BC Teachers vs Provincial Government on Contract | [3-Day Strike]
 

I'm a little surprised that this issue, having been so prominent in the media of late, hasn't received any attention on this forum.

Anyway... I'm just curious as to what others think of the demands of the government vs the teachers and what the solution should be to this entire mess.

Teachers asking for a 15% wage increase over three years is ludicrous. Most taxpayers, who pay teachers salaries, haven't seen those annual increases with those kind of percentages in years.

Funny how people automatically just assume that the only issue is the wage increase.

The bigger issue is the fact that class sizes keep getting bigger. Adding more kids to a classroom solves nothing and punishes everyone in that classroom. Also added to the fact that teachers now expected to take care of special needs kids when before there would have been a specific person assigned to those types of kids.

The way its going there will be over 100 kids per classroom and no one will learn a damn thing.

Also 15% over 3 years is not that much. Hell I usually get about 3-5% per year which is about the same.

I fully support teachers and think teaching should be one of the highest paying professions.

Rather than chastise teachers for getting raises, we should be angry with the private sector for treating employees like crap.

Personally I think that the teachers need to sack whatever union they've got atm and get a new one. Either way I'm siding with the government on this one, why do the teachers union think they deserve more in these times of need given the situation?

Brezhnev is right again as usual. I'm sure we could recruit plenty of teachers from Labour Ready. Save the taxpayers shit-loads of money.

I am more concerned about the severe seniority issues within teacher's wage structures. The younger teachers are generally given mediocre wages compare to those that have been teaching for decades which has rather generous compensations, but it can be argued that both are similarly qualified to teach. Frankly, many teachers just use the same material over and over again after they get used to the job, so the biggest challenge for teachers is the first few years. While extra pay should be given to experience and retention, I don't buy the fact that teachers 20 years in the business is somehow 2x better than a teacher in their 2nd year. Heck, the younger ones tend to even known their students better and usually not completely jaded either.

The problem with wage increases conflict with class sizes, because to decrease class size on top of the wage increase will mean a much greater increase in cost. I seriously doubt there's money to increase wages AND decrease class sizes.

Personally, I do think that teachers deserve a good pay, because it is an important and tough job. What needs to be done is to decrease the pay/size of school administrators and put that money to the front line teachers. If anything, school administrators should get 1/2 the pay of teachers, not the other way around.

It's a bargaining tactic. Government will offer them less but compromise by saying they're keeping the class size the same.

Bargaining 101. You ask for double the difference between the offer and what you want.

If they offer 5%, you ask for 15% and 10% seems fair for both sides. Other party gives you 15% and both aren't happy as the receiving party wonders if they could have received more.

Most humans naturally want to meet in the middle.

As for seniority teachers getting paid higher. Of course they should get paid more. There are subtle aspects of teaching that are learned over time. If it's an issue, you can make requirements that teachers take workshops to maintain pay increases. I don't know the system now, but I'm pretty sure they do this anyhow.

Also, loyalty as a long-term teacher also has value.

Note, I don't know how big this divide is, but it's common in MOST industries to pay the worker with more seniority a higher wage. You're rewarding years of service, loyalty and collected experience. Sure, it doesn't mean a new teacher isn't a better teacher, it just puts them all on a level playing field. You risk running a slippery slope if you start to compensate on how "good a teacher" a person is. What do you rate such a subjective thing on?

Actually, teaching programs across the country are churning out hundreds of teachers, with no jobs awaiting them:

...according to a new report by McIntyre released last week, recent graduates aren’t finding the jobs they were promised. Just over 40 per cent of 2006 grads found a fulltime job in their first year after graduating. Only 25 per cent of elementary school teachers find work.

It turns out that Baby Boomers aren’t as eager to retire as expected. And many of those who do snap up coveted part-time substitute teacher positions to pad their wallets. In fact, Between the Ontario and American programs boosted in the early 90s to help alleviate Ontario’s looming teacher shortage are producing over 7,000 more teachers than are retiring each year. ..
http://www.macleans.ca/education/uni...26_191435_7400

Steve Jobs was right:

During a joint appearance with Michael Dell that was sponsored by the Texas Public Education Reform Foundation, Jobs took on the unions by first comparing schools to small businesses, and school principals to CEOs. He then asked rhetorically: "What kind of person could you get to run a small business if you told them that when they came in, they couldn't get rid of people that they thought weren't any good? Not really great ones, because if you're really smart, you go, 'I can't win.' "

He went on to say that "what is wrong with our schools in this nation is that they have become unionized in the worst possible way. This unionization and lifetime employment of K-12 teachers is off-the-charts crazy."

http://www.pcworld.com/article/12921...rs_unions.html

Dont' blame me for the impass, I voted for the HST...

