Staffroom Confidential

Critical thinking and Bill 22 - A teacher rebuts George Abbott

noreply@blogger.com (Tara Ehrcke) — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 22:22:00 +0000

Dear Minister Abbott:

Imagine there are two children arguing in the playground over a toy. Picture a tall, brutish bully, and a wiry, bespectacled nerd. Never mind that the toy belongs to the nerd. Never mind that the bully pushed the nerd over and took the toy. Just imagine that you walk into the situation with no foreknowledge of any thefts or pushing. Perhaps you ask to hear the story. Perhaps you even believe the bully's story that the nerd is greedy, and has lots of toys, and for some reason wants to take away the bully's toy just for fun. Perhaps you distrust the nerd, because you once knew a nerd who was untrustworthy. Now imagine that the bully pushes the nerd again. Right in front of you. Another student runs in and shouts at the bully to return the toy: you have a witness! It did belong to the nerd after all! Suddenly, the bully steps on the nerd's throat and says, "If you try to stand up to me, if you tell on me, I'll make you pay. I'll take all your lunch money, every day, until you give up."

Remember, this is happening right in front of you. What do you do?

This is what we call an allegory. We teach people to stand up to bullies. We teach people to stand up for what they believe in, even in the face of bullies. We are B.C.'s teachers and we are being stepped on. What will you do?

Erin Porter
Greater Victoria School District

EDUC.Minister@gov.bc.ca> wrote:
Thank you for your email regarding the current contract negotiations with the BC Teachers' Federation.

Government introduced Bill 22, the Education Improvement Act, to suspend the union's strike action, set a"cooling off" period, appoint a mediator to facilitate bargaining, and implement a new $165 millionLearning Improvement Fund and other initiatives that will benefit teachers and students. You can learn more about the Education Improvement Act at: http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2012EDUC0015-000204.htm.

The legislation does not impose a new contract. Rather, it sets out a mediation process with the goal of reaching a mediated settlement within the net-zero mandate by the beginning of summer. If there is no agreement then the mediator will issue a report by June 30, 2012, with non-binding recommendations.

The Education Improvement Act also includes several initiatives that will benefit teachers and students. Collectively, these initiatives serve as government's response to the BC Supreme Court decision on Bills 27 and 28.

*       The Act implements a $165 million Learning Improvement Fund that school districts can use to hire additional teachers and education assistants, provide additional teaching time and support professional development and training to help teachers meet the complex needs in their classrooms. The process for allocating these funds will include consultations with the BC Teachers' Federation, classroom teachers, education assistants, administration and district staff.

*       The Act restores class size and related matters to the scope of collective bargaining, effective for the next round of bargaining which is expected to begin in Spring 2013.

*       The Act eliminates the use of district class size averages and implements a class size maximum of 30 students for Grades 4-12. The new cap will not apply to some subjects where large groups are desirable such as a band or drama class. The existing cap of 22 students for Kindergarten and 24 students for Grade 1-3 will remain in place and cannot be exceeded.

*       The Act allows a Grade 4-12 class to exceed 30 students if the principal and superintendents consider the learning conditions to be appropriate, but in these cases, school districts must provide additional compensation to the classroom teacher, proportionate to the added workload. This compensation can consist of increased pay, additional preparation time, professional development funding or a combination of different accommodations.

*       The Act eliminates the formulaic and cumbersome consultation process on class composition and promotes regular consultation between principals and teachers on all matters of class organization, including the placement of students with special needs.

The Education Improvement Act provides certainty to students and their parents by suspending the current strike so that every parent in BC can receive a full accounting of how their children are progressing in school and schools can resume the collaborative meetings that are so important to supporting our students.

The Act also puts a mediator in place to help the parties achieve a mediated settlement. The union's demands for a $2 billion wage increase are completely unreasonable given the current economic reality. Therefore, the mediator will help the parties to reach a settlement that follows the lead of other public sector unions who have already signed more than 120 agreements under the government's net-zero mandate.

Lastly, the Act puts more money into classrooms, improves supports for students and teachers, provides additional teacher compensation where class size exceeds the student limit, improves consultation on class organization, and restores the opportunity to bargain class size and related matters. Taken together, these are significant gains that recognize the important role and contribution of teachers.

The Education Improvement Act brings a responsible conclusion to this dispute and I hope all parties will take a constructive approach in the days ahead to move forward and provide the certainty necessary to improve our education system and support our students.

Yours truly,
George Abbott
Minister

Dear Minister Abbott,

It may shock you to learn this, but many of BC's teachers are actually very intelligent individuals. While I am sure it took you (or your aide) precious seconds to forward me this generic form letter, I find it more than a little insulting that you did not take the time to actually respond to me. Do you think I am unfamiliar with your bill? Do you think I blindly follow instructions without taking the time to read and think for myself? Believe it or not, I teach students to read and think critically, and I pride myself on being able to do the same.

Your "mediation" is not mediation at all. If you get to appoint the mediator, and you get to dictate the terms that this mediator can discuss, you have not appointed a mediator but a puppet.

If you actually believe that $165 million will make a difference to an education system that has been systematically stripped of supports for students for 10 years (totalling up to $3.3 billion), you need to come and sit in one of my math classes for a lesson or two.

I would thank you for removing the “formulaic and cumbersome consultation process” regarding class sizes, but since you are in reality removing any formal record of consultations and violations, I am going to reserve my gratitude.

I am interested to see how you will provide “additional compensation to the classroom teacher, proportionate to the added workload” of classes exceeding 30 students when you do not compensate teachers proportionally to “regular” workload in the first place. Looking across the country, BC teachers are ranked between 6th and 11th in pay. Teachers in other provinces get more preparation time. In the face of such statements, some are bound to argue, “So why don’t you move?” I could do that, and I fear many teachers will (or already have). BC’s students, whom you claim to care so much about, are the ones who suffer when talented and respected teachers leave for greener pastures. I don’t blame them for leaving – I blame you.

Instead of negotiating a wage increase that might bring BC teachers on par with (or at least closer to) our colleagues across the country, you call our demands “completely unreasonable” and refuse to even talk with us. Is a pay increase unreasonable? Not when cost of living increases mean that “net zero” is actually a net loss. Is $2 billion unreasonable? Perhaps it is high (which, I hear, opening offers in negotiations tend to be) but is it entirely devoid of reason? Not when teachers in other provinces are paid similar wages.   I think you may have your numbers confused yet again. It is the number 475 that is “completely unreasonable.” And the number 1.3 million. And the number 2,500. The word “unreasonable” also means “beyond the limits of acceptability or fairness.” That you are threatening to fine me, personally, $475 a day – A DAY – to exercise my right to strike in protest of Bill 22, is utterly beyond the limits of acceptability or fairness.

If you truly recognized “the important role and contribution of teachers,” you would not insult us with Bill 22.

Erin Porter

What is this strike about? A moving letter from a Saanich teacher

noreply@blogger.com (Tara Ehrcke) — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 01:39:00 +0000

I would like to thank you, Mr. Abbott.

My wife and I have just had an excellent discussion with our daughters about power, and about the importance of checks and balances in a society.

Sophie and Rachel are 12 and 10. They were very confused about why the government was allowed to make rules such as fining teachers $475 a day or $2500 a day for going on strike.

We explained that our government is elected to make decisions on our behalf, and that we trust that they will make good and considered decisions.

But what if we don’t agree with their decisions, they wondered.

We explained that there is time to debate these decisions before they are made, and that everybody is allowed to write letters, or protest if they disagree. We explained that the media is meant to also provide some balance, by asking difficult and challenging questions.

But they are saying that if you protest their decision, they will fine you, they replied.

We had no answer.

Why do they hate teachers, one of them asked.

I still had no answer.

----------

I could have been a lawyer. I scored in the 98th percentile of the LSAT and was accepted to Queen’s Law School, offered a scholarship to a Law School in the northeastern US. I chose instead to defer my decision, and be a tutor/coach/residence don/in-house TOC at my old high school for a couple of years. This was a private boarding school in Ontario. I loved it.

I loved being able to explain concepts in math to kids, and to see the “light go on”. I loved sharing my passion for math, for soccer, for hockey, for philosophy, for poetry, and for musical theater with kids. I never considered going back to law after those two years.

After completing my teacher training at UVic, I did my practicum in Saanich. I hadn’t realized until then what a sheltered teaching existence I had at the boarding school, with well-to-do kids brought up with every advantage (the type of kids to whom Mr. Abbott recently referred as “the smart kids”, I believe). In the public school system in Saanich, I learned humility. I learned how to be a better teacher, how to teach the whole child, and not just the mind.

