IN THE MATTER OF A WORKLOAD RESOLUTION ARBITRATION

BETWEEN:

CENTENNIAL COLLEGE

-and-

(the“College” orthe“Employer”)

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES’ UNION, LOCAL 558(the “Union”)

VariousComplaintsreqardingtheAttribution ofWeeklyHoursforEvaluationandFeedback

Complaintof ArthurDonin

BramHerlich, WorkloadResolutionArbitrator

TimothyP. Liznick, DanielWong

,

Mel FogelandPatrickKelly for theCollege

GeoraeRichards,RonGolemba

,

EileenBurrowsandJacquesO’Sullivan for theUnion

AWARD(Hearingswereheld in TorontoonJune28 andJuly 9, 2002.)

This is thesecondin aseriesof complaintswhichhavebeenreferredto

mein mycapacityasWorkloadResolutionArbitratorunderthetermsof Article

11 of thecollectiveagreement.An earlierdecisionin thesematters(the“Rae

decision”)issuedon June17, 2002. Much of thecontextwhichis commonto all

of thesecaseswassetoutin thataward,aswastheessentiallegal framework

whichunderliesthedeterminationswhichneedto bemadein thesecases.The

readeris thereforedirectedto thatdecisionfor muchof thebackground

informationwhichwill notberepeatedhere.

Further,andwhile I notethattheemployerrepeatedsomeof its legal

argumentswhichwererejectedin theRaedecision,neitherwill I revisit those

legal issuesasI havenot beenpersuadedto departfrom my determinationin

respectof them.

Thecaseswhichhavebeenreferredto meariseasaresultof initiatives

undertakenin theSchoolof EngineeringTechnologyandApplied Science

(“SETAS”) andin theSchoolof Business.TheRaeawarddealtwith ateacher

in SETAS. This awardconcernsArthurDonin,a teacherin theSchoolof

Business.

In theRaedecisionI setouttheprocesswhichculminatedin the

College’s“directive” thatthecombinedevaluationfactorsfor anycourse

offeredwithin SETASnote,~ceed.024. Thedocumentationfiled with me

demonstratesthatasimilarprocesswasfollowed in theSchoolof Business.

OnFebruary16, 2001 amemowasdistributedto theacademic

communityfrom theVice-President,Academicregarding2001/2002post-

secondarybudgets.It identifiedapreliminarybudgetreductionin theSchool

of Businessof $325,000. It alsorejectedenrollmentreductionsasaviable

solutionandsignaledtheneed,asaresultof thesefinancialconstraints,to

2

considervariouscost-savinginitiatives. Includedamongthosereferredto was

facultyutilization throughthe SWF,includingevaluationfactors.

At ameetingthatsamemonthof thefull-time InformationSystems

Facultywithin theSchoolof Businesssomepreliminarydiscussionswereheld

in relationto theVice-President’smemo.

At asubsequentfacultymeetingonMarch8, 2001 therewasdiscussion

of thepossibilityof alterationsto SWFsand,in particular,to theevaluation

factorscontainedtherein.

By memodatedMay 10, 2001, UweKrebs,theDirectorof theSchoolof

Businessidentifiedvariouscostreductionstrategies.Includedamongthose

wasadirectionthatamaximum.024evaluationfactorbeassignedfor all

courseswithin theSchool. Facultywereadvisedto usetheMay/Juneperiodto

preparefor theimplementationof therequiredevaluationstrategiesandwere

invited to havetheirSWFsadjustedfor thatperiodto providesufficienttime to

achievethatobjective.

As in SETAS,aworkshopandindividual or groupconsultationswere

organizedto specificallyprovidefacultywith resourcesandsupportrelatingto

assessmentsandevaluation.

OnJune14, 2001 andagainonAugust20, 2001,theDirectorsentfurther

memosto facultyrepeatinghis expectationthattheywould complywith the

managementdirectiveto adoptstudentevaluationsandgradingschemes

correspondingto themaximumcombinedevaluationfactorof .024.

By this timeit wouldappearthatnumerousfaculty SWFshadbeen

rejectedowing, at leastin part,to disputesaroundtheproprietyof the.024

3

evaluationfactor. At ameetingheldneartheendof August,Information

SystemsFacultywere(again)instructedto delivertheircoursesin accordance

with thetermsof therejectedSWFs,i.e.with amaximumevaluationfactorof

.024.

