Teacher Strike

[DavidMR]

That 15% raise is the only non-negotiable point in their demands. Because, you know, it's about the kids.

The 15% demand is negotiable from the POV of the teachers. It's your Liberal Govt that says they won't negotiate away from Net Zero, even though they have with others.

As I am sure you know, the high priced Deputy Minister type who drafted the Net Zero policy got a raise of over 40% in the last couple of years. Perhaps you could put your sarcasm to constructive use with a few comments directed at that bit of "do as I say, not as I do" politics? Then again, perhaps you think pay raises of that magnitude for people who are already earning salaries of well over $100,000 a year, and are clearly not part of any union, is totally justified.

 

[DavidMR]

omg what an utter shocker!!! Who would have ever guessed????


Really? No I don't believe it.. You have to stop dropping these bombshells on us unannounced.

Hi Ferris, ... how's your day going? Here's another link, this time from the OECD.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-17357646

 

[Chef99]

This can easily get into a debate about unions. What I highly object to are "across the board" increases, even for the "crappy" performer. It rewards mediocrity which we can ill afford in any of our sectors. And why not fire the underperforming teacher (or any employee) when there are a multitude of underemployed teachers enthusiastically waiting in the wings? it happens in high tech all the time..... quite frankly I don't want a teacher who doesn't give a rat's ass teaching my kids and they should be tossed!

 

[DavidMR]

One idea that was put forward by Premier Kevin Falcon during his first Leadership Drive was merit pay for teachers. While teachers, like any other occupation, would enjoy a pay raise the notion of differential pay within the occupation is not as well received. In fact, I don't really know anywhere that it does happen, except among high fliers in the executive suites. Bonuses or commissions aren't the same thing, since they are really an additional percentage on hourly, weekly or annual earnings, or in the case of commissions essentially piece rate pay.\

Here are a couple of links to a prominent US educator on the subject of merit pay.

http://the21stcenturyprincipal.blogspot.com/2011/10/pay-for-performance-in-education-policy.html

http://the21stcenturyprincipal.blogspot.com/2011/04/politicians-dont-get-it-merit-pay-wont.html

 

[CJ Tylers]

I am calling bullshit on this one. Where is your proof?

I have full knowledge of one particular teacher who had three high school classes complain about him for four consecutive years. He would not teach the curriculum and the only way they could get rid of him was to full pension him off. He did not get fired in the end only retired with his file unfettered by the complaints.

Only teacher I know in my life time who was fired was Roger Callow from West Vancouver. Sure there are the paedophiles but this is different. Firing a teacher with cause is next to impossible. The BCTF defended him for several years before finally realizing they were defending a really bad teacher.

http://www.employeescasecanada.com/harper.htm

The current model is NOT based on the "one bad review" policy. Currently, a proper process for dissmissal must be followed. The only reason that your particular teacher was not canned is because management was not willing to actually do the proper ground work for firing him. Before calling BS, try reading first

As for the "public" being concerned about "union pay", perhaps the public would like to voice its sentiments over the following:

1) Deputy Minister of Education (James Gorman).... 2006 pay was $164,085 which increased until 2011 to $228,942... a 40% increase over 5 years. During that time, his accumulated expenses are $136,616. Gee, maybe he can buy some class room supplies with his pocket change? I personally know of several teachers that buy things for their kids... some even buy food for kids that come from poor homes.

2) Rick Davis, Education Minstry Supintendent of Achievement... expenses incurred between 2006 and 2011 - $434,234. Bills sumbitted currently approximate $6k/month on business lunches.

3) John Dyble, Deputy Minister to Premier Clark... 2006 salary of $161, 455... rising to $239,121 in 2011 (48% increase) and bumped up again to $310,000 on March 1st, 2012.

Hey, you gotta walk the walk before you can talk the talk Can anyone seriously tell me that there is any justification for the gross expenses and salaries for these 3 guys? I can only imagine that these guys are the tip of the liberal ice berg.

 

[FunSugarDaddy]

The basic reality is that teachers make $15 to $20 thousand more in Alberta and Ontario. Some commentators seem to think that BC doesn't need to respond to that pay gap at all, unless and until there's a mass exodus of teachers and we have across the board shortages.

