Economic, bureaucratic, and social democratic interests compete for control of education reform. The three interests are linked to three competing ideologies in public education: liberal meritocracy, conservative elitism, and democratic egalitarianism. Education policy is one forum to resolve or accommodate the competing interests. Achieving consensus is no easy feat and depends upon agreement that consensus is desirable and a commitment to achieve it.

Teacher organizations are an integral part of the education system, and their evolution is important to the development of education and the teaching profession (Okot, 1986; Paton, 1962). With a history rooted in missionary work, teachers first came together for professional exchange and inservice. Organized teachers’ purposes soon broadened to include functions protective of teachers as workers. Teacher unions traditionally are also strong advocates for public education and social justice. Tensions exist among these multiple goals: teacher professionalism, economic welfare, and social advocacy. Organized teachers emphasize different aspects of their multiple interests at different times, on different issues, and in different contexts.

The organization of public school teachers has had an impact internationally on public elections, education policy, and school organization; conversely, a country’s institutions and education policy shape the strategies available to organized teachers (Cooper, 1992). The union’s relations with the state also strongly influence organized teachers’ choice of strategies (Grace, 1987; Tardif, 1995).

Beginning in the 1970s, western governments often initiated education reform based on an ideology differing from that traditionally espoused by teachers. In response, teacher unions perceived a need for renewed advocacy for public education and teacher professionalization. Many teachers also faced legislated changes that reframed labour laws, reneged on collective agreements, and diminished teacher union mandates in government efforts to control education reform. In contrast, education reform in some cases was not characterized by the legislated disruption of teacher unions. How can the diverse relations be characterized? How do relations between organized teachers and states interact with education reforms and reform processes?

People and states can, with thought and commitment, change their institutions (Fukuyama, 1995, Paton, 1962). When states and organized teachers understand their relations, the parties can manage their respective roles in the reform of education to support the development of democratic communities. A comparative study provided insight into diverse relations between organized teachers and states with respect to education reform in selected western education jurisdictions.

The purposes of this presentation are to provide an overview of the comparative study, state the typology, and highlight the interactions of diverse organized teachers and state relations with education reforms and reform processes. Labour, class, and partner relations contribute to marginal, hierarchical, and integral roles for organized teachers in the reform of education in, respectively, Victoria, Australia; Québec and Saskatchewan, Canada.

Holmes’ (1981) proposes that comparative research to examine social relations be guided by ideal-typical normative models. Holmes contends that education goals acquire meaning when "seen in relation to normative statements about individuality, society and knowledge" (p. 115). For example, Rizvi (1994) observes that different educational and political assumptions result in economic, corporate managerialist (bureaucratic), or social democratic forms of decentralization. Framed by social theories, a typology of three ideal-typical models of organized teachers and state relations was constructed. The typology was presented as a hypothetical construct that was refined through application to three case studies. A synopsis of the theories follows.

Bacharach and Mundell (1993) identify power relations in school politics based on domination and participation. The power relations motivate two modes of regulation in schools: bureaucratic accountability and professional autonomy. Ben-Ner (1993) identifies in organization structures, the choice of market, authority, and trust control mechanisms, (in Crozier and Friedberg’s (1980) terminology: modes of regulation). The mode of regulation chosen can induce cooperation or conflict in the relations between the "principals" and the "agents" in an organization. Market and authority modes of regulation are forms of power relations based on domination. Trust exemplifies power relations based on participation.

Touraine (1965) employs a combination of situation and action to study social action. Touraine observes that social action is oriented by values framed as objectives, such as education goals, and applied in institutionalized social relations and decision-making fields, such as public education. Touraine suggests the rationalization of political action by economic, social, or political means leads to negotiation, opposition, or integration as union forms of social action. Action is always collective in some manner, notes Touraine, and self-references to three principles: totality, opposition, and identity. The three principles correlate with Holmes’ (1981) concepts of, respectively, society, individuality, and knowledge.

