School districts across B.C. planning deep cuts to balance budgets

[MG1]

Originally Posted by Gululu

Now you can be sure that this whole fiasco will make Canada's education system look worse than it already is. Those parents forking out 20k (not including living expenses of course) to send their sons and daughters to a public school here in BC are not gonna be pleased. Right now they demand either a refund, or teachers resume work. In the future, less and less international students will choose to study in Canada.

BNR? Good to see you're back.


Anyway, they can always go to the US or one of the other Canadian provinces. They don't have to come here, if it's that bad.

[Traum]

^^ That's your problem right there -- local Chinese news feeding the mostly conservative Chinese parents. I am also willing to be that the vast majority of them have no idea what the core issues of this labour dispute is all about. Class size, composition, and ruling from Supreme Court? They have no idea what those things mean in this labour conflict.

[Timpo]

Originally Posted by 4444

this is interesting, as I would think that private schools would have better levels of education... so if they're not paying more (whole package), does that tell you that either the teacher is only a relative part of the educational success of a student (maybe more comes from facilities, better built curriculum, etc.).

also it tells me that the market does not bear what the unionized teachers get - the market speaks the most true and loud, we should not pervert economics by ignoring what the market says...

That's like saying GM and Hyundai executives/engineers/employees should get much less than McLaren and Ferrari because GM and Hyundai make mostly low end cars and McLaren and Ferrari make high end cars.

[Timpo]

No more international students!
They can just go somewhere else!

International students in awkward spot thanks to teachers? strike | News1130

[Hondaracer]

Originally Posted by Traum

^^ That's your problem right there -- local Chinese news feeding the mostly conservative Chinese parents. I am also willing to be that the vast majority of them have no idea what the core issues of this labour dispute is all about. Class size, composition, and ruling from Supreme Court? They have no idea what those things mean in this labour conflict.

No offense but as actual residents of BC really dgaf what parents in china are heading.

[Traum]

Originally Posted by Hondaracer

No offense but as actual residents of BC really dgaf what parents in china are heading.

Gululu was referring to Chinese parents in BC, and my comment was directed at that. The majority of ethnic Chinese people have this mentality that they don't really give a shxt about anything unless it directly affects them, and then they start to bxtch and whine solely from the perspective of their own benefits without understanding the big picture.

[Graeme S]

Originally Posted by SpeedStars

^° BCTF promises vote that could end strike if province agrees to binding arbitration - The Globe and Mail

This just reaffirms that the BCTF is in it for the money and benefits. See how they put their needs FIRST and let the needs of the children to the courts? The government is also considering paying parents $40/day that the student (under 12) is out of school...sounds like the government is trying to sway the parents onto their side as well

If we're looking at the needs of the kids (re: class size/composition), it's the province that's not on the side of the kids. The current offer from the province "continues existing language" of the legislated agreements--class sizes and composition will stay the same. The courts have twice (two for three--third pending!) said that class size and composition should return to pre-2002 levels. If the teachers agree with the offer that's out right now, then the court ruling doesn't mean anything, because the court ruling is based on the idea that "the Provincial Government took away something that had always previously been negotiated." Which means that should the teachers choose to agree in a negotiation to current levels, then the court rulings mean nothing and class size and composition will remain unchanged.

By deferring to the courts, and insisting that the language of the new contract reflect what the courts have already determined (or by requesting binding arbitration--which must follow the letter of legal rulings to date), they are doing exactly what you said: looking out for the best interests of kids.


Do I think the teachers' pay and signing bonus requests are entirely reasonable? Nope. But that's what you do when you negotiate. You never start where you want to finish, you start where there's a middle between you both.

[4444]

Originally Posted by Timpo

That's like saying GM and Hyundai executives/engineers/employees should get much less than McLaren and Ferrari because GM and Hyundai make mostly low end cars and McLaren and Ferrari make high end cars.

Nope, not at all. Different markets.

I would say a teacher's key performance indicator is their students' performance. They are paid a market value in private sector for this.

Ur stupid example is bunk. Gm and Hyundai do not have 'produce expensive higher margin cars' as their KPI, theirs is more a mass market product, so low cost, healthy margin is what they're after.

Ferrari, Mclaren produce niche products, their focus is on amazing engineering, continuation of a legacy, soul of the car, new tech development and implementation, etc. margins come with that.

