Politics
Class Size and Composition: A Birthday Party Analogy
Issues of class size and composition tend to polarize the discourse about public education.
These issues are complicated because ideological positions inform much of the debate which is often emotional, replete with language around justice and economics, anxiety and flexibility, discrimination and fairness.
They also encapsulate a tug of war between the needs of students, the workload ramifications for teachers, the expectations of parents, and the managerial criteria of governments.
I want to explore these issues using the analogy of a birthday party.
Why?
Because we’re stuck in a gladiatorial arena where arguments on class size and composition are discussed in terms of competing narratives.
This restricts our ability to forge solutions and negotiate settlements rather than helping us forge fair and equitable resolutions. So why not try a different lens?
Let’s take a typical six-year-old in British Columbia who is turning seven. Which is easier to host: a birthday party for 12 or a birthday party for 20?
All factors being equal, one would be inclined to say a party of 12.
But wait. What if you have to tend to all the details for a party of 12 with no help? That could be much more work than booking a birthday package for 20 at a local community centre where all, or most, of the details are taken care of.
However, what if that group of 20 at the recreation centre includes a handful of children who do not take well to group activities? It may still be less work, but it may be as stressful as, or more stressful than, the small party for 12 at home. And that small party of 12 at home might be a lot less work if you have the help of family members and friends.
This may be a frivolous analogy, but it demonstrates a key idea: class size is important, but it’s not the only factor to consider with regard to structuring a successful learning environment. That’s why those who claim that class size doesn’t matter, in my opinion, are erroneously emphasizing short-term economic efficiency. Those who claim class size can be addressed as a formula are prioritizing workload considerations.
I think we need to figure out a new system for public education, one which supports smaller class sizes, allows the flexibility for larger class sizes where supportable, and in all cases supplies the resources and help required to ensure an optimum learning environment. In my imagined structure, a school district may very well have Grade 1 classes of differing sizes whether of 6, of 12, of 20, of 24, and even, depending on many other factors especially support services, 30.
Wait a second.
I overlooked the most important question.
Whose birthday party is it? What type of birthday party does the child want? Is he an introvert better-suited to small gatherings at home? Is she an extrovert better suited to a significant gathering with lots of activity and her as the centre of attention? Alternatively, would he or she really rather not bother with a party at all even at six years old?
Unfortunately, that’s the question which is often overlooked in the fractured and fraught discussion about class size and composition.
And yet, it is about the kids. Isn’t it?
A Song for Education
Given today’s events in the divisive and frenetic world of the public education system in British Columbia, I was inspired to adapt one of my all-time favourite songs for the occasion.
Sung to the tune of “One Tin Soldier” (with my apologies to the original song-writer and performers), here’s my version entitled “A Negotiated Contract”.
“Listen children to a story
That was written just today
‘Bout a letter in a paper &
The leaked doc here to stay
In the letter were some answers
Rescued from beneath the spin
And the so-called leaky memo
Claimed the media for the win
Go ahead and trip your neighbour
Go ahead and beat a drum
Do it in the name of victory
You can justify it in the sum
There won’t be any bargainin’
Come tomorrow day
And the drizzly morning after
A negotiated contract slips away.”
An Open Letter to the Premier of British Columbia
Dear Christy,
I hope you don’t mind me calling you Christy. We’ve never met, but you seem to pride yourself on connecting personally with British Columbians, so I’m sure you won’t mind my use of your first name.
I think it’s critically important for women to be involved in politics at all levels of government. I ran for the first time in 2011 and was honoured when the residents of West Vancouver elected me to be one of their trustees to the Board of Education.
Given my belief that women in politics are agents for change, it is with some hope that I viewed your election as leader of the BC Liberal Party and, subsequently, as Premier.
The opportunity to have a woman at the helm of the governing party seemed to me to be an opportunity to do things differently, to do things in a manner which is more collaborative and more substantive. To rise above partisanship and to focus on the overall good of our province and not merely to wallow in ideology.
Since then I’ve grown increasingly disillusioned by your approach to politics and governing.
Why?
Because rather than being an innovator in politics, you seem to be perfecting the art of politics by photo opportunity and soundbite rather than by policy and depth.
This is perhaps most evident in your approach to public education in our province and your reaction to the decision by Justice Griffin of the BC Supreme Court.
Essentially, Justice Griffin reaffirmed her earlier finding that legislation in 2002, enacted when you were Minister of Education, was unconstitutional and that the remedies subsequently introduced were insufficient.