Touraine (1965) cautions that all forms of social action must be considered in rapport with the history of the problem. In the comparative study, the history of public education in three cases was the setting to examine social action. Development of the concepts: society, individuality, and knowledge, contributed to the description of ideal-typical national circumstances. The model national circumstances correspond with the three political ideologies that compete for control of education in western industrialized countries.

An analysis of the theories applied demonstrates that, although there are a number of ways in which to construe organized teachers and state relations, there are some commonalities. One common thread in the theories is the polarity of participation and domination, cooperation and conflict, and integration and opposition. A second common thread is that two forms of opposition to domination emerge. Opposition may be based on individual or collective goals. A third common thread is the correspondence between state modes of regulation and the type of control exercised by the competing interests in education.

. The development of the typology relied on a ‘sociology of organized action’ (Crozier & Friedberg, 1980). Examining the state modes of regulation in relation to organized teachers’ strategies produced a grid of relations. Exclusivity of types was achieved by considering only the intersection of associated means of regulation and influence: market incentives and exchange, authority and influence by opposition, or mutual trust (Table I).

Table I: Interaction of Modes of Regulation and Forms of Influence

Table II: A Typology of Organized Teachers and State Relations

Ideology influences the union choice of strategy or state mode of regulation. Relations operate in, and are influenced by, the larger historical and socio-political context. Teacher unions protect individual goals, collectively oppose authority, or participate to develop shared societal goals, in response, respectively, to the economic, social, or political rationalization of governance.

Commonalities in the theories and the competing interests in education suggested three ideal-typical models of organized teachers and state relations: labour, class, and partner relations. Descriptions of national circumstances built on concepts of society, individuality, and knowledge that are characteristic of the three competing ideologies in public education develop the typology (Table II).

The research approach was socio-historical in nature and employed theory to conceptualize and compare the relations between organized teachers and states. The socio-historical approach helped explain complexity and change in education and offered a theoretical framework (Grace, 1987; Kaestle, 1997). The research method involved the explanation, in historical context, of education reform in three case experiences. Case studies accessed a social perspective that helped connect theory and practice (Hamel, 1997). Attention to individual stories in the larger socio-historical context was a means to better understand the complexity of the interorganizational relations. Individual stories also articulated uniqueness within a global context (Lessard & Tardif, 1996; Novoa, 1995).

Sociology made three significant contributions to the study of education that were pertinent to the comparative research. The social theories examined raise awareness regarding the ideological effect, power relationships, and the connection between political legitimacy and the legitimation of knowledge in education. The conceptual framework introduced, and a preliminary typology developed, the three sociological themes. The preliminary typology provided the interpretive framework for analyzing and reporting the data.

The study relied upon interviews with participants as the primary source of data, supported by a review of primary and socio-historical documents. Purposive or criterion-based sampling was used to select interviewees. Participants were selected from among individuals with work experience in the education system: politicians and bureaucrats with responsibilities for the government department of education, members and staff of teacher organizations, and individuals with neither government nor teacher organization perspectives. Incorporated in total were 115 interviews with 108 people.

The writing of the case studies in context was a personal construction that incorporated participant voices, socio-historical documentation, theory, and observation. The patchwork picture helped to identify shapes and patterns in the histories of the diverse relations. Context and conclusions regarding the preliminary model frame the following synopsis for organized teachers and state relations in each case. Details regarding state regulation, knowledge in education, and organized teachers’ influence on education reform emerge in the synopsis conclusions and in the discussion that follows regarding the interaction of diverse relations with education reforms.

Differentiated schooling is historical in Victoria. The affluent society and growing bourgeoisie paid the private school fees and resisted state involvement in secondary education until the 1950s. The Liberal Party has, with the exception of the 1980s, dominated politics in Victoria with a platform of decentralization, individual choice, excellence, and economic growth through private enterprise. Relations between organized teachers and the state changed dramatically in 1992, when Labor lost and the Coalition (Liberal Party and National Party [conservative]) received an overwhelming mandate in state elections. Economic purposes defined the goals for education in the 1990s. The Coalition promoted the achievement of individual excellence to contribute to the development of the Australian economy and society in a competitive environment. Education reform in Victoria was chosen for study in anticipation of an alignment with the proposed labour-relations model in the preliminary typology. Education reform in Victoria in the 1990s exemplified an economic rationalization that maintained centralized power and historical class differentiation.