What they seem to ignore is the fact that once people have left, mere parity will not bring them back. You'll have to pay a premium.

Is there a teacher shortage I'm not aware of? If teacher's who leave can't be replaced you have a point, if they can be replaced you're likely to save money because the teachers who are doing the replacing are young teachers who deperately want jobs and want to raise a family and get on with their lives.

 

[CJ Tylers]

And that's because the BCTF will make it extremely difficult for them, involving a lot of time and process and because they have many other things to do they just wind up foisting an incompetent teacher on another district or school because to do otherwise is just too exhausting and time consuming. And that's good for the kids and the education system? Do you want teachers like that instructing your kids? I guess you're ok with it seeing as you want to protect teachers so badly.

The BCTF is only interested in protecting its members..that's its mandate, not improving the education system or helping in weeding out bad seeds that may be harmful to childrens learning process. I should think that's fairly obvious.

See, now this is where things get silly... labelling me in a particular fashion. I hate the liberals, mostly for their arrogance and incompetence. The teachers, well, their current BCTF Executive is a bunch of asshats that I could care less about. All I'm doing is pointing out the truth here.

The BCTF prevents the manhandling of its members. However, it cannot, and will not, intervene if all the proper channels have been gone through. They want the bad apples out just as much as you do... but until management steps forward with the correct paperwork, their hands are tied.

In fact, ANY union works in the same fashion. If you follow the rules, it's all very nice and simple, although I admit not easy. Management, however, bemoans the fact that they can't simply sack a teacher whenever they like, with no notice or reason (they could do that before). Everyone assumes that you can't fire people in a union... that's just plain wrong and way out of line.

It isn't as easy as telling an employee to bend over so you can kick them on the way down, which is precisely WHY unions came into being... to prevent abuse. But, they don't want crappy people any more than the employer. If you work with them, they'll work with you... simple as that.

If you're not willing to do due dilligence in order to fire someone, then it's not the unions fault... the blame lies entirely on you.

On a related note, proper dismissal via union rules also means the employer is protected from lawsuits, which on the spot firing does not allow for.

 

[FunSugarDaddy]

If the teachers were to go non union & come back as independant educational consultants, they'd break the treasury. Why? With their education and experience, they'd simply negotiate for far higher payments. If they were to simply charge according to a "per head basis" of say $8/hr per child (not unreasonable compared to day care rates), they'd make almost 2k/day (8 hours teaching per day to satisfy the complaints about the 6 hour instructional time, $8 per child, 30 children per class). Remember, most people consider them to be overpaid day care, so why not charge day care rates? Hell, I'd even teach the little blighters for that kind of cash.

There seems to be a host of posters on this thread that have no economic knowledge whatsoever. Your comment is totally and I mean 100% based on the assumption that teachers are in such short supply they would command a premium to the status quo. My understanding is that there are literally 1,000's of new teachers standing in line, working part-time, relief work etc, and just trying to get their foot in the door and use the education they've recently received. If that is the case, your comments and your analysis are totally faulty.

They want a free market system, i say bring it on. I'm pretty much ready to pulll my child out of the public system any way.

 

[CJ Tylers]

There are not thousands of teachers waiting around... but there are quite a few

Actually, my comments were based on teachers negotiating their own contracts based on day care rates. . What would happen is that they would negotiate how many children they are willing to take on, with the more experience/higher rated teachers commanding a higher profit per child.

Those students not picked up by the better teachers would then be picked up by the less experienced or lower rated teachers, who would typically command a lower per child price point. Out of that deal, the teachers would then rent a teaching environment, although they'd likely expect that the students or the governing agency would supply instructional tools (such as computers) and programs (according to what the governing body demands be taught).

Also, extra curricular activities would be separate contracts with commesurate pay (given the after hours nature of the activities). The rules for who can teach would still be in effect, with higher educated teachers negotiating for higher wages still. They also would not be answerable to principals or administrators, although as consultants their contracts could be cancelled on a moments notice... but there would be severance pay worked into the contract as well.

That is how independant educational consultants would break the bank... a true, free market system.

