#DearPeter @MLAFassbender - what teachers think of a ten year contract....

Dear Minister Fassbender

Yesterday the question of topic on BC Almanac was is a 10 year deal for teachers fair and reasonable? My answer was how can it be given that teachers cannot trust this government. Here is why we can't trust this government:

1. Contracts and working conditions have been imposed on us by legislation for the last 12 years. The courts have found this to be unconstitutional, yet teachers are still waiting for their rights to be restored. 

2. The threat of fines, legislation and "accept this or else" attitudes from the government are not democratic collective bargaining. It is legislative thuggery.

3. Austerity really means wage-cuts. It's about families you say, but we are parents too. Inflation raises the cost of living year after year. Wage increases should be somewhat mindful of the rate of inflation.

This government says trust us... we have changed. Minister Fassbender, how many times can you assume us to be fools? You wish teachers to bury the hatchet sir, but what you really mean to do is to bury it in our backs yet again.

Read more teachers' letters to Minister of Education, Peter Fassbender here: https://www.facebook.com/update_security_info.php?wizard=1#!/groups/226536574108231/?hc_location=stream

Also search #DearPeter on twitter.

Hey, It's me... but out of context... kind of...

The Province has an article, 'How do we fix public education? The dysfunctional relationship between teachers and the government has people fleeing the public school system for the independent alternative' in which a quote I gave them (for a quite unrelated story) is used....

PARENTS' AND TEACHERS' CONCERNS New Westminster parent Janet Reid has watched her son and daughter go through B.C.'s public system and has been impressed with innovative programs under the B.C. Education Plan and ACE-IT trades training. With a change in government, she said, "(she's) afraid that we will at least be back to Square 1 while they get up to speed," said Reid. Teachers, too, are nervous, for other reasons. "I feel we have tried and tried again with the Liberals and I haven't seen a lot of positive outcomes," said Coquitlam teacher Amanda Long. "I think it's time for a fresh start." Long said she's seen the effect of larger classes and fewer supports. Her daughter lost learning support between Grades 2 and 3. According to the government, classes with over 30 students have fallen from over 9,200 in 2005-06 to 1,360 in 2012-13; per student funding is up from $6,262 per student in 2000-01 to $8,493 in 2012-13. The teachers' union counters funding has fallen as a percentage of provincial GDP - 19.6 per cent in 200102 to 15 per cent in 2011-12, representing a $1.6-billion shortfall. It stresses that 12,650 classes have over four designated special-needs students and 10,300 have over four ESL students. Debate over statistics, and what they mean, is a familiar feature of the entrenched opposition between the teachers and B.C. Liberals.

Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/business/public+education/8286887/story.html#ixzz2RjeytK2j

More on Bill 36

Last night I wrote about the elimination of standard school calendars and briefly mentioned some other problems with Bill 36.

Last night I had a tough time digesting this and tried to imagine what these proposals may mean for education, not only as a teacher, but as a parent and how this will impact my daughter as a student!

Today I ready Parents Take Note - Bill 36 is an attack on you! which summarizes how Bill 36 can impact parents and students if passed:

Friday, April 27, 2012

Parents take note - Bill 36 is an attack on you

Having successfully removed teachers as an "obstacle" to the BC Education Plan, yesterday George Abbott introduced enabling legislation to change the school year, day, and total instructional time provided to students.

Bill 36 removes the requirement for School Boards to follow the standard school calendar, and most importantly allows the Minister to change, through regulation, the minimum number of instructional hours in the year. It also enables more online and blended learning for all grade levels and the introduction of fees for International Baccalaureate programs.

Although the media has focused on the school year, the scariest part of this legislation is the change to the minimum number of instructional hours through regulation. Here is the actual section of the Bill, which allows the Minister to:

prescribing the minimum number of hours of instruction that a board must offer to students enrolled in the schools in its school district, including prescribing that there is no minimum number of hours of instruction for prescribed classes of students, schools or educational programs;

If parents are wondering what this might look like, then look no further than the changes that have taken place in the delivery of Planning 10. In some schools in BC, every grade 10 student goes to the gymnasium once a week for a lecture (this can be in excess of 100 students). There is no or little further instructional time for these students. The remainder of the course is taught through a "blended" model with online components or simply assignments that are done on the student's own time and handed in. The instructional time goes from 240 minutes per week in a class with 30 students, to 80 minutes per week in a class with 100 or more students. Typically this can reduce the teacher hours needed by half.

<Continue Reading Here>

I worry for the students who slip through the cracks, I worry for how diverse learning needs will not be met, I worry about what this will look like and how this will change education for the worse.

I have taught Planning 10 online (though only for a month) and I had dozens of students coming in confused, behind, struggling. As part of that contract I worked 2 blocks Planning 10 in class and Planning 10 online and the difference was night and day. Planning 10 in -class involved far more engaging activities and group work and interactive options, while online was individual, self-paced work.