Extrapolation from the history in Victoria and the 1990s’ reforms was used to assess the national circumstances anticipated in a free market. First, during the pre-1980s liberalism in Victoria, schools and teachers set the curriculum. The pre-1980s experience suggested teacher specialists and decentralized curriculum-decisions are plausible forms of professional and educational knowledge under market regulation. Second, from 1992 to 1999, the Coalition Government marginalized organized teachers by using a combination of market and authority regulations. The Coalition decentralized school budgets and operations, abolished the state industrial relations system, and introduced individual teacher contracts with pay based on performance. Performance was assessed against teaching standards determined by a government-appointed committee. The Coalition also restricted the language used to write school Charters and teacher’s public commentary regarding education reforms.

The teacher union, the Australian Education Union Victoria Branch (AEU Vic) relied on federal industrial law and some community influencing to impose minimum standards to offset state authority and to get the attention of and influence the Coalition Government. With no formalized relations with the state, the AEU Vic reacted to protect its members’ economic interests. The AEU Vic role was marginal regarding education reforms.

The market mode of regulation emphasizes individualism and has no formal role for the teacher union. This finding was apparent also in the elimination of teacher collective bargaining rights in Britain (Lawn, 1996) and the experience in industry (Bélanger, 1993-1994). Organized teachers in Victoria relied upon third party intervention to regulate the education market. The teacher union efforts focused on protecting the labour-related interests of teachers, rather than proactively negotiating employment conditions, advocating social change, or participating in determining education reforms. Hence, the phrase, labour relations, is used to describe organized teachers and state relations in a free market.

The history of Québec, Canada, displays dynamic conflict between the European founding nations (England and France) for land, power, and language, between the Catholic Church and the state for control of education, and between the lay elite and workers for the modernization of Québec. This history of conflict, domination, and opposition, conditions Québec society to social debate and sets the stage for confrontational relations between organized teachers and the state. The state maintains traditional hierarchical relations with organized teachers. Social and political concerns, rather than professional or only economic interests, shape the state and organized teachers relations. The relations are influenced by shared government and union goals to protect and nurture the francophone society. The teacher union relations with any one political party in power vary with the degree of support for the project to claim Québec political independence from Canada. There is a societal tolerance for union engagement in philosophical debate and social action such that, in the absence of a real left-wing party in provincial politics, the CEQ exerts extra-parliamentary pressure for social democratic causes. Traditional French cultural norms, evident to Fukuyama (1995) in a comparative study of trust in the economic sector, appear to influence interorganizational relations in Québec.

In 1967, 1971, and 1982, various political parties in power broke teachers’ trust. Governments legislated teachers back-to-work, reneged on collective agreements, and decreed teacher work conditions. Participants’ vocabulary reinforces images of confrontational relations and demonstrates a continuing lack of trust in relations in the 1990s. Representatives of both the state and the teacher union think communication is not clear regarding information or points of accord. In part, poor communication is due to mistrust. In part, poor communication may be due to French cultural influences, or a lack of institutionalized norms for communication, or both.

During the 1990s, the government retained authority for education in Québec. With the decentralization of some curriculum responsibilities to the schools, and the creation of two-year instructional cycles, the state no longer perceived teachers as technicians who implement prescribed curriculum. However, government closely regulated school governance boards, selectively consulted with the teacher union, and used employer-identified teachers on government curriculum committees. The union successfully used the mobilization of its members and the public to pressure the state to attend to process and social issues. Previously, the CEQ also successfully used coalitions with labour to influence the state.

