This will is rooted in the profound beliefthat we have an essential and special role to play.Thus, we are indispensable players.

Our demands also stem from the acknowledged,alarming difficulty we are currently experiencingin adequately playing our role, a difficulty thatmay be further aggravated in future if a hard shift in direction isn’t achieved at the upcomingnegotiations. Such a shift must first of all lead toincreasing the number of positions and people, toa clearer definition of the field of practice for ourprofessional functions, and to alleviating dimin-ished job security. It must also involve better uti-lization of our expertise (for instance, with respectto the hiring and the integration of new person-nel) and facilitate our access to ongoing profes-sional development. In addition, such issues asworkload, access to free time and to a better qualityof life (vacation, reduced work hours, reconcilingwork and family life), and psychological or moralharassment are highly important to professionalpersonnel. We also wish to take a closer look atthe relevance of maintaining more than one

salary scale withinour various employ-ment groups, while atthe same time takinginto account a num-ber of characteristicsthat may justify spe-cific adjustments: addi-tional training, the obli-gation of belonging to aprofessional order andadditional responsibilities.Finally, we want to improve con-ditions for exercising local and province-wideunion activities.

We have much to accomplish; many gains tosecure. But we believe that our future, our placeand our role in the network, as well as quality oflife in the workplace depends on this endeavour.Through the upcoming negotiation of these signifi-cant issues, we will be able to determine whetherwe are an integral part of the evolving college net-work, playing a structuring role, or if instead weare perceived as dispensers of supplemental, com-plementary or peripheral services.

Jean OuelletPresident FPPC

Priorities for Teachers

Our demands for the next negociation roundThe Demands of CEGEP Professionals

Such a shift mustfirst of all lead

to increasing the number ofpositions and

people, to aclearer definition

of the field of practice for our

professional functions, and to

alleviating diminished job

security.

Following consultation in ourassemblies, three

major sectoral priorities have

emerged: workingconditions in

continuing education,

workload and the renewal

of staff.

The demands of CEGEP Support Staff

The Capacity to Deliver Quality Services

From 1992 to 2000, the equivalent of 834 regular full-time positions was cutamong support staff. From 1999 to2001, the number of positions increasedfor teaching and professional personnel,whereas support staff sustained a loss of 145 jobs.

Support Staff Workload Continues to Get Heavier

When the employer endlessly asks formore mobility, more openness and col-

laboration from its staff, as well as theirfull cooperation in developing modern,

vibrant work organization, we’re temptedto respond: Enough is enough!

It is within this context that on March 12, 2003,the Fédération du personnel de soutien de l’en-seignement supérieur (FPSES) tabled its demandsfor the upcoming public sector negotiations. Weoutline the main principles below.

Diminish Precarity

Creating regular positions and ensuring stabilityfor personnel are the best guarantee for deliveringquality services. The colleges must be made awareof the fact that all the out-sourced contracts theyare awarding brings about a significant loss ofexpertise in the college setting.

Recognize Support Staff

We must ensure that the classification plan corre-sponds to the description of the tasks that areactually performed.

We must get the colleges to recognize the value of the experience acquired by their own person-nel and ensure that the same principles used todetermine the scale apply to personnel working in the college and to personnel from the outside.

Value and Motivate Personnel

Training and professional development linked totechnological and organizational changes must beprovided to personnel during working hours, atthe college’s expense.

Respect Human Dignity and Protect Individual Well-Being

In the event of disability, personnel must beallowed sufficient time to recover, and the indi-vidual’s physical and psychological well-beingmust be protected.

Reconcile Work and Family Life

Policies and practices favouring the family mustbe adopted in order to address problems arisingfrom conflicts between professional and familyresponsibilities.

Marie RacinePresident FPSES

Although the college sectoradmits a significant proportionof part-time students in adulteducation (54.4%), the propor-tion is much lower in generaleducation (3.2%). A very lowrate indeed, compared with theuniversity sector, where 40.2%of students are registered inpart-time programs.

