1. UNIVERSITY
OF REGINA
FACULTY OF EDUCATION
EADM 310/020
Educational Administration: Structure and Process
Instructor: Darryl M. Hunter
Office: Room 387, Education (Tuesdays 4:30­6:30)
Telephone: (306)787­6053/(306)787­2494
E­Mail: darrylinvic@hotmail.com
This course will consist of a study of administration in Canadian education with particular
reference to constitutional, governmental, legal, administrator­teacher, and teacher­student
components of the Saskatchewan education systems.
Course Objectives –
The student will:
1. Demonstrate a working knowledge of the formal political, administrative and fiscal
structures that govern Canadian education;
2. Demonstrate a working knowledge of the legal responsibilities and rights of members of the
various educational constituencies;
3. Demonstrate a critical awareness of the arguments underpinning significant issues of
educational policy in Saskatchewan and Canada and, in particular, those related to
questions of educational equity;
4. Demonstrate a working knowledge of the reference style approved by the American
Psychological Association.
5. Demonstrate communication and research skills appropriate to the teaching profession.
February 9, 2010

2. EADM 310/072
2
Course Content
One might assume that a course in “Educational Administration” would focus on the role of the
more highly visible administrators in the public schools (i.e., Principals, Superintendents, Directors
of Education). Although that might interest some, EADM 310 is not a course for aspiring principals.
Rather, it focuses on the professional, ethical and legal responsibilities of teachers in Canadian
public schools. Unlike many courses, EADM 310 does not develop subject area knowledge or
classroom teaching skills. Its purpose is to provide you with the background you will need to make
informed decisions in the wider context of your professional life. As such, EADM 310 addresses non­
pedagogical issues. For example, we will examine questions related to the structure, finance and
governance of public education. Other public policy issues such as equity, gender, the
administration of aboriginal education, and provisions for exceptional students are explored.
Approximately half of the class­time will focus on legal issues as they concern the roles and
responsibilities of teachers. Finally we will address the more pragmatic, but nonetheless vital,
concerns of beginning teachers—getting a job and keeping it—the three C’s: Certificates, Contracts
and Collective Agreements.
Course Requirements
A. Reading
The course is based on a number of “core” readings, which are closely associated with topics
described in this outline. Students are, of course, expected to have completed these readings in
preparation for each class. Most readings will be from the assigned texts.
The texts for the class, which should be available in the Campus Bookstore, are as follows:
Young, J. & Levin, B. & Wallin, D. (2007). Understanding Canadian Schools: An Introduction to
Educational Administration (4th ed.). Scarborough: Thompson Nelson. (This is a new edition,
so you won’t be able to find a used copy).
Chomos, J. & Walker, K. (2003). A Guide to Saskatchewan School Law. Saskatoon: Saskatchewan
Educational Leadership Unit. (We have used this book before, so you may be able to find a
used copy).
For reference purposes, you should also download a PDF copy of the Education Act (1995) from:
<http://www.qp.gov.sk.ca/index.cfm?fuseaction=publications.details&p=487>. You should also
download PDF copies of the following Regulations (same source, just scroll down and click on the
appropriate links):
# E­0.1 Reg 1 E­0.1 Reg 1 ­ Education Regulations, 1986
# E­0.1 Reg 11 E­0.1 Reg 11 ­ Independent Schools Regulations
February 9, 2010

3. EADM 310/072
3
# E­0.1 Reg 15 E­0.1 Reg 15 ­ Home­based Education Program Regulations
# E­0.2 Reg 11 E­0.2 Reg 11 ­ Teacher Certification and Classification Regulations, 2002
I wouldn’t recommend printing all of these. The PDF files are searchable using Adobe Reader. Any
additional reading will be provided as handouts in class.
B. Assignments:
1. Book/Article Critique – 15% (Maximum length: 5 pages/APA)*
Select a book or article from the reference list found at the end of the Young, Levin &
Wallin text. Write a brief critique which outlines the strengths and weaknesses of the
arguments found in the work. (Note: the book or article must be attached).
Due Date: February 3, 2010
2. Legal Brief­15% (Maximum Length: 5 pages/APA)
Select a legal report that documents a case relevant to your field of study or teaching
level and write a “case brief” describing the facts of the case, the legal arguments and
the judge(s)’ reasons for decision. (Note: the case report must be attached),
Due Date: February 24, 2010
3. Indicators Application­15% (Maximum length: 5 pages/APA)
Choose four indicators from the 2010 Saskatchewan Education Indicators Report
(Ministry website) and write a short paper that: a) describes the relevant trend for each
indicator in terms of day­to­day school life b) identifies potential causes for the trend c)
explains what the implications are for your role as a teacher and d) discusses potential
ways in which you may address or adapt to the issues presented in each indicator. The
paper will provide a suitable introduction and conclusion which together draw
connections or interrelationships among the indicators (Note: the four indicators must
be attached).
Due Date: March 10, 2010
* The requirement for the use of the A.P.A. format is neither arbitrary, nor simple “nit­
picking:” it is, rather, a matter of fairness. Some students will spend a considerable amount of
time mastering this format; they cannot be left with the feeling that this was time wasted, as
it would be if this were not a “real” requirement. Most students will experience difficulty
limiting their written submissions to the specified maximum length (e.g., 5 pages for each),
given A.P.A.’s requirements for wide margins and double­spacing. It is simply unfair to allow
some students to include additional text by using formats that permit narrow margins and
reduced spacing. Given the above, submissions will not be accepted in any format other than
10 to 12 point (depending on font) A.P.A.
February 9, 2010