Apples to oranges in all senses

[tiger_handheld]

Can someone in the sector explain how principal's and vp's add value to elementary/high school? I understand they are the "general manager" of the school, but what is their function/purpose?

[MG1]

Um...... They can like make or break a school. They decide on the direction of the school. They work with parents. Man, if I had to list their duties, I would need a hundred pages. Wow.

[tiger_handheld]

Originally Posted by MG1

Um...... They can like make or break a school. They decide on the direction of the school. They work with parents. Man, if I had to list their duties, I would need a hundred pages. Wow.

can you list the top 5 or 10 reasons?
What do you mean by "direction of the school"?

[Hondaracer]

Obviously roles like that are just cushy union positions. All throughout highschool our principle never dealt with any single issue personally it was always the vice principle. He was there to hand out diplomas etc but never once did I witness them handing out discipline, making announcements, etc

Pay your dues as a vice principle then sit back when you get promoted

[MG1]

Um.......... principals don't belong to the union. They have an association perhaps (depending on the school district), but they, of all people are the least protected. They can be fired just like that.

As for doing nothing but handing out certificates and diplomas at the grad ceremonies, that's what people see. A helluva lot more happens behind the scenes.

Like i've mentioned before, everyone is an expert when it comes to education, because everyone went to school. You base everything from your perspective. That's okay, I used to be just like that in my younger days. Actually still am, LOL.

god bless

[Terwg]

The principal of a school is similar to the CEO of the company. They have to meet with parents similar to shareholders of a company. They have to meet with the government. They have to set the vision and culture and direction of the school and the education approach and method that the school takes and uses that is a good fit for both the students and the teachers of the school. They have to have the ability to see what is working or not and make necessary changes. They have to have plans to hire the best teachers and understand what motivates them so that the school can best retain them especially in competition with private schools who would offer more money for the same position.

[MG1]

I've dealt with a lot of administrators over the years. From primary and elementary to middle and secondary schools. A not so effective administator can kill a school in a matter of months. I think principals in larger secondary schools, where three to four vice principals are working below the principal, the principal tends to be less effective and ends up hiding in their office.

The most important trait of an effective principal is their educational leadership. Without that, the grounds keeper might as well be the principal (okay, no Star Fleet Academy references here). My kids' secondary school had a wonderful principal. She was very uptodate with the latest in pedagogical research, brain development research, etc. She was always out there engaged with the students and supported any teacher who had a passion they wanted to share. Worked tirelessly and selflessly. Don't know how she did it. She left the school and it was never the same. It affected the teachers greatly, as well.

A school with an ineffective pricipal would be one where the staff are fighting all the time with each other (no cohesion), there's no focus or energy, the parents have little to no input, and most importantly, the students are miserable. It all trickles down from the top.

No different than any other organization.

[Tapioca]

Based on the comments in this thread, what I've learned in this thread is that:

- Teachers are really just glorified babysitters that should be compensated similarly to the babysitter next door ($14/hour)
- Public schooling in BC is a shambles, so too bad for all of the poor people that have to use it
- People who do other jobs don't add value because my job is more important than everyone else's and adds far more value to the world
- My opinions are correct and hold more weight because I believe them to be so
- Because I work with money, I am inherently smarter than you
- Because I bust my balls working 14 hours a day, I am inherently smarter than you too

[MG1]

^I'm sorry to hear that. RS threads, FTW!

[Graeme S]

Originally Posted by Tapioca

Based on the comments in this thread, what I've learned in this thread is that:

- Teachers are really just glorified babysitters that should be compensated similarly to the babysitter next door ($14/hour)
- Public schooling in BC is a shambles, so too bad for all of the poor people that have to use it
- People who do other jobs don't add value because my job is more important than everyone else's and adds far more value to the world
- My opinions are correct and hold more weight because I believe them to be so
- Because I work with money, I am inherently smarter than you
- Because I bust my balls working 14 hours a day, I am inherently smarter than you too

I think this applies to pretty much every thread on RS where people have a difference of opinion.

...No. Nevermind. Not RS. The Internets.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by Graeme S

If we're looking at the needs of the kids (re: class size/composition), it's the province that's not on the side of the kids. The current offer from the province "continues existing language" of the legislated agreements--class sizes and composition will stay the same. The courts have twice (two for three--third pending!) said that class size and composition should return to pre-2002 levels.