I taught classes that not only had some of Mr. Abbott’s advantaged “smart kids”, but other kids who were often equally smart and capable if not more, but who faced challenges the others didn’t: broken homes, poverty issues, learning disabilities, to name only a few.

These classes were challenging because the kids’ needs were so varied. Some kids could be turned on by ideas alone; others needed to be convinced of the value of learning, to place education in context; some just needed breakfast. And yet, at the time I started teaching in Saanich, I considered myself fortunate because we had a locally arranged agreement about how many kids could be in a secondary English class. (I taught English at the time).

The number was 27 – unless you had a student who had an acknowledged special need, such as dyslexia, or visual impairment, for example, that would require a significant amount of adjustment to practice or extra preparation. For each of these students, the number would drop by one. If there were 6 “special needs” students in your English 11, the maximum number of kids would be 21. Trust me, this would still be a challenging class in terms of composition, but the system worked. It was so important to teachers, my older colleagues told me, that teachers took less in salary improvements at the time in order to secure these contract provisions.

Silly me for thinking that contracts were something sacrosanct in Canadian law.

When I started my first continuing contract at Claremont Secondary in 2000, we had an enrolment not very different from our enrolment today.

When I started at Claremont, it was not unusual for the more challenging classes, such as Essentials of Math 10 or Communications 11 to have 12-15 students, because that’s what those kids needed to be successful.

When I started at Claremont, there were two librarians – one for every 550 kids.

When I started at Claremont there was a staff of 85-90, with plenty of teachers in the building to comfortably take on all the extra-curriculars that make schools, as the Saanich motto goes, “great places to learn, safe places to be”

Today at Claremont, a class with less than 23-24 students does not run. This legislation before you will only make that number increase, I assure you, and it is not what kids need.

Today at Claremont there is 3/4 of a librarian – which translates to one for every 1475 kids.

Today at Claremont there is a staff of 65-70. This group which now numbers 20 fewer than when I started 12 years ago, has been attempting to keep up all the things that make our school great – outstanding academics, including extra-curricular offerings such as the dozens of math contests I sponsor and organize every year, an incredible sports program, an enviable fine arts program, numerous volunteer organizations that enrich our school community and the community at large. So far, we have managed, but we have each had to take up the slack now for too long. We are at the breaking point, and I promise you – this legislation already threatens to push us over the edge.

Surely this government is not deaf to the teachers from around the province who are saying enough…

Enough: we have devoted our lives to a profession that we knew all along would not make us rich, but we did it because we believed that if it would help just one disadvantaged kid, it was worth it.

Enough: we believed in it so much, that we traded even the most meager of raises, time and time again, in order to gain better classroom conditions for our students.

Enough: we tried our absolute best to play within the rules, when government after government stripped away those conditions that we bought with our own salaries, even when the Supreme Court ruled that those government actions were illegal.

Enough: we have tried to hold our heads high, when we are vilified in the press as lazy and greedy, when nothing – NOTHING -- could be further from the truth.

Enough: we have devoted countless hours to volleyball, to musical theatre, to poetry readings, to charity work, to rugby, to yearbook clubs, to student’s councils, to tutoring before school from 7am, to tutoring after school until 6pm or longer, to tutoring kids by email on the weekends, and, AND! to our own Professional Development, whether that occurs on a Pro-D day or on our own time – Yes, Mr. Abbott, we actually do Pro-D.

In short, we have devoted countless hours to the children and families of this province, and the thanks we get is one more veiled legislated slap in the face?

Now, I’m not so out of touch that I don’t realize that as a teacher at the top of the scale, I’m fairly comfortable. Sure it irks me that all of you folks in the legislature have received pay raises in the last ten years far beyond what I have received over the same period – pay raises which you are allowed to vote for yourselves. Not that I would dare suggest that you don’t deserve it – I don’t envy your jobs in the least. But even despite this glaring double-standard, I would have begrudgingly accepted no raise, if it were that alone.

It is not the extending of the current contract in this legislation that has me upset.

I am insulted.

I am insulted that you have the temerity to suggest that this legislation represents mediation in any true sense of the word. Your use of legislation to enforce mediation, but then dictate the terms of the mediation is nothing short of bullying. How ironic that there was an anti-bullying flashmob on the lawn of the legislature the day this bill was introduced. To my mind, you have brought disrepute onto yourselves and the institution you represent. I was trying to defend the institution of our provincial government to my children tonight, suggesting that it rested on a foundation of elected officials acting in a dispassionate way for the benefit of all. I couldn’t.

I am shocked.

I shouldn’t be, given everything that has happened in the last 10 years, but I’m shocked.

I am shocked – no, enraged – that you would enact legislation that essentially attacks my freedom to associate; legislation that, quite frankly, probably runs counter to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, even though your government’s last Bill of this sort was deemed illegal by the Supreme Court; legislation that does not “put families first” but which threatens families – no, puts a gun to their heads – and says to them: “we will bankrupt you if you have the gall to disagree with us or stand up for your rights”.

Lastly, I am disappointed, and if I’m to be honest, I am defeated and demoralized. And I know I’m not alone.

And that’s what you wanted, wasn’t it? You don’t want an improved public education system. I would love to challenge you, to defy you, sir, to say otherwise, to come to Claremont and convince me in person that this legislation will improve the public education system in BC, that it will improve the lives of children and their families across this province, by demoralizing and insulting teachers like me, by forcing a foregone, supposedly “mediated” conclusion down our throats. Sadly, you tell these lies every day, and so my challenge is useless.

It is a sad day for me, and a sad day for BC. I love my job, I love the kids at Claremont, and I love Victoria, but today I really and truly thought it might be time to find a teaching job back in Ontario. You may say good riddance – we can find someone cheaper than you to do the same job. But I dare you to say that to my students. That is a challenge that perhaps I could make.

-------------

My oldest daughter has been reading Animal Farm at school. (Maybe I shouldn’t tell you this – you will think that it is another reason to bring down the public school system…)

After our discussion earlier tonight – and believe me when I say I did my utmost best to withhold the vitriol that must be obvious by now that I hold inside – after our family discussion my oldest daughter paused and, honest to God, said something like: “ Dad, the government are kind of like the pigs on the farm, aren’t they…? Once they get to make the rules, they kind of twist things so that they always go their way”.

So, I want to thank you, Mr. Abbott. You made me so proud of my daughter tonight that I want to cry.

Mark Skanks
Claremont Secondary School

Public education - Christy: it's about equality

noreply@blogger.com (Tara Ehrcke) — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 21:49:00 +0000

Of all the spin put on the current dispute, one aspect that seems to be getting very little attention is really at the heart of the issue - what level of quality should we provide as a public service? What do the 99% who rely on public (as opposed to private) services deserve?

We already have a "two tiered" education system in Canada. Parents who can afford it send their children to private schools. In BC these schools receive public funding - 55% percent of the per student funding, 100% for a student with special needs.

In the private system, there is much less debate about what schooling should look like or what schools need. I taught at a private school for a year. Classes were small. My largest class was 18 and that was big. The student/educator ratio was 8:1. The school did not have many students with special needs, but it did have a large ESL populations. They had targeted programs, individualized classes, one on one tutoring, special language labs. Everything needed to allow each and every student reach their full potential.

Somehow, our current government doesn't believe public schools should be the same. Somehow, they seem to think it is ok to offer a sub-standard level. They think it is ok for classes to be 30 students (or more). They think it is ok not to offer one-on-one support from specialist teachers. They think it is ok to have crumbling facilities, overcrowded rooms, and second hand computers.

I was struck this week with a letter from a parent I know that really captured this element of the debate. Here is her letter to Christy Clark:

Dear Christy Clark,

I have three poignant questions:

1) Is it true that your son Hamish attends a private school?

2) If so, what is the maximum number of children in his class or classes?

3) How many children with "designated" Special Needs are in Hamish's class or classes?

I think it is important for you to reflect on what kind of public education system you would want for your own son (if you were to choose to enrol him in your local public school) I am not sure that you would want young Hamish in an overcrowded classroom with no limits on the number of special need kids in the room.

As the Premier of our province, I urge you to put your son in the public system so that you might truly understand the stresses on teachers and students. I am not sure that you have full insight on how poorly public school teachers are being treated and how difficult it is for them to provide quality education under current and proposed legislation.

I will look forward to your reply to the above three questions.

So far, Christy has not answered.

