What I learned on Twitter today

Three things I learned on Twitter today:

1.  Christy Clark has no degree...no class either, but that is a different argument.  Kevin Falcon has a degree, but its not in finance.  George Abbott has two degrees, but no sense.

2. The world's most interesting man once got pulled over for speeding but he let the cop off with just a warning.



3. Others think like me, the following is called "Enough" and is from Meg McCormick:

I just finished reading two articles in today’s The Vancouver Sun  (February 25, 2012, on pp. A8/9). The first was about the possible escalation of job action for teachers, the second a full-page bio of Susan Lambert, BCTF president. And I have had enough! There are so many myths out there surrounding our “negotiations” that I have to comment. I just stay silent any longer.

First a confession: I am a card carrying (albeit expired) member of the B.C. Liberal party. I know! Me! A teacher! Further, I worked on Gordon Campbell’s campaign back in 2005. After I became a teacher. While this fact alone may cause me to be kicked out of my union I feel it’s only fair for the sake of transparency to admit to it. Trust me, I have hidden this information ever since I became a teacher.

So, knowing full well that I went into this current dispute probably siding more with the government than my own union, here goes:

Myth #1 Teachers don’t and won’t use technology.

I love this one! To illustrate how ridiculous this claim is by our education minister, I’m going to tell a story. Last year, I went on maternity leave. When I left I was also redeployed which meant that I no longer had a position at my current school (though I still had one in the District). Because, at that time, teacher computers “belonged” to the school and not the teacher, I had to give up my Macbook. Using that computer, I have run a classroom website and blog since 2008. My Info Tech 8 class went paperless about the same time and students accessed all their assignments online. I’ve also used all kinds of technology and online resources, for assignments that ranged from movie editing to surveying advertising using YouTube, but I digress.

Anyway, the Macbook went to someone else (you know who you are) and I received a new laptop (PC) upon my return to work. Well, PCs don’t work so well for me. I have a Mac at home. I use Apple software and applications in everything I do. But, I couldn’t get a Mac.

So, I could have just decided to go “old school” and forgo all technology. Nobody would have blamed me. But instead I bought an iPad. Yes, with my own money. I couldn’t afford to buy a new Macbook of my own or else I would have done that. So now, everything technology-based works off my iPad. And it’s worked out great. If students have a question that needs looking up or want to reference something in particular, I just hand them the iPad. The one I bought with my own money. Next year I would really like to see if I can incorporate something like Twitter for a homework feed into my already extensive use of classroom website and blog.

And teachers don’t and won’t use technology. That’s a laugh. How that really ought to read is we aren’t provided with it.

As a side note, I was emphatically told that there was no way to get a Mac when I received my new laptop. I even would have seriously considered subsidizing one if that had been offered (which it wasn’t). Meanwhile, all administrators and managers in our District are currently using new MacBooks. Food for thought.

Myth # 2 All government ministries have a net zero mandate.

What that should really read is all “non-revenue generating” ministries have a net zero mandate. I have an example for this one too. Anybody notice that enormous edifice being built just off Lougheed Hwy between the United and Brunette exits on Hwy 1? It’s eco-friendly, being built with the highest of LEED green certifications. Best guess is it’s costing several hundreds of millions of dollars to build. I actually don’t really want to know exactly how much because it’s not a new private sector building, it’s the new Ministry of Transportation building. Specifically it exists to consolidate several Ministry offices as well as serve as the centre of tolling for the new Port Mann bridge. Yup, they’re spending all that money to employ bureaucratic flunkies to administer tolls.

Like I said “revenue generating”. We, in education, are not “revenue generating”. Period, end of story. And that’s why we have a net zero mandate for our contract negotiations.

Myth # 3 We need to increase the spending on education.

Actually, no we don’t. And here is where I veer off the union track. I don’t think we need to increase spending. I do think we could actually achieve “net zero”. But everyone is looking to cut in the wrong places. One of the reasons I supported the Liberals back in 2001 and 2005 was because they cut bureaucratic spending. In fact, they cut the bureaucracies.

You know our District that gave all managers and administrators brand new MacBooks? Well that same District is currently employing three Directors of Education, four District principals and three District vice-principals. That’s just the “Educational Organization” side of the District and doesn’t even include the “Business Organization” side.

I’m not going to get into the topic of Districts being run like businesses but I would like to ask: Do Districts even need to exist? Why don’t we go back to the system of individual schools reporting directly to government? Or at the very least, fewer Districts? This would mean less spending waste at the middle management level and more of the funding going directly to schools.

As another side note, I have the same opinion about wasteful spending at the various health authorities. Having seen the evidence of money being wasted first-hand to the detriment of patient care, it’s time to get rid of the middle group and get the funding straight to the hospitals that desperately need it.

Myth #4 Teachers should get the increase in salary they are asking for.

