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.