Teacher bargaining

[The Green Barbarian]

Democracy at work for the BCTF.

I didn't vote for them.

Too bad the Liberals were not as good at consulting.

Consulting who? Brain-dead union zombies?

[rustled]

OMG, KGT. You seem to want everything to fit into nice little boxes with "yes/no" checks alongside. Real life's just not like that.

Just ask your union the question: Where students' needs would be better served if we do not adhere to the ratios, will the students' needs be allowed to take precedence over the union's ratios?

I'm not trying to be a pain, it's a serious question. I want to ask a specific question. I don't understand a scenario where the students needs would be better served without ratios. Just give me one example so I understand the question. And who is to determine whether "students' needs are better served" - the govt? Who decides that?

You want to ask a specific question, ask the one I gave you. What good does it do to use one specific example, when every year across our province there will be plenty of different examples?

Indeed, who should decide how your students' needs are better served: you and the staff at your school along with your school district, or the BCTF?

[George+]

There is currently no consultation on CSC.

The current system is not working

That is why teachers want specific numbers.

[Urbane]

There is currently no consultation on CSC.

The current system is not working

That is why teachers want specific numbers.

You know, George, for someone who says he's never taught you should listen to teachers who have had success with special needs students. That would be me and most of my colleagues. Were there some teachers during my career who were opposed to integration and who were not good working with SN students? Yes, and that's just one additional reason (beyond the obvious ones) why the "specific numbers" plan does not work. Your plan, the BCTF plan, doesn't work George. Not very well anyway. It's too inefficient, too expensive, and it doesn't allow the flexibility to serve the best interests of students. Anyway, the government will never agree to the old language so, as NDP'er David Schreck has been saying for months, it's time for the BCTF to get the best deal it can and move on. Let's get the kids back in September. And please stop selling teachers, CEA's, and administrators short by telling everyone that the current system isn't working because there's a lot more working than not working.

[The Green Barbarian]

Shame on you George. Shame indeed. You weren't in the class room and so your really just spit balling here or blindly believing the union blather. That's why no one is buying anything you say.

[KGT]

You want to ask a specific question, ask the one I gave you. What good does it do to use one specific example, when every year across our province there will be plenty of different examples?

Indeed, who should decide how your students' needs are better served: you and the staff at your school along with your school district, or the BCTF?

With no example, so I have no clue what kind of situation could arise where the solution isn't ensuring we have enough specialists, then I have to answer no.

Who should decide? Teachers and admin together. But there should still be a maximum number of students per counsellor, or per resource teacher, or whomever.

Currently, we have input and that is all - is has no value because every decision has to be made for financial reason and not for what's best for kids. I can tell you exactly how it works. I tell my principal - "I have too many needy children in my class this year. I need to know that the resource teacher is going to be able to provide some weekly direct instructions to my lowest kids so they have one-on-one time to learn with a skilled specialist." But my principal says, "I'm sorry, our district only gives us 1 day a week with the resource teacher. I've asked for more, but they said they can't afford it."

We need to know that decisions about student support will not be made based solely for financial reasons. Our school did not have a student counsellor for an entire year because the district didn't want to hire one when our counsellor went off on sick leave. And entire year. That should not happen.

So long as there are no minimum staffing ratios, there will be important decisions made that are not in the best interests of kids, because the district cannot afford to hire the number of teachers that are needed to properly help those kids.

[KGT]

Sure as hell shouldn't be the BCTF.

Nobody said the BCTF will make those decisions. All we want are MINIMUM staffing ratios. Then teachers and admin sit down together and figure out how best to use those resources every sept. We are always able to go higher than the ratio, but not lower.

[KGT]

OMG, KGT. You seem to want everything to fit into nice little boxes with "yes/no" checks alongside. Real life's just not like that.

Just ask your union the question: Where students' needs would be better served if we do not adhere to the ratios, will the students' needs be allowed to take precedence over the union's ratios?

OK I thought of a specific scenario that maybe you are worried about.

We say we want a maximum of 350 kids for each counsellor and a tiny district has 360 kids. What then?

My guess is there are two options.

1. Stay with the 360/1 ratio and pull in extra counselling staff when and if they are needed for emergency situations.
2. Hire one f/t and one p/t counsellor to share the job. There are classroom teachers who also have counselling degrees. They can (and do) work part time in the classroom and p/t as a counsellor.

[LordEd]

two options.
1. Stay with the 360/1 ratio and pull in extra counselling staff when and if they are needed for emergency situations.
2. Hire one f/t and one p/t counsellor to share the job. There are classroom teachers who also have counselling degrees. They can (and do) work part time in the classroom and p/t as a counsellor.

Option 1 is in violation of the hard (proposed) rule and would be a grievance or require a mediator (cost). The union is not expected to work to rule, so mediation will go nowhere.
Option 2(a) Hire a PT counselor will cost 50% extra because the student ratio is off by 2.78%.
Option 2(b) mixed jobs increases the workload of a teacher and would be filed as a grievance. The union would like demand that the teacher be paid counselor wages full time in case a student approaches them off-hours.