BC Teachers' Day of Action: It's about priorities...

noreply@blogger.com (Tara Ehrcke) — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 18:10:00 +0000

Here is the speech I gave yesterday at our Rally to support teachers for a fair deal:

Thank you so much everyone for being here today. Some of you are teachers, some of you are fellow trade unionists, some are parents, some concerned citizens. All are here to support fully funded public education and the fair treatment of teachers. Thank you so much for being here. Your support means the world to us.

Today, teachers are protesting across British Columbia to make this government listen. From Prince Rupert, to Nelson, to Kamloops, to Surrey, teachers are protesting.

We have been brought to this point by a government that refuses to listen. A government that thinks it can simply impose its will on teachers, on workers and on citizens. A government that is threatening, for the third time in a decade, to impose a contract on teachers. A government that is refusing to respect the democratic right of teachers to a free and fairly negotiated collective agreement. A government that has stolen three billion dollars from our education system.

What do teachers want? Teachers want to be treated with respect and dignity. Teachers want a fair and freely negotiated collective agreement. Teachers want a fair salary increase, we want class sizes back and our rights to bargain class size back, and we want an end to a public school system that is chronically underfunded.

Minister Abbott has other plans. Minister Abbott wants to impose a “net zero” contract on teachers. Minister Abbott wants to impose draconian concessions, taking away hard won rights to seniority, job security and due process. Minister Abbott wants to eliminate class size averages, and remove any requirements to ensure classes have suitable composition.

This government says they have no money - not even for cost of living increases for public sector workers. But this government has plenty of money when it comes to their friends, when it comes to their corporate backers, when it comes to the one percent. This government found the money to give twenty nine percent pay increases to MLAs, and cost of living increases every year. The money was there to pay BC Ferries CEO over a million dollars a year. A billion dollars was found to install smart meters, and another billion will go to Telus to re-wire government buildings. But when it comes to BCs public sector workers, when it comes to our public services, the coffers are dry.

The Minister says he will be introducing a “package” of bills this week. One part of the package will likely be the governments response to class size and class composition. Last year, the Supreme Court of BC found that in 2002, this government illegally removed class size limits from teachers’ collective agreement. Then, as now, this government decided that it alone had the right to unilaterally rip up contracts. In one weekend, they stole teachers democratic rights, and they robbed our public schools of three billion dollars of funding. Kids and teachers have paid the price.

Despite the Court ruling, this Minister has refused to work with teachers to find a solution. He has refused to restore the funding taken in 2002. He has refused to restore teachers’ democratic rights.

Instead, last week, this government hinted that it will be removing even what few protections we have to ensure that classes are educationally sound and properly resourced. The Minister said he is thinking of removing class size averages and the Minister said he is thinking of removing class composition limits.

These few guarantees to properly resourced schools and classrooms were won by teachers in 2005, when we walked out for two weeks. Now, in the face of a court ruling chastising the government’s actions, this same government wants to take them away.

And this government doesn’t just want to impose net zero on teachers, they want to impose net zero on the whole school system. In last week’s budget, the Minister announced his thirty million dollar fund for classrooms. But what he didn’t announce so publicly is that the same budget will take one hundred and thirty million from existing school board budgets. That is a net loss of one hundred million dollars, packaged up to look like something for students and classrooms. But teachers, parents and citizens will not be so easily fooled by such smoke and mirrors. We know that education funding has fallen from twenty five percent of the total government budget to less than fifteen. We know what this means for kids and for classrooms. And we are prepared to do what it takes to ensure schools and classrooms have the resources they need.

I read today a post on Kids in Victoria, a parent forum to discussion children’s issues. One parent eloquently described the type of impact that a decade of cuts has had on our school system:

In my opinion our children are being affected much more severely by what the government funding cuts are doing to education in our province than the job action itself. For example:

- Class composition and size affect the learning environment for everyone. The wide range of academic ability and behavioural issues in classrooms and the sheer amount of students per class has a daily affect on the learning environment. Because teachers are not provided with the specialty services needed to support the children who require more attention everyone suffers.

- Early intervention support is not adequate. Funding for the grade one Reading Recovery program at our school supports a maximum of eight participants. There are at least 14 children who desperately need this service this year.

- Learning Assistance programs are suffering. At our school those who are fortunate enough to qualify for support receive a measly twenty minute session twice a week.

- Counselling Services are almost non-existent. There is one elementary counsellor for all of School District 63. School staff try to find outside support for students that the school is unable to help but are met with long wait lists and costs that are, in some cases, prohibitive.

- There are no programs to support gifted children. High level learners are not being challenged to meet their full potential in the classroom because there are no programs or funding available.

- Parents are being relied on to fund essentials. Currently our Parent Advisory Council is attempting to raise over $25,000 to help pay for basics like text books, classroom technology, art and physical education programs and library books. Items that used to be covered by our tax dollars are now being paid for by chocolate and magazine sales.

I am willing to give up written report cards and no field trips if the teachers can make progress on ANY of these issues.

The stakes are high. This government wants to yet again run rough-shod on teachers democratic rights and further undermine the wonderful school system we have all built together. But collectively we will force this government to listen.

Thank you again to everyone who took the time out of their busy day to be here. You support is so appreciated.

Rally to support teachers for a fair deal

noreply@blogger.com (Tara Ehrcke) — Sat, 25 Feb 2012 23:24:00 +0000

On Thursday, Education Minister George Abbott indicated his intention to introduce a "package" of bills next week. It seems that legislating an end to bargaining is only one objective. The package could also include concessions that the government is seeking from the current contract including seniority provisions, job security rights, and due process rights. This is very scary indeed - perhaps a move a la Scott Walker, the Republican governor of Wisconsin who made similar attacks on US teachers.

The "package" could also include the government's response to the Supreme Court of BC ruling that the removal of all class size and class composition provisions in 2002 was illegal and unconstitutional. From the Minister's musings, however, it appears he is preparing to worsen our classroom conditions by removing class size averages and removing guidelines that determine how many students with special needs are in each class.

Such a "package" of bills is appalling. It is an affront to the right to free collective bargaining, the rights of employees to job security and due process rights, and the rights of children to a quality education in reasonable classroom conditions.

Please join teachers around BC who will be holding a "Day of Action" on Monday. If you are in the Victoria region, we are hosting a "Rally to support teachers for a fair deal" at the Legislature, beginning at 3:30pm.

Please join the event on Facebook and share with your friends:

http://www.facebook.com/events/336409143069047/

Thank you!

On a legislated contract and parents who care - one teacher's perspective

noreply@blogger.com (Tara Ehrcke) — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:26:00 +0000

A Victoria teacher responded to a CBC interview with Sheila Orr about the Liberal government's plan to legislate an imposed contract on teachers:

I was so discouraged to hear Sheila Orr's cavalier, "I don't care" today when asked about the teachers being legislated back to work. She talked about hearing parents talking on the playground, feeling exactly the same as her - they don't care, it's time for teachers to go back and give children what they aren't getting. Well, I am a teacher, and I talk to parents all the time. The parents I work with DO care. They care when their children aren't getting adequate instruction in class because the teacher is spending too much time managing constantly disruptive behaviours. They care when a child with autism is only given funding for a half day of assistance, leaving schools struggling to know how to cope. They care when their child is released from learning assistance after six weeks, just starting to make progress, because the funding isn't there to continue. They care when their child waits almost a year for a referral to a school occupational therapist. They certainly do care. It's not hard to learn more about the real issues behind the teacher's strike. Ms Orr's position that teachers need to go back and give the children what they aren't getting, is shockingly naive and uninformed considering she is given a weekly platform to discuss political issues. Instead of adding to an educated debate, she adds fuel to the fire of ignorance.

Will the BC government agree to mediation to resolve teacher bargaining?

noreply@blogger.com (Tara Ehrcke) — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:41:00 +0000

Today the BCTF made a request for the Labour Relations Board to appoint a mediator to help resolve teacher bargaining. Not only the LRB, but also the Minister can call for various forms of mediation and arbitration to resolve the issue.

Calls and suggestions for this have been made in a number of arenas, including the press. Mediation and arbitration can be effective ways to deal with an impasse. In Saskatchewan, an arbitrator was able to find middle ground in the recent teachers dispute over pay. Back in 2005, after a two week walkout, the BC government agreed to appoint Vince Ready to develop recommendations to end the teachers strike. Although not everything teachers wanted, teachers did vote to accept his recommendations and end the strike.