Extending the part-time DCS,in our view, seems to be apromising option that wouldfoster the accessibility of a col-lege education and that wouldbring many benefits to bothindividuals and the institution.For the student, the part-timeDCS would respect the indi-vidual’s pace and availability,the reconciliation of work/fam-ily/education, the potentialaccomplishment of professional

and personal goals, and greaterflexibility fostering improvedadaptation to the personal situa-tion of adults. For the college,the part-time DCS might makeit possible to increase enrolmentand staff, to reach students whootherwise might not participatein training activities, to preservethreatened programs and toconsolidate institutions.

Nevertheless, the part-timeDCS also entails a number ofdrawbacks. For the student, itmight prolong the length of thecourse of study. It is also knownthat part-time studies involve ahigher risk for failure and drop-ping out, as is noted in the uni-versity sector, where the drop-out rate is twice as high amongpart-time students.

Despite these reservations, theadvantages of the part-timeDCS program, both for stu-dents and institutions, seem tooutweigh the disadvantages. Butextending the part-time DCSwould presuppose the develop-ment of new pedagogical andorganizational requirements,the adjustment of budget regu-lations and support for therecognition of prior learning.

The idea of extending the part-time DCS is still in its infancyand merits an in-depth analysis.If this idea is a promising avenuein providing better access to acollege education, it should alsofoster success for the greatestpossible number.

Véronique BrouilletteCSQ Adviser

The part-time DCS: For broadened access to a college education There are few part-timestudents registered in CEGEPs compared withuniversities.

Creating regularpositions andensuring stability for personnel are the bestguarantee for delivering quality services.

Collegial Notebook • Spring 2003 5


OO p i n i o n

It is unlikely that a

remodeling of our higher

education system will benefit the

CEGEP.

In a recent article commentingthe Fédération des cégeps’ pub-lication,1 the president of theConférence des recteurs et desprincipaux des universités duQuébec (CREPUQ) and ofUniversité du Québec, PierreLucier, noted that the projectborrows from all North Ameri-can models of higher educationat the undergraduate level: thetechnical college as a parallelpath to university, the four-yearuniversity college program thatissues a bachelor’s degree andthe community college, focusedon continuing education.Indeed, if we are to believe theauthors of the college develop-ment plan without any furtherexplanation, the future of thepublic colleges would dependon offering multiple learningpaths, programs of varying lev-els and a spectrum of diplomas.

Technical College:Something forEveryone The top prize for diversity goesto basic technical training withthe proposal to award a “certifi-cate” for one year of training ina modular program, a DCS tomark the completion of two,three or four years of study, anda university degree on the com-pletion of certain four-year tech-nical programs for which thereis no equivalent university pro-gram. These diverse trainingprograms would be offeredthrough varied paths: earningthe DCS by accumulating “cer-tificates” that are narrowly alignedwith job requirements, and DVS-DCS and DCS-BA paths. Eachof these paths may require thecreation of distinct training

modules, beyond the traditionallearning path which, we pre-sume, would also be part of thewindow dressing. Furthermore,the publication recommendsthat colleges be accorded thecapacity to decide on a certainnumber of competencies stipu-lated in the technical programs,and it is advocating that allcomponents of general educa-tion be adapted to specifictraining programs.

It is true that the initial trainingprogram is rather rigid and thatit would perhaps benefit from a few adjustments. But by andlarge, the program’s rigidityguarantees the quality of techni-cal training as well as its com-prehensive and fundamentalnature, and allows it to resistthe increasing pressure from thevocational and technical sectorsto move toward just-in-time andtailored approaches. Althoughthey don’t go that far, the pro-posals of the Fédération descégeps do open the doors.Although access to short pro-grams (ACS) for youths in theinitial training programs is lim-ited by the College EducationRegulations and the fundingregulations for this training,making the program modularwould allow these obstacles tobe sidestepped. For this reason,we might wonder just how farthe adaptation of general edu-cation to technical programsshould go. Furthermore, isn’tthere a contradiction betweenthis orientation and increasingthe number of DCS-BA andthe creation of a universitydegree?

But since the plan of actionaims to meet the challenges of

the current situation of Quebecand the rest of the world, willthis variable model of theCEGEP deliver a solution forthe challenges that are listed in the introduction to the document: globalization, theemergence of the knowledge-based society, ubiquitous newtechnologies, and declining population?