This means that hundreds of millions of dollars that should have been invested in the public education system have been diverted. Not only that, but in the intervening twelve years, increases in costs, inflationary increases in conjunction with downloaded costs, have outpaced increases in funding which means that Boards of Education throughout BC have done more and more with less and less.
The continuing success of Boards should not be taken as an indication that funding is adequate. Rather, it is a testament to their resilience, and the resilience of all the partner groups including parents, that our students have continued to thrive and excel.
Imagine the success we would have had if you had maintained funding according to the terms of the 2002 collective agreement!
We would have had greater equity across school districts.
We would have more successfully addressed the needs of our most vulnerable students.
We would have kept more schools open.
To argue now, in light of the court judgement, that the solution is not affordable and that it will cause irreparable harm to students is to focus on being right rather than doing what’s right.
I’m confident that Justice Griffin was not counting on a time machine to carry us back in time and I recognize that filing an appeal is an option available to you in our legal system. I also believe the time has come for you to show leadership and to do things differently.
Negotiate a new contract with the BCTF, with new parameters for September 2014, and agree to provide the additional funding which will be required to fulfill the terms of a new agreement.
That, Christy, would reaffirm my belief in the power you have, as a woman in politics, to make a difference and, in particular, to make a difference which will undoubtedly benefit students in BC’s internationally recognized public education system.
Who Will Fight For Public Education?
On December 6, Peter Fassbender, the provincial Minister of Education, spoke at the BC School Trustees Association (BCSTA) Academy. It was the first time I had heard him in-person and I found his presentation to be coercive, if not threatening. His central argument seemed to be that in these uncertain economic times Boards of Education must make hard decisions or else face the consequences. I’m still trying to decipher his meaning.
Afterwards, in one of those characteristic quick chats you have at events such as these, another Trustee said to me she felt Minister Fassbender sounded more like the Minister for Small Business and Trade than the Minister of Education. Then she said this: “If you can’t count on the Minister of Education, then who can you count on? Who will fight for public education?”
Why?
Because although there are many passionate advocates who fight for the public education system, decision-making power rests at the table in front of cabinet Ministers and the Premier. And while they may believe in the importance of education, they seem to disavow any notion that the public education system is underfunded or that we have reached a point where school districts are unable to cover additional costs without directly affecting programs and services.
With that in mind, here’s the speech I wish the Minister had delivered to the assembly after Teresa Rezansoff, the President of BCSTA, had welcomed him to the podium and after he had acknowledged our presence on traditional territories.
“Good afternoon and thank you for inviting me to share my thoughts with you today.
When Rod Allen makes his presentation on changes to the BC curriculum, he may tell you that many young people lose their first job because they aren’t able to collaborate well with others. You also know that when we talk about 21st century learning we often focus on collaboration as one of the key skills we want our young people to develop. And you know, as well as I do, that we need to model the skills we want to teach. So, as Minister of Education, I plan to do just that. Over the next four years, I’ll do my very best to ensure that the governance of the public education system in BC is pursued on a collaborative basis.
That’s why I want to start off by thanking you. I want to thank each and every Board for funding the recent wage settlement with support staff. Not only is it incumbent upon us to recognize their hard work with gratitude, it’s important to be able to compensate their efforts with fair wage increases. But I know it was tough to make the necessary adjustments to your budgets and your operational plans and I’m sorry that we weren’t able to provide you with additional resources to cover this cost item. That’s why I want you to know that the next settlement, the one we hope to arrive at with the BCTF in this round of bargaining, will be fully funded. It will be fully funded because I know it would be unreasonable to expect the costs to come out of your budgets as they are currently structured.
With regard to the BCTF, let me say how pleased I am at the tenor of dialogue we’ve been able to establish with Jim Iker and his team at the BCTF since my appointment as Minister of Education. Our relationship is off to a good start and I look forward to continuing to build on that strength. But bargaining is tough. It’s not easy. But let me assure you that while our goal in bargaining is to secure a long-term contract, we also are focused on providing a fair deal. We want a long-term solution to ensure labour peace for students and their families, and to allow the amazing educators we have in this province to focus on the new curriculum, the changes in graduation requirements we hope to introduce, and the new approaches to assessment which will enhance student learning. In other words, we want to make sure that the energies of our educators are directed to the work that they do and not the need to fight with us. That’s collaboration. The end result may be a 10-year deal; it may be something else. We won’t let go of our desire for a long-term solution, but we want our partners to know that our public commitment to a particular time frame will not trump our willingness to bargain in good faith and to secure a fair settlement.