As well, evidence between class size and learning achievement is still inconclusive, AFAIK.

“The debate over the impact of smaller class sizes continues to this day, with conflicting conclusions and no definite outcome. However, evidence suggests that, in terms of value for money, investments in lower class sizes do not provide the greatest possible benefit. The PISA (a research arm of the OECD) finds that “raising teacher quality is a more effective route to improved student outcomes than creating smaller classes.

http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2012/0...aller-classes/

The link refers to Ontario's Drummond report.

Of course they should get paid more, but sometimes the wage gap is pretty high for people with the same credentials and results, but the difference being someone doing it for 1 year vs. 20 years.

Also, there are many teachers that are at best mediocre. I support unions for a lot of good they bring, but one of the worst aspect is that they tend do shelter *some* bad employees at the expense of eager and hardworking newcomers. I know it is difficult to judge which teacher is better than others, but barring any major incidents teachers are almost never fired. I think that is quite ludicrous to expect that all of them are saintly people with their heart completely towards educating the next generation. It is up to school administrations to base hiring/firing through observations and reviews, and it should be done by a consensus of a neutral party. Talent may be difficult to objectively judge, but effort should be easier to see. Considering that schools push students to pursue hard-work and perseverance, teachers too should be held to these standards.

It is without doubt that the majority of teachers currently employed are the baby boomers with high pay and benefits, so theoretically axing a chunk of the poorly performing ones out there in favour for new blood is a good thing for students, tax-payers, and unemployed teachers at the expense of complacent personnel. It also creates a "stick" incentive to push the average ones to better themselves beyond mandatory workshops. My personal experience with some teachers is that a few of them just don't care about students or the material they teach.

Teachers should be highly compensated as a whole (I am not against the wage increase), but in my opinion should be held to the highest standards as they are one of the core role models for the impressionable youth. Teachers shouldn't be fired for any mistakes they make, but their job shouldn't be so iron-clad as to breed mediocrity.

I was planning to post this along with my introduction earlier to the thread, but ran out of time to do so.


Some people have already mentioned a few issues that I have with the teachers' position at the moment:

- Some teachers rely more on the union to keep their jobs, rather than improving themselves in the name of their students' educational experience. No, that doesn't mean having to redo oneself over and over to keep up with life's fads and latest trends... All I would insist on is that teachers should continually strive to improve communication and understanding between themselves and students. If some teachers cannot strive to meet that or otherwise fail their duties time after time, then I do not see many reasons for keeping them.

- 15% pay raise over the life of the contract is rather crazy even as a bargaining chip during times where financial prudence may still be warranted in a slowly recovering economy... and it certainly did not give teachers the right public opinion for the first few weeks of the dispute going public. In addition, there's legitimate concern about whether that actually gives us the best of teachers... for new recruits, it may, but what about those who have higher seniority but aren't doing their best?


But then there are many more issues with the government stance:

- Teachers may be essential services for providing 'government-funded daycare' to certain elementary school kids but not really so for older high school students. And even then there's correspondence and online learning...

- Just reading Bill 22... and I take issue with it. Unless it's a bargaining chip it should be burned. There's really nothing in there that would "improve" education despite the pretty title... instead all the powers of the previous contract are put in the hands of the minister, and I doubt he/she would manage it better than anyone else.

- A biased mediator that looks for a solution to this problem within the scope of net-zero increases will probably find none and worse will most likely be thrown out by teachers. If anything, this should really just proceed to binding arbitration at this point if the government feels like it isn't willing to budge.... oh wait... were they afraid of losing face there too? This government is losing face by the day...

- I'm not so sure what the government means when they say that education investments have increased year over year... it could all be just artificial as the increases might just be necessary to cover inflation... or that it may be for stuff unrelated to teachers and/or education like better administration areas, new desks and computers, and new schools. Some of these costs may improve education in specific environment-related aspects but as a whole ignore other funding problems.

