No Easy End To Teachers Dispute
The problem with the teachers dispute in BC is that both sides are in a no win situation.
The teachers can seek whatever they want, the problem for the Provincial government is, if they agree to any large demand of the teachers, they will need to open the check book for the rest of the public sector unionized employees , who have a clause in their contract that if one public sector union gets more, then the government must top up that union 's wages, and that spells big money.
A former cabinet minister told me the other day that the issue of how teachers deal with special need students should be dealt with once and for all. He argues, and with merit, that special needs schools should be established that deal with the those in need. While it reduces the amount of inter action that these young people have, it never the less , creates a better opportunity for those with special needs to move through the system.
No one in government, or for that matter the teachers, seem anxious to talk about the idea and while it likely won't make the table during this round of negotiations , it still is a back burner issue that will be back to haunt both the teachers and the government in the coming years.
The province is not prepared to tinker with class size, they are dug in on the issue and the teachers are dug in on the issue as well, although one could argue that the salary increase the teachers are seeking is the biggest issue that is on the table.
This round of rotating strikes isn't about to go away. We are likely to see our classrooms disrupted come fall when the new school term begins and the back to work legislation will be brought forward as a final means of settlement.
If both sides want a settlement, then a heads down approach should be in order, that however is not likely to happen.
I'm Meisner and that's one man's opinion.
Comments
It seems to me we had special needs schools many years ago. But the government of the day thought it best to integrate these students in the regular school system.
I believe (and keep in mind this is only my opinion which I am entitled too)the children in our school systems need to be around special needs children. It teaches them tolerance and understanding. They become accustomed to having the special needs children around them and have less of a tendency to stare and point when they see them in public.
I am aware of disruptions in class caused by special needs children. I certainly have no answers for this except perhaps more one on one with a TA?
Whether the special needs students are integrated or separated, they require a lot more ‘teaching’ than an average student. To do justice to them, they require a lot more of a teacher’s time than an average student. No matter how you package it, more time and attention equals more money. Way back when, those students dropped out of school. They did not receive the service, we did not pay for it, up front. Society paid for it in social services and only paid enough to keep them alive, not give them a life. Now we are making a feeble attempt to give them a life. Until enough resources (money) are used, the attempt is and will be feeble.
I’m wondering if there is some middle ground with respect to special needs students.
Maybe some time in the regular classroom with a teaching assistant is in order and some time out of the classroom or in a special classroom would make sense.
There are three different types of students present in the classroom. Those with disabilities, those that are bright enough, and those that are gifted. We do nothing at all for the gifted students and this is not right.
We need to do something for those with disabilities because there is some hope that many of them can function in society and we need to teach everyone else tolerance.
We need the average students to excel as much as they can too.
The problem with a one size fits all approach is that we end up teaching to the lowest common denominator and that’s not good either…
While I agree with both of the above opinions, the teachers’ position must also be considered. He or she is charged with the responsibility of imparting a curriculum and some knowledge to a classroom full of young people, an hour or so at a time. Within that room are a disparate range of abilities, some kids grasp the concepts proffered right away, some need help understanding. The teacher can probably help any one of those kids who needs a little extra time, but with up to 30 kids, and about an hours time, how much individual assistance can on person offer? This is to say nothing of the requirements of ‘special needs’ kids, or any disruptions during the hour.
It is obvious to me that class size and composition are the most important issues here. Maybe if the government offered to address those two issues, with a 0% wage increase over X years, the teachers’ union would go along with with it, for the good of the children.
metalman.
Maybe someone knows the answer to this, but when we say special needs – are we talking about children with handicaps like C.F. or Muscular Dystrophy, or are we also talking about FAS children with severe behavioral problems. Because the disabled children are likely not a problem and I agree are of benefit in the classroom because they do teach the other students tolerance. The FAS children with behavioral problems are a completely different issue, because through no fault of their own, they are also disabled, but their disability is one that disrupts the learning process of everyone in the class, and it comes down to, do we dumb down everyone’s education, or do we take these particular children out of the regular classroom, to a facility that can deal with them more appropriately. And, can we even do that, or is it unconstitutional. In which case, we’ll have to pony up and fund TA’s to take these children out of the class when they are having an episode.
Ironically, we seem to have found the money to stick our noses into what’s happening in the Ukraine. Special needs Senators have difficulty figuring out what province they live in, and claim allowances they aren’t entitled to. Political parties confuse constituency work with political work and use tax dollars to fund it. I can create an almost endless list of waste that could fund this problem, but as long as self-centered people are in government, and in the bureaucracy, money will continue to disappear into sinkholes, while children who need it, go wanting.
metalman how true.The government tries to put the focus on wages but we know that is not true.The sticking point is class size and composition and yes we do need more teachers if you are realy interested in helping school children and don’t ask where is the money going to come from. They don’t seem to have any problem finding money for many other stupid projects.
ski50 you got it right.