Of course, making education entirely private would change things dramatically.... quite for the worse, I imagine. Private education only benefits those of means... and having an uneducated populace only serves to drag down future generations. The higher the education of the general populace, the wealthier and healthier the populace becomes. It always amazes me how people figure a 100% private system is better.

Another interesting point....alot of public money goes to private schools. IMHO, if you're wanting to place a child in private school, you should bear the entire brunt of the cost... public money should ONLY be for public expenses. Perhaps if they cut back on the money spent on pirvate schools, they could afford up to date teaching materials for the children?

Perhaps a better question would be, are you willing to pay for a 100% private, non-publically funded school? That easily runs $30-100k/year! I don't know many people who aren't in the 100k+ income range that can afford that. I guess it's easy for those folks to tout the benefits of private education and health... they actually have it as an affordable option.

Sadly, it seems that many people in Canada wish to go the way of the US.

 

[FunSugarDaddy]

How many games can we play on one subject. On the one hand people are saying they're vastly overpaid. If it's pointed out they make as much as 30% less than their counterparts in nearby Alberta, they're told suck it up and move there.

any why exactly don't they? If there in it for the money what would be the logical thing to do wouldn't it.

As an aside, I provide financial services to many people, so I'm aware of the net worth of a lot of people in a lot of different working environments, and to me, most teachers, especially older one's who bought houses in the 70-80's and have pensions are way ahead in terms of net worth than most others.

Hell I know of one couple, both teachers, with 3 rental properties and a net worth into the 3-4M range. And they raised 4 kids to boot.

And of course we know if they get raises, this indirectly also increases their pension benefits.

 

[FunSugarDaddy]

Actually, my comments were based on teachers negotiating their own contracts based on day care rates.

Another interesting point....alot of public money goes to private schools. IMHO, if you're wanting to place a child in private school, you should bear the entire brunt of the cost... public money should ONLY be for public expenses. Perhaps if they cut back on the money spent on pirvate schools, they could afford up to date teaching materials for the children?

Why's that? If you ask me public money should be allocated on a per child basis and the child/parent can sent their children to the educational institute they feel best meets the children's needs.

This idea that my child is a pawn in some b.s. game designed to extract more money from taxpayers is extremely offensive. Hell even summer holidays is something that was started back when the majority of people were farmers for christ sake. Can you tell me why this antiquated system is still in place?

 

[CJ Tylers]

Why's that? If you ask me public money should be allocated on a per child basis and the child/parent can sent their children to the educational institute they feel best meets the children's needs.

This idea that my child is a pawn in some b.s. game designed to extract more money from taxpayers is extremely offensive. Hell even summer holidays is something that was started back when the majority of people were farmers for christ sake. Can you tell me why this antiquated system is still in place?

Well, we live in a democracy... and paying into it, allowing for appropriate dispensation of funds, and hoping for the best outcome... is part and parcel of living in such a world. If you don't like the idea of your tax money, your share of the burden for living in this place, to go to some poor school that your child doesn't attend, then either leave the country or pretend that your taxes only go into road works or medicare. If you want supreme control over where your child goes and what you pay, then send them to a private institution.

Your child isn't a pawn... your child is a burden to the taxpayer, until they start to earn their own way - just like the rest of us were, until we entered into the work force. Last I checked, a free (or close to it) education was a benefit of living in a enlightened democracy, not a fundemental right. The government has the right to take it away, on whim.

Spring break and summer vacation are antiquidated days off that are held onto mostly because it's believed that most families demand they be kept. Teachers have absolutely no say in vacation days or days off... in fact, most teachers would argue that the 2 months off for the children is detrimental to knowledge retention.

 

[CJ Tylers]

Totally agree with you about Summer Holidays. It extends to the other "breaks". All of that comes from when we were still mostly a rural society and needed people to plant the fields, needed people to harvest the fields. Remember, the rural school teacher also lived on a farm - they were needed to farm at specific times of the year.

These days, we use schools to babysit. Since most working parents only have a week of vacation - that babysitting needs to be year round.

With private schools, I don't agree that the public school system should lose resources under any sort of voucher system. Private schools are for those who have religious beliefs that mean that they don't dare allow their child be exposed to any "blasphemous" ideas and those people wealthy enough to "cherry pick" the very best teachers to ensure their children get the very best education possible.