As I understand the process, the LRB will first approach BCPSEA (the government's bargaining agent) to see if they will agree to mediation. How will they respond? That will be telling. If they refuse, it indicates that the government is unwilling to have a resolution with anything other than getting their way. If they refuse, we can no doubt anticipate a legislated "solution", imposing the governments will. Hardly a way to support collective bargaining in a democratic society. And hardly a way to regain and renew relationships with teachers so critical to enhancing our public education system.

Confusing differentiation with adverse discrimination - false logic

noreply@blogger.com (Tara Ehrcke) — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 20:46:00 +0000

George Abbott has picked up on a mistaken theme from a few Victoria parents and a few Victoria Trustees and is now suggesting he might eliminate sections of the School Act related to class composition. The notion is that limiting the number of students with special needs for any particular class is "discriminatory". He, and the Victoria parents and Trustees, fail to understand that differentiating for the purpose of equal opportunity is not adverse discrimination. It is rather a form of targeting funding to ensure students with disabilities receive adequate service.

In response to a letter to Abbott from our Board, I wrote the following:

Dear Trustees:

We are writing to comment on your letter supporting the position of the Victoria Confederacy of Parent Advisory Councils that the School Act be revised to eliminate limits on the number of students with special needs in each class.

The logic of VCPAC is flawed. The entire system of designation and designated funding is “discriminatory” in the sense VCPAC references. Students are identified and funding is allotted in a manner based on the designation. Thus funding is allotted through a discriminatory manner.

However, this is done to ensure equity of opportunity, which is the fundamental principle. Every child should have an equal opportunity to reach their educational potential, regardless of whether this costs more for a particular child.

Creating limits on the number of students with special needs in any one class creates a positive discriminatory effect on funding by ensuring that every student with special needs receives adequate teacher time. If a teacher is responsible for preparing individual student learning plans for more students with special needs, each student gets less time. The purpose of the limit is to ensure a teacher is in fact able to provide the modified or adapted learning plan within the hours of the day available to them. The richness and quality of the plan and the instruction is better the fewer students the teacher is responsible for.

No student is ever guaranteed to be in a particular class with a particular teacher. Constitutional rights of integration apply to a neighbourhood school, not a particular classroom within that school. The fact that a student with special needs is not in the class of their choice is no different than if a student without special needs is not in a class of their choice. A student may not be in a particular class for a whole variety of reasons, many of which relate to particular student characteristics for both students with and without designated special needs. Classes are constructed for gender balance, based on behaviour characteristics of particular students, based on the educational needs of particular students, and so forth. This happens regardless of designation. All students, in this sense, receive “discriminatory” treatment. Classes are always constructed based on an assessment of the individual characteristics of the students.

The rationale for the limit on students with a designation is that the designation itself guarantees a certain level of instructional support beyond what is provided to students without a designation. This is time consuming. An individual teacher simply does not have time to meet the outcomes of an individual education plan if they are responsible for too many plans.

The limits and designations are not wrong because they organize classrooms based on the needs of students. In fact, this is their strength. They allow increased funding, and increased teacher time to go to those students who need it the most, as identified through the designation process. They also ensure that a teacher is not overwhelmed with workload and this impacts every student the teacher enrolls.

Finally, one function of the limits is to identify for government the funding levels required. Without limits, funding shortages simply result in overwhelmed teachers who are unable to provide the same level of service to students. This is the situation we find ourselves in today, with strict limits having been removed from our collective agreement.

We need stricter limits, not fewer limits. We need more funding, not more false “flexibility”. A return of strict limits would enable schools to establish classes in which the teachers could actually meet all the needs of their students.

We ask that you reconsider your decision and rescind your letter

Are BC workers getting wage increases?

noreply@blogger.com (Tara Ehrcke) — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 22:05:00 +0000

The BC government is trying to impose a second round of "net zero" increases for public sector workers. One of the arguments is that other workers are not getting increases.

The Conference Board of Canada, based on a survey of 236 organizations, has predicted non-union wage increases of 3% for 2012. (http://www.conferenceboard.ca/e-Library/abstract.aspx?DID=4650)

Are unionized BC workers getting raises? Here are some agreements that cover the years 2010 - 2013.

Delta Police – 8.75% over 33 months as of April 1, 2010
Finning employees (IAMAW) – 4% for 2011, 3% for 2012, 3% for 2013, 4% for 2014
Lafarge Richmond employees – 11.5% over 4 years, November 2008 – October 2012
BFI Vancouver Island – 3% for 2011, 2.5% for 2012, 2.5% for 2013
Fairmont Hotel Vancouver employees – 2.5% for 2011, 2.5% for 2012, 2.5% for 2013
Global TV (CEP) – 3.5% for 2011, 2.5% for 2012, 2% for 2013
Greyhound employees (ATU) – 2% for 2011, 2.25% for 2012, 2.5% for 2013
TELUS employees (TWU) – 10.4% over 55 months as of June 2011
BC Nurses – 3% for 2009, 3% for 2010, 3% for 2011
Treasury Board of Canada (PSA) – 1.75% for 2011, 1.5% for 2012, 2% for 2013
CN Railway (Teamsters) – 2.4% for 2010, 3% for 2011, 3% for 2012
Kamloops Municipal Employees (CUPE) – 2% for 2011, 2% for 2012, 2% for 2013
Surrey Firefighters- 3% for 2010, 2.5% for 2011
North Cowichan Municipal Employees (CUPE) – 2% for 2010, 2.5% for 2011, 2.5% for 2012, 3% for 2013
CN Railway (CAW) – 2.4% for 2011, 2.6% for 2012, 3% for 2013, 3% for 2014
Comox District Municipal Employees (CUPE) – 2% for 2010, 2% for 2011, 3% for 2012, 2% for 2013
Vancouver Police – 2.95% for 2010, 2.95% for 2011, 1.25% for 2012, 1.3% for 2013
Quesnel Municipal Employees (CUPE) – 0% for 2010, 1.5% for 2011, 2% for 2012
BC Rapid Transit – 3% for 2010
Canada Revenue Agency (PSA) – 1.5% for 2010, 1.5% for 2011
Courtenay Municipal Employees (CUPE) – 2% for 2011, 2% for 2012, 2.75% for 2013, 2.25% for 2014
BC Paramedics – 3% for 2010
Revelstoke Municipal Employees – 1.25% for 2010, 1.25% for 2011, 1.5% for 2012, 1.5% for 2013

Are Principals friends of public education?

noreply@blogger.com (Tara Ehrcke) — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:02:00 +0000

The BC Principals and Vice Principals Association has chosen a couple of times to wade in on the teachers' job action. Unfortunately they have chosen to mostly remain silent, or worse to oppose teacher actions - including when we are pushing for changes to improve student learning.

In 2002, when class size limits and class composition limits were illegally removed from teacher collective agreements, the Principals supported government. They wanted the "flexibility" to arrange classes however they wanted. In my school, within three short years, this meant every PE 9 class had gone from 30 up to 40 students. Principals abused this authority and quickly drastically oversize classes became the norm.

The BCPVPA has been almost silent on two decades of funding cuts to education budgets. Rather than speak out, they often claim they are working behind the scenes. This simply feeds in to a false impression that cuts are not hurting kids.

During the current job action, many Principals have refused to do struck work as required by the Labour Relations Board. It is these Principal actions that have led to most of the cancellations of field trips and other activities because Principals would not do the paperwork. Where they are, these events have gone ahead. A common complaint is that they shouldn't have to do "teacher work", but since when was teacher work so inundated with forms, money collection, and administrivia? The reality is that Principals have been downloading this work to teachers for years. Why haven't administrators advocated for adequate secretarial support in schools to meet these needs? It is nonsensical to use teacher time (that could otherwise be spent on student learning activities) for paperwork.

Principals have routinely refused to speak out when individual classes are not appropriate for student learning. Under the School Act guidelines, they must state their opinion on class organization for any class that is oversize or overcrowded. Despite 12,000 classes in this category, every single Principal for every single class has "signed off" on the class, attesting it is "appropriate for student learning". Where is the integrity in making such a claim when the real reasons (typically said privately to teachers) are lack of funding?

Principals should be joining teachers and speaking up. They only need to look south to see that they too will soon be in the firing line with a government obsessed with US style "reform".

Negotiate, don't legislate

noreply@blogger.com (Tara Ehrcke) — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:47:00 +0000

With the appointment of a so-called "fact finder", the BC government is apparently orchestrating its plan to legislate BC teachers and impose a contract.