4. EADM 310/072
4
4. Policy Analysis­ 30% (maximum length: 20 pages/APA)
The paper will address a major public policy issue in Saskatchewan, describe the key sub­
issues involved, explain/critique the issue in terms of the prevailing lines of argument/beliefs/
points of view/assumptions at play, and describe the central organizations/interests/powers
which have a stake in the issue. Your analysis will reference at least three “contradictory”
articles found in a Saskatchewan or Canadian newspaper, professional ‘position paper’ or
‘pronouncement” or “policy statement”, or periodical during the 2005­2010 interval. For
example, ‘gender equity’, ‘teacher professionalism’, ‘student achievement’, ‘property taxes’,
‘accountability’, and ‘aboriginal education’ are some current “hot issues” in Saskatchewan.
Due Date: March 31, 2010
C. Final Exam – 25% (Maximum length: 3 hours/word processed or handwritten)
Examination Date: TBA
Location: TBA
The Final Examination will consist of two essay questions, from which you will choose one.
Both questions will ask you to apply your understanding of the functions, processes and
principles held by agencies outside the classroom to typical dilemmas facing teachers.
February 9, 2010

5. EADM 310/072
5
Schedule
Session 1 (Jan 6): Educational Administration for the Pre­Service Teacher
1. Why do I have to take Educational Administration? I want to be a teacher not an administrator
1.1. to expand notions of professionalism;
1.2. to know your responsibilities and those of others in the educational community;
1.3. to know your rights and those of others in the educational community;
1.4. to avoid being mislead or manipulated;
1.5. People’s Court
Session 2 (Jan13): Basic Structures and Roles in Saskatchewan Education ­ 1
Chomos & Walker: §§1.3.4, 6­8; 14.3
Young, Levin & Wallin: pp. 1­19; 23­60; 101­118
[The Education Act (1995) (E­0.2 of R.S.S., as amended), §§ 85, 180]
1. Constitutional Considerations
1.1. §91
1.2. §92
1.3. §93
1.4. Educational implications of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
2.4.1. fundamental freedoms
2.4.2. equality rights
2.4.3. minority language education rights
2. The Provincial Level
2.1. Review—B.N.A. Act
2.2. Saskatchewan Act
2.3. Education Act ­­ Ministry of Education
3. The Division Level
3.1. Trustees/Board Members
3.1.1. Senior Administrators
Session 3 (Jan 20): Basic Structures and Roles in Saskatchewan Education ­ 2
Chomos & Walker: §§4; 3.6; 14.8.1
Young, Levin & Wallin: pp. 179­190; 263­266; 273­297
[The Education Act (1995) (E­0.2 of R.S.S., as amended), § 175]
1. School level administrators
1.1. principals
1.2. vice­principals
1.3. department heads
2. Classroom Level
2.1. Teachers’ legally defined roles and responsibilities
February 9, 2010

6. EADM 310/072
6
2.2. Teaching Assistants and parent volunteers (roles & responsibilities)
2.3. Teachers’ Federations
3. The evolving role of the “community” in the governance of Canadian public schools
Session 4 (Jan 27): Who pays for public education? Who should pay? Who cares?
Chomos & Walker: §§9; 11.1.5; 12.1.5
Young, Levin & Wallin: pp. 145­173
[The Education Act (1995) (E­0.2 of R.S.S., as amended), §§ 141­146]
1. Equality of educational opportunity. What’s fair?
1.1 Equality of access
1.2 Equality of treatment
1.3 Equality of results
1.4 Horizontal and vertical equity
1.5 Money as a proxy for equality
2. How much do we pay for publicly funded education in Canada?
3. How is public education paid for?
3.1 The Federal level
3.1.1 Aboriginal education
3.1.2 Military
3.1.3 Employment/training
3.1.4 Transfer payments
3.1.5 Earmarked funding
3.1.5.1 minority language education
3.1.5.2 vocational education
3.2 The provincial level—the foundation grant system (a primer)
3.3 The school division level—property taxes/the mill rate
4. Who should pay? What’s fair?
4.1 Is education a private good or a public good?
4.2 How do we determine ability to pay?
5. Who cares?
5.1 How is education funding changing?
5.2 Does funding really have anything to do with you as a teacher?
Session 5 (Feb 3): The three C’s: Certificates, Contracts and Collective Agreements
Chomos & Walker: §§3.1­3.5, 3.7; 5
Young, Levin & Wallin: pp. 190­210; 291­297
[The Education Act (1995) (E­0.2 of R.S.S., as amended), §§ 198­230; 234­276]
[The Teacher Certification and Classification Regulations (Chapter E­0.1 Reg. 2, as amended)]
1. Certification ­ becoming “qualified”
1.1 Certification in Saskatchewan
February 9, 2010

