Two years of teacher’s college has worked for decades; changing the syllabus could hurt the Ontario education system and cheat students out of a fair degree.
The province of Ontario is currently battling an ongoing teacher shortage, with a proposed solution to completely overhaul the teachers’ college program. This is the latest in the recent curriculum changes to the Ontario education system that has seen the loss of 5000 educators in six years and 3.2 billion dollars of education spending slashed in the previous school year from the Ontario Conservative government
The proposed plan shifts the program to a one-year model instead of the current two-year model, which has seen the approval of the Ontario Teachers’ Federation.
At first glance, the one-year program might seem like a practical fix: less time in school, reduced financial burden, and a modified path into the workforce. These changes are designed to be appealing, especially to those feeling the pressure of tuition and time. But beneath the surface, this move isn’t only short-sighted, but also undermines the preparation of teachers, and it risks doing long-term damage to the integrity of the Ontario. education system.
As a teacher candidate who recently completed my placement in April, I’ve come to understand that effective instruction can’t be rushed. Teaching isn’t just about knowing the curriculum; it’s about managing a classroom, responding to student needs, deg inclusive lessons, and adapting to complex and unpredictable behaviours. These aren’t skills you pick up overnight or master in a few months. Instead, they require time, practice, and meaningful reflection in real classroom environments.
Growing up, I saw teachers who didn’t care—ones who were there for the paycheck, for the benefits and the career stability. The carelessness and lack of ion were evident in the rushed lessons and dismissed questions, creating an environment that made learning feel more like a chore and something to “get through” rather than be motivated by.
It was when I encountered teachers who truly cared and who taught from their hearts—with patience and genuine ion—that I realized the power of education. The shift in perspective changed everything for me and pushed me to pursue education myself, wanting to be the kind of educator who sees potential in students and helps them achieve it, even when they don’t see it themselves.
And that’s where my greatest concern lies with this proposed change. By cutting the program in half, we risk making teaching an even more attractive option for people who aren’t in it for the right reasons, and ones who may not have the dedication or mindset to fully embrace the role of an educator. In personal experience, I’ve seen classmates in Concurrent Education it they’re in the program not because they love teaching, but because “it’s a stable career,” or “th hours are good.”
While financial stability is important in any profession, teaching isn’t just another job, it’s a vocation that requires emotional investment, resilience, and a genuine love of learning and working with students. But when the rushed and condensed training gets paired with that mindset, the result transforms into a growing group of underprepared and uninspired educators entering the classrooms, ultimately causing more harm to the students and the education system than good.
The current two-year model of teachers college allowed me and my fellow teaching candidates the time we needed to develop the care, competence, and confidence that good teaching demands. We had extended practicum placements, opportunities to engage deeply with essential topics like special education and assessment strategies, as well as the space to reflect and grow into the educators we want to be.
Teachers college isn’t just about checking boxes or ing courses. It’s about transformation; becoming someone who can shape and young minds in meaningful ways.
In contrast, the proposed one-year program doesn’t allow time for that foundation to be built. Without adequate placement time and thoughtful academic preparation, we risk graduating teachers who feel overwhelmed, underprepared, and uned. That’s not just a disservice to those entering the profession, it’s a disservice to the students who will sit in their classrooms.
While increasing the number of certified teachers may remedy the current shortage, it contradicts itself if the teachers aren’t truly ready or if they never wanted to teach in the first place.
This shift also creates an uneven playing field. Graduates from the current two-year program will enter the workforce with significantly more experience and preparation than those trained under the new condensed model. This disparity will show up in classrooms, and students will be the ones to feel it the most. The inconsistency in teacher quality will impact classroom dynamics, student success, and overall trust in the education system.
The proposed changes by the Ontario Government feel more like a reaction than a solution. Yes, we have a teacher shortage, and yes, prompt action is vital, but cutting back on preparation time isn’t the answer. If anything, it risks perpetuating a cycle of underprepared educators, burnout, and high turnover. And when that happens, students lose out, parents lose confidence.,and our public education system suffers.
I worry that if we make it too easy to become a teacher, we will be flooded with people who aren’t in it for the students. Teaching isn’t supposed to be a fallback plan. It shouldn’t be the path of someone who didn’t get into law school. It’s a career that should be driven by a desire to make a difference in students’ lives, to create safe, challenging, and engaging learning environments, and to help young people realize their full potential. That kind of commitment takes time to foster and prepare for, time that the one-year model simply doesn’t offer.
If Ontario truly wants to strengthen public education, there are better, more sustainable paths forward. Instead of shortening the program, the government should focus on making the two-year model more accessible. That means offering financial through tuition relief, grants, or living stipends. It means improving working conditions so that teaching remains an attractive and fulfilling career long-term. That way, institutions like Queen’s University and other faculties of education across Ontario can continue to attract ionate, skilled individuals without compromising on quality.
We need to invest in teachers, not cut corners in their preparation. A well-prepared teacher is one of the most valuable investments we can make in the future of Ontario’s youth. If the province genuinely cares about that future, we must invest more in teacher preparation, not less.
Alden Locco is a second-year ConEd student.
Tags
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].