- For example, the allowance given to certain classes that have one-time-use materials compared to most other classes (e.g. culinary arts, woodwork and metalwork, and sewing) seems rather pitiful enough that schools have to ask for additional money from students so they can keep their creations (sewing, woodwork, and metalwork) or have larger portion sizes (culinary arts). And even then my robotics class, which used hand-me-downs from the previous year, had plenty of trouble in terms of acquiring new and replacement parts from the US to further advance our robotic creations. Such budget restrictions overall stifle creativity, competition, and practice in places where it is most needed.

- In addition, the Supreme Court of BC ruling that education must be equal and applicable to everyone across the province has never been fixed properly by the government, and instead the money and admin. burden now rests on school boards, students, and teachers alike. I used to remember going on many field trips during my elementary school years for skating, swimming, and going to places like Science World, Stanley Park, the Art Gallery, etc... But after the ruling was passed during my high school years, teachers were way more reluctant to go out, and rightly so: admins. had to approve each one so they didn't exceed the annual budget, it had to be voluntary (so teachers couldn't use it to teach properly), teachers and other supervisors couldn't get paid while on the trip and had to hire replacements to cover any slackers, etc. Basically, what was supposed to be a simple field trip that would have expanded educational opportunities for most students and teachers alike was instead turned into a really silly and convoluted bureaucratic exercise that few people wanted to deal with.


With all of that said...

My position for the contract is roughly as follows:

- 4% pay hike over three years, plus increases of 6% for teachers who demonstrate excellence in their area within the scope of in-class instruction;
- cap of 32 students per class strictly maintained
- cap of 2 special needs students per class
- cap of 4 extra assistance students per class
- expanded implementation of special needs or extra assistance classes within normal schools in certain densely populated districts
- provincial funding for classes with one-time-use or limited reusability materials should be expanded to $100 per student per year, with money to be disbursed to teachers by school administrations.
- provincial funding for physical education classes for activities outside the school should be similarly expanded to cover basic skating and swimming lessons, and such lessons shall be conducted under a four-year cost-saving agreement between the local school districts and the local municipal authorities in charge. If such lessons are not available, they may be used for other proscribed athletic activities, or if neither exists, handed over to the school district as a grant for field trips.
- a pool of grants for field trips shall be initiated or expanded if it already exists

- separately, a boost of income tax levels to that comparable of Alberta or Ontario (if current rates for certain incomes are lower vs other provinces) to pay for these improvements + any other items that may be necessary in health care and transport.


Does this feel like a well-balanced solution? =S

The BCTF is a monster that is hurting everyone. Their bargaining skills are pathetic. The "all or nothing" tactic only pisses off the public and hurts the teachers in the end.

I'm in favor of some moderate increases, but I don't see a problem with the "net zero" as every other public service has to deal with the same issues.

Lets not forgot that the average employee works about 240 days per year, and teachers have more like 160.

So if a teacher makes $50k/yr, that's like somebody else making $75k.

But the school support workers (CUPE) were able to reach a deal with the govt in December 2011. It's publicized as a net-zero, but i would not be suprised if victoria threw in some one-time only extra funding. If the BCTF was close, then we could have seen a deal (like adding in your special needs cap) but the way the BCTF has bargin now has them entrenched. ANd IIRC, CUPE's deal allows for re-opening if the govt seems to stray from net-zero from other unions.

"Significantly, CUPE accepted the government’s net-zero mandate and celebrated the fact the deal includes no concessions. Once BCPSEA removed concessions from the table, a deal became possible, CUPE spokesman Bill Pegler told me Thursday.

“The net-zero mandate is difficult for everyone. There’s no question about that,” he added. “But it was time to move on.”"

That's perfect being enemy of the good. That being said, I agree with equality of access - this could have been a concession that allows one-time funding while still adhering to a 'net-zero' deal, but again, the BCTF seems to entrench their position.

Currently, BC has higher taxes for the top income earners compared to Ontario and AB's 10% flat tax.

Ah. The reopening stipulation added in by CUPE is rather interesting, and I'd agree with them wanting to keep things relatively equal for everyone else. In addition, I find the tax info to be interesting given how the BC Budget report from the government proudly proclaims that BC has the lowest income taxes in Canada. Talk about irony or conflicting info... lol.