7. EADM 310/072
7
1.2 and elsewhere in Canada
2. Contracts ­ getting a job
2.1 Getting hired
2.2 Staying hired:
2.2.1 Tenure and the myths of tenure
2.2.2. Transfers within a school division
2.2.3 Supervision & evaluation
3. Collective Agreements ­ the conditions of employment
3.1 In Saskatchewan
3.1.1 Provincial level bargaining
3.1.2 Local bargaining
3.2 and elsewhere in Canada
4. Teacher Attrition ­ avoiding becoming a statistic
5. Sanctions and Remedies
Session 6 (Feb 10): Equity Issues in Education 1: Administration of Aboriginal
Education; Gender and Administration
Chomos & Walker: §13
Young, Levin & Wallin: Review pp. 51­60.
1. Administration of Aboriginal Education
2. Overt discrimination and systemic discrimination. Does it really matter?
3. Gender issues
3.1 In the classroom
3.2 In the profession
4. Sask. Ed.’s policy positions on gender discrimination
4.1 In the classroom
4.2 In the profession
Session 7 (Feb 24): Equity issues in Education 2: Education for Exceptional Students
Chomos & Walker: §1.3.6
Young, Levin & Wallin: pp. 135­138; 235­243
[The Education Act (1995) (E­0.2 of R.S.S., as amended), §§ 146; 178; 186­187]
[The Education Regulations (Chapter E­0.1 Reg. 1, as amended), §§ 48­52]
1. Who are exceptional students?
2. What are the issues?
2.1. From the perspective of the student/parent
2.2. From the perspective of the school board
February 9, 2010

8. EADM 310/072
8
2.3. From the perspective of the teacher
3. Sask. Ed.’s policy position
4. Impact of judicial decisions (from Elwood to Eaton and beyond)
Session 8 (March 3) The Implications of Compulsory Attendance
Chomos & Walker: §§1.1­1.3; 2; 11; 12
Young, Levin & Wallin: pp. 112­115; 128­130
[The Education Act (1995) (E­0.2 of R.S.S., as amended), §§ 156­162; 165­166; 182]
[The Independent Schools Regulations (Chapter E­0.1 Reg. 11)]
[The Home­based Education Program Regulation (Chapter E­0.1 Reg. 15)]
1. Whose right is education?
1.1 Private good or public good
1.2 Student’s right, parents’ right or state’s right?
2. Dissentient (Separate) schools
2.1 In the Canadian context
2.2 In the Saskatchewan context
2.3 Denominational cause
3. Private/Independent schools
3.1 In the Canadian context
3.2 In the Saskatchewan context
4. Home schooling
4.1 In the Canadian context
4.2 In the Saskatchewan context
5. The nondenominational/multicultural public schools—the impact of judicial decisions
5.1 Jones
5.2 Zylberberg
5.3 Elgin County
5.4 Adler
5.5 Bal
5.6 Islamic League
Session 9 (March 10): Teachers’ duties and powers­­in matters of discipline
Chomos & Walker: §1.4.2
Young, Levin & Wallin: pp. 119­121; 130­135; 228­231
[The Education Act (1995) (E­0.2 of R.S.S., as amended), §§ 150­155; 175; 231]
1. Sources of Authority
1.1 statute, regulation
1.1.1 duties of teachers, students and administrators
February 9, 2010

