Aeschylus, a Greek playwright said, “The first casualty of
war is the truth.” Well, the best way to sift through all this educational mess
is to look at primary documents. So, that’s what I did. I chose class size and
composition to write about because I believe they are central to the dispute
between the BCTF and the Provincial Government.
So what exactly is the BCTF asking for in relation to class
size and class composition?
According to Proposal U62 of the BC Teachers’ Federation
Bargaining Proposal – 2014 dated on June 3, 2014 at 1:44 (it doesn’t say AM or
PM), they are asking for a reduction of 4 students per class, 3 in secondary by
2016.
Regarding class composition the limit is 3 special needs students
per class. They also want to limit 170 students to any secondary teacher’s
load.
Specialist teacher staffing levels come in at the following
for 2016 (I’ll mention the first few):
- Learning Assistance: 1 teacher for every 275
students
- Special Education Resource: 1 teacher for every
200 students
- Teacher Librarians: 1 teacher for every 400
students
They have also included provisions for exceptional
circumstances, which use terms like “mutually agreeable resolution” and
“arbitrator”, for example.
So, what does the BCSPEA (government bargaining team) proposal
say about class size and composition?
According to the BCPSEA Proposal E51 dated on February 13,
2014 at 12:04 (no AM or PM), “the School Act and the Class Size and
Compensation Regulation both address class size”.
In other words, the numbers do not appear in a collective
agreement; they are in the School Act. (Kindergarten – 22; grades 1 to 3 – 24;
grades 4 to 12 – 30). I cannot find any numbers regarding class composition.
The proposal goes on to discuss “Consultation and Resource
Allocation”. It makes reference to a “Workload Fund” designed to support
teachers who may need help because of class size or composition issues. It is
not clear on how much this fund is.
It then discusses “Initial School-Based Consultation”. This
section discusses consultation with teaching staff, staff committee or union
staff with the purpose of the principal making recommendations to the
superintendent about classes that need additional resources and teacher
workload issues.
There is discussion on the “Tentative Resource Allocation
Plan” which talks about re-assignment and re-structuring of a class or classes
in a school, provision of additional teaching and support staff, additional
teaching time and training.
It’s easy to see the difference between the BCTF approach
and the BCSPEA approach. The union wants to control hard numbers in a
collective agreement. The BCSPEA wants to have numbers in the School Act. Both
profess to include consultation with the other.
The BCSPEA’s stance on this issue as relayed to me by Ben
Green, Public Affairs Officer, Ministry of Education is:
“BCPSEA’s position is that addressing complex classroom
needs and class composition requires informed professional judgement and
discretion. Instead of rigid formulas and ratios, the most effective
solution is to provide classroom teachers and school administrators with a
stronger voice in allocating resources based on the unique needs of every
classroom.”
The BCTF’s stance as pointed out to me by Susan Bauhart,
President of the Central Okanagan Teacher’s Association, is that the courts
deemed that the government continues to be in the wrong regarding the stripping
of the teachers’ contract in 2002. And much of the language in her ruling
centers around working conditions, class size and class composition. In the
words of Madame Justice S. Griffin:
“First, the
government argues that its “good faith consultation” with the union after the
first court decision declaring legislation to be unconstitutional, essentially
immunized the subsequent duplicative legislation from a similar constitutional
challenge. This Court concludes otherwise. The government
discussions with the union did not cure the unconstitutionality of the
legislation. The Court has
concluded that the government did not negotiate in good faith with the union
after the Bill 28 Decision.”
One of the things that really sticks in the craw of the
BCTF, and I would hope your average citizen, is that the government is somehow
above the law. This fact makes it very difficult for anyone to support the
government in this dispute.
But notwithstanding the court ruling, the government insists
that it has the right to manage, and that means not having fixed numbers in a
collective agreement.
Who is right? There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that
smaller classes and more support for special needs students can only benefit
everyone in our education system. And who can argue with schools having the
ability to make decisions based on informed professional judgment and discretion?
But the question is, who should be in the driver’s seat?
Well, if you notice, the BCSPEA’s stance is from a
management point of view. The BCTF’s stance is purely legal. The BCSPEA is
saying, more or less, “We retain the right to manage.” The BCTF has never come
out and said that they want to manage. But I think they’ve indicated that they
do, and the law is on their side. Who can disagree with that?
But who should manage, the employee or the one who holds the
purse strings?
The other part of this whole calamity are the actual demands
of the BCTF. Decreasing class size by 3 to 4 students per class across the
province would cost in the neighborhood of $250 million. Although this demand
may be fair in relation to what’s happened in the last decade, it isn’t doable.
But teachers are prepared to launch a full-scale strike for this.
If you add the above demands to their proposal for prep-time
and other benefits, before you even get to the salary question, the BCTF’s
proposal is not affordable. Yet they are ready to walk off the job.
I believe the BCTF’s intentions certainly are right-minded,
including getting a raise, but their demands are so high that they are actually
working against themselves.
Personally, I disagree with strikes in education. Yes,
education is under-funded; it has been for the last decade or two. I have
personally witnessed the decline in Learning Assistance and School Librarians,
to name two. But striking affects our children personally. Within the context
of the universality of education, to strike is wrong. It is disruptive and it affects
the innocent.
So, what do we do about this government that continually
underfunds education? Hand over control to an organization that makes
undeliverable demands? I think not. I believe it is high time to mobilize educators,
parents and taxpayers in general.
First of all, I encourage teachers to vote “NO” in the present
strike vote. This will garner public support. To vote yes will directly affect
our children. The public will not appreciate this.
Second, I encourage parents, PAC’s and taxpayers to write to
your MLA’s expressing your disapproval with the under-funding of education and
the backward thinking of the collective bargaining process. And ask them why
the government is above the law. They do listen. It’s you who elect them.
Third, I encourage all parents, grandparents, aunts and
uncles to write to your children’s teachers and show your support for the small
miracles they perform everyday for your child.
Fourth, I encourage all parents and PAC’s to write to your
local School Board Office and request a detailed accounting of how your money
is being spent.
Fifth, I encourage all taxpayers to write to the Provincial
Government and demand a tax refund for any money saved through this present
dispute. If our teachers’ salaries are going to be withheld and our children
will not be attending school, then taxpayers should get a refund.
And finally, let the coffee klatches emerge, perhaps
starting with PAC’s. If like-minded people meet, and synergy takes its course,
I’m sure a myriad of wonderful, effective ideas will emerge to help our society
receive the public education it deserves.