Your suggestion about just using the caps and grants as a concession for no increased wages seems to be generally fair, and it would put the teachers' in more of a rather awkward position to accept given that such funding will ultimately improve the educational experience, especially where it is needed most: for students of special needs / extra assistance backgrounds, and vocational, applied skills, and athletics classes.

I still feel that some inclusion of reform of the organizations and practices governing teachers would be nice so that overall teaching and teacher's pay becomes slightly more performance-based. Maybe this contract can start that off with existing teachers getting bonuses (or temporary benefits) on performance (no pay increases to everyone though), followed by better starting pay + stricter acceptance screening in three years? On second thought the union will probably not like that to stay equal, so any sort of reform will probably have to wait for the NDP to step in and fix.

(And I say NDP because they'll most likely win re-election given how the Liberals are in a myriad of other deathly crises at the moment.)

The NDP screwed the teachers over big time in the 90's. The NDP gave inexpensive concessions that could be revoked at any time, and no wage increases. The Liberals stripped the concessions but gave substantial wage increases, salary bonuses, and unified bargaining. I am surprised at the BCTF's continued loyalty to the party that treated them no better than the Liberals.

I believe that the BCTF's efforts to portray themselves as the defenders of students has ultimately failed. The union by definition does not represent the students' interests, it represents the teachers' interests. In theory the government represents the students' interests. It would be better if the fight for learning conditions was fought at election time, and governments were made accountable at that time.

Because the union has inextricably linked itself with the fight for learning conditions, the fight for learning conditions is significantly weakened, and the union's fight for working conditions is also weakened.

There is no way of subjectively determining whether a teacher is good or bad.

When a kid goes from one grade to the next there is no way of knowing how that kid will turn out. The kids future is unknown and you can't base on how that kid did and how much more they knew from the teacher or teachers that taught them. A straight "A" student could turn into a drug dealing crimanal while a student who scrapes by might end up being the bloody prime minister.

I also don't support the whole idea of "We are in a down time in the economy so no one should ask for a pay raise" Who determines what is a good time. Does the economy need to grow by a certain percentage or does the unemployement rate need to be at a certain level. Also I'd be shocked if everyone on here practiced what they preached and didn't ask there boss for a raise even during these "so called times"

Fair enough, but you can also ask "objectively what is the "right" class size". They are both difficult questions, but that doesn't mean we can't admit it, and cannot try to find out.

I have one way to objectively improve teachers - don't fight to re-instate teachers guilty of serious professional misconduct, like the BCTF does.

In the teacher's strike case, you are the boss, in that it's your taxes that will fund any increased spending, also knowing that these decisions aren't made in isolation - you have the potential to alter all sorts of balances (eg reopening CUPE's agreement.)

This is in no way a scientific survey, but of the three teachers I've spoken to, they all think their union's lost it. They're really pissed.

As probably the only teacher on this forum, I will share that anecdotally, none of us took the 15% wage increase OR the 10 day bereavement leave seriously. We all saw that as a bargaining item that was meant to be negotiated way down but of course our leadership didn't fully take the hard net-zero stance 100% seriously. From the very start, we would've accepted a wage increase to cost of inflation.

However, the strike as it stands went ahead because of 1.) we want to use the days the LRB gave us (who knows what would happen in the future if we don't use what the LRB gave) and 2.) Bill 22 is an atrocious bill that strips class size limits in elementary levels and removes class size composition discussion/meetings between admins and the teachers that have to run those classes and 3.) you cannot take a right to strike (Ever) away from us without expecting a fight.

In terms of teacher evaluations, most of us young teachers would accept it if it meant a much higher salary but we would want a say into how evaluations are done and by whom - some in the public wanted students as part of the process.............no.

And as for the greatness of young teachers and the fallacy that they'd be better I would disagree. As a new teacher myself, I am still improving with each year and am constantly learning from the more senior teachers. Admittedly, not the super dinosaur ones but from the 10-20year teachers. While our use of technology may be better as younger teachers, our classroom awareness, keeping on top of the marking, our informal counselling, and our hands-on activities and demonstrations are not as good as senior teachers.

Anyway, I didn't want to go in to deep on this forum as I am too invested in it and would not be able to present an objective opinion.