BCCT reinstates convicted sex-offender

The BC College of Teachers reinstates convicted sex-offender. Also gives teaching license to drug-dealer who spent 6 years in prison. Is the union trying to help clear the streets of dangerous offenders by putting them in classrooms? Quite a plan they have there.

The College of Teachers is not “the union.” You’ll find that a large majority of teachers in “the union” don’t like the College of Teachers.

Here’s what you said, re-written to make just as much sense as you wrote it:

“The BC College of Teachers reinstates convicted sex-offender. Also gives teaching license to drug-dealer who spent 6 years in prison. Is the BC Liberal Government trying to help clear the streets of dangerous offenders by putting them in classrooms? Quite a plan they have there.”

There ya go, that makes just as much sense.

Perhaps. But is the BCCT not controlled by the BCTF? There have been efforts to address this issue.

No, it’s controlled by its members. 20 people on the board, 12 of which are elected by members (including non-union members of the College). 8 are directly appointed by government.

I think you’ll find a big gripe amongst BCTF members is that they don’t control the BCTF.

So perhaps time to edit your title?

Why do people start threads like this without posting a link?

cbc.ca/canada/british-columb … eport.html

Of these elected members, 11 are endorsed by the BCTF. This does accord the BCTF some influence, does it not?

I think that since a majority of voters are BCTF members, I think it would be a good bet that most would vote for BCTF candidates. But I know from some conversations I’ve had with BCTF members that they feel like they have zero control of the College.

But your title isn’t accurate, and neither is your post. You’re making it sound like the union is doing these things. It isn’t, no more than the BC Liberal Government is reinstating convicted sex-offenders. The BCTF “endorses” any current member that wants to run for BCCT. That’s it.

The BCTF also “is not involved in disciplinary decisions at the college and has drawn a clear line between policy issues and disciplinary proceedings involving individual members.” It specifically does not involve itself in any of these matters.

The report was written by Don Avison. It’s important to note that he found no evidence to support the allegation that the BCTF interfered with proper discipline processes. He was clear about that.

So now do you think you should edit your title?

Could we explore this just a little bit further before the title is censored? Looking at this from another direction, only one elected member exists without BCTF endorsement. Also one of these BCCT members is the BCTF President. Yet it is argued that if any BCTF member where polled they would state that they regret that they do not have enough say or control of the College? Something doesn’t add up. If it’s my math at fault here then I will gladly consent to a change in the title. Will censorship be exercised upon this thread regardless of argument?

So it looks like the teachers’ union, which represents its members’ interests alone, has at least a majority say in the decisions of the BC College of Teachers, which is supposed to regulate teachers.

How about all the drunk drivers get together and form a committee to draft and enforce our new drunk driving legislation?

If our failing schools are to have any hope at all, we need effective and independent oversight of the teachers, to kick those out of the profession who don’t deserve to be around kids, and to hold the teachers that remain to a high standand.

You make a post stating the union is reinstating a convicted sex-offender. That isn’t true.

You say the BCTF controls the BCCT, that isn’t true at all.

If 11/20 members are “endorsed” BCTF members, that’s a function of the fact that most teachers in BC are members of the BCTF.

The BCTF does not involve itself in “disciplinary decisions at the college and has drawn a clear line between policy issues and disciplinary proceedings involving individual members.”

You also said “Also one of these BCCT members is the BCTF President.” This isn’t true.

The person who wrote this report was clear and emphatic that he found no evidence that the BCTF interfered in any disciplinary decisions.

Now, with all that being said, can you give us your evidence that the “union reinstated a convicted sex-offender” ? No? Then perhaps you are wrong?

Imagine a College of Physicians that was elected by doctors! That would be exactly the same as a bunch of drunk drivers getting together to enforce the drunk driving legislation!

Again, the BCTF doesn’t appoint these members. They are elected. If they happen to be BCTF members, they are “endorsed.” If you take the time to read the report (or even an excerpt or two), you’ll find nowhere does it say the BCTF interfered with disciplinary cases. The report’s author is clear in his statement that he found zero evidence of BCTF interfering with discipline.

But you’ll ignore that fact, of course. Right?

Sounds good. I think you’d find that the BCTF would agree with you, especially about the “effective and independent” oversight.

I remember my 8th grade English teacher, Mr. B…

Mr. B… had an orange Corvette. Every day at around 2:10 PM he would say to our class “you all need to sit and read quietly while I leave the room for a few minutes”, five minutes later we would see him driving away in his orange Corvette and our class would be done for the day.

He did this so many times (and was guilty of other transgressions, flirting with the grade 8 girls, making inappropriate comments etc) that I brought it up with my parents who lodged a complaint with the principal. A friend’s parents also spoke with the principal.

The outcome of all this was that Mr. B… could not be fired, no matter what, because he was in a union. He ended up getting transferred to a school across town, so our problem became some other kids’ problem.

Mr. B… did a lot more harm than just cheating us out of an hour’s English class. We lost respect for the system. He was an authority figure who taught a class full of kids that it is OK to cheat as long as you get away with it.

Overall I found about 1/3 of my teachers were good, motivated, interested and caring. About 1/3 were disinterested, burned out and ineffective. And about 1/3 were downright bad. As a taxpayer and a parent I will not accept this for my kids.