Allow me to make another quick note about bargaining. We will be bringing down legislation in February which will detail a new bargaining structure for the public education sector. The input you’ve provided with regard to what that may look like is very much appreciated. And let me say this: whatever that new structure will look like, it will not, in anyway, compromise the role and status of locally elected school boards. Having locally elected school boards means that local issues can be dealt with in a way that is sensitive to the needs and the wants of each individual community. That makes all the difference to the way public education is delivered at the local level and that’s a point that I’ll be stressing during the core review process as well.
As you know, my cabinet colleague Bill Bennett is in charge of the core review and he is also the Minister of Energy and Mines. Bill has said publicly that there will be no consideration for school districts when it comes to the recently announced BC Hydro rate increases. I realize that increases of this magnitude have become necessary because of decisions made by previous governments and the way in which the government’s relationship with BC Hydro has been structured. We’re working on that, but I want you to know that I plan to sit down with Bill as soon as possible and to push hard to see if there isn’t something we can do to mitigate the impact on you. I need to do that because I know, as well as you do, that any additional costs to your districts without additional funding means an impact on programs and services. And that’s not what we want.
It’s not what we want because even though your resources are stretched to the limit, you’ve done a fine job of making sure our young people are getting the education they need in order to be competitive. You can see that in the OECD PISA results released this week. Isn’t it great how well our young British Columbians are doing compared to other students from around the world? Together, we’ve done a wonderful job and we have to continue to build from this position of strength. We cannot afford to be complacent; we cannot afford to neglect the system that has served us well and which is essential to the continued success of our young men and women.
And that’s why I want you to know that I am sensitive to your challenges. I have read your letters, I have listened to you, and I have heard you. Funding is one of the key challenges facing our public education system because even though we may be spending more than ever before, costs have outpaced the level of funding provided. That won’t do. That’s just not good enough.
That’s why I want you to know that at the cabinet table I am demanding more for education. Yes, I know times are uncertain. Yes, I know the budget is stretched. But I will make it clear to the Premier that if we continue to demand the best from our public education system, we must ensure that the public education system has the means by which to be the best.
Because, like you, I believe that a strong, vibrant public education system is integral to our democratic society. We need jobs, we need a robust economy, but we also need to make sure our society is well-educated so we can maximize the potential of those jobs and that economy for all British Columbians.
Who will fight for public education? I will and you will and this government will because education is a priority — for you, for me, for the children, for all of us, and for the future.
Thank you.”
The Impossibility of Knowing What Is To Be
Here’s the thing: none of us has a crystal ball. Not the pundits nor the prognosticators, some of whom have made very lucrative careers out of saying what they “know” will happen.
In fact, some say the events which shape the human experience are not the outcomes we forecast, but the unexpected occurrences to which we respond. For more on this, read The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
I know I can’t speak to the future with certainty, but as I look towards the fall, I suspect my voice will be a dissenting one.
Why?
Because events are moving quickly in the public education sector with no clear indication of the government’s ultimate objective and yet there seems to be a general complacency about it all.
Here are three red-flag issues for me:
- The removal of the BCPSEA Board points to a profound change in the way bargaining will be conducted in the public education sector. I think BCPSEA paid the price for pursuing a path contrary to the provincial government’s vision. The board’s removal was sudden, swift, and seemingly–and mistakenly in my opinion–unlamented. Whether this is an improvement or not remains to be seen, but I am still looking for assurance that this is not the first step in a series of unilaterally determined shifts which may or may not prove to be publicly beneficial.
- A 10-year labour agreement with the BCTF is seductive and such an easy sell in the court of public opinion. But I’m not convinced, unless the deal is fully funded and increases resources significantly for students, that it can be accomplished in a fair and equitable manner. I am also not convinced that it is in the best interest of the employer as I’ve written about before here.
- Publicly elected school boards make a difference because they represent local interests and are accountable to local communities. The fact that we have a high-performing system today is due in large measure to the way districts (everyone from students to parents to trustees to staff to principals to teachers to support staff) have been able to keep the machine humming despite inadequate funding. Yes, the provincial government spends more per student now than ever before, but add up the costs that have been downloaded without being funded and the increases in expenses which haven’t been covered (including key items such as utility costs, MSP premiums, and carbon offsets) and you’ll see why there’s such a discrepancy. Yes, some boards have run into difficulties, and yes improvements can be made, but the attempt to disregard the government’s role in exacerbating the situation is disingenuous.
So while I may not be able to speak to what the future is bound to bring, I do know that I will continue to speak up and to advocate, even if I’m in the minority, because it doesn’t take a crystal ball to see that a healthy, thriving public education system is the best foundation for all our tomorrows.