How, for example, will CEGEPSthat are already affected by astrongly declining populationtrend be able to sustain two orthree distinct training moduleswithin one program? Many programs, even in the urbancentres, cannot even attain theofficial viability threshold. How could they offer a varietyof educational paths, each perhaps requiring different program modules? If there aredifficulties with implementingthe DVS-DCS and the module-based programs, two paths now authorized by the CollegeEducation Regulations, it ismainly for this reason.

How does the Fédération recon-cile the impoverishment of gen-eral education and opening thedoors to short training programsfor youths in initial training? Inthis regard, we call on it to con-sult the data gathered by theInternational Adult LiteracySurvey (IALS)2 whose inquiriesshow that the most importantdetermining factor for obtainingthe most highly qualified posi-tions is the level of literacy,that, according to the IALS defi-nition, is nothing more than thelevel of general education.

Lastly, how does the Fédérationreconcile globalization—and


therefore extensive mobility ofworkers—with this narrow align-ment of programs and the defini-tion of competencies in the localcompany? In Québec alone, thelocal development of learningactivities creates a serious mobil-ity problem for students.

A fragile pre-university programThe authors’ imagination is notquite so expansive in terms ofpre-university education. TheFédération proposes sharing orabandoning its prerogatives ondeveloping programs in this sec-tor to the university, advocatinga very close alignment with uni-versity programs. It also proposesa specifically vocational conceptof education. This involves on-the-job training and “educationthat is better grounded [and]fostering closer connectionsbetween programs and the out-side world.”3 This could onlybe accomplished at the expenseof general education, which isalready under-used through thecompetence-based approach,and restricted by methodology,notably in the human sciences.

But this call for the removal ofbarriers between CEGEPs anduniversities and this opennesstoward the greater emphasis onvocational training within thepre-university stream are notsurprising. Indeed, while weobserve the evolution of highereducation around the world, we wonder about the fate thatawaits the pre-university sector.The orientations of the majorinternational economic institu-tions—OECD, World Bank,Council of Europe—concerningcourses of study leading to aninitial postsecondary diplomafall into three categories: alladopt the university bachelor’sdegree as the initial diploma,the reduction to three or fouryears at most of courses ofstudy leading to this initialdiploma, and “employability”of the training programsoffered, namely the trend to

privileging vocation training,regardless of the field of study.Québec’s universities havemade serious attempts to putthis last orientation into prac-tice, which is, moreover, one of the obligations that theyentered into with the Statethrough the performance con-tracts. However, as far as theother two orientations are con-cerned, the pre-university DCS,as the initial postsecondarydiploma and essential passportfor university entrance, obvi-ously poses a problem. In lightof this, we are compelled totake the warning of the presi-dent of the Conférence desrecteurs very seriously: “in theera of building large entities,”4

it is unlikely that a remodelingof our higher education systemwill benefit the CEGEP. Theinterest of officials in the alreadynumerous DCS-BA paths whichconform more closely to thestandards of the world’s majoreconomic institutions is easilyunderstood.

However that may be, theFédération des cégeps does not appear to be giving up the game. It is suggesting thatCEGEPs in the regions mayoffer the initial years of thebachelor’s program; it is propos-ing a new university diplomathat would be awarded for cer-tain technical programs; and itis asking that the colleges gainnothing less than access toresearch chairs, the commercial-ization of research products,including spin-offs and start-ups. Such audacity is under-standable. After all, throughoutthe age-old wars waged amongthe institutions of our mother,who art the State, to win overthe ‘clientele,’ universities havebeen raiding clients generallydestined for the CEGEPs, tres-passing on college territory. Theproof is in the long list of cer-tificate programs of a generallyvocational nature, offered tocandidates who have not neces-sarily gone the college route.Banking on the prestige factor,universities are doing so at dis-

count costs, while not insistingon standards, so to speak.

This suggests at least one sourceof inspiration for this slightlyindigestible soup served up tous by the Fédération des cégeps:the attraction of the major com-petitive games on the newknowledge-based market. Notwanting to be shunted aside, itwould like to seize a winningmodel: a Walmart of highereducation that is sufficientlystocked to satisfy everyone’sneeds and tastes, in a dizzyingarray of formats.

Nicole FortinFEC Adviser

1 « Les cégeps veulent-ils chambouler laformation préuniversitaire » , LeDevoir, 2 mars 2003, p. B 5.

