Provincial Liberals........ geniuses

[rustled]

...I sincerely hope that those who suggest that BCTF follow the MTS model also include the government commitment to binding arbitration and settlements that consider what is fair to both negotiating sides.

Their entire attitude seems quite different.

The ads they ran at negotiating time (at least the ones I looked at) were about working together to support public education.

Instead of pitting the public against the "enemy" government, they ask the public to support the entire public education team.

[Urbane]

Oh my! Does missing a few days of school ACTUALLY inflict that kind of 'suffering' on children?!!

As you well know it's not just the days missed. There were/are many activities cancelled, field trips cancelled, teams not operating, extra help curtailed, graduation ceremonies impacted. So it's not just the days that the schools are actually shut down.

[Urbane]

Their entire attitude seems quite different.

The ads they ran at negotiating time (at least the ones I looked at) were about working together to support public education.

Instead of pitting the public against the "enemy" government, they ask the public to support the entire public education team.

Absolutely right and I remember one ad that the provincial government ran that mentioned how teachers care about their students. The BCTF called that an attack ad. It's unfortunate that the BCTF is always on a war footing and not on a "working together to support public education" footing.

[erinmore3775]

The relationship between the MTS and the Province of Manitoba is relatively cordial and supportive. That is because both sides respect and value one another. The No Strike/Binding Arbitration negotiation situation means the MTS and the individual Boards must bargain in good faith and fairly. It also means that the Province cannot underfund education. It cannot use teachers as scapegoats nor can the MTS daemonize the politicians. Best of all are the benefits for the parents and their children. They have a voice in the system. They can influence individual Board policy and decisions. This is the total opposite to the current BC system where MOE has total top down control, Boards have little control, and parents/students have absolutely no influence. In the Manitoba system, teachers can just teach and not have to have a union/society that feels it must be politically active. Common sense indicates that the No Strike/Binding Arbitration model is the better one. However, politics and education policy in BC seldom demonstrates common sense.

[rustled]

The relationship between the MTS and the Province of Manitoba is relatively cordial and supportive. That is because both sides respect and value one another. The No Strike/Binding Arbitration negotiation situation means the MTS and the individual Boards must bargain in good faith and fairly. It also means that the Province cannot underfund education. It cannot use teachers as scapegoats nor can the MTS daemonize the politicians. Best of all are the benefits for the parents and their children. They have a voice in the system. They can influence individual Board policy and decisions. This is the total opposite to the current BC system where MOE has total top down control, Boards have little control, and parents/students have absolutely no influence. In the Manitoba system, teachers can just teach and not have to have a union/society that feels it must be politically active. Common sense indicates that the No Strike/Binding Arbitration model is the better one. However, politics and education policy in BC seldom demonstrates common sense.

Why not advocate for moving to the Manitoba model? Sounds like a win-win-win-win to me.

[Urbane]

The relationship between the MTS and the Province of Manitoba is relatively cordial and supportive. That is because both sides respect and value one another. The No Strike/Binding Arbitration negotiation situation means the MTS and the individual Boards must bargain in good faith and fairly. It also means that the Province cannot underfund education. It cannot use teachers as scapegoats nor can the MTS daemonize the politicians. Best of all are the benefits for the parents and their children. They have a voice in the system. They can influence individual Board policy and decisions. This is the total opposite to the current BC system where MOE has total top down control, Boards have little control, and parents/students have absolutely no influence. In the Manitoba system, teachers can just teach and not have to have a union/society that feels it must be politically active. Common sense indicates that the No Strike/Binding Arbitration model is the better one. However, politics and education policy in BC seldom demonstrates common sense.

The government won't like it because they will lose a measure of control over the budget. The BCTF won't like it because they will no longer exist as a powerful union. However, the students will win and that's what counts.

[flamingfingers]

B.C.'s education minister calls binding arbitration proposal 'a ploy'

CTV Vancouver: B.C. rejects binding arbitration
B.C. rejects binding arbitration despite teachers' pending vote

Education Minister Peter Fassbender has called the teachers' push for arbitration a 'ploy.'
Calls for a full-blown general strike in support of teachers

Frustration over the B.C. teachers' strike is hitting a new high, and there are new calls for a class-action lawsuit and a general strike.
B.C. teachers to vote on binding arbitration

The government has said no, but B.C.'s teachers' union is still pushing the idea of binding arbitration.

Darcy Wintonyk
Darcy Matheson, Senior Digital Producer, CTV Vancouver
@darcynews

Published Monday, September 8, 2014 8:56AM PDT
Last Updated Monday, September 8, 2014 8:09PM PDT

B.C.’s education minister says the teachers’ union's call for binding arbitration was a “ploy” to deflect responsibility about the months-long job action.

Peter Fassbender says he feels like he’s reliving “Groundhog Day” in his dealings with the B.C. Teachers' Federation.
The minister says the BCTF “knew very well” that the province would reject binding arbitration when it was first called for, but went public with the idea anyway.

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-s-education-mi ... -1.1996675

[rustled]

The government won't like it because they will lose a measure of control over the budget. The BCTF won't like it because they will no longer exist as a powerful union. However, the students will win and that's what counts.