Although theprocesswhichculminatedin thedirectionthatfacultynot

exceed.024asthecombinedevaluationfactorfor all coursesin theSchoolof

Businessresemblesthatdescribedin theRaedecisionin relationto SETAS,

thereis onedifferencewhichperhapsmeritssomenote. As indicatedin the

Raedecision,two explanationswereprovidedin SETASasjustifying and

requiringthedirective:financialandpedagogical.In thatcase,I heard

evidencebothfrom within andoutsideSETASoutlining thepedagogical

desirabilityof amultiplicity of evaluationtechniques.Little of thatsortof

explanationwasprofferedin relationto theSchoolof Business.I shouldnote,

however,thatmaybetheresultof themoreexpeditedprocesstheparties

followed in puttingtheirevidencebeforemein thiscase.And while I amnot

persuadedthatthisdistinctionis onethatis ultimatelymaterialto my

determination,I do feel compelledto remarkon it. For thevirtually exclusive

relianceon financialexigencies— thebonafidesof whicharenot seriously

questioned— allowstheunionin thiscaseto frametheissue,from its

perspective,asfollows:doesfinancialeconomyjustify requiringteachersto

adoptevaluationtechniqueswhich, in theirprofessionaljudgment,are

unsound— particularlyin acasewhereacoursesuchastheonecurrently

underconsiderationhasbeentaughtandrefinedoveraperiodin excessof

two decadeson thebasisof establishedevaluationfactorswhichdo not

conformto theCollege’srecentdirective.

While thequestionasframedby theunionis not onewhichI acceptas

properlyidentifyingthelegal issueatstakein thiscase,it is nonetheless

indicativeof thelegitimatesentimentstheunionseeksto advanceand

4

represent.Indeed,oneis perhapsleft to wonderwhethertheprocessof

tailoringevaluationschemesto conformto theCollege’sdirectivefatherthan

simplyestablishingtheoptimalevaluationtechniquesto achieveestablished

learningoutcomesis, in ascenarioperhapsnotunfamiliar in theeducational

sectorin thisprovince,acaseof thebudgetarytail waggingtheacademicdog.

Butwhile thesentimentsmaybelegitimate,theydo not,aswill beseen,reflect

thelegalissuebeforeme. Whatevermaybe saidaboutthelargerpolitical

issuesof theadequacyof fundingfor public education,theCollegemust

operatewithin both its budgetaryconstraintsandits collectiveagreement

obligations. It is notmy functionto commenton ordeterminethewisdomor

desirabilityof the“tough choices”theCollegefeelscompelledto make— so

longastheydosowithin theconstraintsof thecollectiveagreement.

Arthur Donin hasbeenteachingat CentennialCollegefor over20years.

In theFall 2001 semesterhewasscheduledto teachtwocourses:onesection

of COMP240,aVB DatabaseProgrammingcourse,andthethreesectionsof

COMP231,aprogrammingprojectcourse.

WhileMr. Doninmayhaveinitially questionedtheproprietyof the

assigned.024evaluationfactorin respectof bothcourses,it appearsthathe

conceded(earlyon in therelevantchronologyof events)thatthe .024

evaluationfactorwasacceptablein relationto COMP240.

Thus,theonly issuewhich remainsrelatesto theassignmentof the.024

evaluationfactorin respectof COMP231.

Thecoursewasdescribedby bothpartiesasa“capstone”course.It

requiresthesuccessfulcompletionof multipleprerequisitesfor admissionand

is generallythecrowningcoursefor studentsin theprogram.Indeed,it would

appearthatprospectiveemployersmaydevoteparticularscrutinyto the

5

performanceof studentsin thisspecificcourse.PatrickKelly, theChairof the

InformationSystemsDepartmentandMr. Donin’ssupervisor,readily

acknowledgedtheuniquenatureof thecourse.

As alreadyindicated,thecourseis titled “ProgrammingProject”. It is

summarizedin thecoursedescriptionasfollows:

Thepurposeofthis courseis to havea studentdesign,program,documentandimplementacomputersystemofahypotheticalorganization.Thiswill enablethestudentto simulatetheactivitiesofaprogrammerin thecomputerindustry.