2 Agency administered by StatisticsCanada and the OECD.See also: OECD, Education PolicyAnalysis 2001, p. 123.

3 CEGEPS: Spearheading Québec’sFuture. Public College Network Devel-opment Plan. Fédération des cégeps.Montréal,2002.Course of action 9,p.41.

4 Le Devoir, op. cit.

Collegial Notebook • Spring 2003 7

The Fédération des cégepswould like to seize a winning model:a Walmart ofhigher education.


We want respectThe Fédération

des cégeps pub-lished its Public College

Network Develop-ment Plan at the

end of February.The plan recom-

mends orienta-tions, develop-

mental directionsand courses of action

for the future of theCEGEPS. It should beremembered that the

Fédération des cégepsdoes not hold anydecision-makingpower over the col-leges, but, if the col-leges decided to apply

these courses of action,the working conditions

of professional, teaching andsupport staff would be substan-tially altered.

If all the orientations andcourses of action proposed inthe development plan had beenprefaced with a statement assur-ing us that any potential imple-mentation would be carried outin compliance with the existingcollective agreements and work-ing conditions, readers mightapproach the publication withgreater openness. However, this is not the case. “Course of action 1”, aiming to “obtainassurances from the Govern-ment of Québec that it willmake amendments to the Actand to regulations that may benecessary to implement thepublic college network develop-ment plan”, raises suspicion.Does this mean amending theLabour Code to facilitate out-sourcing, or the Act respectingthe process of negotiation ofthe collective agreements in thepublic and parapublic sectors[Act respecting the extension of certain collective agreementsof the public and parapublicsectors (Bill 91) in order torequire local negotiations?

Through this development plan, the Fédération des cégepsis once again demanding greaterflexibility and mobility in termsof organization, training andpersonnel. More flexible schoolorganization would be requiredto meet diversified needs. Theacademic calendar and how theschool year is divided would be reconsidered. Does thatmean the school year wouldend on July 30?

The Fédération des cégepsbelieves, and of course we canonly agree, that the psychosocialneeds of students must be betterrecognized and that studentsshould receive appropriate serv-ices. However, we believe thatthese services must be providedby the colleges on site, not by a third party such as a CLSC.This would require the hiring ofprofessionals and support staffto assume tasks that alreadyplace a heavy burden on exist-ing personnel.

Another recommended courseof action is improving access tohigher qualifications throughcontinuing education. To achievethis goal, the Fédération descégeps recommends that coursesbe taught during the day and in evenings, seven days a week,three hundred and sixty-fivedays a year. Does that meanevening and weekend work, a forced split schedule? Thismeasure would considerablyalter the working conditions ofpersonnel. Furthermore, it signi-fies a shift away from the will to provide conditions con-ducive to reconciling work and family life.

Another of the Fédération’s recommended courses of actionis to “develop a concept of stu-dent life based on the programof studies and aimed at foster-ing a closer link between formaleducation and extracurricular

activities; facilitate students’achievement; encourage partici-pation in college life and rein-force a sense of belonging.”How, in real terms, does theFédération believe it will achievethis course of action? Would itwant to impose these new dutieson teachers and thereby, in addi-tion to creating a work overloadfor them, magnify the existingproblems of the boundariesbetween and within the differentjob categories in the colleges?

Teachers are also worried by thisFédération’s intention to “assessthe role and functioning of col-leges’ departmental structure.”This is not the first time thatCEGEP administrators haveexpressed their intention toreduce the importance of depart-ments for greater “sharing withprogram committees.” What isat stake here, in addition to therelative autonomy that depart-ments have enjoyed, is theimportance accorded to disci-plines that are already threat-ened by competency-based andprogram-based approach.

We have merely provided a brief overview of the changes in working conditions for collegepersonnel that might arise/resultfrom the Public College NetworkDevelopment Plan. You can seethat many questions remainedto be answered. We will have toexercise caution and vigilance atthe upcoming negotiations forcollective agreements, for this isone opportunity that the col-leges do not intend to miss.

Chantal KellyFPPC Adviser

Through this development plan,the Fédération des

cégeps is onceagain demandinggreater flexibility

and mobility in terms of

organization, training and

personnel.

AA n a l y s i s

a w - · pdf filea w orld of solidarities ... enhanced suc-cess, and greater relevance to the...

Documents