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.
Government's Insidious Manoeuvre -- A Further Assault
on Teachers and Public Education
- Barbara Biley -
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.
Call for Mediation
- BC Teachers' Federation, June 19, 2014
(Excerpts) -
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."
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.
Class Composition: A Major Consideration
for K-12 Education
- Interview, Stephanie
Koropatnick, Vice President,
Special Education Association of BC -
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.
PREVIOUS
ISSUES | HOME
Read BC Worker
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: office@cpcml.ca
|