I say "so-called" because the government has appointed one of their own...we cannot expect any serious, independent report from an appointed government bureaucrat. He is not independent. He is not an arbitrator, mediator, or from the Labour Board. Worse than that, in his previous life, Trevor Hughes worked for the employer's association in healthcare - the BC Health Employers Association. This is the health care equivalent of teachers' employers association, BC Public School Employers Association.

In my mind, the report is a foregone conclusion, and is simply a set up to give the government some PR when they use the legislative hammer. Teachers have not provided a reason to legislate, so the government will manufacture one.

Sadly, a few voices joined the call for a legislated end, including one Trustee in my school district, Michael McEvoy. McEvoy incensed teachers when he suggested on CBC that the job action is hurting children. He conveniently failed to mention the impact of Bills 27 and 28 which eliminated class size and class composition rules and has been devastating for student learning. How anyone could suggest a missed report card is equivalent to the elimination of $3 billion in funding over the last decade is just mind boggling.

But back to the "fact finder"...the question is "can there be a negotiated settlement?" My answer is yes. But to get there, the government will have respond to teachers in bargaining. They have so far refused to engage in any bargaining on salary, benefits, improving working and learning conditions and restoring teachers' rights to negotiate class sizes. They have refused to discuss anything that does not fit their agenda. They have refused to discuss anything that costs a penny. How is this working towards a negotiated settlement?

A legislated settlement will not solve the government's problem. It will not enable government to consider changes to our education system in a collaborative and respectful manner. It will alienate and anger teachers and create more barriers with the 40,000 people who actually teach kids in classrooms every day. There are many other options for the government to pursue - first and foremost changing their "mandate".

BC's Learning Improvement Fund - 1 minute per student per day

noreply@blogger.com (Tara Ehrcke) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:33:00 +0000

The BC Ministry of Education has announced its "Learning Improvement Fund" via radio ads. Rather than put class sizes and class composition limits back into contract, and rather than reinstate teachers' ability to bargain working conditions, the government is setting up a fund to provide a paltry sum of additional money to supposedly address learning challenges. (And as an aside, it's not clear if it really is any additional money...the budget announcement for next year's funding is actually a 3% cut. It might just be re-purposing of money meaning cuts elsewhere.)

When class size and composition limits were removed in 2002, the government took $275 million per year from education budgets. How much is the Learning Improvement Fund? $30 million next year. $65 million the year after, and $75 million the year after that.

With 550,000 public school students in BC, what does this "improvement" look like?

27 cents per student per day, in year one.

For a whole class of thirty students, this is just over $8. That would buy about half an hour of an educational assistant time, to serve all 30 students. That works out to 1 minute per student per day. In year two, two minutes a day.

Go east, young teacher

noreply@blogger.com (Tara Ehrcke) — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 23:09:00 +0000

Ah BC, the greatest place on Earth. Let me count the ways:

1. Highest child poverty rate
2. Greatest inequality
3. Expensive housing

The mountains are beautiful, but is it really worth it?

Probably not, if you are a new teacher, starting your career.

Here are some facts to consider about cross Canada comparisons (Out of the 13 Provinces and Territories) for teaching salaries, education spending and working conditions:

Starting salaries with 5 years of university education: 11th
Starting salaries with a Masters degree: 12th
Student teacher ratio (number of students for each teacher): 2nd
Total spent on education per capita: 10th
Number of classes with 4 or more students with special needs: 12, 240
Number of classes with more than 30 students: 3, 627
Loss of learning specialist teacher in last decade: 1459
Time available for lesson planning, preparation and marking: 90 minutes per week
Percentage of Teachers Teaching on Call earning $10,000 or less: 36%
Percentage of Teachers Teaching on Call earning $30,000 or less: 78%

For details on salary comparisons, see: http://bctf.ca/uploadedFiles/Public/BargainingContracts/U102-SalaryDocument.pdf
For funding data: http://www.bctf.ca/uploadedFiles/Public/Publications/Briefs/2011EdFundingBrief.pdf#p8
BCTF Teacher Teaching on Call Survey: http://bctf.ca/uploadedFiles/Public/TTOC/2008survey.pdf
Child poverty report card: http://www.firstcallbc.org/pdfs/economicequality/3-reportcard2011.pdf
BC Stats report on income inequality: http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/releases/info2012/in1204.pdf

Kevin Falcon speaks the Liberal truth - serve the rich

noreply@blogger.com (Tara Ehrcke) — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:56:00 +0000

I was gob-smacked this morning to read a quote from Kevin Falcon, the Finance Minister, reacting to the recent BC Statistics report on growing income inequality.

The report showed that BC has the biggest gap between the top and bottom twenty percent of workers of any province in Canada. Falcon responded:

But B.C. Finance Minister Kevin Falcon makes no apologies for the income gap in B.C., saying B.C.'s Liberal government has pursued a policy of encouraging high incomes through low taxes.

Falcon doesn't dispute the numbers in the study, but he takes issue with the analysis.

"I just have trouble with people saying, 'Oh, because there's a gap there that's must be a bad thing.' You know remember, as I mentioned earlier, and I'm not being flippant, but in Cuba they don't have any income inequality because they're all poor," he said.

(http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/01/30/bc-income-gap-widening.html)

The utter contempt for the everyday struggles of BC citizens is not surprising. That Falcon would say so publicly is. But his comments fit in line with just about every policy decision this government has made.

The BC Liberals have hurt just about every group in that lower 80%. Here is just a short list of changes that have worsened income inequality in BC:

* Keeping minimum wage low
* Imposing a 'net zero' wage cuts on public sector workers
* Reducing progressive taxes (income) while increasing regressive taxes (HST)
* Increasing user fees for government services, such as the Medical Services Plan (MSP)

Here are a few excerpts from the report, which you can read at: (http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/releases/Info2012/In1204.pdf)

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) released a study in
December 2011 that confirmed that the gap between the rich and poor is indeed growing. This was true in most of the member countries of the OECD and Canada was no exception. In fact, the OECD found that Canada had greater income inequality than most OECD nations. Canada ranked 26th out of 34 countries as measured by the Gini coefficient of income inequality. In addition, the report found that the income gap has been growing over time.

While tax cuts have benefitted people of all income levels to some extent, they have had less of a positive effect on the lowest income earners. This is because these lower-income individuals pay very few income taxes to begin with and are more reliant on the benefits and services that are paid for with tax revenue.

The disparity in incomes is readily apparent when one compares the top 20% of income earners with the bottom 20%. In British Columbia, in 2009, the lowest 20% earned just 7.7% of what the top 20% earned before transfers and taxes. After transfers and taxes, that figure improved to 16.5%. However, that is well down from the levels of around 22% seen in the early 1990s.

Given the level of discord over income inequality based on the number and size of protests in recent months, this issue is not likely to fade away any time soon. The OECD study offered some policy recommendations on how to tackle the problem. The top recommendation is to create more well-paying jobs that will give people a chance to escape poverty.

In addition, the study suggests that education and training are key areas for investment. Finally, it suggests that tax and benefit policies should be reformed to increase redistribution and public services such as education, health and family care should be freely accessible.

How to reduce income inequality

noreply@blogger.com (Tara Ehrcke) — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:25:00 +0000

The last time there was such severe income inequality in Canada and the US was the 1920's. Political pundits of all stripes lament this fact, and point to the heady days of the post-war era as the high point in social and economic equality. But they fail to address a key question: How did that come about and how did we get there?

The most recent report from the OECD (Organization of Economic and Cooperative Development) says this about Canadian inequality:

Two factors explain Canada’s growing gap: a widening disparity in labour earnings between high- and low-paid workers, and less redistribution. 'Taxes and benefits reduce inequality less in Canada than in most OECD countries

What is the way forward to address these two issues?

How did workers react to the Great Depression? They organized. In the US, workers went from one of the lowest rates of unionization in the 20's, to one of the highest (around 50%) by the end of world war two. The 1930's was the decade of sit down strikes and incredible labour militancy. It was the decade that saw the historic rifts between skilled/unskilled and black/white workers overcome. It was the era that converted many blue collar unskilled work into well paid middle class jobs with decent wages and benefits.

It was unionization that led to wage increases and the development and expansion of many social programs. It was unionization that pushed governments to deal with joblessness (through the New Deal) and provide social supports for periods of unemployment.

Through the early post war years (50s and 60s), well established unions were able to consolidate gains and push for some benefits to be extended to all citizens through social programs. For example, it was the Canadian Union of Postal Workers that first bargained for paid maternity leave. These benefits are now extended to all workers through the Employment Insurance program. Through political bodies like the Federations of Labour and Canadian Labour Congress, unions have used their power to improve life for working people beyond their own individual unions.