TheCourseLearningOutcomesaresetoutin thecoursedescriptionas

follows:

CourseLearningOutcomes:

Uponcompletionofthecourse,thesuccessfulstudentwill have

demonstratedtheability to:

1. Analyzesystemsspecifications.

2. Designifie/databasestructures.

3. Createinput/outputdesigns.

4. Programamodffied system.

5. Documenttheprogrammingaspectsofa system.

6. Produceweeklyreportsonprojectstatus.

7. Demonstratetime managementoftheprojecttasks.

8. Presentaprojectfor evaluation.

Finally, thecoursedescriptionsummarizestheevaluationandgrading

systemsasfollows:

6

EvaluationandGradingSystems:

WeeklyReports(Participation) 10%

TermProject(Fully Documented) 60%

Mid-TermEvaluation 15%

FinalPresentation 15%

TOTAL 100%

As is evidentfrom theabove,asubstantialproportionof thestudent’s

final gradeis basedontheresultsof theprojectwhich is thesubjectof the

course. Indeed,havingheardtheevidenceof Mr. Donin, it is clearthatthe

student’sprojecthashistoricallyplayedanevenmoresignificantrole in

determiningfinal gradesthanonemight initially infer from theabove

distributionof grades.

As thecoursetitle anddescriptionof bothsuggest,thecourseis rooted

in andstructuredaroundtheindividual studentprojects. Thereis acatalogue

of some30 projecttopicssuchas“video storerentalsystem”,“cableTV billing

system”,“small hotel/innreservations”and“small commuterairline

reservations”amongothers.Eachstudentis assignedauniqueprojecttopic

andis thenresponsiblefor thedesign,program,documentationand

implementationof acomputersystemtailoredto meettheneedsof theproject

in question.

Theallocationanduseof classroomtime reflecttheuniquecharacterof

thecourse.Mr. Doninteachesthreesectionsof thecourseeachwith a

projectedenrollmentof 25students.Eachsectionincludes4 teachingcontact

hoursperweekfor eachof the 16 weeksof the term. It is clear,however,that

thereis very little “classroomteaching”in theconventionalsenseof theterm.

In eachsectiontherearenotionallytwo hoursof labtimeandtwo hoursof

7

lecturetimeperweek. However,Mr. Doninexplainedthattherearelectures

only duringthefirst threeweeksof theterm. Theseconsistof asinglelecture

perweekfor all threesectionsdealingprimarily with “administrative”matters

relatingto projectassignment.Thebalanceof the“classroom”orteaching

contacthourstime,bothduringtheinitial threeweeksandtheremainderof the

term, is dividedbetweenlabtime supervisedby Mr. Doninandtheone-on-one

meetingsheholdswith studentsto supervisetheprogressof theirproject.

Returningto thegradingandevaluationsystemMr. Doninhasusedin

thepast,virtually all gradingis tied directlyto theprocessandoutcomeof the

student’sindividualproject. Theweeklyreportsconsistof ane-mail forwarded

to Mr. Doninin whicheachstudentdescribeswhathasbeenaccomplishedin

relationto theprojectduringtheprecedingweekandwhatis intendedto be

accomplishedduringthefollowing week. In themid-termreportMr. Donin

assessesvariousidentifiedfactorsrelatedto thework-in-progresswhichwill

becomethestudent’sfinal project.Students’final presentationsareassessed

in one-on-onesessionsMr. Donin holdswith individual students.Evenin

relationto thatportionof thegradingprocess,however,Mr. Doninexplained

thatthe 15 percentallottedto theFinalPresentationis notfinally assessed

until hehashadtheopporLunityto measureit in relationto theactualfinal

project. Finally, of course,thecompletedfinal projectis assessedin orderto

determinethestudent’sfinal grade.

In thatcontextonemayunderstandwhy Mr. Doninwassofondduring

muchof hiscross-examinationto respondthat“theproof is in thepudding” to

highlight theimportanceandprimacyof thefinal projectin theevaluation

process.

All aspectsof theevaluationprocessfor thiscoursehavehistorically

beentreatedas“project” or“essay”evaluationandfeedbackatthe.030level

8

contemplatedby thecollectiveagreement.It is thecollisionof thathistorical

treatmentwith theSchoolof Businessdirectivethatnocourseemploy

combinedevaluationfactorsin excessof .024whichis at therootof thiscase.

