June 23, 2014

Vol. 2 No. 11

BC Teachers' Strike

Develop the Struggle in Defence
of the Rights of BC Teachers and
Public Education!

Join in Actions to Defend Public Education!


BC teachers' "All Together for Public Education" rally, June 19, 2014, Canada Place, Vancouver.

Nanaimo
Monday, June 23
4:00 pm -- March;
5:00 pm -- Rally
March starts at Wall St, Rally at Maffeo Sutton Park

CALENDAR OF EVENTS

Develop the Struggle in Defence
of the Rights of BC Teachers and Public Education!

All Together for Public Education Rally
Government's Insidious Manoeuvre -- A Further Assault on Teachers
and Public Education
- Barbara Biley
Call for Mediation - BC Teachers' Federation
The Fight to Provide Rights with a Guarantee: Teachers' Working Conditions
Are Students' Learning Conditions

Class Composition: A Major Consideration for K-12 Education - Interview,
Stephanie Koropatnick, Vice President, Special Education Association of BC


Develop the Struggle in Defence
of the Rights of BC Teachers and Public Education!

All Together for Public Education Rally

A spirited rally of more than 2,000 people took place at Canada Place in downtown Vancouver June 19. Lower Mainland teachers, parents, workers in different sectors and students rallied to demand the provincial government increase investments in public education to lower class size, accommodate special needs students with specialized teachers and pay teachers commensurate with the important service they provide society.

Speakers included Jim Iker, President BC Teachers' Federation (BCTF); Jim Sinclair, President, BC Federation of Labour; Hassan Yussuff, President, CLC; Paul Faoro, Secretary-Treasurer, CUPE BC; Jordan, a parent from Victoria; and, the grade 12 valedictorian from Britannia High School. Paul Elliott, President of the Ontario Secondary Teachers Association also spoke announcing a $1.5 million donation to the BCTF from three teachers' federations in Ontario.

Jim Iker made a special acknowledgement of the presence at the rally of Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, President of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, who has spoken out often and publicly in support of increased investments for public education in BC.



(Photos: TML, BCTF)

Return to top


Government's Insidious Manoeuvre -- A Further Assault on Teachers and Public Education

Media reports say the two sides in the teacher's dispute met on the June 14/15 weekend to hammer out a collective agreement. It is misinformation to characterize what took place as negotiations between the union and management. While the BC Teachers' Federation (BCTF) made a new proposal to the employers' association, the response by Liberal government spokespeople made it clear that no resolution was reached and would not be reached unless teachers gave up their defence of their rights and public education.

Over the course of public sector bargaining in 2014, and most clearly with the teachers, the pretext of the agencies of the state such as the BC Public School Employers' Association (BCPSEA) being an "arms length" party has been completely dropped. The determination of the Liberal government to impose an anti-social austerity agenda of destruction of public education, health care and social services and to turn public sector workers into modern day slaves with no rights has become clear.

In response to the government's refusal to negotiate, BCTF President Jim Iker addressed BC teachers in a live-streamed video/press conference on Monday morning June 17. The teachers had gathered in study sessions across the province in preparation of the full scale strike the following day.

Iker explained that on Friday, June 13, the BCTF amended its wage demands, the length of contract (up to five years from four) and proposed a means of handling the issue of class size and composition pending the decision of the Court of Appeal. On Sunday night, the BCPSEA presented the union with a "Framework for Settlement," a package with virtually no change from its previous positions on wages, term and other provisions and no response to BCTF's Friday initiative.

But BCPSEA snuck in something entirely new and completely unacceptable. Under the guise of "negotiations," the BC government devised a new tactic to trample on teachers' rights and public education, and defy two court rulings. It proposed that should either party to the collective agreement disagree with the "ultimate judicial decision" on class size and composition, then either party could serve notice on the other to end the collective agreement at the conclusion of the year.

If the court once again orders the government to restore the class size and composition language it unilaterally stripped in 2002 from the collective agreement, then ending the collective agreement would be a way to defy the court and make teachers complicit in the government's contempt. Is this not a truly insidious government manoeuvre?

The clash between the BC teachers and the Liberal government reflects a struggle between a modern society based on the recognition of rights including the right to the highest quality public education for all, and a retrogressive outlook of a society based on privilege and the power of a self-serving minority to impose its will.

Stand with teachers in their just battle in defence of rights and public education!