While I agree that there are students who may prefer one method or another and having choice is important, I fear the government's implementation of this is not to provide "choice" but to save money and that this is just the first step in a future that eliminates the actual classroom and overlooks the importance of that structure, in favour of a cheaper alternative that sounds fancy on paper but is more about making students a commodity and privatizing education than actually improving it.

Why this fight is important

I wanted to share this post as I found it to be very interesting and well written....

First published on BCTF Portal March 11, 2012
Bruce McCloy - Teacher in New Westminster

Here is why I see this current fight as very important. This is not about class size, class composition, a wage increase or extra help for special needs students. While these are all very important they are dwarfed by a greater threat; the changing of our current educational system to one that caters less to equity and developing a good person to one that is squarely focused on market based principles and catering to an ever greedy corporate elite. Teachers and government are on a crash course, fighting over, as Wendy Poole outlines http://www.ucalgary.ca/iejll/vol11/poole, the vision and purpose of K-12 public education and the meaning of professionalism.

Government is focused on a neo-liberal view of education, “conceptualiz[ing] education as a commodity to be bought by customers (students and parents) and sold by suppliers (schools and others). From a market perspective, schools are training grounds for future workers and consumers, as well a multi-billion dollar industry offering opportunities for profit. Efficiency, accountability for student outcomes (usually measured by standardized test scores and other measures like graduation rates), choice for parents (e.g., charter schools, vouchers, within-district school choice), privatization (e.g., public funding for private schools, user-pay fees, contracting with private firms to operate public schools, private-public partnerships for school construction, school-business partnerships), and attacks on teachers unions are hallmarks of neo-liberalism in education”. (see attached paper if you would like to read more). This fight is about breaking the union in order to bring in a system that caters to only a few, and leaves the many others simply to be good workers. If we truly cared about students, and creating a better society, we would be modelling our system after Finland, rather than chasing the USA, UK and Australia downwards. The end result of this current action by the BC government is to cut costs, break the union and make a statement to the voters that the current ruling Liberals deserve their vote in May 2013. It has nothing to do with students. For the differences in focus of the Finland system in comparison with the USA, UK and Australian systems review the attached paper, Neo-Liberalism in British Columbia Education and Teachers’ Union Resistance and the video found at http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3441913.htm
Current OECD rankings have Canada slipping slightly behind Australia in reading (#8 compared to #7), still behind Finland at #4 but well ahead of the USA at #11 and the UK at #18. Rankings in Math and Science have Canada far ahead of the USA, Australia and UK systems that the government are focused on reaching down to and still behind the ranking of Finland, a country that teachers are working to catch. Finland is ranked #2 in math, Canada #8, with Australia at #15, the UK at #21 and the USA being far behind at #32. There are similar findings in Science with Finland at #2, Canada at #6, Australia at #12, the UK at #21 and the USA at #30. The quality of our education does not matter to the current Liberal government; containing costs, and creating preferable market conditions do.
Some sobering thoughts when contemplating this possible scenario.

• While increasing funding for schools from a 2002-2003 total of $3.782 billion to a projected 2012-2013 total of $4.725 billion (making true governments claim that per-student funding has increased) the actual costs to districts have far outstripped this increase. Most telling is the decrease in priority of education as a part of the provincial budget falling from 26% in 2002 – 2003 to a 15% in 2011 – 2012. In 2002 – 2003 the total allocation envelope for education was $3.7 billion. This accounted for 26% of the total provincial budget. In 2012 – 2013 the projected total allocation envelope for education is $4.7 billion accounting for 15% of the total provincial budget. If the 2002 – 2003 % of total provincial budget allocation held true today the total allocation of funds to education from the provincial budget for 2012 – 2013 would be $8.1 billion providing for a further allocation of $3.1 billion on top of the $4.7 billion currently being provided. The amount due to school districts for next year over and above what is being given is almost equal to the total amount provided to school districts in the 2002 – 2003 year. It is not a situation of lack of funds, rather a change in priority for the government
• Board funds have long been frozen, all but 6 districts are currently in Funding Protection (meaning that they are working in a bankrupt state). Board funds have been frozen for a further 3 years, leaving them with an accumulated $100 million shortfall this year alone. The “easy cuts” to budgets have long been done leaving an impossible situation. The overwhelming major cost to districts is teacher salaries, something that districts have been unable to change due to strict rules in the collective agreements. Until now. Changes in post and fill rules, class composition and numbers, evaluations and discipline procedures will make it easier for boards to lower their salary costs by making life difficult for more expensive teachers to the point they will quit, removing more expensive teachers and filling their positions with cheaper less experienced teachers or with even cheaper non teachers. The boards will sell the public on these changes b y offering perks that will have most forget the importance of teacher quality.
• The current government advertising focused on teacher salary and benefits (the BCTF is demanding a 15 per cent wage hike and other benefits that would cost $2 billion and raise taxes for BC families...) is allowing the government to keep attention away from the main changes they wish to see through the BC Education Plan. This education plan provides the government with the route to the neo-liberal result that they wish to see, a result that will have us emulating the OECD rankings of the USA, UK and Australia in a very short time, leaving far behind the rankings we currently have and our hopes for reaching those of Finland. This is because the government is not focused on providing an equitable education system. Or even focused on educating at a high level. Rather, it is focused on creating a system that follows their neo-liberal beliefs. The BC Education Plan is a guise (as is the current troubles on the labour front) to instituting these ideals:
  