Cheers
Binding arbitration…end of problem.
90 days of open bargaining, if no deal is struck….legislate it directly into binding arbitration. NO strikes, NO lockouts, NO protests….
“The teachers can seek whatever they want, the problem for the Provincial government is, if they agree to any large demand of the teachers, they will need to open the check book for the rest of the public sector unionized employees , who have a clause in their contract that if one public sector union gets more, then the government must top up that union ‘s wages, and that spells big money.”
Ben nailed it.
From the government’s perspective, they are simply standing up for the taxpayer, trying to stop the insatiable appetite for tax dollars from public sector unions. The money has to come from somewhere.
If you give the teacher X%, the other public unions will be seeking that and more the next time around. It has to stop.
“A former cabinet minister told me the other day that the issue of how teachers deal with special need students should be dealt with once and for all. He argues, and with merit, that special needs schools should be established that deal with the those in need. While it reduces the amount of inter action that these young people have, it never the less , creates a better opportunity for those with special needs to move through the system.”
Bang on again. This won’t be politically correct, but I think e have totally mis-handled special needs students. Everybody has suffered from this experiment. Time to go back to separate classrooms for those kids, like in the bad old days.
Yes JohnnyBelt just keep working for 10-15 yrs without any increase in pay and let inflation eat away your paycheck and you will be living in a cardboard box on the street.
Metalman – the teachers did take zero money in 2000 or 2001, in return for class size and composition limits. A year later, Christy brought on legislation to take the class composition limits away. The teachers took zero and lost the learning/working condition benefit. No wonder they are pissed.
Posted by: oldman1 on June 4 2014 10:39 AM
Yes JohnnyBelt just keep working for 10-15 yrs without any increase in pay and let inflation eat away your paycheck and you will be living in a cardboard box on the street.
————
Just because one is sucking on the taxpayer’s teat doesn’t mean they deserve to earn a decent living. It’s time to start paying our public servants based on how well they do their job versus how long they’ve been doing it.
oldman: “Yes JohnnyBelt just keep working for 10-15 yrs without any increase in pay and let inflation eat away your paycheck and you will be living in a cardboard box on the street.”
That is outright wrong. Teachers have had raises in pay as well as improvements to pensions and benefits.
Cardboard box? Hardly. Why do you think there are so many teachers out there? Good pay, lots of benefits. Is their job hard at times? Of course it is, but so is everybody’s.
axman: “Just because one is sucking on the taxpayer’s teat doesn’t mean they deserve to earn a decent living. It’s time to start paying our public servants based on how well they do their job versus how long they’ve been doing it.”
I agree but it’ll never happen, not as long as the BCTF exists. The BCTF exists in part to protect the bad teachers and not reward the good ones.
Steve, the teachers did NOT take zero money in 2000 and 2001. The BCTF negotiated a sweet heart deal with the Glen Clark NDP Government of the day, giving them not just the 3 year deal of 0-0-2 that the government was giving during that period of restraint, but also far beyond the 0-0-2 basics were myriad additional costs including pension improvements, hiring targets, and boosts in pay and benefits for designated categories.
The full cost of all those Clark-government authored deals was pegged at $1.3 billion, the equivalent of an 11-per-cent boost in the tab for public sector compensation. This disclosure during a budget briefing in the spring of 2000 produced a memorable headline: NDP math: 0+0+2=11.
So to recap the results of the 1999 contract, the Premier’s office (Glen Clark’s NDP office) directly negotiated a one-sided deal with a union that had to be imposed on the province’s elected school trustees, as 56 of 60 school boards flat out opposed the âdealâ! It also generated a revolt against one of the few BCTF leaders to ever successfully negotiate a contract. And the terms, as sold to the public, were subsequently discredited by the New Democrats themselves.
I have repeatedly stated that itâs high time that the taxpaying Public be completely informed about all contracts that are paid for out of tax dollars! We deserve nothing less!
But letâs get back to the stripping of the class composition limits. Were these limits removed during an existing contract term, or were the limits removed during the next contract bargaining?? In my mind, changing terms during an existing contract is one thing, imposing different limits in a new contract is something entirely different.