The attack on unions that began in the Reagan/Thatcher era has led to the long and slow erosion of the labour movement. This erosion has been accompanied by a long and slow degradation of incomes and progressive tax schemes. With a weakened union movement, wages stagnated. With a weakened labour movement, government's repealed progressive taxes (income taxes scaled to tax high incomes more) and replaced them with regressive taxes like the GST, the HST, and user-fee premiums such as MSP.

Unionization in BC has gone from 50% to closer to 30%. This is good for no-one but the 1%. Not only does the 1% use this to put downward pressure on wages and benefits, but they pretend that they are not the problem by blaming middle income workers who still have some of the benefits of unionized jobs.

The teachers strike is a classic example. When Gordon Brown writes in the Province that teachers should stop "whining" because ...

"All the other hard-working British Columbians have to pay your salaries and you're wearing them out with your complaints and wage and benefit demands that are well beyond what other B.C. workers have received or the government can afford."

we need to look closely at his argument. He is saying that because other workers have not successfully fought for better wages and benefits, no one should get them (and in particular, not public sector workers). So Gordon Brown wants teachers to accept no wage increase and fall behind, in line with other workers. This is a race to the bottom.

To improve the quality of life for ordinary working people (the 99%), we need to support all workers in their struggle to improve pay and benefits. We need to support Caterpillar workers who earn $33 / hour. A general rise in wages will impact wages throughout the economy. And successful labour struggles will motivate others to look to unions and organize to improve their own wages and benefits.

This is how we will close the gap on income inequality.

BC Schools: A decade of choice, a decade of decline

noreply@blogger.com (Tara Ehrcke) — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:01:00 +0000

Yesterday marked the tenth anniversary of Bills 27 and 28. These two pieces of legislation began a dramatic shift in the framework of BC schooling towards a policy of "choice" - market driven public schooling.

The most dramatic impact was on funding and class size and support for students with special needs. Over ten years, the government removed over $3 billion from District budgets leading to over 12,000 overcrowded classrooms annually. This was the "choice" to dramatically shrink education funding by eliminating 3500 teachers and 700 special education teachers.

But other aspects of education reform reinforced the market ideology - open catchments, per pupil funding (as opposed to targeted funding for students with special needs), school district "corporations", testing and ranking of schools with the Foundation Skills Assessment (FSA).

Education Minister Abbott, and those before him in the BC Liberals, like to promote the words "flexibility" and "choice" for parents. They suggest that this what the majority of parents actually want for their children. But is this a mechanism so that only some parents and students will receive the highest quality education within the public system?

One of the best ways, I believe, to see what parents value and what actually works in K-12 schooling is to take a look at private schools. After all, the ultimate "choice" is to afford whatever money can buy.

A recent article in the New York Times highlighted schools in New York City that now charge upwards of $40,000 per year. What do these schools have?

Unsurprisingly, they have very nice facilities and grounds. But here are the points mentioned by one mother interviewed by the NYT: “The school’s always had an amazing teacher-to-student ratio, learning specialists and art programs with great music and theater,” said one mother whose children attend the Dalton School ($36,970 a year).”

Hmmm. Sounds like some of the very same things that BC public school teachers are advocating in their proposal for education change, Better Schools for BC (http://bctf.ca/uploadedFiles/Public/Publications/BetterSchoolsForBC.pdf). Smaller class sizes for more individual attention. Learning specialists, appropriate class composition and resources to support students with special needs. Diverse and fully funded programming to ensure quality elective programs in arts and music (and no doubt sport would be in some lists too) in every school in every community.

Unlike private schools, public schooling also needs to ensure equity of opportunity and should be a place for those with economic and social disadvantages to be able to have the same ability to reach their own individual goals. This is why addressing inequality in society and in schools is also so important. Poverty reduction is also included in teachers' proposals to improve schooling.

The mantra of "choice" is folly. Choice is choice for those who can pay, not choice for everyone. Parents might not be paying $40,000 a year, but they pay through home location, through transportation, through school fees, through after school tutoring, and through fundraising. Choice is a euphemism for market driven policies in education and will lead to better schools for some, and worse for others. As Linda Darling Hammond wrote recently in an excellent article for The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/article/165575/why-congress-redlining-our-schools), "The truth is that the competitive market approach leaves the most vulnerable children behind."

The market driven approach to public education in BC rests on three pillars: open catchments, FSA testing and ranking, and under-funding.

The open catchments allow parents to choose schools. This is great for the parents who can, and the schools that are chosen. It is a disaster for the rest. It is a particular disaster for those at the bottom, where parents flee except for those who can't flee. It is the stratification of a public system based on socio-economic levels.

The FSAs provide the mechanism for ranking to allow parents to decide.

The under-funding means that those schools with the family capital will be able to do far more than those without. Here are a few statistics on school generated funds from the BCTF (http://bctf.ca/uploadedFiles/Public/Publications/2011EdFacts.pdf):

School-generated funds are funds collected and used at the school level. Revenue sources may include vending machines, cafeterias, field trips, yearbook sales, school fees, graduation fees, band fees, and fund-raising.

2009–10 Audited Financial Statements show that a provincial total of $245.3 million in school-generated funds was available in that year. This sum was equivalent to 5.4% of the 2009–10 Recalculated Operating Grant for the province.

There are huge differences between districts. For example, the proportion of school generated funds available compared to the district‘s recalculated Operating Grant is lowest in Stikine, where it was equal to 2.1%; in West Vancouver, where it was highest, the proportion was 12.78%

If we want an equitable public education system, the decade of market driven reforms must be rolled back. We must address child poverty and inequality in society. And we must return to a philosophy of fully funded, excellent, comprehensive neighborhood schools for each and every neighborhood.

What is fair and reasonable?

noreply@blogger.com (Tara Ehrcke) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 19:23:00 +0000

Sadly, BC politics took a turn south this week, with Education Minister George Abbott fueling a backlash against teachers during bargaining.

It is frustrating to see so many misconceptions in some of the reporting. But then again, they aren't ignoring us, and that means something.

The usual myths began just shortly after the BCTF announced a new, reduced package at the bargaining table. The package represents a significant reduction from the original set of proposals. It included a wage increase of 3% cost of living in each of three years, plus a 3% "market adjustment" for the second two. This totals 15% over three years. The BCTF costing puts the total increase in year one at $305m, and an additional $130m in each of years two and three. The total increase over three years is $565m.

After one day of media coverage on the new package, the so-called pundits decided to weigh in. The Bill Good show. Jon Ferry at the Province. The Principals and Vice Principals Association.

Let's deconstruct of few of the non-facts out there.

Teachers are greedy. Well, since we took 0's in four of the last fifteen years (1998, 1999, 2004, 2005), I have a lot of trouble with this one. We have fallen from 3rd to 8th in cross Canada teacher comparisons. Other workers are getting increases (in both the public and private sector - see the Vancouver police, BC nurses and the recent agreement at Viking Air for some examples). The 15% over three years will perhaps only push us up to maybe 5th. The BC Liberals thought a "catch up" for MLAs at 29% in one year was just hunky dory. Who is greedy?

The cost is too high. This one is a matter of perspective and doing fair comparisons. The day after we tabled our package, BCPSEA asked to cancel the following day's session. They also suggested that costing should be cumulative - that is, each increase for each year had to be added for each year. This is a bit non-sensical as you cannot compare different term contracts - it would mean a "costing" for a one year contract would always look considerably smaller than a "costing" for a three year contract or five year contract.

To have fair comparisons regardless of term, it is the total increase over the term that is relevant. It is notable the government never uses this method when they are the subject of the dollar amount. For example, they never describe the $330m per year removed from education budgets for class size limits over the ten years it has been in effect. That would be $3.3 billion. A big number indeed. More than enought to cover the costs of teachers' "demands". Fair and reasonable means you use the same costing criteria for everything. If they want to remedy their illegal removal of class size limits with $3.3 billion, teachers will be very happy.

My favourite came from Abbott himself during an interview on the Bill Good show. As reported by Janet Steffenhagen, in the Vancouve Sun: "he said government wants to change post-and-fill rules so seniority doesn’t trump everything. A social studies teacher shouldn’t get priority for a math posting simply because of seniority. he said. “It is so commonsensical I don’t understand the fervent objection to this as somehow contract stripping.”