Do we deserve it. Yes. I could go on and on about the number of hours above and beyond the call of duty I work to ensure my students are provided with the best possible education I can deliver (not to mention all those extracurriculars). Would it be fair if we got paid on par with teachers in other jurisdictions? You bet. But should we get the increase that is being asked for by the BCTF? No.

Let me explain. No, I don’t buy into this net zero mandate of the current government. In fact, Christie Clark has single-handedly lost me as a supporter of the B.C. Liberals. She is being hypocritical in her spending choices; spending wildly in one area (see Min of Transportation story above, and all of those new government positions) while imposing net zero everywhere else. Like I said before, Gordy got it right back in 2001 when he trimmed the bureaucracy. It’s time it was done again.

But the fact of the matter is, this province is currently running a deficit. It is not the time to ask for huge salary increases. However, I do believe that we deserve (as all other public service employees do) a reasonable increase to cover cost of living. I mean have you filled up with gas this week?

What do I consider reasonable? 1-2% a year. That’s it. Then when other areas of spending are cut, and the economy continues to improve, and we find ourselves out of a deficit scenario… Then we can talk parity.

Myth # 5 Class size and composition should be part of teacher bargaining.

No it shouldn’t. Again, before the lynch mob comes to my door, let me explain. Class size and composition should be part of the School Act. And they need to be reasonable numbers. And we need to have supports in place for all learners. I could go on but the gist of the matter is I firmly believe that class size and composition needs to be dealt with but NOT as part of our contract.

Bargaining is about OUR conditions of employment. What we are and are not expected to do. How much we are compensated for those duties. What kind of benefits we receive. Etc etc etc. By including class size and composition as a “condition” of our employment, what kind of message does that send to the 32nd student in our class, or the fourth “coded” kid? That we consider their presence a “negative” condition of our employment. It makes the issue less about the condition of student welfare than of our own.

All children deserve the best learning conditions. How should that not be a part of the School Act?

Well, I know there are probably a multitude of points I haven’t covered. And I know that several people will disagree with what I’ve said here, and that’s fine. In fact, if you want to have a discussion about it, I would be happy to. But I’m tired of silently grumbling, and I need my opinion stated “out loud” for the world to hear. Maybe because I hope that these issues can still be resolved, if only people looked at them from a different point of view.

Is Bill 33 Discrimination

This past weekend the always honourable George Abbott spoke to a packed house of Superintendents at the BCSSA.  Normally a snore-fest (although I've never been invited) this year marked not only George Abbott, but John Abbott as well.  This other brother from a different mother (not really brothers) is the father of 21st Century Learning.  But it was George's speech which is the cause of this blog.

On Special needs:

“We’ve had recently a very thoughtful paper out of the Greater Victoria District Parent Advisory Council, which I thought in quite remarkable terms made the case for moving away from special-needs quotas in the classroom. One of the things that I really don’t like . . . is when someone tells me that a classroom situation is impossible because they have four IEPs in it.  I find that very discouraging... And if we can, in an adult way, move to a collaborative, consensual model for dealing with this, I think the big winners are going to be those kids, who at portions of the day – and in some cases, all of the day – require that support. This is with a question mark behind it because there’s still some work being done on this, but this may well find its way into our response to Bill 28 and I hope it will.”


George was alluding to a letter written by the VPAC in which they claimed that Bill 33 was discriminatory to special needs students because it placed a quota on the class.  When I first read this, I thought not only was it not discrimination, but it was another example of education being written by non-educators.  However, after reflection I do concur to an extent.  I do understand how placing a designation on a student is discriminatory and how limiting students or excluding them from a class is morally wrong, but like most things there is another side to the story.  Bill 33 was introduced by Shirley Bond in 2005 as a result of teacher's job action surrounding class size and composition.  The Bill states there cannot be more than 30 students or more than 3 students with an IEP.

My issue with Bill 33 is not the arbitrary number placed on it.  It could be 28, it could be 32.  It could be 4 IEPS.  My issue is that the Bill was created to ensure a positive learning environment for all students, not just a limited group. Although the Bill maybe discriminatory, its intent was not.  This is a catch 22 position.  If pulled out, class sizes could grow exponentially.

He later added, " We should get away from the Bill 33 style of class-size management,” This is another issue I have with his line of thinking.  He is insinuating that Bill 33 is only used for management.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  This is a clear example of seeing things how the government wants.
One thing George did say that was a positive step was consultation on all classes, not just Bill 33 classes.  Problem is time and the other is implementation.  This, however, only occurs in the event of a cancellation of Bill 33.  A problem with this, in my opinion, is that without an arbitrary number, there is no guarantee consultation about class composition will occur.  And as time has shown, we can't trust the government to keep their word.

