If the government was really serious about ending the teacher dispute, they could bring in a mediator to look at what I perceive to be the three main issues. Unfortunately they are not interested in seeing an end to the dispute except through bludgeoning which can only lead to further eroding of morale in the school.
e.g. If I were still teaching, I would go to the first staff meeting and say "No offense but I am here because I am expected to be here." And those would be the last words I would offer at a staff meeting. Can't legislate discussion.
e.g. I am glad that the BCTF accommodated a number of sports events and field trips that occurred this week. However, how many sports events and field trips may never get started once this dispute reaches its legislated end. Does the government realize that teachers spend far more time on voluntary activities than the many meaningless administrative activities that they were not doing the past six months.
Anyway, what can be done?
The first item is the most confusing because it deals with contract language involving seniority, posting, ProD and dismissal. When I read online commentaries, there seems to be a concern that "bad" teachers are running (ruining) the system. Simply put, there is a process to eliminate the few people unsuitable for
the classroom. That process needs to be fair. It needs to be clear.
And it needs to be followed diligently. Teachers also want the best available people in the classroom. But that does not mean that people are not given due process or a chance to improve. It shouldn't mean that teachers can be moved around the district regardless of seniority because someone in power is making a personal judgment call. It doesn't mean that professional autonomy must be compromised.
Second item is salary. Right now the media has focused on the 15% starting point by the teachers. The media conveniently forgets that in negotiation each side moves off its starting point. I think a mediator might find this rather simple.
To the teachers: Can the 6% catch-up to other provinces be taken off the table? Because this year is almost over can this year's 3% be lowered?
Government: How serious can you be to expect people to accept net zero. (More on that in a moment.) Are you willing to offer some cost of living adjustments?
The BCTF has said that all items are negotiable. The government is unwilling to bring in a mediator who can discuss salary. Who's not moving here?
The last item is the pitiful amount of money that the government has put into class size and composition. When the government illegally ripped up the contract through Bill 27 and Bill 28 in 2002, they saved about $275M a year or close to $3B over ten years. The money to fund those class size limits came from
several years of teachers taking 0% in salary during the '90's.
As a mediator I would ask the government if they thought their $165M "investment" over three years was sufficient? Teachers don't have to offer anything here. This is a no-brainer. The money that is put back into the system benefits kids. That $3B helped pay for the Olympics. It could have bought six covered roofs for BC Place. It pays for the HST debacle. Money has been taken out of the education system and used for other priorities. Net Zero?? Bring back the money stolen since 2002 and then talk net zero.
This legislation does nothing. The cooling off period will get report cards completed, but it will leave bitterness at the school and district level. It will leave teacher negotiators frustrated with six months of working with a mediator whose mandate is only to get teachers to accept net zero and to accept cuts to their contract. It forces teachers to accept a net loss of $2.835B from the illegal cuts of 2002. It takes away the only option a union has to fight its case. In fact, just like Bill 27 and 28, I wouldn't be surprised at a court challenge to the legality of Bill 22.
Everybody wants mediation - the teachers, BCPSEA, the school trustees association. Why is the government not listening?
No comments:
Post a Comment