Change requires talking to those at the bottom

One gets why the Saskatchewan Party government might favour the stick first, carrot second approach to transformational change.

After all, its first stated goal is to present a 2017-18 budget with a zero-per-cent increase in spending. To do so might very well require unpopular administration cuts and changes to existing public sector contracts.

But maybe it would be advisable if Premier Brad Wall’s government took a longerterm view of transformational change. Instead of squeezing administrators to impose changes from the top down, perhaps it would be better if it started looking at this process from the point of view of those on the bottom looking up.

For example, Education Minister Don Morgan said last week that everything was on the table, from the number of school boards we need to whether school divisions should share a common payroll and use shared buying practices, to reducing the number of superintendents (and having principals take over more management duties) and making teachers’ preparation time uniform across the province.

By now, most everyone knows what the government already knows — school governance represents only about three per cent of education spending while 86 per cent goes to front-line services.

That said, even the Saskatchewan Teachers Federation (STF) admits there are significant inequities, like preparation time. It would seem only logical to start such discussion here, given that everyone also recognizes prep time can be one of the most costly items for school boards. (For example, a teacher with four classes is likely to spend a fifth class in prep time.)

Since 1995, Section 231 of the Education Act has defined the need for preparation time, but how much time is needed is sorted out in local collective bargaining agreements.

How much time is actually needed is even a debate among educators (views depend on grade levels, size of classes, complexity of subject, etc.) So why shouldn’t Morgan’s first conversation be with the STF on establishing a plan this year?

Instead, the first thing we heard from Morgan seemed to be asking for trustees’ thoughts on reducing school boards and on superintendents downloading responsibilities on principals. Why?

Well, one suspects it’s because he’s likely to get a more sympathetic ear from elected board members, who don’t necessarily have an education background.

Clearly, the Sask. Party better relates to trustees (like newer elected MLAs including Colleen Young, Lisa Lambert and Bronwyn Eyre). Even more clear is the government’s message to trustees: if you can’t find ways to address local costly preparation time issues, perhaps a more centralized (i.e. provincial-governmentcontrolled) administration can.

By contrast, the Sask. Party doesn’t get along quite as well with the STF.

Now, consider that approach in health care, where Wall is talking about eliminating health districts (and thus local administration) altogether — a move that would only save a minuscule amount compared with the potentially huge savings to be found in costly in health workers’ contracts.

Finance Minister Kevin Doherty has already blue-skied that savings may be found in ending contract provisions like not automatically calling in the most senior health employee when overtime is needed.

But Saskatchewan Union of Nurses president Tracy Zambory insisted Monday her union doesn’t even have that provision although she believes it exists in the licensed practical nurses’ contract.

And Zambory said her members welcome change, but would like direct conversations with Health Minister Dustin Duncan on things like “churn” (the cost of retraining when nurses move from one sector to another) or the rehiring of retired nurses.

This would seem legitimate. Whether one can always back nurses’ demands, one should recognize they are generally supported by scientifically identified best practices.

But instead of tapping into this, the Sask. Party government seems intent on first turning up the heat on local hospital boards and administrators, suggesting they find savings or see their jobs axed.

Instead of pressuring those on top to make the unpopular moves, wouldn’t it be better if government first listened to the ideas of those on the bottom?