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.
No comments:
Post a Comment