The 1990s saw efforts to collaborate without results that both the union and the state could celebrate. The lack of mutual satisfaction suggests that confrontational hierarchical relations are deeply rooted in Québec. Reforms introduced in 1997 prompt change and offer another opportunity to reshape organized teachers and state relations in Québec.

Authority as the mode of regulation maintains traditional hierarchical power relationships. Social unionism is a political force in a quest for broad social change. To offset state authority, organized teachers rely on third party intervention in the forms of a public ‘rapport de force’ and coalitions with labour. Class relations acknowledge the hierarchical bureaucratic structures and the polarization of power between state authority and organized teachers’ influence. Class relations also convey the social rationalization of political action.

Saskatchewan began as a rural society. Although still scattered across the province’s large geographic expanse, the sparse population of approximately one million residents is increasingly concentrated in urban settings. The hardships of the "Dirty Thirties" developed in residents a willingness to risk political and social innovation. The harsh conditions that enforced cooperation for survival led to an enduring culture of cooperation. There is a tradition of working together in the province, a way of thinking where people seek the middle of the road, maintain relationships, and find compromise in a genuine attempt to be fair and equitable in trying to meet everyone’s needs. Teachers see themselves as part of the province and exercise widespread influence in the province’s political and social life. The public regard for teachers and respect for teacher leadership are fundamental to the influence that teachers enjoy in an open relationship with government.

The Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation (STF) employs non-partisan political lobbying to support the achievement of organizational goals. Saskatchewan teachers help determine the criteria for teacher education and certification, supervise and evaluate the field experience of teachers-in-training, and participate in the development and renewal of the curriculum. Teachers determine 60% of school-leaving marks, and those who meet the accreditation criteria set and evaluate school-leaving exams. The STF participates in the development of education policy by consensus and is represented on interorganizational advisory committees. Collaboration is sustained by shared goals, clear values, supporting structures, attention to process and process skills, personal and organizational conduct, limited resources, stable non-partisan political relations, and the sharing of knowledge.

The successful experience with collaboration over a long time is a powerful cultural norm in education in Saskatchewan. Partner relations convey the political rationalization of relations. The tendency is to walk closer to the middle, focus on teaching and learning, build on common values, attend to collaborative processes, look to the long term, and be patient for change. The moderate approach is attributed to Saskatchewan’s partnership traditions, the government respect for teachers’ professional expertise and promotion of cooperation, and the Federation’s unitary structure. The single teacher organization has mandates to advocate for public education, promote teacher professional development, and protect teacher economic and employment welfare. Organized teachers work collaboratively within the institutional framework to achieve change.

Although states adopted similar education policy in all three cases, the motivation and the process to determine reforms differed (see Swanson, 1995). Reforms and reform processes applied in the three cases are compared by theme. Solutions to address the expectations placed on education rest on the reform of governance and on the organization of teachers’ work. Knowledge in education largely determines teachers’ work, although accountability measures also influence what teachers do. The section concludes with reflection on the differences in reform processes and the influence of organized teachers associated with the diverse types of relations.

Decentralization is favored in all three cases, but applied differently. For example, the site of local governance, the extent of organized teachers’ involvement in governance, and the motivation for decentralization all vary in the three cases.

Victoria and Québec shifted greater authority to the schools. Saskatchewan, following public consultations, retained a historic community-based governance structure. (In Canada, boards of education are elected governing bodies that are intermediate to the state and schools. An intermediate governance level, such as boards of education, does not exist in Victoria.)

There is formal provision to ensure the involvement of teachers and school principals in school governance in Victoria and Québec, although teachers serving on School Councils in Victoria are not teacher union representatives. There is no such provision at the school level in Saskatchewan. Elected rural boards of trustees and appointed urban advisory committees provide input regarding the school education program. The structure lacks a direct role for teachers; this may account for the greater incidence of confrontation at the local level. Local bargaining is the only forum common to employers and teachers for building understanding of their diverse interests. Traditionally, collective bargaining is an adversarial process.