[KGT]

Option 1 is in violation of the hard (proposed) rule and would be a grievance or require a mediator (cost). The union is not expected to work to rule, so mediation will go nowhere.
Option 2(a) Hire a PT counselor will cost 50% extra because the student ratio is off by 2.78%.
Option 2(b) mixed jobs increases the workload of a teacher and would be filed as a grievance. The union would like demand that the teacher be paid counselor wages full time in case a student approaches them off-hours.

Why not have an option in the contract to go beyond the ratios when both sides agree it's in the best interests of kids? Have you seen the govt propose anything like that if they don't want hard caps?

Yes, the teacher must be paid as a counsellor when he or she is working as a counsellor, or if they are called off their job to work overtime as a counsellor. That already happens anyway.

If you're worried about the ratio being off by 2.78% then hire two p/t counsellors.

We already have tons of mixed jobs - I've done them myself. I've had 3 jobs in 2 different schools. Not grievable.

[Urbane]

All of these rules, ratios, firm numbers etc. etc. etc. still elbow out common sense and professional judgment and that can't be allowed to happen. It should be obvious that not all special needs students are not the same and all we have to do is look at those twelve Ministry categories to understand that demands such as "there shall be a maximum of three special needs students in any class" are counterproductive. KGT can come up with all sorts of "work-arounds" that might or might not be approved by the BCTF but the fact remains that those rules, ratios, firm numbers etc. etc. etc. are not in the best interests of students.

[rustled]

How about the under-served areas of the province, where the SLP the students need can't/won't show up on a regular basis, or spends more time on the highway than working with the students. Okay to train CEAs instead, or no?

There are countless examples, KGT. I understand your refusal to ask the question I suggested. You know full well that you can't honestly say the BCTF will ever put student needs before union needs. Students' needs are not their responsibility. That's the reality of it.

I understand that it's easier for teachers to say "we're having a tough time getting our students the support they need; why not let our union do it for us." But if what you truly want is to get students the help they need in the classroom, you're trying to put the wrong people in the drivers' seat.

By making this an issue for your union to haggle over on a provincial level, you're making it harder--not easier--for school districts to lobby for what their students actually need. And you're making it harder--not easier--to get involved parents and concerned taxpayers like myself to back you up.

[KGT]

How about the under-served areas of the province, where the SLP the students need can't/won't show up on a regular basis, or spends more time on the highway than working with the students. Okay to train CEAs instead, or no?

There are countless examples, KGT. I understand your refusal to ask the question I suggested. You know full well that you can't honestly say the BCTF will ever put student needs before union needs. Students' needs are not their responsibility. That's the reality of it.

I understand that it's easier for teachers to say "we're having a tough time getting our students the support they need; why not let our union do it for us." But if what you truly want is to get students the help they need in the classroom, you're trying to put the wrong people in the drivers' seat.

By making this an issue for your union to haggle over on a provincial level, you're making it harder--not easier--for school districts to lobby for what their students actually need. And you're making it harder--not easier--to get involved parents and concerned taxpayers like myself to back you up.

No a CEA can not substitute for an SLP. Heck, I can't even do it. I have no training as an SLP. It takes years of speciality training.

I did answer your question. I said no. I even speculated on a possible scenario that you might think could come up and suggested ways to solve it.

We don't want to union to make the decisions. We want minimum staffing levels that districts must adhere to and then we want teachers and admin working together to decide how best to use those resources.

[jjflood]

Dont you understand KGT, its not about finding a solution with Green Barby and the rest of his neocon friends. The current proposal on the table from the BCTF(teachers) allows for caps to be broken on a case by case scenario with mediation as the last resort when no other way can be found. In fact the proposal gives 5 different ways to negotiate past the limits that are proposed. The real issue is about (not) allowing teachers to have a say in CSC. And finding a way to break the TERRIBLE UNION! LOL They wont concede anything you say, no matter how may examples or facts you give to them because it ultimately is not about finding a solution to the dispute, but about dragging teachers and their TERRIBLE UNION through the mud!

[rustled]

No a CEA can not substitute for an SLP. Heck, I can't even do it. I have no training as an SLP. It takes years of speciality training.

I did answer your question. I said no. I even speculated on a possible scenario that you might think could come up and suggested ways to solve it.

We don't want to union to make the decisions. We want minimum staffing levels that districts must adhere to and then we want teachers and admin working together to decide how best to use those resources.

So rather than train CEAs (and yes, it actually can be done by properly trained CEAs; I did it as a CEA for exactly the reason I described to you), the students just have to do without? What kind of solution is that?

Your suggestion basically said "we come up with levels and then if the BCTF agrees there's a need, we can go outside those ratios." I say it will never be in their interests to agree that there's a need other than their own. They're a teachers' union, not a students' organization. As LordEd pointed out, mediation is expensive and it doesn't serve the students.

I say, come up with levels. If there's a need to go outside those levels, the decision is made not by the BCTF, not by the government, but by a third-party, arms-length entity. That entity consists of people who have no axe to grind, who have nothing to gain, who have no one controlling their thinking. These people are simply concerned with providing the best possible services directly to our students.

I'd put Urbane on the board because he has classroom experience and manages to rise above the "us vs. them" kind of thinking. I'd put Erinmore on it, too. And LordEd could help them keep the numbers real. Heck, Flaming might want to be part of something positive.