They are two very separate groups. The religious don't get a better education, they just get an education that ignores whole areas of reality. Why should a public school suffer financially for what is really brainwashing? The private schools that cater to the wealthy parents that have a child that meets the IQ and deportment requirements of the school are preparing those children for a life of privilege that is far removed from the opportunities available to children in public schools. Again, why should a public school suffer financially?

One of the great things about the really good private schools is that they don't observe the breaks that the public schools have. That means that the child is far better prepared and is almost guaranteed acceptance by the good universities. That acceptance by a good university, coupled with the preparation by a good private school means the child has first pick of the available jobs when they graduate. They don't need the minor financial assistance a voucher system would provide.

Alin, religious schools don't get any provicial funding unless they teach an unaltered provincial curriculum. They can, however, add their own extra classes. Only schools that teach provincial curriculums (unaltered) recieve funding... which is also the aguement used by the government to justify funding the private schools that follow this rule.

Since we're putting expensive private schools in a class of their own, perhaps we should aslo exclude them from being rated alongside public education. As it stands, they almost always come out ontop with respect to provincial examination, simply because they can pick and choose which students write the exams... whereas public schools are forced to have everyone write the exams. ESL, special needs... everyone... it has a tendancy to skew marks in favour of private establishments.

 

[CJ Tylers]

OK...then read this article again...http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/08/why-it’s-so-hard-to-fire-bad-teachers/

What you are saying is obviously not true...if it was then the process wouldn't be so difficult. Perhaps re other unions you may be correct, but the stats here don't lie. 200,000 complaints resulting in 27 dismissals in Ontario since 2004 (.002%) and none in Manitoba and Saskatchewan since 2004??? I couldn't get ones from BC but you can bet they mirror those in other provinces. Unless you are a blatant criminal it appears to be a job for life.

“It’s very labour-intensive and time-consuming,” says the Ontario principal

That is the reason, right there, that your stats are so low compared to the number of complaints. The management isn't keeping up with the paper work... if they did, then they have an iron clad method of removing a teacher. Note they don't actually define what needs to be done... they simply imply that it's "too much work" and allow you to dream up what that means.

Again, it boils down to management wanting to be able to take the easy way out on things. If you want to try something difficult, try having a lousy principal, vice principal or super intendant removed... they're dug in deeper than alabam ticks... and they aren't unionized.

Also, you did fail to mention, that alot of bad teachers end up quitting the profession anyways...something that the article remarked on. So, how many of those 200,000 complaints fell on teachers that have, or will, quit anyways?

Lastly, how many of those complaints were justified? You do have to remember that parents will complain that a teacher is being unfair to little billy because little billy only got a C on his last report card... completely missing the fact that little billy vamoosed for half the year while on vacation with his parents Or that little billy is a little tyrant that never pays attention and is disruptive in class. I think you can agree that's hardly a justified complaint... but I can gaurantee that more than a few thousand of those 200,000 were along those lines.

Parents typically think that their child can do no wrong.... and they complain loudly so.

 

[FunSugarDaddy]

Well, we live in a democracy... and paying into it, allowing for appropriate dispensation of funds, and hoping for the best outcome... is part and parcel of living in such a world. If you don't like the idea of your tax money, your share of the burden for living in this place, to go to some poor school that your child doesn't attend, then either leave the country or pretend that your taxes only go into road works or medicare. If you want supreme control over where your child goes and what you pay, then send them to a private institution.

Your child isn't a pawn... your child is a burden to the taxpayer, until they start to earn their own way - just like the rest of us were, until we entered into the work force. Last I checked, a free (or close to it) education was a benefit of living in a enlightened democracy, not a fundemental right. The government has the right to take it away, on whim.

Spring break and summer vacation are antiquidated days off that are held onto mostly because it's believed that most families demand they be kept. Teachers have absolutely no say in vacation days or days off... in fact, most teachers would argue that the 2 months off for the children is detrimental to knowledge retention.

Well if we live in a democracy I should have the right to shop my child's education around. Hell even in her school she tells me kids avoid some teachers and enjoy being taught by others. If the one's they enjoy being taught by also have good teaching skills why can't they
be rewarded differently than the one's who can't teach? Is this your idea of democracy cause it sure as hell isn't mine.