The BCTF goes on and on and on about there being so many classes that exceed 30 students. The following link provides some fairly recent information regarding Class Size in BC Public Schools:
http://www.bcedplan.ca/assets/pdf/infographics/class-size.pdf
Perhaps we need to provide more support for teacher who have âspecial needs studentsâ in their class? The problem is there is only so much money in the pot! The taxpayer only has a limited ability to pay! So, how are we spending the money that is in the Education Budget?? Hereâs something worth considering:
In BC, we help teachers pay for the costs of obtaining a Masterâs Degree and then once they have their Masterâs Degree, we raise them to a higher pay level. Why? Why do we help them pay the costs of acquiring a Masterâs Degree and then why do we pay them more once they obtain it???
Our schools are full of situations where teachers are teaching classes side by side, doing the same work, teaching the same material, yet the one with the Masterâs Degree is somehow worthy of higher pay?? If the job can be done by someone with a regular 4 year degree, why are we paying more to someone just because they have a Masterâs?? Some teachers that I know, teachers with only a Bachelorâs Degree believe that their salaries should be raised to match the salaries of teachers that hold Masterâs Degrees. After all, they are doing the same work!
I suggested to them that perhaps the salaries of those holding Masterâs Degrees should be lowered to match the salaries of those that only hold a Bachelorâs Degree. After all, they are doing the same work and if the work can be done by someone with a Bachelorâs Degree, then perhaps a Masterâs Degree isnât needed! Of course, that suggestion was not very well received, haha!
There are some very good teachers and some very bad teachers. You either have it, or you donât! If you donât have it with a Bachelors Degree, you certainly are not going to have it by getting a Masterâs. The âabilityâ to âteachâ does not increase just by obtaining a Masterâs!
So, letâs stop paying more for all of these Masterâs Degrees that are probably not necessary, except perhaps in far more advanced courses of study!! This should free up lots and lots of money to help pay for more Teaching Assistants, reduce Teacher workloads and reduce the never ending demands by the BCTF for huge wage increases!!
So Hart Guy, you seem to be an expert in the 1999 deal the BCTF made with the NDP Government then in your very next paragraph you have no idea if the stripping of class size and composition happened during an existing contract or were they removed during the next contract negotiation?
Seems once the BC Liberals took over you felt there was no longer any need for critical thought on your part?
Appears Hart Guy, for the last 13 years your opinion has been spoon fed directly into your head from the BC Liberals?
Taxed Out, you missed the point, or I didn’t make it properly. I’m willing to admit that I am not perfect!!
So let me be clear, in my opinion, changing the terms of a contract in the middle of a contract is one thing, replacing the terms of an expired contract with different terms in a new contract is something else!
My understanding and feel free to correct me if I am wrong, is that the Glen Clark NDP Government negotiated a 3 year deal in 1998 that covered 1999 through 2002. In 2002, Gordon Campbellâs government imposed a contract on teachers that stripped clauses dealing with class size and specialty-teacher ratios, which meant the unionâs gains from 1998 were lost. The BCTF has been fighting to re-establish those clauses ever since!
Seems to me that the changes were brought in with a new contract, imposed upon the BCTF in the same manner that the previous contract had been imposed upon the BPSCEA and School Boards by the NDP Government!
Hmmm, turnabout is fair play!!
Taxed Out, I’m wondering what your thoughts are regarding my comments about eliminating the “Master’s Degree” salary premium where it isn’t needed and instead shifting those tax dollars towards hiring more Teaching Assistants.
I’m sure that your NDP and BCTF spoon fed opinion might oppose that suggestion, as would the BCTF. After all, such a suggestion would severely reduce the ability of the BCTF to demand the hiring of more teachers and would hinder the BCTF’s efforts to increase it’s membership numbers and dues!!
Teaching Assistants are not members of the BCTF and do not pay Union Dues to the BCTF!
Taxed Out, I forgot to mention that my suggestion regarding the elimination of the “Master’s Degree” salary premium and the hiring of more Teaching Assistants would benefit the “kids”!
More Teaching Assistants would allow for more specialized help for Special Needs “kids” and this would free up more of the Teacher’s time thereby allowing them to be more focused and more effective to their “kids”!
Sounds reasonable, wouldn’t you agree! After all, “it’s for the kids”!!
Taxed Out, I just had another thought! I know, I know, kind of surprising,eh??
Our public sector workers enjoy pensions that are the envy of the average working person. These pensions are partially paid for and are subsidized by the taxpayers at large, regardless of whether or not the taxpayer at large belongs to a pension plan.
Teachers belong to a very generous pension plan. I believe that the retirement income paid to each member is determined to some extent by the salary level that they are at when they retire. One of my neighbours, after teaching successfully for over 20 years, decided to obtained his Master’s Degree and did so through online studies and summer classes, all of which were partially subsidized by our School Board, meaning you and I,the taxpayer!
