I will try to continue even though you appear to be resistant. On page 32 of this report you will see Avison’s six key findings - vancouversun.com/business/Co … story.html What appears to be being said through all this is that the BCCT and the BCTF aren’t independent entities which has casued (in part) for the BCCT to become dysfunctional.
You said “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.” and “Union reinstates convicted sex-offender.”
You apparently thought the BCTF and BCCT were the same thing.
Then you claimed the BCTF controlled the BCCT. Then you claimed that the majority of members of the board were controlled by the BCTF.
Then you changed your mind, and posted information contradicting that. Apparently, a majority of the members of the board are not BCTF representatives. Even the former BCTF president (Krieger) was appointed by the Government to head the BCCT.
So tell us how “the union” reinstated a convicted sex-offender? I predict you will ignore that question, just like gum ignored mig’s question. Because the answer is that it didn’t.
Zounds! You have a shrill sound to your type. All right, I will have to concede to not knowing what decision was made by whom. The reason for this is attributed to oddly similar circumstances as the City. Reformers within BCCT have tried to move to a more transparent body but have been thwarted in their efforts. These reformers have sent signals that something is amiss but forces are at work to suppress.
I’m not sure that there’s any direct link to interference in a disciplinary situation, but in the article it does pretty clearly state that the report found that the BCCT is “impaired by its own internal conflicts and by meddling from the B.C. Teachers’ Federation.” (Emphasis my own.)
So are we saying that the meddling is there, just not in disciplinary situations?
[quote=“eccentric”]I’m not sure that there’s any direct link to interference in a disciplinary situation, but in the article it does pretty clearly state that the report found that the BCCT is “impaired by its own internal conflicts and by meddling from the B.C. Teachers’ Federation.” (Emphasis my own.)
So are we saying that the meddling is there, just not in disciplinary situations?[/quote]
Yes, it appears to suggest this in the articles. Here is a list of organizations currently expressing these concerns: the BC Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils, the BC School Trustees’ Association, the Federation of Independent School Associations, the BC School Superintendents’ Association and the BC Principals’ and Vice-Principals’ Association
Today’s news - vancouversun.com/news/Teache … story.html Huge concern about the cleaning-up of child pornography on a laptop.
After reading the report I find it to be very biased.
[quote]Lambert said the BCTF does not get in the way of the college’s disciplinary efforts. “We ensure that a member is provided due process, we protect members from arbitrary or capricious allegations, we provide members with representation – that is our function as a union,” she said.
“But as a union, we have never and would never intervene or intercede or in any way interfere with the processes of the college in disciplining or investigating any individual member.”
Read more: timescolonist.com/news/Teach … z17fvzep6U
[/quote]
Having been involved in cases that even union members didn’t want to support, the union, quite properly, maintained that every union member should receive the same treatment, whatever the union representatives’ own opinions.
This is not obstructionism, but due diligence. It shouldn’t be any other way.
Way too much spin for me.
With such damning and damaging information coming forth about alleged operations, from every educational partner, what will likely happen now is for the president to release statements of outrage, shock and dismay in the media. Thus beginning an organized retreat followed by a subsequent revision of events.
I was going to stay out of this. As an ex-teacher, the College of Teachers meant nothing to me other than an organization that took $90 a year out of my pay cheque. It was forced on teachers with little input. The battles that the BCTF and the College appear to be fighting mean little to me and most other ordinary teachers.
What I do resent is the implication that the union and by extension its individual members are somehow protecting sex offenders, drug dealers, incompetents etc etc and are somehow placing children at risk. That is far from the truth.
I have no problem having teachers abide by a higher standard than some other professions. We get angry when colleagues sully our name by their poor behaviour, especially criminal behaviour because we know how the public will react to the profession as a whole. But as Soggy pointed out, due process has to be guaranteed. Everybody is entitled to be represented fairly whether its Robert Pickton, a drunk driving premier or some dumbass teacher.
I have a real problem with the title of this thread. It is clear that the union did not reinstate a convicted sex offender. To the original poster: are you unwilling or unable to change the title of this thread? If you are unable to edit the title of the thread I can do that for you. Please let me know immediately if you are unable to edit the title of this thread.
Care to elaborate?
dabbledon,
I’m moving this thread to the wasteland. I have grave concerns with the title of this thread, it is inaccurate. If you wish to have your thread moved back to the main boards you are free to let me know. The thread title should be something similar to “BCCT reinstates convicted sex-offender”.
Thank you.
[quote=“gum”]Seems like there is a double standard here.
This board is a non-stop slander-fest. Municipal politicians, local small businessmen, the provincial government, the Harper Conservatives, the Catholic Church, the local Salvation Army, and countless other individuals and organizations are abused and slandered on these boards regularly and in the vilest fashion.
However should someone dare to criticize the powerful teachers’ union, woe betide them.
I have fond memories and a lot of respect for many of the great teachers I have had. I think that many teachers though, and their powerful union, need to be reined in.[/quote]
Who is saying that you can’t criticize the BCTF. Just be accurate in your criticism. The union is not putting sex offenders and drug dealers back in the classroom. I personally resent that accusation because as a member of the BCTF I am tarred by that brush. If you want to criticize the BCTF for something they have actually done, then feel free.
And just because people have criticized other groups, it hasn’t stopped people from defending them. People have defended council, small businesses, the Salvation Army (look at the posts in the other thread) and any other group that has been knocked. There is no double standard here.
Some people seem to need a lesson on what is real bigotry.
Pass around the mirrors if necessary.
I am unable to execute a title change. Go ahead and create the change if you feel you must but the questionable involvement still exists.
[quote=“Hoser”]
Care to elaborate?[/quote]
The now diminished reformers want the secretive meetings to stop. They argued that the Ontario College has a transparent system but BC continues to meet behind closed doors where senior BCTF administrators, it is now known, are briefed by the BCTF endorsed councilors.
Thanks for the reply.
If any of you have worked with children and families, this might sound familiar.
Imagine a child. A child who is good but who has a bit of a temper and is a little big for his age. A child who has had a decent but slightly indulgent upbringing.
A number of other children, some of the child’s relatives and a number of the child’s supervisors come to you with reports of bullying by this child. This child has not had a history of bullying in the past but you are aware of his temperament. You look into the allegations and find the child adamantly denying any such doings and that most relatives support the child and believe the accusations are unfounded.
You decide to monitor the situation and find some basis for the accusation of bullying. After this, you approach the child again and he again denies. You even go so far as to include a golden rule saying that telling the truth is a very respectable thing to do.
The child continues to deny any wrong-doing. More complaints of his bullying are reported.
I can’t seem to find any information about the sex offender mentioned. Why were they re-instated? Are they presently working in a class room? How the hell can that be allowed? Were parents advised of the person’s conviction? Why would the BCCT allow the person to get their credentials back? Did the BCFT represent the person in disciplinary hearings?
I’m all for second chances but allowing a person that offended against students once back into the same position only creates the potential for further victims. BCCT, don’t gamble with our children.