Posts Tagged ‘public education system’
2014 Bargaining: A Primer On Timing
As one school year draws to a close and another looms, I know many are trying to understand where we are when it comes to bargaining.
Why?
Because families plan ahead and they need to factor in those issues which may have an impact on their lives and the lives of their children. One of those issues is the outcome of labour negotiations in the public education sector and the current status of job action.
I won’t attempt to explain the positions of the parties; I just want to provide some clarity around timing as I see it.
The government and Boards of Education, via the BC Public School Employers’ Association (BCPSEA), are currently negotiating with the BC Teachers’ Federation (BCTF) on a new contract.
Both sides have stated their interest in achieving a negotiated settlement by the end of June 2014. It’s not known at this point how long the deal would be for although the last public position of the BCTF was for a four-year term while the government maintains that a 10-year term is its goal.
Earlier this spring, in response to what was seen as lack of movement at the bargaining table, the BCTF took a membership-wide vote which approved a three-phase plan for job action:
•Phase 1 – a province-wide disruption of communications with administration and the disruption of supervisory duties. The BCTF has activated Phase 1 which is currently in force.
•Phase 2 – This escalation, which is proposed but which has not been initiated, would involve rotating one-day strikes. If the BCTF invokes Phase 2, they will provide 48 hours notice to any District which will be subject to a one-day walkout.
•Phase 3 – full work stoppage. If Phase 2 is invoked and if there is still no progress at the bargaining table, the BCTF will contemplate escalating the job action. Prior to doing so, they have committed to holding another vote for their membership to approve the plan. If at that point the union gets majority support from its members for a full work stoppage, it will be required to supply Districts — and consequently families, guardians, and caregivers — across the province with three business days’ notice.
That’s a summary of where we’re at today.
Between now and the end of this school year we may or may not see a settlement and we may or may not see an escalation of the job action. Unfortunately, that’s the uncertainty with which we must all contend.
If a settlement is reached by June 30, then it will encompass a multi-year term and school will begin in September without any issue.
If a settlement is not reached by June 30, I think there are two scenarios we’ll face although there are probably others which are just as likely. We’ll either have an escalation to Phase 2 of the job action before the end of this year or, depending on how things unfold and allowing for the summer break, we could have some disruption at the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year.
Given the BCTF’s commitment to holding a full vote, I can’t imagine getting to Phase 3 of the job action prior to June 30 unless the BCTF were to leapfrog the idea of rotating strikes — and that would be publicly unpalatable — or the time lapse between the final two phases were significantly compressed.
In the event of a full work stoppage, I believe the government would act swiftly and that would likely mean the least promising outcome of this lingering dispute: a legislated settlement which sends teachers back to work while leaving much unresolved.
A shut down of the public education system would be disproportionately disruptive to students. That is, there will be students — such as my child — whose time will be filled with alternative plans and activities. However, there will be many, many students and families who will be faced with significant consequences and to whom a strike will represent hardship.
And that’s why I strongly urge BCPSEA and the BCTF to tread carefully, yet with a sense of urgency, and to settle by June 30, 2014.
If you’re interested in more of the background to public education bargaining, here’s a very well-written recent article by Katie Hyslop in the Tyee.
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.
Ruminating On Paths Taken And Not Taken
Today the BC Supreme Court released a decision which finds changes made to the collective agreement with teachers in British Columbia, specifically those around class size and composition, unconstitutional. In addition, the court awarded the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation (BCTF) $2 million in damages which the provincial government must now pay.
That’s what I should probably talk about today given my role in BC’s public education system, but there are too many unknowns at this point, including the government’s response, and I don’t have enough details for an informed comment.
Not that I have answers to the other topic which I’ve been pondering.
George Bernard Shaw famously said, “Youth is wasted on the young” and we often hear the phrase, “If I only knew then what I know now.”
In a similar vein, I’ve thought of this: there is no undo/redo.
Computer programs have undo/redo, commands that allow us to zip back and forth in our work or our game to the point before we made an error or made a choice which we no longer support or chose a path which has not led us to the desired outcome.
In life, however, there is no undo/redo. As much as people advocate for a philosophy of “no regrets” I think that’s simplistic and difficult to apply in our own lives.
Why?
Because if we are honest with ourselves, there are regrets. We recognize points along the way where we made choices which were not good ones or decisions which didn’t play out the way we hoped they might or where we passed up an opportunity which, with hindsight, we think may have worked out better although there’s never any guarantee it would have.
I also think the idea of living in the moment, while it has merits, is not the answer either because we are not creatures of the moment: we have a past that has shaped us and we have a future which beguiles us.
The question becomes how to reconcile ourselves with our choices and with their outcomes.
It’s difficult to do when we hit those bumps in the road where each and every decision is up for evaluation. Where the “what-if” game becomes the one haunting us in the present. Where our confidence and our understanding of who we are takes on the metaphorical aspect of a cannibal rat ghost ship.
And we’re lucky if we find our way before circumstances intervene to make a situation worse or to take the journey along life’s path out of our control.
And while there is no undo/redo, there is try which puts me at odds with Yoda, the Jedi Master in Star Wars. With deference to the green sage, sometimes all we can count on is try.
Because without try, there is no possibility of change.
And change, according to ancient philosophies, is the only constant.