In Victoria, the Coalition promoted school choice and fostered school self-governance. Québec seeks success, not just access, for the greatest number of students. The state increased local control, using a balance of parent and school personnel representatives with voting rights on school governing boards. The government continues to maintain tight controls on school governing boards. Saskatchewan respects historic community-based autonomy regarding public education. Local governance operates within a framework of provincial goals for education that were developed jointly among education partners and in consultation with the public.

Connell (1995) recognizes that "governments exert power over educational practice partly by legislation and regulation, partly by promoting ideologies, but above all by the power of the purse" (p. 107). The level and source of funding for education vary in each case.

The Commonwealth of Australia holds the taxation powers and transfers funds to the States. The transfer may be conditional upon State implementation of national initiatives. The nature of the specific transfer conditions in place during the present study was not investigated. The Coalition introduced school global budgets in Victoria. The State of Victoria funds 93% of school operating costs. Schools rely on locally raised funds for the balance of their core costs and to supplement costs of school activities. Schools have no stable, local source of revenue, such as taxation, to support local autonomy.

In Canada, the Federal Government transfers payments to the provinces for social programs including education. Generally the funds are not targeted. The provinces also levy income, sales taxes, and some, with Québec and Saskatchewan among the exceptions, levy property taxes. Boards of education in some provinces, including Québec and Saskatchewan, have powers to tax property.

Québec funds approximately 77% of school division operating costs. Provincial grants are based on pupil-teacher ratios and are generally unconditional. Local property taxation, limited to 15% unless approved by referendum, averages 16%. Private school fees and school fund-raising cover the remaining 7% of operating costs. Due to CEQ pressure, boards of education now distribute school-raised funds to minimize discrepancies among the quality of school programs.

Property taxation locally is unrestricted in Saskatchewan, limited only by what the property owners in the school division will bear. Based on the assessed value of property, local taxes may fund as much as 100% of school division operations. Boards of education ensure a balanced distribution of funds among schools within the division. Provincial equalization grants are distributed on the basis of student enrollment, special factors, and the boards’ ability to raise funds through property taxation. The grants are intended to ensure a minimum standard of education across the province. Provincial funding accounted for 40.4% of school division expenditures in 1999-2000. In 2000, an interorganizational review of education funding found that the provincial share no longer fully funded the cost to maintain the minimum standard. The committee recommended changes in the calculation of provincial grants to correct the situation.

Victoria and Québec retain the greatest centralized control through the amount of funding provided and the greatest decentralization in terms of the school authority to set its budget. Schools administer 80% of the education budget in Victoria. School governing boards in Québec have responsibility for setting their school budget within the parameters set by the board of education. Saskatchewan provides the least state funding among the three cases. Boards of education determine the degree to which responsibility for the school budget is decentralized to the schools, creating variation across the province.

All three cases experience pressures for increased school-level fund raising. Concerns about teacher and school principal involvement in and inherent inequities of school fund-raising exist in all three cases. However, in Victoria, schools rely on fund raising to support 7% of their core operating costs. Public education continues to be fully publicly funded in Québec and Saskatchewan.

Teacher certification and conduct, teacher appraisal, and student evaluation are the accountability factors reported. Regarding teacher certification, in Victoria, the Coalition abolished the Teachers’ Registration Board. The Board had been established in 1973 with government, school principals, and the elected teacher union representatives. Since 1992, the Department of Education (DOE) authenticates teachers’ certificates for those teaching in non-government schools. In Québec, the minister certifies and can decertify teachers. The Saskatchewan Board of Teacher Education and Certification (BTEC), established in 1964, operates on the cooperative model. BTEC advises the minister. Teachers also voluntarily exercise professional responsibility for supporting and evaluating the field experience of teachers-in-training, thus ensuring the profession has some input regarding future membership in the teaching profession.