As for the cost issue, if my child is a burden to the tax system then allow me to take steps to lower that burden as much as I can. hell I own a couple of properties and I'd be more than glad to pay my own way if they would lower my property taxes accordingly.

 

[FunSugarDaddy]

Totally agree with you about Summer Holidays. It extends to the other "breaks". All of that comes from when we were still mostly a rural society and needed people to plant the fields, needed people to harvest the fields. Remember, the rural school teacher also lived on a farm - they were needed to farm at specific times of the year.

These days, we use schools to babysit. Since most working parents only have a week of vacation - that babysitting needs to be year round.

With private schools, I don't agree that the public school system should lose resources under any sort of voucher system. Private schools are for those who have religious beliefs that mean that they don't dare allow their child be exposed to any "blasphemous" ideas and those people wealthy enough to "cherry pick" the very best teachers to ensure their children get the very best education possible.

They are two very separate groups. The religious don't get a better education, they just get an education that ignores whole areas of reality. Why should a public school suffer financially for what is really brainwashing? The private schools that cater to the wealthy parents that have a child that meets the IQ and deportment requirements of the school are preparing those children for a life of privilege that is far removed from the opportunities available to children in public schools. Again, why should a public school suffer financially?

One of the great things about the really good private schools is that they don't observe the breaks that the public schools have. That means that the child is far better prepared and is almost guaranteed acceptance by the good universities. That acceptance by a good university, coupled with the preparation by a good private school means the child has first pick of the available jobs when they graduate. They don't need the minor financial assistance a voucher system would provide.

I think the voucher system could also be used within the public system as well. I never suggested that I would take my child to a private school, certainly there are various teachers within the public school that are more popular than others, and much of it has to do with their communication skills with respect to the material being taught.

 

[badbadboy]

So in this post you state having a complaint (which I assume is a single complaint) from a child or a parent of the child can be the sole reason for firing the teacher.

Actually, no... it's NOT like your industry. In industry, you can get bad reviews... get enough of them & you'll be pulled in by the boss and questioned. Disciplinary action may or may not follow...and you can always appeal to the LRB or simply sue for wrongful dissmissal (if you have a case).

In the teachers case, simply having a complaint by a child or the parent of a child (say one who goofs off in class and never does homework, ergo gets a bad test result) can be the sole reason for firing the teacher. Also, given the "compatability of the classroom" requirements, either refusing to take unpaid OT work (school sports, drama, music) or perhaps not being a yes man (or, suprise suprise, being part of a union!) to the management... is reason enough for dissmissal.

If the teachers were to go non union & come back as independant educational consultants, they'd break the treasury. Why? With their education and experience, they'd simply negotiate for far higher payments. If they were to simply charge according to a "per head basis" of say $8/hr per child (not unreasonable compared to day care rates), they'd make almost 2k/day (8 hours teaching per day to satisfy the complaints about the 6 hour instructional time, $8 per child, 30 children per class). Remember, most people consider them to be overpaid day care, so why not charge day care rates? Hell, I'd even teach the little blighters for that kind of cash.

Don't like it? Well, it's a free market... either get someone who knows what they're doing, or hire some cheap drunk who'll work for booze. You're choice as to whom you wish to look after your kids.

Regardless, you're missing the point when it comes to bill 22. What it does to Teachers sets a precedent for what the government can do to any contract regulated work place. Notice that I didn't say "unionized", because it doesn't matter whether it's unionized or not. What it effectively means is that any time the government gets involved in a contract dispute (whether because it's the employer or because it has a vested interest), if passed, the precedent set by Bill 22 applies... contracts can simply be ripped up, rewritten, and imposed at unfair and non-negotiated terms.

That hardly seems democratic, don't you think? Now, once passed, it also means that employers have a piece of law to point to if they feel the need to do the same. It really doesn't matter who the contract applies to, union or non union, passing bill 22 essentially puts ALL contracts up on the chopping block... post negotiation.

Great for employers who don't want to spend as much... not so great for contractors and employees that thought their payment terms were safe until the next contract negotiation. Good luck challenging it.

