08/15/2025
In January, 2025 the provincial government launched a teacher professional registry and complaint process, administered by the Commissioner of Teacher Professional Conduct. This registry and commission is intended to improve the safety of students and address teacher misconduct. A second stage is set to be proclaimed on September 2, which seeks to establish competence standards for teachers. While protecting the safety of students is essential, questions have emerged regarding these competence standards during a hurried summer consultation process.
This summer, some stakeholders were informed of the five proposed competence standards as part of a consultation process with limited publicity. These standards include focus on teachers’ professional knowledge, commitment to student well-being, success and learning, the ability to foster a safe and inclusive environment, engagement with Indigenous students, families, and communities, and fostering professional relationships. The consultation process closes on August 16th, about two weeks before the standards are set to come into force. This is a quick turn around time to implement feedback and to address concerns of teachers and other community members. The speed raises questions about whether the consultation will be genuinely considered or if the process is simply intended to maintain the appearance of consultation. There is no clear explanation of how or if this feedback will be implemented.
There are a number of legitimate concerns regarding these competence standards in relation to the commission. First of all, it is unclear who developed these standards and what research was used in their creation. Secondly, when these standards take effect, any person may submit a written complaint to the commissioner claiming that a teacher is incompetent and cannot perform their professional responsibilities. In a time of homophobic and transphobic parental rights groups that have made slanderous claims about teachers in order to advance their views, it is fair to ask about the invitation for any person to submit a complaint. Does that mean that a person who has no direct knowledge of the teacher’s practice could submit a complaint? Moreover, it is unclear on what grounds or what kind of evidence may be required to provide a complaint.
The creation of competency standards for teachers does not maintain the focus on s*xual misconduct—as Bill 35 was originally intended. In this way, pressing issues related to the safety of children and youth are being exploited to sneak in teacher competency standards that do not directly respond to the issue of student safety. Moreover, by framing teacher competencies within the broader discussion of student safety, any critique of the competencies can be dismissed as anti-student. By collapsing these conversations, there is no genuine space for critical engagement with the competencies.
Beyond questions of process, there are also significant underlying problems with the use of competency language, particularly the underlying assumptions it makes about schools, teaching, and learning--and the broader purpose of education. As neoliberal ideology and reforms continue to reframe all aspects of society through an economic lens, education is not immune. These competencies stem from the global influence of an economic organization (The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) and their large-scale global testing program (the Programme for International Student Assessment) that has altered the focus in education. This shift in focus has resulted in governments altering their priorities-- from monitoring their inputs in education systems (such as funding, curriculum quality, teacher professional learning, etc.) to output concerns (such as national test scores, perceived global competitiveness, the rankings of school and districts, etc.) all in the name of economic growth.
Standards and competencies are part of the neoliberal regime that seeks to technicize and deprofessionalize teaching, advancing the idea that anyone can do it. The impact of these competencies is that teachers’ work is instrumentalized, relational responsibility is undermined, and professional judgement and autonomy are eroded. This results in narrow understandings of good teaching that do not reflect the messy, complex, ever-changing lived realities of the profession.
Teacher competence discourse places the onus of student “achievement” entirely on the individual teacher, detracting from the responsibilities of systems to support teachers, students, and schooling. Through competencies, the focus and blame is turned to teachers and away from systemic elements like class size and composition, under-resourced classrooms, and the defunding of public education which have a far greater impact on student achievement and safety. This is a tactic used to individualize systemic issues, and shift the focus away from the complex issues in education that require ongoing investment. It is also important to question if these systemic elements will be taken into consideration when determining whether teachers are meeting these competencies, as it is increasingly difficult to differentiate instruction for each student when classrooms are over-crowded and under-resourced.
To be clear, there are aspects of the competencies that teachers would agree with in principle. Without question, it is essential that teachers engage with Indigenous students and families given the need to meet the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Also, in a time when particular parents and lobby groups are challenging the enactment of comprehensive s*x education and curriculum that recognizes the lived experiences of 2SLGBTQIA+ students, it is heartening that the competency standards appear centered in principles of equity.
However, a punitive orientation undermines this aim. Instead, teacher competencies are conflated with issues of criminal misconduct. Students need to be protected from instances of misconduct, which has been the work of the commission since January. Inappropriate behaviour, such as the recent example of a teacher in the Interlake sending inappropriate text messages to a student, is already being investigated by the Commissioner. But teaching competencies are not the same thing as misconduct. They include a wide range of abilities that take time, effort, and energy to develop and refine over the course of a teacher’s career. Taking a punitive approach to these competencies seems a backward step when it comes to developing teacher professionalism.
It is clear that this list of competency standards is not intended for professional development purposes, but it also does not seem useful in protecting students, as mechanisms are already in place to address misconduct. This list of competency standards sets out to control what it means to be a good teacher. However, good teaching is inherently subjective and all students are different, which is why instrumentalist teaching doesn’t work. We also question what might happen if the government changes and whether the current vision of what is a good teacher might be altered. While we may be heartened by the focus on human rights in this particular list of competencies, the risk of politically imposed competencies is that they can be shifted with each new government. That is, while you may agree with some of the elements in principle, our question is about the principle of competencies more broadly. The concerns with establishing competency standards for teachers are myriad and we hope that you will reach out to offer your feedback through Engage Manitoba.
Posted on July 16, 2025 The regulation establishes teacher competence standards in accordance with the proclamation of section 4(1)(c.1) of The Education Administration Act (EAA) set to come into force on September 2, 2025, which will enable the Commissioner of Teacher