Regarding teacher conduct and competency, the DOE Victoria also has responsibility for the investigation and discipline of teachers against whom complaints may be laid. The Coalition created the Standards Council of the Teaching Profession of Victoria (Standards Council), an advisory structure without democratic representation that is independent of the government by law. The advisory structure includes representatives of private and state teachers, employers, and teacher training institutes. Organized teachers are not represented. The Standards Council created professional standards and a code of ethics for teachers and gives advice to the minister on teachers’ professional issues.

In Québec, there is no professional code of conduct other than the education law. Anyone may lodge a complaint with the employer regarding the conduct of a teacher. As the employer, the board of education may take disciplinary action that ranges from issuing a warning, working with the teacher for improvement, to termination for just cause, if necessary.

Boards of education in Saskatchewan also may take disciplinary action regarding teacher conduct and competency, or boards, or anyone, may refer the matter to the STF. When a teacher is found guilty of a criminal charge, or the termination of a teacher contract for reasons of teacher competency is upheld on appeal, an automatic referral is made to the STF. Over time, various Saskatchewan governments granted the STF responsibility for teachers’ ethical conduct in 1948, for the performance of members in 1970, and for the collective interests of teachers in 1997. The latter change precipitated a Federation review of teacher professionalism. The STF Council adopted bylaws in 2000 to guide teacher conduct regarding professional ethics and collective interests. A review of competency issues is underway to enhance teacher success.

There is no teacher appraisal in Québec. Until 1995, there was no evaluation of teachers in Victoria. During the 1970s, teachers left superintendents alone with the class, defeating the purpose of the visit. Beginning in 1995, the Coalition offered a Professional Recognition Program (PRP) to teachers in leadership roles as an over-award. The PRP linked teacher selection, remuneration, and promotion to performance. In 1996, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission incorporated the PRP in the Award, thus applying the PRP to all teachers. In Saskatchewan, where organized teachers have the greatest formalized professional responsibility and authority among the three cases, teachers also are held most directly accountable for their performance. The appraisal of teachers is linked to the actualization of the curriculum, the instrument that most directly influences the organization of teachers’ work. Policies on teacher supervision and evaluation are specific to school divisions. Hence, there is a mix of approaches across the province. The STF promotes a model that places the onus on teachers for self-directed professional development.

Regarding student evaluation, in Victoria, the Coalition revamped the end-of-schooling credential and put in place the Learning Assessment Project with standardized testing for Grades 3 and 5. In Québec, student assessment is by provincial exams. Since 1993, Québec participates in the national School Achievement Indicators Program (SAIP) to assess language arts, science, and mathematics at ages 13 and 16. Saskatchewan teachers are responsible for the evaluation of students at every grade. A teacher may set the final school-leaving exam provided the teacher meets certain criteria. The criteria require a major in the subject area, two years teaching experience in the major, support of the employing board, and participation in an STF-sponsored accreditation seminar. Accreditation renewal is required every five years. The curriculum assessment project, launched in 1991, was designed to assess the attainment of curriculum objectives. Curriculum assessment also contributes knowledge regarding student achievement. The provincial Learning Assessment Program (LAP), implemented in 1993, evaluates student learning in language arts and mathematics in Grades 5, 8, and 11. Since 1996, Saskatchewan also participates in SAIP. Organized-teachers’ influence delayed participation in SAIP and promoted the development of a provincial indicators program. LAP and SAIP measures are two of several kinds of indicators upon which the evaluation of education in Saskatchewan is based.

The education goals and curriculum framework for the three cases are noted. The processes to determine the goals, curriculum, and education policy are summarized.

Education goals differed among the three cases. Coalition reforms in Victoria pursued excellence to achieve full student potential in order to make a valuable contribution to the development of the Australian economy and society. Reforms in Québec seek to improve equality of opportunity and results, to reinforce the common culture and francophone society, and to give Québec a competitive place in the global economy. Saskatchewan aims to help students achieve their full potential and provides students with a broad general education to develop the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values needed for further education, work, and everyday life.