[quote=“MiG”]The report’s author is clear in his statement that he found zero evidence of BCTF interfering with discipline.

But you’ll ignore that fact, of course. Right?[/quote]

I guess so.

Thanks and a tip of the hat to Crazy Mike for the link. After reading the article, I agree with MIG this thread is very poorly named.

The BCTF is a creation of the employer (Govt) not the union and if it’s not doing it’s job, you can’t blame the union, it’s ultimately the Govt that needs to be held accountable for any performance issues in how it chooses to deliver services and programs not the union. If the minstry of education has lost control over the direction and actions of the College, it has the ability to do something about it.

Rather than pointing fingers at the teachers or their union, as taxpayers it’s our responsibility to hold the government responsible for the delivery of services for our tax dollars. Generally speaking this should mean that the government than holds it’s Ministers responsible and those that deliver the services…

[quote] The B.C. College of Teachers was created by the provincial government in 1987 to set standards and regulate professional conduct, qualifications and education for teachers. Its governing council has 20 members, including 12 elected by teachers.

According to MacDiarmid, Avison found the college:
•Is not regarded as independent or credible.
•Is impaired by its own internal conflicts and by meddling from the B.C. Teachers’ Federation.
•Lacks a balance between public interest and the interest of its members.
•Has not taken responsibility for developing teacher competency.
•Has lost the confidence of the education community.
Avison concluded the college needs to be reformed by the government, replaced by a new certification board or folded back into the Education Ministry. [/quote]

Read more: cbc.ca/canada/british-columb … z17bGg2RT4

OK changed. Although this sounds Potter-like in that “he who can not be mentioned” is so powerful that it stands above any scrutiny no matter what.

Radical changes needed to BC College of Teachers: Don Avison

By Janet Steffenhagen 8 Dec 2010 COMMENTS(9) Report Card

Filed under: don avison, B.C. college of teachers, Margaret MacDiarmid, B.C. Teachers’ Federation, fact finder

The Don Avison report on the B.C. College of Teachers has been released and it’s critical reading for everyone who cares about B.C. He found “significant evidence” that the B.C. Teachers’ Federation (BCTF) has interfered in the college’s business and concludes with this:

“Regrettably, it must be said that the disruption and dysfunction that has dominated the attention of the College Council, particularly since 2004, has put the core public interest, and the interest of students, at risk and it is now clearly time for some form of remedial action to be taken by government to address this situation.”

The writer of the report found no evidence that the BCTF interfered with discipline.

Either you don’t believe the report, or you have other evidence that the BCTF interfered with discipline. Which is it?

I’m hitting the snooze button.

Question: what prompted three former BCTF stalwarts - Kit Krieger, Richard Walker and Norm Nichols - to make statements about BCTF interference and control over BCCT and start a battle with their own union?

Were they appointed by the government?

Here is some additional background information:

Nichols has written an open letter to teachers, dated Jan. 17, 2010 to explain his decision. He also says he will not seek a BCTF endorsement this spring if he decides to run for re-election.

“Those of you who know me well will recognize the great deal of angst I have gone through in coming to this decision,” he writes. After outlining his lengthy union credentials, he continues: “I believe that my commitment to the B.C. Teachers Federation - its policies, goals and objectives - has been exemplary. Because of this, my decision not to seek endorsement has been one of the most difficult and trying I have had to make in my long career.”

Walker is the only councillor who has won election to the college council in recent years without a BCTF endorsement. Nichols, Krieger and Walker are now calling for an end to union endorsements of candidates as well as the regular private meetings that are held between BCTF leaders and the elected college councillors prior to every council meeting.

The BCTF held a rep assembly and there was also a meeting with elected college councillors in advance of the college meeting where this issue is expected to be hotly debated.

Of the 20 college councillors, 12 are elected teachers and eight are appointed lay people. The elected members are: Walker, Nichols, Sandra Davie, Jim Gill, Lawrence Greeff, Charley King, Jerelynn MacNeil, Rod McDonald, Lynda Nicholson, Mike Trask and Val Windsor. The appointed members are: Louise Burgart, Dede DeRose, Timothy Dunford, Peter Froese, Carol Gibson, Peter Grimmett, Andrew Leathwood and Linda Reimer.

Sounds to me like you’ve just proven yourself wrong.

You start by stating that “the union” was reinstating sex offenders.

Then you give a lot of detail about how these supposed union people are actually thinking for themselves. Even Mr. Krieger was appointed by the government, not the union. Yet, your post didn’t say “BC Liberal Government reinstating sex offenders.” did it?

But you keep ducking the obvious – the BCCT is the one doing these things, not the BCTF. As others have pointed out, the review found no evidence of union interference in discipline. Yet you keep coming back with other, irrelevent, information rather than taking that point on directly. In this case the detail you’ve provided shows that there is clearly a difference of opinion between the BCCT and BCTF. Further showing how your original post is wrong, and the title of this thread is wrong.

Why don’t you provide the evidence you have that the BCTF interefered with discipline? Because they haven’t. Before you reply with another big wall of information, answer that one question, and then go re-read your first post.