BCPSEA Proposal E. 81

Paragraph 4 of BCPSEA Proposal E.81 dated June 15, 2014, reads, "Subject to paragraph 5 below, if the ultimate judicial decision specifically directs that the class size, class composition and non-enrolling provisions from the 1998-2001 Collective Agreement are restored to the current (2013-2019) provincial collective agreement, the parties will amend the collective agreement accordingly, and the amended provisions will be effective at the beginning of the school year after the date of the ultimate judicial decision (of, if the decision is published after the end of February, effective at the beginning of the school year in the year following.) The amendments will then prospectively replace the provisions set out in E.80. (Emphasis BC Worker)

Except for "Subject to paragraph 5 below," paragraph 4 sounds sensible. What then is "Paragraph 5 below"? It reads, "The following applies, despite paragraph 4, if either party is dissatisfied with the outcome otherwise required by paragraph 4. Within 60 days of the ultimate judicial decision, either party may give written notice to the other of termination of the collective agreement. If notice is given, the collective agreement terminates at the end of that school year, unless the ultimate judicial decision occurs after the end of February, in which case the termination takes place at the end of the following school year. Until a new agreement is concluded, the provisions set out in E.80 continue in force."

E.80 of the BCPSEA proposal, entitled "Learning and Working Condition" explicitly states, "BCPSEA does not agree with the BCTF's assertion that a judicial decision can or will determine the content of the new (2013 to 2019) collective agreement with respect to those matters."

The rest of E.80 reiterates the status quo on class size and composition and the establishment of "a fact-finding committee to establish an improved base of information to better inform decisions in the allocation of the LIF (Learning Improvement Fund)." The LIF was part of Bill 22, which the court found to be as much a violation of the law as Bill 28.

Return to top


Call for Mediation

Following two more days of face-to-face bargaining and continued stonewalling from the government and its bargaining agent, the BC Teachers' Federation is calling on Premier Christy Clark to agree to mediation.

[The government agreed to mediation on June 20. However, on June 22, the mediator agreed to by both sides, Vince Ready, said his schedule is too busy to permit taking on the dispute -- BC Worker.]

[...]

"BC teachers have moved significantly at the bargaining table to bring the two sides closer together, but we have not seen similar efforts from Christy Clark's government," said (BCTF President) Ike....

The BCTF's framework for settlement that is currently on the table is based on five key points:

- a five-year term
- a reasonable 8% salary increase plus signing bonus
- no concessions
- a $225 million annual workload fund to address issues of class size, class composition, and staffing ratios as an interim measure while both parties await the next court ruling
- a $225 million retroactive grievances fund, over the life of the collective agreement, as a resolution to Justice Griffin's BC Supreme Court decision that retroactively restored the stripped language from 2002. This fund would be used to address other working conditions like preparation time and TTOC (Teachers Teaching on Call) compensation improvements, as well as modest improvements to health benefits.

"Our proposals are fair," said Iker. "We have been dealing with a government that has a record of bargaining in bad faith and imposing unconstitutional legislation. Evidence from the government's own officials presented in BC Supreme Court shows the government has stripped $275 million per year from BC's public education system. That means an entire generation of BC kids have been short-changed. There is no reason BC's education system should be funded $1,000 per student below the national average. This government built in a series of surpluses and a sizeable contingency fund in their fiscal plan over the next several years. They have the money. It's time to reinvest in BC's students."

Return to top


The Fight to Provide Rights with a Guarantee: Teachers' Working Conditions Are
Students' Learning Conditions

One of the key contract demands of BC teachers focuses on class size and composition. Prior to 2002, the collective agreement between the BC Teachers Federation and the BC Public School Employers' Association contained language that limited class size and provided for adjustments to class size depending on the number of students in the class who required extra assistance. That language was unilaterally stripped from the collective agreement by the Campbell Liberal government in 2002. Not only were the class size limits and arrangements for properly teaching children, including those with special needs, stripped from the collective agreement, the legislation also decreed that class size and composition could not be the subject of negotiations between the teachers' union and the employers' association.

That legislation, the Public Education and Flexibility Act, Bill 28, was appealed. Twice Madame Justice Griffin of the Supreme Court of BC, first in 2011 and again in January of this year, has found that Bill 28 was unconstitutional and directed the government to restore the contract language from 2002, to recognize the right of teachers to bargain class size and composition, and to negotiate in good faith.

In the first instance, the government simply ignored the ruling. When teachers were negotiating in 2012, the Liberal government rammed through virtually identical legislation, the Education Improvement Act, Bill 22, which likewise the court found illegal. In the second instance, the government has appealed the ruling of the court, which is pending.

BC Worker fully supports the stand that BC teachers have taken in defence of their working conditions, which are the learning conditions of students and of crucial importance to the quality of public education. The people demand increased funding for public education and firmly oppose the transfer and draining of value out of social programs and public services into the coffers of the rich.

We are presenting below an interview with Stephanie Koropatnick, a teacher and the Vice President of the Special Education Association of BC on the importance of this aspect of teachers' work.

Return to top


Class Composition: A Major Consideration
for K-12 Education

BC Worker: What is your responsibility in the school system?

Stephanie Koropatnick: As a district resource teacher (Inclusion Consultant) in Vancouver, BC's second largest district, my assignment is to assist teachers throughout the district who are supporting students with what the Ministry of Education calls "Low Incidence" designations, both in "Inclusive" settings (regular classrooms) and a small number of district classes.