The curriculum framework is similar in the three cases. Structures similar to the Saskatchewan curriculum framework were in evidence in Australia and Québec. The terminology varies but the concepts are the same. In 1985-1986, the interorganizational Core Curriculum Policy Advisory Committee in Saskatchewan (Robinson, in press) created a curriculum framework that intertwines common essential learnings with required areas of study. An adaptive dimension supports the curriculum framework. The Australian curriculum framework was set in 1989 and modified for Victoria in 1993; the Québec curriculum reforms were implemented in 1997. In Saskatchewan and Québec respectively, 20% and 25% of the curriculum may be locally determined or adapted to meet individual student needs.

Diverse processes determined the education goals, education policy, and curriculum in the three cases. In Victoria, while in Opposition, the Coalition set its objectives and action plans for dramatic education reform. The Coalition swiftly implemented sweeping changes to the curriculum and to governance and accountability structures. At the same time, the Coalition exercised significant fiscal restraint and radically changed employment relations legislation. The latter changes undermined the unions’ revenue base and distracted the teacher unions’ attention from the education reforms. Québec and Saskatchewan engaged in public consultations about education reforms. Teachers and the CEQ actively called for and participated in the public consultation process, Les états généraux. Also, under pressure from the CEQ and others, the government belatedly granted the review committee authority to report and make recommendations. The government-appointed Commission guided education goal setting in the mid 1990s. In Saskatchewan, the interorganizational committee report on the public consultations, Directions (Saskatchewan Education, 1984), set the provincial goals of education and continues to guide curriculum development.

In Victoria, the Coalition excluded teacher union representatives from education policy forums. In Québec, state officials, in consultation with teacher union representatives, achieve a provincial framing of education that is not apparent to CEQ members or generally. In Saskatchewan, the three partners consistently present at the education policy table are the Department, the STF, and the Trustees’ Association. Their respective roles vary depending upon the issue; their goal is consensus. Generally, although government has the authority to introduce and change legislation, participants think it unlikely that Saskatchewan would change education policy without the support of teachers.

Curriculum development is centralized in all three cases. However, the procedure to identify participants in the curriculum development process varies. In Victoria, the Coalition appointed a committee. The committee adapted the Australian curriculum framework to meet the State interests. Centralization of curriculum development introduced consistency in the program of studies. Previously, schools determined curriculum. A free market likely would retain diversity in programming and enhance teacher subject-specialization and school specialization. Québec and Saskatchewan involve all partners in education in design, field-testing, implementation, and ongoing development of the curriculum. Teachers advising the MEQ are selected in consultation with boards of education and do not represent the CEQ institutional point of view. In Saskatchewan, the Department advertises for curriculum writers. However, teachers apply care of the STF. The Department makes the final selection of curriculum writers from the names forwarded by the STF. Also, teachers identified by the STF serve on curriculum advisory committees with representatives of other education organizations. Advisory committees participate in a cyclical model: program evaluation, design, implementation, and maintenance. The committee guides the work of the writers.

Both the case experience and the anticipated pattern for each model are summarized in Table III. In this section, similarities among the cases are briefly noted. The discussion attends to perceived discrepancies between the case experiences and the anticipated patterns.

The experience in Victoria is the least definitive regarding the interaction between relations and reforms or reform processes. A combination of state modes of regulation clouds the analysis. Are procedures attributable to market regulation or to the authoritarian imposition of rules and standards? The historical practice in Victoria, under largely liberal governments, was school determination of the curriculum. However, contrary to the expectation of market regulation, the Coalition did not retain the diversity. The Coalition implemented a centralized curriculum, imposed standards, and curtailed the opportunity for school or teacher specialization. The Coalition also limited freedom of speech. Under market regulation, it is more likely that a school would report to the client, rather than to the state, as was the situation in Victoria. Similarly, lower state funding and greater school-generated funds would fit a market model. Less, rather than more, state regulation is expected in labour relations in a free market. Less state control of teachers and teaching and more teacher and school responsiveness to market demands is expected. It is anticipated the teacher union would have fewer interactions with the state and provide more support to individual teachers under market regulation. Hence, both the state and organized teachers would play a marginal role in the market-regulated reform of education.