The issueof adoptingevaluationstrategiesthatwould conformto the

directivewasdiscussedon two occasionsbetweenMr. Doninandhis

supervisor,PatrickKelly, theChairof theInformationSystemsDepartment.

During(andsubsequentto) thosediscussionsMr. Kelly madeit clearthatthe

College’sexpectationwasthatMr. Doninwould employevaluationschemes

thatcompliedwith thedirective. Therewas,however,lessclaritysurrounding

themethodsof suchcompliance.In theirfirst meetingMr. Kelly exploredthe

possibilityof integratingroutineorassistedevaluationandfeedback(with an

associatedevaluationfactorof .015) into theevaluationandgradingscheme.

Mr. Doninwasnot receptiveto suchsuggestions.Indeed,it would appearthat

Mr. Kelly tooacceptedthatthosesortsof evaluativetoolswerenotappropriate

in thecontextof thisparticularcourseandthatsuggestionwasnotpursued

furthereitherin themeetingsbetweenthetwo or in thehearingbeforeme.In

theirsecondmeeting,Mr. Kelly exploredthepossibilityof integratingsome

degreeof in-processevaluation(with anassociatedevaluationfactorof .0092)

into theevaluationandgradingscheme.Mr. Doninwasequallyresistantto

thosesuggestions.

Mr. Kelly’s suggestionsfor theintegrationof in-processevaluation

includedalteringthegradingfor theweeklyreportsto includeone-halfof the

10%asanin-processevaluation,perhapsby introducingpeerevaluation.(I

taketheopportunityto notethatwhile theunionraisedwhat,in its view, were

principledobjectionsto theuseandproprietyof peerevaluation,I seenothing,

in principlewhich is eitherinherentlyperverse,counter-intuitiveor even

unrerasonableabouttheconservativeandlimited useof peerevaluation.)He

alsosuggestedthattheFinalPresentationcouldbegradedon anin-process

9

basisandthata further 10percentof thefinal gradecouldbeassessedon an

in-processbasisby alteringgradingapproachesto portionsof themid-term

evaluationand/orthefinal project. Theresultsof thosesuggestionsare

consistentwith Mr. Kelly’s evidencethathewas“aiming” ata70/30ratioof

essayorproject/in-processevaluationwhichwould bringthecombined

evaluationfactor for thecourseto slightly lessthan.024.

FollowingtheRaedecision,theissueI mustdecidein this caseis

whetheraproposedcombinedevaluationfactorof .024is reasonablein

relationto thecoursein question.

While it is not necessaryfor meto reviewall of thereasoningcontained

in thataward,I notethatin advancingits argumentsbeforeme, theCollege

reliedon thefollowing passagefrom theRaedecision(atpage28):

Were I persuadedby the evidence that the evaluative schemeproposedby the grievor wasnot merely a reasonablescheme,not merelytheoptimalscheme,but the only schemewhichwould achievethelearningoutcomesof MT 242, thenI might be attractedto the conclusionthat theCollegehad failed to apply its directivesreasonablyin this case. On theevidencebeforeme, however,I am unableto come to sucha conclusionandneitheramI otherwisepersuadedthat the College’sproposedschemewasunreasonable.

Theextentof College’srelianceon thisextractfrom theawardis

somewhatmisplaced.It goeswithout sayingthat it would beunreasonablefor

theCollegeto imposeanutterlyunworkableor impossibleevaluationscheme

onits faculty. Butwhile suchan“impossibility” wouldclearlybeasufficient

basisto establishunreasonableness,it is neitherthenecessarynorexclusive

routeto suchaconclusion.

At therisk of repetition,theissueis simplywhether,basedon all of the

informationplacedbeforeme,theimpositionof amaximum.024evaluation

10

factor is reasonablein respectof COMP231. For thereasonswhich follow, I

ampersuadedthatit is not. While I amsatisfiedthatit is notunreasonableto

altertheevaluationschemesusedin thecoursesoasto approachthe

College’sdesiredmaximum,it would notbereasonableto imposethe

significantchangeswhichwould berequiredin orderto fully achievethat

objective. In comingto thatconclusionI relyuponthe following.