Smyth: If it?s really about the kids, why are teachers making excessive demands?

The court’s ruling does NOT require the government to enshrine the eliminated NDP-era class-size and composition limits in a new deal.

The judge herself said the old limits are not “clad in stone” and should be the subject of future collective bargaining.

Yes, the judge ruled the old limits were “restored retroactively” but that ruling was stayed by another judge as the government appeals to a higher court.

The stay was opposed by the union, which wanted the new limits restored immediately. The government argued successfully that would have caused chaos and cost a fortune to immediately shrink classes and rehire teachers, librarians and other specialists.

(That’s right — despite their spectacular legal triumphs, the union lost the most recent critical skirmish in court.)

As for the supposition that simply restoring the old contract is a simple thing that will instantly make life better for students:

On the crucial issue of class size and composition, for example, the government proposes a $75-million-a-year “Learning Improvement Fund” to hire additional teachers, education assistants and other resources.

The union — saying the government is trying to escape the court judgment — has countered with a $225-million-a-year “Workload Fund” to be co-managed by the union and used “exclusively for the hiring of additional teachers.”

In other words, the Workload Fund would be used only to hire new members of the BCTF, because education assistants are represented by a different union.

Keep in mind that education assistants work directly with special-needs students, and they make a lot less money than teachers.

So if this dispute is really “all about the kids” as the BCTF says, why would they oppose spending more money on the education assistants that work with the most vulnerable kids of all?

[Graeme S]

Soundy:
"Excessive" is a relative term, and if you had gotten no raises, or raises below the rate of inflation you would probably be asking for a bit more after nearly a decade. Whatever is outside the government's "Affordability zone" is considered excessive. Whatever the government budgets is what it wants to spend, regardless of the economic situation. Which, as a sidenote, is surprisingly good. Normally I'm not a fan of hack-and-slash budgets, especially with tax drops, but the Government itself announced a $200-someodd million surplus to date in the quarter just a bit ago. Affordable is, as always, a relative term.

And I absolutely agree: there is nothing in the court decisions that say that staffing levels must return to exactly pre-2002 levels. What the judgement says is that the government unfairly and unilaterally stripped those levels, and as a result they must be negotiated between the teachers and Government. The Government says that they should negotiate based on today's staffing levels. The Teachers say that they should negotiate based on 2002's levels. The fact that they need to be negotiated at all is a factor, as the government has essentially turned their negotiation on the subject into the argument: "Well, classrooms are still passing students, so it must be doing a good enough job!"


As for the difference in where the money is going, I'm kind of split 50/50. I feel that there are some situations in which certified teachers are a necessity, but at the same time that there are plenty of options for non-BCTF support workers that would easily bolster the effectiveness and efficiency of teachers.



The long and the short of it is, I think that a compromise is in due order. Sadly, at this point, neither side seems to be interested. I'll be honest: I think that binding arbitration is the best option at this point. Whatever they say, we can pretty much guarantee that BOTH sides will be unhappy. And if that's true, then we can pretty much agree that everyone got the least-worst deal.

[MG1]

In for a long one - no surprise. Fassbender just formally rejected the arbritration idea.

Bust the union has always been the prime directive and they're getting closer. The longer this goes on, the more people will side with the government, because people, by nature, don't give a shit about anyone else except themselves. Iker and the BCTF must have known this.

Both sides are digging in. Like with any war, there will be casualties. Of all the parties involved, the government will come out on top with the children and teachers being the casualties. The government has the responsibility to provide education to the children of this province, but they don't want to legislate the teachers back to work.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by Graeme S

Soundy:
"Excessive" is a relative term, and if you had gotten no raises, or raises below the rate of inflation you would probably be asking for a bit more after nearly a decade.

A $5000 signing bonus for 40,000 members sounds pretty excessive to me (grand total: $200M). The infamous $3k annual massage allowance (now off the table, granted) seems pretty excessive by any measure. $225M/year in a fund primarily for hiring new union members (nothing to do with raises to existing members) could be easily considered excessive. When it comes to wages and raises, anything SUBSTANTIALLY beyond what other public sector unions have already agreed to, I'd say it's pretty safe to call "excessive".