The Québec education system in the 1970s and 1980s most closely aligns with and affirms the preliminary model for class relations. Education reforms introduced in the 1990s suggest a transition is in progress. Decentralization to school governing boards suggests a move away from a centralized class state. The curriclum’s adaptive dimension and the two-year instructional cycle require professional judgment in teaching practice, compared to the tightly prescribed curriculum in the 1980s. The surprises are (a) the historic lack of teacher appraisal and (b) school governing-boards’ annual reports to communities. The lack of supervision is attributable to attempts to professionalize teaching in the 1960 reforms, negotiation of accountability processes, and French cultural influences. The accountability of school governing boards to their communities, rather than to the state, is a recent change and

Table III: Interaction of Diverse Relations with Reforms and Reform Processes

is attributable to relations in transition. The government retains control of school governing-boards’ powers through a tight regulatory framework. The government selectively consults the teacher union. Traditional hierarchical authority structures exemplify class relations. The teache union endeavours to off-set state authority in the role hierarchy.

Given the stability of relations over time, the Saskatchewan case is the most reliable predictor of the interaction between relations and reform processes. Organized teachers and the state have roles integral to the reform of education, along with other partner education organizations. Three experiences are unexpected in partner relations. The surprises are (a) the low level of state funding, (b) lack of teacher representation in local school governance, and (c) lack of uniformly collaborative relations at the local levels when collaboration predominates at the provincial level.

The low state funding of 40.4% compared to historic levels near 60% may be attributed to several factors. A decade of restraint to address provincial debt accumulated due to deficit budgeting in the 1980s, a shrinking provincial tax base, lack of provincial powers to tax property, and government priorities outside of education are all factors that influenced education funding levels.

The collaboration characteristic of relations provincially among the education partners is not consistently replicated at the local level between employing boards of education and teachers. Two decades of social democratic political influence (1944-1964) established collaboration at the provincial level among organization leaders. The factors cementing collaborative partner relations provincially include the 1980s-1990s curriculum and instruction review, the personal dimension of the actors’ relations, and the continuity and persistence of personnel. Neither projects, such as curriculum renewal, nor leadership is so enduring at the local level. Nor is there a forum, such as interorganizational committees or a teacher role in school governance, to support ongoing dialogue. Employer-employee relations are more frequently emphasized locally, compared to the integral role of organized teachers and the state in education reform initiatives.

In Victoria, Australia, the state marginalized organized teachers during the reform of education from 1992 to 1999. The teacher union, the Australian Education Union Victoria Branch (AEU Vic) relied upon third party intervention to get the attention of and influence the Coalition Government. In a free market, the roles of both the state and organized teachers

Table IV: Organized Teachers and State Roles in Education Reform

would be marginal to education reform. The state would facilitate the free market through support for teacher specialization and the decentralization of curriculum as well as school operations. Accountability would be achieved through competition. Organized teachers would protect members from market extremes and could facilitate teacher specialization.

In Québec, Canada, class relations characterize the interaction of the state and organized teachers. The state maintains traditional hierarchical power structures. The teacher union, La Centrale de l’enseignement du Québec (CEQ), mobilizes its members and the public in a ‘rapport de force’ to pressure the Québec Government for change.

In Saskatchewan, Canada, partner relations characterize the interaction of the state and organized teachers. The state, the teachers’ professional organization, and other education organizations are integral to the education reform process. The Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation (STF) works within the institutional framework to achieve change. The STF has authority to oversee the ethical conduct, competency, and collective interests of members. The STF offers numerous self-help programs to support the professional development and economic welfare of its members.

Labour, class, and partner relations contribute, respectively, to marginal, hierarchical, and integral roles for states and organized teachers in the reform of education (Table IV). Understanding relations in education can assist states and organized teachers to appreciate their respective roles in the maintenance of democratic communities through the reform of public education. With thought and commitment, people and states can change their institutions.