I'd like to think that in the long run, the provincial government, school boards and the teachers would all feel much more productive if they weren't forever perpetuating a combative, adversarial relationship.

And the general public wins, too, because we'd be far more confident that our public school system is working as it should for our students, focusing their energies on using all the resources we're entrusting to them as efficiently and effectively as possible.

[rustled]

"B.C.'s education minister calls binding arbitration proposal 'a ploy'...

Both sides would have to lay down their swords, and that's what the public should be advocating for.

It's easy to fall back into the blame game, but I'd like to think we can expect better. Of ourselves, too.

[Urbane]

The premier made some comments in a CBC Radio West interview regarding school closures. She said:

It's going to be really disappointing to any parent who has to send their child to another school. The issue for a lot of school boards is what quality of education can they provide? Sometimes it's great quality, sometimes it's not so great. If you're thinking about schools getting so small that there are many multiple grades in one class, some schools are not even able to offer a full suite of academic programs that would allow students to go on to university, there are issues around quality in some small schools, not all small schools, some do struggle though.

Good points and along the lines that I've been talking about. She also said this:

First of all, you can't look at school funding outside of enrolment. We fund school districts mostly based on how many students they have and the needs of those students. We're saying to schools, do what health care has done, do what hospitals have done: stop having all of your back office, your human resources, your accounting, let's not have 60 versions of that across the province. Let's take those administrative functions, do them cooperatively, better, integrate them. Health regions have done it, government has done it, it's time for schools to start finding those administrative savings as well. It's all taxpayers' money. I think if we can save money on administration, I think people would want us to do that.

Good points as well and many of us on here have talked about the need to lower administration costs. Here's the link to the full article:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.3513775

[bob vernon]

Cutting Education funding is just part of the overall dismantling of society that has been demanded by the 1%ers at the top. They have so much money and want it protected from being taxed and spent on the middle and lower classes. And Christie's just doing the job that the 1%ers hired her to do. Her strategy while cutting funding to Health and Education is to blame it all on somebody else. Greedy nurses and hospital workers. Greedy teachers. Greedy administration workers. Greedy parents, not you of course, who want inefficient small schools.

She'll close schools. Actually she'll force the local school boards to do the job and take the blame. And then after the next election, the cost of busing will be up next. And you'll pay for your own kids' busing, or drive them yourself, or walk.

[Smurf]

It sounds like the whole system is a mess and I only see one common denominator in the whole system and that is the government. They are the ones in control and are the ones who have to fix the situation. Are they actually trying to work with all the other parties or are they just demanding that everyone bow to them and follow their rules. It looks to me like they are the major problem in this mess across the board. Maybe it is time for them to take a larger part and be more co-operative with all instead of the bully on the block.

This attitude seems to go across the board, not just education.

[rustled]

Smurf, regarding the school closures, what would you do about the situation in Penticton? We already have 25 per cent more seats than we need in our district, even after filling empty classrooms in elementary schools with early kindergarten, daycare, and Strong Start centres. And enrollment and birth rates continue to drop.

Would you have us, the taxpayers, keep all the schools open, continuing to fund administrators and maintenance for those buildings, or would it make more sense to close some of them and direct those administrative and maintenance costs to classrooms?

Districts aren't funded per school, they're funded per student. This is true across the province. Would you change that formula and have the taxpayers fund per building instead?

Would you have the province fund capital costs on buildings we no longer need, when we could be directing those funds toward health care (a growing need) instead?

[Smurf]

I honestly have no idea because I have not followed it close enough. I have not even had grandchildren in school for years and none of them were in BC. I have read a bit and would guess that per student is reasonable but that is a guess. I feel that schools that are not being utilized properly should be closed but probably not sold. With the province growing and refugees coming and all sorts of other things they might be utilized again. I know just closing them and letting them sit is a bad alternative and again have no solutions. These are the reasons I say government has to start working with the districts etc. instead of just demanding. I know absolutely nothing about the situation in Penticton.

[erinmore3775]

Whether you choose to focus just on school closures or you choose to focus on the over all situation of schooling in BC, Smurf is correct, the overall system needs to be revamped. Consider school closures. If a Board is forced to close a school, 75% of the money saved must be returned to the Province. The Board must spend the remaining 25% ONLY on capital projects. It cannot use the money to improve programs, purchase classroom equipment, or anything else. Therefore, it is in the interest of the MOE and the Provincial budget to force school closures with its present funding formula.

One should also examine the administration costs. Currently Boards spend extremely large amounts of clerical and administrative time and money completing surveys and audits that fulfill no fiscal function at the Board or the Provincial level. One should also examine the millions the MOE has wasted on poorly performing academic and budgetary computer reporting systems.

During the current contact period with BC teachers now is the time to revamp the system. If a NO STRIKE/BINDING ARBITRATION negotiating system was adopted a non conflict relationship between teachers and the MOE could be ushered in. If the MOE re-examined its funding formula and how capital costs are applied, then local Boards would have more fiscal flexibility. However, in order for these to happen, the current provincial government must be willing to devest itself of some of its control. What do you think the chances of that happening are?