9. EADM 310/072
9
1.2 common law:
1.2.1 in loco parentis
1.2.2 social utility
2. Limits on the Exercise of Authority
2.1 Assault ­ criminal and civil
2.2 §43 of the Criminal Code
2.3 Self­Defense
3. Law Reform Commission Recommendations
4. Impact of Judicial Decisions
4.1 R. v. Haberstock
4.2 R. v. Lauzon
Session 10 (March 17): Negligence and Educational Malpractice
Chomos & Walker: §§1.4.1, 1.4.3­1.4.5
Young, Levin & Wallin: pp. 103­105; 121­126; 137
[The Education Act (1995) (E­0.2 of R.S.S., as amended), § 232]
1. The Questions of Negligence
1.1. The Legal Concept of “Negligence”
1.2. Duty of Care
1.3. Standard of Care
1.4. Significant Factors in Determining Breach of Standard of Care
1.5. Students’ Responsibility for Their Own Safety
1.5.1. Voluntary Assumption of Risk
1.5.2. Contributory Negligence
1.5.3. Vicarious Liability: The Question of “Who Pays?”
2. Educational Malpractice
2.1. Technical Legal Issues
2.2. Public Policy Issues
Session 11 (March 24): Teachers’ Roles and Responsibilities [Just when you think, “this is
not my problem. . .” or “they can’t do that to me!”].
Chomos & Walker: §§1.4.6; 14.1.2, 14.6.6, 14.6.8, 14.6.9
Young, Levin & Wallin: pp. 126­128; 137­140
[The Education Act (1995) (E­0.2 of R.S.S., as amended), § 231]
1. Reporting Child Abuse
2. Dispensing medication
3. Relationships with students
4. STF Code of Ethics
5. Conduct unbecoming.... (Shewan & Shewan)
6. Changing hats (Caldwell)
7. Denominational Cause revisited
8. Academic freedom? (Jim McMurtry & Ajax High)
February 9, 2010

10. EADM 310/072
10
Session 12 (March 31): Teachers’ duties and powers­­in matters of suspected criminal
activity
Chomos & Walker: §§1.4.7; 14.5.1
Review, Young, Levin & Wallin: pp. 125­129; 130­136
[The Education Act (1995) (E­0.2 of R.S.S., as amended), § 193]
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
1.1 §2 Fundamental freedoms
Conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion and expression, peaceful
assembly and association
1.2 §7 Life, liberty, security of the person and fundamental justice
1.3 §8 No unreasonable search or seizure
1.3.1 R. v. J.M.G. (1986)
1.3.2 R v. M.R.M. (1998)
1.4 §9 No arbitrary detention
1.5 §10 Rights on arrest
1.6 §11 Rights in criminal proceedings
1.7 §12 No cruel and unusual treatment or punishment
2. The Youth Criminal Justice Act
2.1 §32 Confidentiality
2.1.1 Peel Board v. W.B. et al (1987)
2.2.2 Faye G. & James M. v. Scarborough Board of Education (1994)
2.2 §54 Right to consult
2.2.1 R. v. M.H.
Session 13 (April 7): The media, public perceptions and “issues” in education
Young, Levin & Wallin: pp. 92­93
1. Unsafe Schools
1.1 The perceptions
1.2 The reality
1.3 Should you be concerned?
1.4 Zero tolerance/zero thought/zero justice
2. The myth of Canada’s “failing” public schools
2.1 The perceptions
2.2 The reality
2.3 Should you be concerned?
February 9, 2010

11. EADM 310/072
11
Appendix A
CRITERIA FOR GRADING TERM PAPERS
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CRITERIA COMMENTS
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. Research is evident. The student has reviewed the
literature that is relevant, current, and useful in
understanding the issue; not only books, but also journals,
monographs, research reports, and possibly non­print
sources such as the internet, interviews, tapes, films,
microfiche, and microfilm have been used.
_______________________________________________________
2. Sources of information are acknowledged in an acceptable
manner (APA). The names of authors consulted are
correctly cited in the text of the paper.
_______________________________________________________
3. The paper says something substantive about the issue
that is of value to the reader. The writer has been selective
in the literature reviewed.
_______________________________________________________
4. The writer's own input is evident. The ideas taken from
the literature are utilized to make observations, discuss
implications, develop generalizations, and draw
conclusions.
_______________________________________________________
5. Clarity, simplicity, parsimony, and good English
characterize the paper. It can be easily read and
understood.
_______________________________________________________
6. The paper has overall quality. The writer understands the
issues and displays an ability to organize, to analyze, to
synthesize, to evaluate ideas and to express thoughts
fluently.
_______________________________________________________
Grading Categories:
[ ] 91­100 Exceptional paper in all respects, and in addition, contains original, creative thought.
[ ] 80­90 Excellent paper with respect to most or all criteria.
[ ] 75­79 Very good paper. Meets some of the criteria very well, and the remaining criteria
adequately.
[ ] 70­74 Good paper. Meets all of the criteria adequately. This category constitutes the norm for
grading major papers; all grades are assigned relative to this norm.
[ ] 65­69 A satisfactory paper, but some improvements are desirable. A paper deficient on two of the
criteria is assigned to this category.
[ ] 60­64 Minimally acceptable paper. Lacks originality in that it imitates references too closely,
or is deficient on three of the criteria.
[ ] < 60 A paper that is deficient on most of the listed criteria, or that contains plagiarism; does
not meet the standards required.
February 9, 2010