The Coalition

Earlier today I logged onto Rick Guenther's Facebook page to see how things were going.  It can be found here: http://www.facebook.com/RickGuenther.BCTF.Executive.  Some good posts, some good ideas, and some good conversations.

Out of curiousity I decided to go Susan Lambert's page, but couldn't find it.  That's weird I thought to myself, I know she has one.  Then I realized she hadn't opened it to the public.

If I logged in as my alter-ego Qdta teachers I could view the page but not as myself.  I can't help but wonder how many teachers she is alienating by not having it public.  Or better yet how many teachers she is alienating by being a member of the coalition...what's that you ask?  Let me let the BCTF explain it:

A coalition is a group of individuals, representatives or organizations working together for a common cause, to achieve a common goal or resolve a problem that they have in common.

Or better yet: http://www.votecoalition.ca/ (granted this is last year's page, but sub in Vancouver instead of Victoria and a couple of Member at Large changes and its the same stuff, different pile)

You see Susan Lambert, as well as the 1st and 2nd VP, and the majority of members at large of the BCTF belong to a political party within the BCTF known as The Coalition.   

This of course got me thinking...is a coalition good for the BCTF?  

Simple answer?  No.

I think back to last year's AGM when a controversial motion was passed regarding a fee increase.  The membership was split but every single (and I mean every) member of the coalition supported it.  That was one of the first instances where I realized that an entity which may not have my best interests at heart controlled the BCTF.  If the membership was split why wasn't the Coalition?  I asked a member and was informed "that the coalition is like-minded, so it makes sense they would vote that way, but every one could vote how ever they wanted" (I can't remember which one said that to me, but I do remember the words)  I can't help but feel that the coalition has grown to the point where maybe their control has become detrimental.  The fee increased passed, barely, but it passed.

The funny thing was that nobody seemed to really know anything about the Coalition.  Until Rick decided to run against incumbent President Susan Lambert.  All of sudden people were questioning why the decisions made within the BCTF were done so by a coalition.  The union which claimed to be the most democratic union in the world.

The Burnaby Teachers Association has put through a motion for the AGM this year for Electoral reform.  I think it is high time the BCTF have some electoral reform.  I know there is the technology in place to allow the members of the BCTF to vote how they see fit.  Perhaps that could lessen the control one group has over 41,000 teachers.

My vote is for Rick Guenther and an end to the coalition.  

  

The Finder

 

This week, Honourable Minister of George Abbott asked Margaret MacDiarmid to appoint an "independent" fact finder to determine whether or not an agreement could potentially be reached between the BC Teacher's Federation and the BC Public School Employers Association.  The story can be found here.  Now there are a number of issues that this announcement brings up.

1. George is creating a crisis to end negotiation and introduce legislation.  Report Cards came and went, but didn't create enough panic to introduce legislation and actually made the government look foolish when blank report cards were sent out.  So George waits until there is a lull in bargaining with no dates set and basically states "this isn't working" 
   2. BCPSEA has to be upset.  Outside of the 2005 buy out for labour peace what has BCPSEA been able to bargain? Not much.  This move completely undermines any credibility they had.  Mel Joy has been out in the media saying they would be at the bargaining table 24/7 (although allegedly missing a meeting doesn't help...I know...I know...depends on which side of the story you hear).  Not that George has openly questioned their ability to negotiate a contract (which was made harder for BCPSEA with the sub zero) This is leading people to question, 'what is the purpose of BCPSEA if the government is going to legislate contracts?' In addition, they had put a proposal forward, a crazy concession filled proposal, but a proposal nonetheless.
   3. The weird intermarriage of the BC Libs.  George asks Margaret (a former Minister of Education...c'mon remember "Highest Funding Ever") to appoint the fact finder.  BCPSEA already has Claire Avison on their panel to advise George.  Claire's husband Don is the author of the infamous Avison report which depleted the BCCT to make way for the new Teacher's Council. George is a former Minister of Health, Trevor Hughes comes from the health sector and was even on the government's Health bargaining team.  Head hurt? Mine too.
   4. The "independent" fact finder is not "independent" he works for the government, as an assistant deputy minister!  The outcome is pre-determined.
   5. This also takes away from the fact that there has been no movement in Bill 27/28 (and don't even get me started about the Classroom Organization Fund) and the year to fix it and make restitution is rapidly coming to an end.
   6. The BCTF should hire an independent fact finder of their own:

• To combat the government's fact finder
• To show teachers are still trying to get an agreement done
• They might be able areas to focus on or what could be changed in bargaining...for example teachers could give up improvements to dental, the government pulls the net zero (wishful thinking I know)
• It would give the BCTF a tom of free publicity
• If BCPSEA doesn't cooperate fully, as the BCTF is doing, it would show who is really interested in negotiating.

 George went to a former Minister of Education to help him out of a tumultuous situation.  His legislation is written and just waiting for the Legislature to open.