Normally I'm not a fan of hack-and-slash budgets, especially with tax drops, but the Government itself announced a $200-someodd million surplus to date in the quarter just a bit ago. Affordable is, as always, a relative term.

Keep in mind that "affordable" in this case has to take into account the other PSUs' me-too clauses that could potentially cost billions more. That's not the government's money, BTW... that's yours, mine, and everyone else's. People talk about the kids' future, but that's a debt that's going to fall to them as well if it happens. It's not as simple as just "give the teachers what they want."

[Lomac]

The massage allowance outrage confuses me. When I was working as a basic associate in a retail store, my medical coverage gave me up to $5000 in coverage for massages/physical therapy. Currently I don't get that much of a coverage for it, but who cares?

I don't get the mentality of, "If I don't get those benefits at my job, why should you?"

[Graeme S]

Originally Posted by Soundy

A $5000 signing bonus for 40,000 members sounds pretty excessive to me (grand total: $200M). The infamous $3k annual massage allowance (now off the table, granted) seems pretty excessive by any measure. $225M/year in a fund primarily for hiring new union members (nothing to do with raises to existing members) could be easily considered excessive. When it comes to wages and raises, anything SUBSTANTIALLY beyond what other public sector unions have already agreed to, I'd say it's pretty safe to call "excessive".

The signing bonus was added as a counter to an earlier Government incentive. I think it was $2k to sign a contract before the end of July? Either way, it seems like it's one of those "take it and run with it" things.

$3,000 massage allowance was under doctor's orders, so that teachers who had been placed under physical strain (I'll admit, I can't remember a time I've seen a teacher overly physically strained) wouldn't have to be out of pocket if they needed treatment. It wasn't an "Oh look, I can get massages once a week 'cause I'll never spend more than the $3,000 cap!"

The negotiations sometimes remind me a bit of an interview I once saw with Seth Macfarlane on fighting with the censorship people at Fox. There were a bunch of jokes they threw into the scripts for the specific purpose of being able to throw them out. If they just presented the script as they wanted it, the censors would pick the most outrageous (funniest) jokes and say "nope, not happening". Instead, they found the disposable jokes and got rid of them, allowing what they originally wanted to be kept.

Keep in mind that "affordable" in this case has to take into account the other PSUs' me-too clauses that could potentially cost billions more. That's not the government's money, BTW... that's yours, mine, and everyone else's. People talk about the kids' future, but that's a debt that's going to fall to them as well if it happens. It's not as simple as just "give the teachers what they want."

Oh, I understand and agree with that. However, what the Government is calling "Wage Increases" and what you and I would call a Wage Increase is different. Wage increase sounds like a raise, right? Not according to the government definition. It's "An increase in spending in wages in any way"; which in this case includes new hiring. New hires is not the same as wage increases, despite the way that it's worded.

And yes, I'm very well aware that it's taxpayer money--mine included--that's being spent. I'll be honest with you. I'm on my way up in the earnings ways. I'm currently earning more than I have before, and I'll be earning more in the next coming few years than I am now. And despite that, I'm in favour of raising taxes.

Hospital wait times, swamped teachers, unfixed potholes, insufficient traffic infrastructure and the list goes on. While I'm all for having my own money, I'm also for making sure that the greater whole is served as well.






As an aside to all this, I find it frustrating that most of these negotiations are actually being held like this. How many other situations are negotiations and back-and-forths held in the public? How many times have you negotiated with your boss only to have him put up an office memo insisting that the raise you want is too high and disproportionate to the other workers, and that you need to understand that you don't necessarily add value where others do? Negotiations should be held privately, and if there's no resolution, then be damned with it and just leave it at that.

[quasi]

Originally Posted by Graeme S

Hospital wait times, swamped teachers, unfixed potholes, insufficient traffic infrastructure and the list goes on. While I'm all for having my own money, I'm also for making sure that the greater whole is served as well.

I agree with you that most of these areas need help but just throwing money at it is going to do very little. Raising taxes is fine as long as there is a plan, saying we're going to dump X amount of dollars into hospitals or roads will more likely then not be eaten up in red tape with no significant improvement.

We pay enough taxes they are just allocated piss poorly with to much waste.