Welcome to Forum Vancouver, an online discussion community for Metro Vancouver Hide
We have message boards for you to chat about shopping, community events, places to eat, things to do and much more!
Consider helping our forum grow by sharing your knowledge about living in the Greater Vancouver area.

is free and only takes a few moments to complete.

Educate me about the current teachers' strike?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by curiousmind, Sep 3, 2014.

  1. curiousmind

    curiousmind New Member

    I would love for someone to enlighten me about the current teachers strike in BC. I am not hoping to pick sides, but really would love an explanation without getting all emotional responses. I know there are lots of discussions on this everywhere, but the discussion usually quickly deteriorate into name callings and general frustration with the government; I would love for this to remain rational and hope to learn more.

    1. According to BCTF, the problem is not about compensation or benefits; it's about class composition and class sizes. So what are the changes proposed for compensation and benefits? It seems like if both parties can agree to that part of the contract and make that list available to the public, we can focus on the real things that the parties disagree on.

    2. A lot of comments were made about the previous Justice Griffin decision and about how the government would keep making appeal; however, I don't understand how that's relevant as the stay order was granted. If there were no grounds for appeal, wouldn't we just stop granting a stay order?

    3. Given we have been having strikes so often in the last 10+ years, it is clearly not working and why do BCTF keep using this tactic? It seems to be hurting everyone (the teachers are losing their wages, the government is losing votes, the students are losing valuable class time) In a 9 months school year (-1 month for the vacations and Pro-D days, so maybe 8 months of classes) a 2 months strike (June, Sept) is already 25%?

    4. A lot of arguments then comments on how the private schools are diverging funds from public school. Just to do a thought experiment, what happens if instead of making public schools, we'll have all private schools but have the government pay the bills? That way, it's fair (all students have access to all schools regardless of wealth), and schools would have to compete with each other to keep improving.

    Again, I am hoping to keep an open mind and understand the facts.
     
  2. milquetoast

    milquetoast Senior Member

    This helped me understand the situation better but I haven't done any fact checking:
    4. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your thought experiment, but wouldn't that just still be public school?
     
    Stuntman likes this.
  3. curiousmind

    curiousmind New Member

    Thanks! That article does make it clear. A couple follow up questions:

    1. As far as I understand, the judgement simply said there should be classroom size and composition clauses in the contract; it does not say that BCTF or the government has the only say in deciding these factors. Why can't the government just put these into the contract, even if the numbers might not be something both parties agree with, as a starting point for negotiation?

    2. The difference, I believe, is that there would be incentives for schools to improve and attract more students (to ensure funding). A good school would be more desirable for students, and as a result rewarded with more funding; it has the incentives to keep improving. Other schools have incentives to try to improve (not only academically, but maybe in other areas such as arts and sports programs) or else face closure due to low enrolment, creating new demand and allowing other schools to open up and take its place. Each student would be assigned a budget by the government (based on needs, location, etc.) and the student is free to give that budget to any school that offer the best education he can receive.
     
  4. roddor

    roddor Guest

    private schools as they exist now can accept and turn away whoever they want. the public system is burdened by all the difficult challenging kids with ADHD, autism and learning disorders.

    what i'm wondering is... why are tax payers funding the government's misleading attack ads against the BCTF? i understand the government has a duty to inform parents and the public but their messages on facebook are beyond inappropriate for a government organization. have we degenerated into a rob ford style government?

    take a look at https://www.facebook.com/BCEducationandLiteracy

    "$375 million for more specialists, teachers, and educational assistants. BCTF's priority? Expanding BCTF union ranks – not support that students actually need."

    christy clark and the bc government is a joke
     
  5. milquetoast

    milquetoast Senior Member

    @curiousmind, it seems to me that the government has been unreasonable throughout this ordeal. The BCTF recently pushed for binding arbitration for issues like wages while leaving the issue of class size and composition up to the appeal. The government is cold to the idea and does not want to have to involve third parties.
     
  6. CrustyClark

    CrustyClark Guest

    This says it all:

    The judge in the case examined hundreds of pages of confidential cabinet documents and concluded the government devised a strategy during negotiations in 2012 to provoke a strike. The judge said the goal was to give the government political cover to pass legislation ordering teachers back to work while also maintaining the contract changes imposed in 2002.
     
  7. curiousmind

    curiousmind New Member

    Thanks for the comments -- it's helping me understanding the issue better.

    RE: private school being able to turn away kids with special needs, I believe this has more to do with incentives. If the government is able to provide sufficient funding such that private schools can profit from having kids with special needs, I don't see why we won't see private schools accepting them. In fact, for students not suitable to attend public schools due to their needs right now, the government is already paying 100% of their tuition for specialized private schools right now -- why can't we just extend this to kids with special needs in general? Parents can still choose to go to a public school, or a specialized private school, as cost is no longer an issue.

    RE: government's intentions, I agree that the government is probably allowing this ordeal to go on in bad faith. However, I personally think a binding arbitration is a bad idea -- it does nothing to solve the underlying issue, and having an arbitrator (who has no background in education) make the final decision sounds like a bad idea. The government has the most to gain from a continued strike (they can declare education as an essential service, since every child has a right to education, and removing the most powerful tool the teachers have), and also saving money on wages while the strike is happening. To me, it sounds like a bad move for BCTF to have started the strike to begin with, since historically it had not been successful and it heavily favours the government.

    I am not sure if my understanding is correct. I thought the judgement was that the working condition (i.e., class size and composition) had to be part of the contract -- why is the government so afraid to put it in?
     
  8. 86.8

    86.8 Guest

    Your private school idea would not work. Impoverished kids will be segregated into schools away from the wealthy kids and we will end up with major class divides.
     
    Stuntman likes this.
  9. curiousmind

    curiousmind New Member

    Don't we already have this, in a way? Public schools in wealthier neighbourhoods have wealthier kids. Schools in neighbourhoods with more immigrants have more ESL students. Not saying that it's a good thing, and not to say that schools in wealthier neighbourhoods are better in any way, but I don't think there has ever been expectations that kids with different needs/backgrounds are evenly distributed in our schools today.

    I actually think with the private school idea, where everyone is on equal grounds financially (the government pays for all private schools, so everyone can afford one) we would eliminate segregation in terms of wealth, but rather encourage specialization and choices. I think it would work more like public universities today, except everyone's tuition is paid for by the government; students can choose which school they want to attend (e.g., school X has better music programs, school Y has better sports program, etc.) This encourages schools to find ways to improve and offer student choices.
     

Share This Page