  • While requests for feedback to the BC Education Plan is currently seen as a priority for government, the plan is all but written awaiting an appropriate time to roll out. Current feedback will never be considered but provides the perception that it has been
  • BC Education Plan calls for personalized learning that will amount to students staying at home to work on their computers learning from an on-line master teacher. Cheaper non-teachers will be available for students to submit assignments and pick up others, while tutoring (on-line and in person) will be available if necessary. This change over has already begun. The government is admitting that 700 special needs teachers that have been lost to the system have been replaced with 2100 new teaching assistants ... but no more teachers. The $165 million Learning Improvement Fund will hire more teacher assistants ... but no more teachers.
  • Contract changes are necessary to enable this change to occur in our current system – changing hours of work, working conditions (class sizes can reach the hundreds) and making it easier to deal with teachers that disagree with the direction
  • Money will be saved on school buildings as only a few will be needed as regional meeting places – while the others can be sold as they are no longer required to service children
  • Standardized assessment will become easier as the teaching from the on-line Master teachers will be the same.
  • Large corporations will find a ready market for technology. A quick look at those involved in developing the new BC Education Program indicate past and present members of the guiding committee including 20 members who belong to the corporate business community or with strong ties to this community and zero involved in public education in BC.
  • Creating a system dependent on technology will provide a ready market for both hardware and software manufacturers as well as internet providers. On line needs will increase, allowing a market for sellers of data plans
  • Control of teacher Professional Development and new evaluation and “one-strike you are out” dismissal procedures will allow government to control what teachers learn and what they will teach in the classroom. Government and corporate propaganda will be required to be taught, even if ethically unsettling, or a teacher will face dismissal.
  • Control of curriculum and standardization of what is taught will allow government to lessen the time many students stay in school, providing an opportunity for students to leave at the end of grade 10 (where 3 of our government exit exams currently are placed). Students will be able to leave early for the workforce providing cheap (and undereducated) labour to be available during the week – something that is currently not readily available for most companies. Seeing that these workers were encouraged to leave school at grade 10 they will later find that they do not have the required education to change occupations, therefore making them more likely to stay in lower paying jobs within the company that they currently work for.
  • With the education of children left in the hands of busy parents, and at home often with little guidance (especially in the secondary school years) it is more likely that they lag behind and have less motivation to finish beyond grade 10. As well, earning money at an early age could be a great benefit to the family income as well as provide a greater source of disposable income at an earlier age – resulting in more purchasing power at a younger age.
  • Only those being educated in private schools (still in a traditional mode of providing education) or those with incredible self-discipline will have the skills to enter university – predominately leaving the rich to claim the higher level jobs and the less rich or less motivated to take up a new lower class working class.
  • With a larger number of workers available and a dismantling of trade union power, the minimum wage can once again be lowered, rights eroded allowing for more flexibility and higher profits for business owners. As well, the numbers of the consumer class will increase, also allowing for further profits for corporations.

While we are busy fighting the current contract negotiations, which in themselves are important, the Liberal government has a far greater goal. We find ourselves so busy with fighting the little things I fear we may miss the bigger picture and feel the pain of the onslaught (BC Education Plan) far before we see it coming and far later than we can do much about it. I am reminded of a simple yet effective strategy we use to use in PE class when playing the game British Bulldog (in one of its many configurations). If one was lucky enough to get two balls they often incorporated the following strategy – throw one ball high in the air. As members of the other team watch the ball float slowly towards them the original thrower would throw the second ball hard , directly at the opponent, hitting them and getting them out.

We see a similar strategy with the government – lob up the whole confrontation of contract negotiations, and, while teachers are busy looking at these, hit them hard with the educational changes you as a government actually want to implement. While current contract negotiations are very important and need to be dealt with quickly by teachers throughout the province, we need to be talking about and informing the public of the far greater threat that looms and is poised to hit in the very near future. It is one that will find us sadly leaving any possibility of reaching the equitable system found in Finland (and along with it the high OECD rankings), leaving any possibility of maintaining our current standing in the world (as stated in the OECD rankings), and fervently chasing the lower scores of the USA, UK and Australia. All in the name of creating a new culture of uneducated workers and consumers for a quickly growing corporate elite.