"Low Incidence" categories include students with significant challenges in their physical abilities, cognitive abilities, sensory abilities (vision and hearing), as well as chronic health conditions and ASD (Autism in its various forms). Although the term "Low Incidence" is meant to imply infrequency or rarity, the incidence of several disorders, particularly Autism, has been rising steadily over the past decade or so . In 2012, the Center for Disease Control estimated 1 in 88 children as diagnosed with ASD. Other sites cite estimates as high as 1 in 48, meaning that, on average, 1 out of every 2 classrooms across the province will enroll one or more children identified with ASD.

BCW: Do they all receive funding?

SK: These are the only categories of special needs which receive any sort of targeted funding from the Ministry of Education. When contract language was stripped in 2002, funding was also stripped and rolled into base-level funding for students with any other form of special learning need. This is how the Ministry of Education of the day could brag that per-pupil funding had been increased.

BCW: Who is not included in Ministry of Education funding?

SK: The "High Incidence" special needs categories that receive no targeted funding include:

Learning Disability -- Students with cognitive skills within the average range, but with specific areas of weakness requiring targeted learning strategies to help them to reach their learning potential.

Mild Intellectual Disability -- Students with below-average cognitive abilities who require significantly adapted and/or modified curriculum.

Mild Mental Health/Behaviour Disorders* - Students with a wide variety of social and emotional difficulties (including, but not restricted to issues related to poverty and mental illness), which tend to manifest in classroom settings as difficulties with self-regulation and non-compliance. These students typically require Positive Behaviour Support strategies and interventions to allow them to access their learning potential.

Gifted -- Students with well above average to superior cognitive abilities, who often require targeted teaching strategies and enriched environments to help them reach their learning potential.

The one special needs category that does receive some funding is the Severe Mental Health/Behaviour Disorder category, which is partially funded with strict restrictions that have little to do the severity of the behavior but limit funding eligibility.

BCW: What process gives rise to Ministry of Education funding?

SK: Each and every child who presents with any of the above "special needs," whether Low Incidence or High Incidence, requires an Individual Education Plan. Identifying and assessing the specific needs which are to be addressed; developing the specific, targeted, learning goals; and, identifying and implementing the teaching strategies, resources and personnel involved in teaching, monitoring and evaluating progress toward the individual goals are all steps involved in "Writing the Individual Education Plan."

BCW: How difficult is it for teachers to give rise to an Individual Education Plan?

SK: Each Individual Education Plan takes dedicated time, effort and thoughtfulness in collaboration with a team, which ideally includes the classroom teacher, the parents and an experienced resource teacher trained in the many skills involved in providing targeted support to students with special needs, as well as with the ability to collaborate with their classroom-based colleagues. Many teams also include support staff, whose role it is to assist in implementing the Individual Education Plan. This plan is expected to be fully implemented by the end of October each school year. Ongoing monitoring, assessment, re-evaluation, retrenchment, as well as the writing of new goals take place throughout the year informally, and toward the end of the year formally.

BCW: What was the situation like before 2002?

SK: Prior to 2002, contract language restricted the number of students with Individual Education Plans in a typical classroom to two. For each two children with an Individual Education Plan in a classroom of 30, the class number was reduced by one. A third child with an Individual Education Plan could be added only after consultation with the classroom teacher, and the class-size would then be further reduced by one more student. While this was not always a perfect solution, it provided a guideline to ensure that the extra work (as described above) involved in having a child with special needs was more or less evenly distributed among classroom teachers.

BCW: Remind us what Christy Clark did as Minister of Education in 2002.

SK: In 2002, all language related to classroom composition was eliminated through legislation by the Campbell Liberal government. Christy Clark was the Minister of Education. While some token nod was made to "meaningful consultation" with classroom teachers in the early days prior to the strip, this courtesy was extended only to elementary teachers and has largely been abandoned as practice in more recent years.

BCW: What's the situation in "regular" classrooms today?

SK: In practice, classroom teachers with "regular" classrooms may have as many as 12 students with Individual Education Plans enrolled (an extreme but not unheard of number). Resource teachers, who once spent many hours per week working one-to-one and with small groups of students with special needs on targeted skill development, now have caseloads as high as 120.

BCW: What is the net result of this retrogression with regard to class composition?

SK: All of this means that the development and implementation of the Individual Education Plan is often reduced to a meaningless parade of paper pushing, with little time for any meaningful interventions targeted to students' individualized needs. But because teachers are the kind of people we are; people who know how to do more with less, whose hearts, souls and minds are focused on children and their needs, who work hundreds of unpaid hours to ensure that their students get what they need, who pay out-of-pocket for hundreds of dollars worth of materials, incentives and extras that the meager school base-level funding cannot even begin to touch (extras which, by the way, are supplied in plenty in privately-funded schools like the one Christy Clark sends her son to), we muddle on and students continue to learn.

Return to top


PREVIOUS ISSUES | HOME

Read BC Worker
Website:  www.cpcml.ca   Email:  office@cpcml.ca