So you see, it's really not about the teachers at all... it's about the rest of us, who'll be potentially put in a serious bind if it goes through. Union, non union... it doesn't matter.

And in this post you state you state the current model is not based on "one bad review" policy. Which is it?

The current model is NOT based on the "one bad review" policy. Currently, a proper process for dissmissal must be followed. The only reason that your particular teacher was not canned is because management was not willing to actually do the proper ground work for firing him. Before calling BS, try reading first

As for the "public" being concerned about "union pay", perhaps the public would like to voice its sentiments over the following:

1) Deputy Minister of Education (James Gorman).... 2006 pay was $164,085 which increased until 2011 to $228,942... a 40% increase over 5 years. During that time, his accumulated expenses are $136,616. Gee, maybe he can buy some class room supplies with his pocket change? I personally know of several teachers that buy things for their kids... some even buy food for kids that come from poor homes.

2) Rick Davis, Education Minstry Supintendent of Achievement... expenses incurred between 2006 and 2011 - $434,234. Bills sumbitted currently approximate $6k/month on business lunches.

3) John Dyble, Deputy Minister to Premier Clark... 2006 salary of $161, 455... rising to $239,121 in 2011 (48% increase) and bumped up again to $310,000 on March 1st, 2012.

Hey, you gotta walk the walk before you can talk the talk Can anyone seriously tell me that there is any justification for the gross expenses and salaries for these 3 guys? I can only imagine that these guys are the tip of the liberal ice berg.

Then you pivot like a basketball player or politician and go on about the huge salaries. Yes they are huge and we agree on that point.

BUT you did not answer the question: Did you make it up or do you have ONE name of a teacher who was successfully fired for incompetence? Otherwise I am of the mind that you just made it up.

Thanks

 

[romeochains]

Shrinking student enrollment? They need more schools and smaller class sizes, it is crazy how big the classes are getting. Kids don't get enough individual help to learn properly anymore.

I think 15% is unreasonable too, but they deserve something. The kids also deserve smaller class sizes andthat can only be done with more schools.

Enrollment in the Vancouver school district has decreased from 55k in 2000 to 51k in 2010 despite a rising population in the area. http://www.vsb.bc.ca/population-and-enrolment-trends . Only a handful of districts have growing enrollments (think Surrey). Demographic shifts (Canada is getting grayer), smaller family sizes are the reason for the decline.

I agree that the class sizes can be ridickulous in certain cases.

 

[DavidMR]

And that's because the BCTF will make it extremely difficult for them, involving a lot of time and process and because they have many other things to do they just wind up foisting an incompetent teacher on another district or school because to do otherwise is just too exhausting and time consuming. And that's good for the kids and the education system? Do you want teachers like that instructing your kids? I guess you're ok with it seeing as you want to protect teachers so badly.

The BCTF is only interested in protecting its members..that's its mandate, not improving the education system or helping in weeding out bad seeds that may be harmful to childrens learning process. I should think that's fairly obvious.

Any union has a duty to represent its members, be it a union of police officers or a union of millworkers or one of teachers. That's normal, and to suggest that this is some kind of malfeasance on their part is to say that Canada should adopt the US system of employment at will. And saying that poor, overworked management just couldn't perform the managerial duties we're paying them the big bucks for because the union is making it just so dad burn difficult for them, is just writing management's excuses for them.


It's a chronic bit of yahoo provincial politics in BC and has been for decades. Politically astute managers know they can get by with an intentionally sub-par performance, because all they have to do is blame all their failures on supposed "powerful unions" and millions of otherwise sensible people will buy the story. Managers must laugh themselves hoarse every time they leave a cocktail party having told their sob story for the 3,000th time and watched various sycophants suck it up.

 

[DavidMR]

This idea that my child is a pawn in some b.s. game designed to extract more money from taxpayers is extremely offensive.

It's always informative to hear from people who have children in school and whose main concern in that regard is not how well their kid is doing, but their intense anger over the idea that those providing the services would ever want a pay increase, and that pay increase would come from their taxes. I wonder if they react similarly when private suppliers of services for children, fast food, toys, sporting and music lessons, etc. increase their prices?