First, I accept,asthepartieshave,thattheintroductionof “routine or

assisted”evaluationmethodsinto thegradingschemefor thecoursewould not

beappropriate.Second,I alsoaccept,at leastto someextenttheurgingsof

theunionandMr. Doninto respecttheprimacyof theimportanceof the

programmingprojectin theschemeof thecourse.Relatedto thatpoint, I note

thatsomeof thesuggestionsadvancedto alterevaluationmethodsrestedon

transformingtheprojectfrom anindividual to agroupone.Groupprojects

might facilitatelessonerousformsof evaluationby limiting theextentof

requiredone-on-oneteacher-studentsessionsandcouldalsoenhancethe

feasibilityof approachessuchaspeerevaluation.In fairness,theCollege’s

positiondid notrestprincipally(or, ultimately,necessarilyatall) on the

transformationfrom individualto groupprojects.In anyevent,in myview such

atransformationwould beutterlyunreasonablein relationto thecourseasit is

currentlydescribed.Thecourseis clearlyconceivedandhashistoricallybeen

deliveredasonebasedon individual studentstakingthefull andcomplete

responsibilityfor all aspectsof theirindividual anduniqueprojects.More

importantlyfor ourcurrentpurposes,thatis clearlyreflectedin thecourse

outhnewhichdescribesthepurposeof thecourseashavingasludentdesign,

program,documentandimplementacomputersystemof ahypothetical

organization.Of course,employercounselproperlyemphasizedthatthefact

thatacoursehasbeentaughtandstudentshavebeenevaluatedpursuantto

particularpracticesdoesnot constituteeitheraguaranteeorarequirement

thatthoseapproachesoughtto ormustbepreserved.However,to alterthis

11

course,without following theprocessof alteringtheofficial courseouthnefrom

onedescribinganindividual projectto onedescribingagroupprojectwould,

in myview, beunreasonable.

Ontheotherhand,thereis aconsiderableaspectof thecoursedelivery

which,in myview, invitestheuseof in-processevaluation.Almostonehalf of

theteachingcontacthours(i.e. apartfrom theactuallimited lecturetime and

thelabtime) is devotedto one-on-onetime betweentheteacherandindividual

students.In-processevaluation,by definition underthecollectiveagreement,

takesplaceduringteachingcontacthours.Therecanbelittle doubtthatthe

relativeabundanceof one-on-onestudent-teqcherinteractionsduringteaching

contacthourspresentsmeaningfulopportunitiesfor theintegrationof in-

processevaluation.

But theunioncautionsagainsttheimpracticalityandresulting

unfavourableconsequencesflowing from thewholesaleconversionof

“teachingtime” to “evaluationtime” within thelimited numberof available

teachingcontacthours.Thereis considerablemerit to thatconcern.

Mr. Donintestifiedthatteachingcontacthoursand,in particular,the

one-on-onetimeremainingwhenactuallectureandlabtime areremovedfrom

thetotalavailabletime, areusedprimarily to monitor,superviseandmentor

studentsin theprogressof theirindividual projects.Thoseactivitiesmightbe

viewedastheheartof theteachingdonein thecourse.It would appear,

however,thatsomeof thattime might (or certainlycould)beusedfor the

purposesof evaluatingstudents’final projectsandperformingthemid-term

evaluation.However,practicaldictateswould requirethatmuchof that

evaluationwould haveto beperformedoutsideof teachingcontacthoursand

would thereforenotproperlybecharacterizedasin-processevaluation.

12

A cursoryquantitativeanalysisdisclosesthelimited availability and

utility of usingteachingcontacthoursfor thepurposesof evaluationin relation

to thefinal presentationandthemid-termassessment.

First, whentheinitial lecturehours(6) andthelabtime (a total of 32

hours)aredeductedfrom the totalcontacthoursassignedto thecourse,

roughly26contacthoursremain.Thatamountsto approximatelyonehour—

overthecourseof theterm— perstudentprojectedto beenrolledin thecourse.

EvenacceptingwhatI taketo beaconservativeestimateof the 15 minutes

whichmightberequiredto evaluateastudentwith respectto eitherthefinal

presentationor themid-term,roughlyonehalf of thetime whichwould

otherwisebedevotedto mentoring,supervisingandmonitoringwould haveto

berededicatedto in-processevaluationof themid-termandfinal evaluation

(whicharesetout in thecoursedescriptionto accountfor acumulativetotalof

30%of thestudent’sfinal grade).