What's the truth? Current contracts ensure teachers are qualified for the subject area they teach in. They won't even be considered without qualifications (regardless of seniority). Qualifications are based on objective criteria: formal education, previous teaching experience, additional informal training. What does Minister Abbott have on the table? The Principal decides. Yes, the government's definition of "qualified" includes "suitable" according to the Principal. So in fact it is the government proposal that could end up placing a social studies teacher in the math class. I try to be very careful with what I say, but it is fair to comment that the Minister is just plain wrong on this point - seniority doesn't trump everything.

Twitter tale - Consultation, Minister Abbott style

noreply@blogger.com (Tara Ehrcke) — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 00:16:00 +0000

There's been some online discussion about Minister Abbott's tweet up...seems he wasn't actually doing the typing...although he was apparently in the room and directing the typist.

Here are a few comments after the news was leaked:

@vanislandrwRandy White

@_Cuddlefish_ @jsteffenhagen@georgeabbottbc Funny how George Abbots wouldn't even twitter with us over his #bcedplan. Says alot about govt

@HHGHeidi Hass Gable

@vanislandrw Deliberate misinterpretation of the situation? How does @georgeabbottbcdictating mean he didn't participate? #bcedplan

And this one made me laugh:

@MrReidWSS Jeremy Reid

Having someone tweet for you is like lip syncing at a live concert
But perhaps more interesting than who was at the keyboard, is who Mr. Abbott (or whomever it was deciding) chose to respond to.

A teacher friend of mine tallied the interactions with @georgeabbottbc and reported his findings:

For the second time this year, the BC Minister of Education had a meeting today online using Twitter to discuss the New BC Education Plan. While it seems like a simple way to actually ask him questions it has, for the second time, proven itself to be an exercise in futility for teachers and more of a Public Relations exercise for the Minister. In the end, Minister Abbott spent an hour online, which seems like a lot but in reality, the conversation was exclusive as to people he actually had a dialogue with. Looking at the numbers, we see that he responded to 6 principals, 5 parents, one Assessment Workshop facilitator, 2 university professors, one community school advocate, 2 unknown people with no discernable background or information who signed up on Twitter today and tweeted (as cheerleaders) for the first time during the meeting, one private school teacher, 2 companies that support the BCED Plan, 3 distributed learning teachers, one learning assistance teacher, and one grade 3 teacher.

This does not reflect the actual number of teachers who went online today to attempt to discuss the BCED Plan with the Minister. Several teachers did go on Twitter and did ask lots of good and relevant questions. There was a fair amount of dialogue among the teachers and some of the people I mentioned above, it just did not involve the Minister of Education for the most part.

Alberta teachers in negotiations

noreply@blogger.com (Tara Ehrcke) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:32:00 +0000

Details were leaked this week from the talks between the Alberta Teachers' Association and the Alberta government.

Alberta teachers are currently the highest paid outside of the north, with salaries up to $20,000 higher than BC teachers. Their previous agreement provided for automatic increases relative to the growth of average weekly earning in the province, as well as a $2.2 billion contribution to the pension fund.The government is projecting a deficit in 2012, but even in this context, the government is looking at wage increases of 0%, 2%, and 4% over three years.

For the teachers, the issues are workload and working hours. Teachers report working double their instructional time when marking, preparing, communicating with parents, and mandatory professional development are included. This puts their hours upwards of 50 per week - very similar to the workload that BC teachers report.

The new premier, Alison Redford, showed her commitment to public education when she reinstated $107 million in budget cuts almost immediately after assuming office. This level of commitment to funding bodes well for reaching a negotiated settlement.

BCTF presents reduced set of proposals

noreply@blogger.com (Tara Ehrcke) — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:29:00 +0000

In an effort to get bargaining moving, the BCTF provincial bargaining team is presenting a new set of proposals at the table today. The proposals represent a significant reduction:

* reducing "wage parity" with Alberta/Ontario (roughly 20%) to a Cost of Living increase of 3% in each of three years plus a market adjustment of 3% in each of years 2 and 3 (total of 15% over 3 years)

* reducing improvements to preparation time

* eliminating some paid leave provisions and reducing others

* removing teacher teaching on call minimum monthly stipend

The total estimated cost of the package for year one, including salary, is $300 million.

During the press conference, BCTF President Susan Lambert called on Minister Abbott to have his government's actions match the rhetoric. Despite many olive branches to improve the relationship with teachers, the concessions at the bargaining table angered teachers.

See the full press release here: http://www.bctf.ca/NewsReleases.aspx?id=24886

School boards discuss 'net zero'

noreply@blogger.com (Tara Ehrcke) — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:00:00 +0000

At least two School Boards discussed motions last night to ask the BC government to bring a new mandate to the provincial bargaining table with teachers. Teachers are seeking increases to keep up with inflation and to catch up with other provinces in Canada. The government has refused to discuss any increases.

Vancouver School Board passed a motion to write to government seeking a new mandate. In Victoria, the motion failed but with three Trustees (Edith Loring Kuhanga, Deb Nohr, Diane McNally) in support. (Trustee Catherine Alpha is a teacher and could not participate due to a conflict of interest).

School Boards have a direct interest in ensuring that teacher wages, benefits and preparation time keep pace with other jurisdictions in order to attract and retain excellent teachers. Boards are members of the provincial bargaining association and participate in provincial bargaining decisions.

Currently teachers in BC are eighth in Canada. The 'net zero' proposed by the BC government contrasts with recent increases in Saskatchewan and Alberta. An Alberta teacher currently earns $20,000 more than a BC teacher. See a full listing of teacher wage comparisons here: http://www.bctf.ca/uploadedFiles/Public/BargainingContracts/2011-12SalaryRankings.pdf

Will grouping by ability mean re-segregation?

noreply@blogger.com (Tara Ehrcke) — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 23:30:00 +0000

One of the aspects of the "BC education plan" most touted by the government recently is the notion of grouping students by ability, rather than age. A quick perusal through the moderators remarks on the government website shows that comments favourable to this viewpoint are highlighted. The topic also made it into the Vancouver Sun and Janet Steffenhagen's education blog.

On it's face, it is an attractive idea. Teaching a group of students with a wide variety of ability levels is very challenging and time consuming. One of the simplest and yet most important theories in the educational literature comes from the Russian educational psychologist, Lev Vygotsky - the "zone a proximal development". In regular words, this theory states that optimal learning takes place when the learning is attempting to do a task just outside their current ability level. Too far, and the learner is lost. Too close, and nothing is learned.

Clearly in age-segregated classrooms, it is difficult to consistently reach every student's optimal learning "zone". Because children learn at different rates, age segregation does a poor job of filtering students according to ability. In addition, ability level varies across subjects and tasks. A typical classroom in BC today can easily have a grade level differential of 5 or more years. This means a Grade 8 class can have students with a Grade 2 reading level and students with a Grade 10 reading level, for example.

On one level, it seems like the most obvious thing in the world is to simply re-organize according to ability, not age. And yet there are some significant consequences.

Schools and classrooms are not only for academic learning. They are social places. Children are impacted by which groupings and which schools they are placed in and can become stigmatized by these choices. Grouping by ability automatically sorts children the same way a report card or a test score does - into "winners" and "losers".

A look at some similar educational philosophies reveals some of the dangers inherent in this approach.

There is a considerable body of research on "social promotion" - keeping students with their age cohort rather than retaining them in a grade level. This research generally shows no academic benefit to retention, and that a number of social effects of social promotion are positive - fewer drop-outs, less high risk behaviours and less bullying. Particularly in early years, research supports the finding that there are negative impacts associated with retention as opposed to social promotion (http://www.ericdigests.org/2001-3/policy.htm).

Another form of "sorting" of students was the exclusion of students with a disability from the "regular" classroom - a practice that was successfully challenged and eliminated under the Charter of Rights. Prior to integration, many students with disabilities were segregated into separate schools and separate classes within schools. Research assessing the impact on educational outcomes of different models of inclusion have been mostly inconclusive. As one researcher acknowledged, integration took place at the same time as the beginning of the long decline in school funding, the mid-1980's. It is therefore difficult to judge the success of inclusion (http://www.cesc.ca/pceradocs/1999/99Dor%E9_Wagner_Brunet_B%E9langer_e.pdf).

Some argue that age grouping is an artefact leftover from the factory model of schooling introduced in the early twentieth century. This is the argument put forward by Sir Ken Robinson, and has gained some traction with some educators. And yet Britain already went through a long process of eliminating forms of streaming, which is a form of ability grouping (albeit within an age cohort, rather than across age cohorts). In the 1960's the government eliminated tested entry into levelled schools, in favour of comprehensive schools based on geographic catchment. This was a progressive change aimed at eliminating the advantages of the wealthy in a publicly funded system.