This resulted in a bump to his income upon completion of his Master’s Degree. This bump in his income during the remaining years of his teaching career will result in a higher pension income for the rest of his life!!
He told me that it seems crazy that all teachers don’t do this, obtain a Master’s Degree, get paid more for remaining years of their career AND then enjoy a higher pension! There was no mention of the need for the Master’s Degree in order to do a better job of teaching!
This doesn’t really sit very well with me, considering that my retirement income will largely be based upon what I am able to put into my RRSP each year. During good years, perhaps I am able to max out my RRSP contributions while during less successful years, I will reduce my contributions In the end, I hope that I can contribute enough and I hope that my RRSP investments perform well enough to afford me a decent retirement.
If a teacher makes less in the early years of their career, with increases as they gather more experience and move up the salary grid, shouldn’t their pension reflect that? Instead, we pay for them to get a Master’s Degree, all to often later in their teaching career, whether they need one or not, and it’s seems perhaps only as a way to boost their income in their final years of service in order to enjoy a higher pension income!!
But hey, it’s for the kids! Right??
The 2002 imposed contract was ruled illegal twice in a court of law Hart Guy, you know for the kids!
As for teacher credentials, the Ministry of Education sets the minimum standard in this Province in order to teach. Clearly the BC Liberals believe an educated teacher is a better teacher otherwise no such standard would exist and your preference of teachers assistants would suffice. So if an educated teacher is a better teacher offering an incentive for further education for the workforce would enhance the quality of that workforce. But hey if ALL you do is shoot for the minimum, well that is what you will get… You know Hart Guy,for the kids!
In my line of work (private sector) I am required by law for annual training. The Federal Government sets the minimum, however the company I work for trains to a higher standard than what is legislated, many train to the minimum, which of course adds a higher cost the company incures. This company believes a better educated worker produces a better product….you know Hart Guy, for the customer (kids) right!
In my line of work (private sector) I am required by law for annual training. The Federal Government sets the minimum, however the company I work for trains to a higher standard than what is legislated, many train to the minimum, more training of course adds a higher cost the company incures. This company believes a better educated worker produces a better product….you know Hart Guy, for the customer (kids) right!
Taxed Out!, isn’t that what the Pro-D Days are for??
We have lots and lots and lots of teachers, performing their jobs exceptionally well, without a Master’s Degree!! If there is no benefit to having a Master’s Degree, other than to boost a teacher’s pay cheque and pension income, then it’s bloody well time to review why we are paying both for the costs of teachers obtaining the Master’s Degree and the subsequent higher wages that go along with it!
The 2002 imposed contract ruling is being appealed by the Government, and rightly so!! If the NDP can impose a contract, why can’t the Liberals??
Your arguments fail to hold water! Perhaps your shop steward or your Union Rep will assist you in finding some that do!
How are we paying for their Masters education other than writing it off, just as I did for my education?
Not in a union….It is your opinion that the higher education is solely for increased pay…I don’t agree and believe a better educated society is a boost to the economy. I am sure there are teachers aids that perform exceptionally. I am sure there are nurses that could perform surgery as well?
I think if you look into Pro-d days you will find the BCTF negotiated 5 extra days in the year added to the month of June at no extra pay to accommodate those days the BC Liberals wanted to take away 2 contracts ago. So in effect Pro-D days have been donated for two contracts.
Taxed Out! I believe that School Boards re-imburse and/or otherwise subsidize the costs of obtaining a Master’s Degree. You may correct me if I am wrong!
You state that you are sure that there are nurses that could perform surgery? There very well might be, but we are still paying them “nurse” wages, not “surgeon” wages”!
Your argument has long ago run out of steam and you are now just grasping at straws! Obviously in this case, you have brought a knife to a gunfight!!
Taxed Out! sometimes there are situations where you “left-wing” nuts win, and us “right-wing” nuts are left to slink away with our tails between our legs!
And then there are times when us “right-wing” nuts win, and you “left-wing” nuts are left to slink away with your tails between your legs!
Would you like my opinion as to which situation we are currently in, or did you happen to catch the news tonight and you’ve figured it out for yourself??
Taxed Out! I must get back to work so I’ll miss this back and forth! I’ll be sure to check back later, but in the meantime please do me a favour and find out what happened to my best buddy BH!! I’ve been waiting all day for BH to jump all over me for my opinions!!
There is no Masters subsidy….Grasping at straws would be when you are making crap up.
Read my post again Hart Guy,……
“I am sure there are teachers aids that perform exceptionally. I am sure there are nurses that could perform surgery as well.”