And evenacceptingthelimitedviability of suchanapproach,thereis a

furtherdifficulty. Teachingcontacthoursareassignedandlimited on aweekly

basis.But both themid-termevaluationandthatof thefinal presentation

would haveto beperformedin closetemporalproximity to thepointsat which

eachwasscheduledor due.Thus,to properlyassignall of thenecessary

teachingcontacthoursrequiredfor in-processevaluationwouldresultin either

or both theeliminationof “normal” teachingdutiesduringtherequiredweeks

in questionandtheprolongationof theevaluationperiodsoveranumberof

weeksincompatiblewith therelevantduedates.

It is for thesereasonsthatI haveconcludedthatit would be

unreasonableto converttheevaluationof boththe final presentationandthe

mid-termassessmentfrom project-basedto in-processevaluation.

13

In fairnessto theCollege,it maywell bethatit too, implicitly,

acknowledgedthedifficulties associatedwith sucharesult.For in its final

submissions,it adoptedMr. Kelly’s “target” of a70/30project/in-processsplit of

evaluationfactors.However,to arriveatthe 30%in-processfigure it followeda

somewhatdifferentroutefrom theoneMr. Kelly hadofferedanddid not

suggestthatboth themid-termandthefinal presentationbeevaluatedonan

exclusivelyin-processbasis.It suggestedthatcr11 (ratherthanhalf asMr. Kelly

hadsuggested)of the 10%attributedto theweeklyreportsbegradedon anin-

processbasis,thatthe final presentation(worth 15%of thefinal grade)alsobe

gradedon anin-processbasisandthata further5%befoundfrom other

sources— perhapssomecombinationof themid-termand/orthefinal project.

In view of theconcernssetout above,I haveconcludedthatit would be

unreasonableto attributeanymorethanthe5% Mr. Kelly suggestedto in-

processevaluationof theweeklyreports.Similarly, I amalsopersuadedthatit

would notbereasonableto attributeanymorethanonehalf (i.e. 15%of the

30%) of thecombinedevaluationof themid-termandthefinal presentationto

in-processevaluation.

Beforeconcluding,I taketheopportunityto repeatthenatureof the

exerciseundertakenin thisdecision.I havenot anddonotview mytaskin this

caseasdetermining,identifying andimposingwhatI maybelievetheto bethe

optimalevaluationscheme.Werethatmy task,I mightwell havecometo

differentconclusions.Rather,it hasbeenmytaskto determinewhetherthe

Collegehasactedreasonablyin implementingadirectiveit haspromulgated

asalegitimateresponseto its financialconstraints.Havingconsideredthe

materialbeforeme, I haveconcludedthatwhilesignificantprogresstowards

theCollege’sstatedgoalcanbeaccomplished,thecoursein questioncannot

reasonablybedeliveredusingevaluationfactorswhichdo not exceed.024.

14

ThenumbersI havearrivedat canbeparsedin variouswaysandit

maywell bethat,ultimately,Mr. Doninwill be(or would havebeen— hadthis

processunfoldedin amoretimely fashion)left with someresidualdiscretionto

establishthefinal formatof theevaluationscheme.Onefashionto describe

theconclusionatwhichI havearrivedwould presumethattheevaluationof

thefinal projectremainsuntouched(i.e. at .030).Notmorethanonehalf of the

remainingevaluativetoolswould betransformedfrom essay/projectto in-

processformsof evaluation.Theresultwould movethecombinedevaluation

factor from its past100%to 80%essay/projectevaluation— somewhatshortof

the70%targetidentifiedby theCollege.

Havingregardto all of theabove,I concludethatthecombined

evaluationfactorin relationto COMP231 is to beassessedat 0.0258.

To theextentsetout herein,Mr. Donin’scomplaintisupheld.I tmstthat

thisdisposesof thatcomplaintbutI will remainseizedin theeventthereare

anyissuesrelatingto theimplementationof thisaward.

DATED AT TORONTOTHIS 30th DAY OFAUGUST2002

LT~—~ ‘.. ~

BramHerlichWorkloadResolutionArbitrator