One of the difficulties with ability grouping is the impact on equity. Students with advantages from outside of school factors (home life, socio-economic status) will tend to enter school at a higher ability level. When they are then streamed into a higher level class or school, the school system will serve to exacerbate the differences, rather than diminish them. It was precisely this effect that comprehensive schools based on geography were meant to eliminate.

Call me cynical, but I believe the government's interest in ability grouping is actually a way to save money while satisfying well off parents whose children are likely to do well and who can pay for outside tutoring and extra assistance when they need it. For these children, the streaming into ability grouping may well lead to better outcomes over the same time period with the same funding. Meanwhile those who have traditionally cost more to educate and who need additional supports, learning assistance and intervention, will be streamed together in their own class. Sounds like a new form of segregation to me.

BC teachers describe workload issues at bargaining table

noreply@blogger.com (Tara Ehrcke) — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 01:35:00 +0000

This week, several teachers came to the provincial bargaining table on behalf of the BCTF to share their experiences teaching in BC. Here are some excerpts from the reports:

January 12:

The BCTF began the day with a presentation from Sarah Newton, an elementary school teacher from Revelstoke. Her presentation described her work as a teacher in and outside of her classroom, which demonstrated the need for increased preparation time for all of our members. Sarah has felt it necessary to go part time this year to .85 so she could “be a good teacher.” She described how 90 minutes per week of prep time is insufficient with all of the demands and pressures placed on teachers. Sarah outlined how, despite all the time spent at recess, during lunch time, after work and on weekends, it is still very difficult for teachers to do all the work needed under current conditions to try to meet the needs of all of their students. Sarah described some of the tasks that she does when she is not teaching her class. They included: preparing meaningful lessons that involved continuous hands-on experiences/activities/stations for students in most of her subjects, preparing the computer lab for lessons which had to be done after hours at the school because of the nature of the school district server, prereading novels, researching, preparing alternative activities for different faith-based students, homework club, communicating with support staff, working on IEPs, communicating with all her parents on a weekly basis. On top of this, there are all the volunteer activities in which she and other teachers often get involved as well as family responsibilities.

It was interesting to note that, once again, prep time is having to be purchased by individual teachers in order for them provide the students with the education they deserve.

In response to Sarah’s presentation, BCPSEA acknowledged that the net-zero mandate made it challenging for them at the bargaining table. BCPSEA stated that they want to “provide foundational elements that will support teachers” and that they want to have a discussion with us “on how we can support teachers.”
BCTF reminded BCPSEA that they have not provided one proposal nor counter thus far that will provide support for teachers. We encouraged them to provide a counter on preparation time and other areas as “foundational elements” that would actually show that they are serious about supporting teachers and the work they do with our students.

January 11:

The BCTF began with a presentation from Tracy Yarr, a senior English teacher from Victoria, to support our proposal on increased preparation time.

Tracy presented a detailed and holistic description of her life as a teacher. She works part time, .86, so that she has additional preparation time (commonly known as “buying a block”). After 12 years of teaching, she earns only $58,000 and is concerned about the impact on her pension. Despite getting part time pay, she works far more than full-time hours. She described spending 18 hours on the weekend marking, the extra time spent running the Youth Combating Intolerance club in her school, the hours spent helping students apply for university, and the hours spent with students in crisis.

Tracy described the situation of overwork as one which “fosters an environment where teachers are just surviving.” She described how teachers feel demoralized when students are not able to reach their full potential, and how the vast majority of colleagues work long, long hours to do their absolute best to help students.

She described a colleague who teaches calculus who puts in 70-hour weeks. She described the increased demands from expectant parents and from students who have grown up in a “screen” culture and come to school unable to focus.

She finished by stating: “My job has outgrown itself. It cannot be done well in the hours available.” She told the employer that “you have a legion of teachers in the system who are committed.” She urged the employer not to “railroad us into burnout or mediocrity.”

BC public sector enters 2012 bargaining

noreply@blogger.com (Tara Ehrcke) — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:43:00 +0000

This week saw the beginning of a new round of public sector bargaining, with most public sector unions entering negotiations for 2012 agreements.

The government has already stated their intention to continue the "net zero" mandate through Mandate 2012. The government will only agree to gains if they are "off-set" by cost savings elsewhere in the agreement.

There has already been media speculation of potential job action, as the government is asking workers who have just had two years of no wage increase, to take two more years of no wage increase.

At the same time, many union members have told their leadership this is not acceptable. "No more zeros" is the quote from BCGEU president Darryl Walker on his blog (http://www.bcgeu.ca/2012_brgaining_blog_111202). He continues: "Eighty-five percent of BCGEU members’ contracts expire on March 31, 2012. Our members that provide key services to British Columbians have been under a wage freeze for the past two years. When you take inflation into account, our members have lost four-and-a-half percent of their income."

The Hospital Employees' Union secretary-business manager Bonnie Pearson made similar remarks about Mandate 2012: "I think all of you know that on the front lines of health care where you work, there’s not a lot of savings to be had,” said Pearson. “Any low-hanging fruit – it’s been picked. It’s been canned and it’s been eaten....And I’ll be damned if we’re going to spend this round of bargaining looking under the seat cushions for spare change. We’re not at the bargaining table to find ways to cut services to patients and residents – we’re there to provide quality care to British Columbians.”

Health Sciences Association of BC (HSABC) similarly stated: “HSABC/NUPGE members served notice at the beginning of this year that continuing to fall behind our counterparts in other provinces is not an option."

The Conference Board of Canada has stated that BC is expecting economic growth of 2.5% this year and 3.5% growth in 2013. This comes after a 3% expansion in 2011. BC is not experiencing a recession. BC is experiencing moderate growth.

Inflation shows similar trends. BC's inflation rate now sits at 2.3% but is higher for food, which is running at 3.6% In fact, many of the costs for families are growing at a much faster clip: electricity - 6.7%, home owner insurance - 12.7%, energy - 8.9%. (see: http://www.gov.bc.ca/keyinitiatives/economic_indicators.html)

These expenses are rising as after-tax pay cheques shrink due to increases in MSP premiums, CPP premiums and EI premiums.

So what is the impact of Mandate 2010 and Mandate 2012? Significant decreases in the purchasing power of public sector workers. Otherwise known as a pay cut.

This impacts not only those workers' families, but also the communities in which they live. Middle income earners typically spend more of their income than high income earners, having a greater benefit for small businesses in their local communities.

It is no wonder so many of these workers are telling their leadership - no more.

Superintendent of Greater Victoria received 10% wage increase

noreply@blogger.com (Tara Ehrcke) — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 02:11:00 +0000

The Public Service Employers' Council (PSEC) recently released the public disclosure of executive compensation for school districts. This comes shortly after we learned in the media that the Greater Victoria Board of Education secretly renewed the contracts of both the Superintendent and the Secretary Treasurer at the last meeting before the November elections when a new Board came into office.

You can find the public disclosure here: http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/psec/disclosuredocs/sddisclosures11/sd61_11.pdf

Given the government's steadfast insistence that teacher do not deserve to even keep up with inflation, never mind catch up with our colleagues in the rest of Canada, it is interesting to see the 10% wage increase (over one year) for our Superintendent.

In 2009/10, Superintendent John Gaiptman received a base salary of $158, 711. In 2010/11 he received a base salary of $175, 073. This is an increase of $16, 362, or just above 10%.

There is some complicated formula relating to averages across BC, but I was interested to read that although Greater Victoria ranks 7th in size, the Superitendent's salary and benefits rank 4th in BC. (See: http://www.langleytimes.com/news/136677488.html)

In addition to this base salary, he receives another $32, 730 in benefits. Much of this is pension, but there are some other items included, such as "all reasonable expenses" for professional development, a home computer, a professional association dues. He also gets a membership to a Health Club.

Let's compare this to teachers in Greater Victoria. We received a 2% increase between 2009/10 and 2010/11 and we received a 0% increase this fall. (I don't know what Mr. Gaiptman received this fall, as the disclosure from PSEC comes at the end of the year). Teachers in Greater Victoria receive $87 per year for professional development - a number that has not changed since 1992. We have to pay our professional dues ourselves. We do not get a membership to a Health Club. For most teachers, in "category 5" with 5 years of university education, the starting salary is $48, 626 and after ten years of full time experience, the top salary is $74, 353.