We are paying teachers aides, “aides” wages not “teachers” wages.
Seems school failed you Hart guy…comprehension looks to be a difficult area for you to grasp.
Taxed Out! I’m home from work and just in time. The following link is to the BCTF/Prince George School District #57 Working Document for the EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006 TO JUNE 30, 2011. I’ll keep looking for a more current one, but you may wish to review “ARTICLE F.24 EDUCATIONAL BONUS FOR COURSES” beginning on Page 76:
http://www.bctf.ca/pgdta/PDF/06-11%20Collective%20Agreement.pdf
Following is most of the information contained therein:
ARTICLE F.24 EDUCATIONAL BONUS FOR COURSES
24.1 Credit Courses
a. Teachers shall be eligible for Education Bonuses upon successful completion of
university or educational institution courses provided:
i. the courses are accepted by the Superintendent of Schools as properly
relating to progress towards the teacher’s basic professional status (i.e. improving certification) or to the teacher’s current or proposed instructional responsibility.
ii. the courses to be taken must be approved in advance in writing by the
Superintendent of Schools.
iii. proof of successful completion is made within one (1) month following official notification from the university or educational institution.
b. For university or educational courses completed at any time outside of the
community in which the teacher resides, the Board shall pay $62.50 for each approved credit hour or its equivalent, except as provided in Article F.24.1.c following.
c. For university or educational courses (including distance education /
correspondence courses) completed at any time in the community in which the teacher resides, 50% of the course tuition fee will be reimbursed provided that, upon request, a course tuition receipt or other proof of course tuition payment is submitted.
d. A bonus shall be payable in a lump sum upon production of proof of such credits.
24.2 Non-Credit Courses
a. Subject to the prior approval of the Superintendent of Schools, the Board shall
make a payment towards the expenses of any teacher attending short courses,workshops, conferences and seminars during time outside of the teacher’s regular work year on the following basis:
i. the short course, workshop, conference or seminar relates to the teacher’s current or proposed instructional responsibilities.
ii. when attendance does not require the teacher to live away from the teacher’s normal School District No. 57 residence, the registration fee of the course will be reimbursed provided that a fee receipt and a certificate of attendance is submitted.
iii. when attendance requires the teacher to live away from the teacher’s normal School District No. 57 residence and provided that a fee receipt and certificate of attendance is provided, reimbursement will be:
1. a minimum of $200.00 for the first week or part thereof;
2. a minimum of $150.00 for each additional week or part thereof.
The amount shall not exceed the actual expenses incurred.
b. Subject to the prior approval of the Superintendent of Schools, a teacher will be reimbursed up to 50% of the registration fee (up to a maximum of $250 total
reimbursement) for attendance at local non-credit courses, workshops and seminars related to the teacher’s current or proposed instructional responsibilities
taken during the teacher’s regular work year provided that a fee receipt and a
certificate of attendance is submitted.
Taxed Out!, I never make crap up, sometimes I misinterpret things,sometimes I make mistakes, but I never make things up!!
Taxed Out!, you at 5:50 p.m. you posted the following:
“As for teacher credentials, the Ministry of Education sets the minimum standard in this Province in order to teach. Clearly the BC Liberals believe an educated teacher is a better teacher otherwise no such standard would exist and your preference of teachers assistants would suffice. So if an educated teacher is a better teacher offering an incentive for further education for the workforce would enhance the quality of that workforce. But hey if ALL you do is shoot for the minimum, well that is what you will get… You know Hart Guy,for the kids!”
Sounds like you are defending, justifying and supporting the payment of tuition and training costs for teachers, but then at 10:26 p.m., you seem to contradict yourself. Perhaps you might want to call it a night before you put your foot further into your mouth!! Or perhaps not…..
Taxed Out!, I might be wrong but in my opinion, you lost this discussion! Better luck tomorrow! Sleep well, you deserve (need) it!! Nite! ;-)
I think I have solved the problem. Pay teachers as much as firemen get paid. The amount of time they are not “working”, or let us put it into a positive form, the amount of contact hours teachers have with students and the amount of contact hours firemen have with fires might just be about the same. That way the teachers will be getting a raise without setting a precedent since firemen have already set that precedent some years ago.
BTW, better education does not necessarily mean an advanced degree. Better education for a professional typically means education focused on the individual’s requirements directly applicable to work. Such education is most easily found through various self education processes typically associated with specialized formal short courses and seminars geared to issues which professionals face at work rather than more generic credit courses leading to a degree more often than not without practical purpose.
Comments for this article are closed.