Crazy Train,
You are absolutely correct to point out the duties of a teacher - during the regular work day. However, starting Wednesday job action begins and it will not be business as usual. Before 72 hour notice was given and before job action can begin, both sides appeared before the LRB to argue ‘essential services’. I’m sure both the BCTF and the employer made strong argues for their side. The LRB has made a decision about what are considered essential services and the BCTF has moved ahead with outlining their proposed actions.
The question is: is providing supervision during non-instructional time an ‘essential service’? According to the LRB - it appears not…and I believe there is a process available if the employer believes the job action contravenes the ruling.
The concern is this District’s response to job action: to cancel recess and begin the day 15 minutes later. This response is different than previously where administration and other appropriate staff worked together to provide supervision before school, at recess and after school. Administration has decided they are unwilling to provide supervision at this time. Why?
As for cancelling recess and beginning the day 15 minutes later? Why, when there appears to be no need to do so since Instructional time is usually defined as a minimum number of minutes required.
[quote=“chien22”]
The question is: is providing supervision during non-instructional time an ‘essential service’? According to the LRB - it appears not…
…The concern is this District’s response to job action: to cancel recess and begin the day 15 minutes later. This response is different than previously where administration and other appropriate staff worked together to provide supervision before school, at recess and after school. Administration has decided they are unwilling to provide supervision at this time. Why?
As for cancelling recess and beginning the day 15 minutes later? Why, when there appears to be no need to do so since Instructional time is usually defined as a minimum number of minutes required.[/quote]
Let’s detach from the term “essential service” that is so widely tossed about in this day and age and ask ourselves, Is adult supervision of school children during recess required? Absolutely, it is essential that these children are supervised. Now those who typically are tasked with this responsibility are no longer willing to do so. So now what? There are undoubtedly options including the one being chosen. You the teachers are operating within your rights, and so are those that have chosen to cancel recess. For every action there is an equal reaction and this move has entirely to do with the teachers job action. I’m not necessarily against the teachers but don’t sit up here on your high horse and blame the recess cancellation on those who have inherited the job of managing the schools within the mess surrounding labour negotiations. By all means do what you have to do to get a fair contract but also be clear that the teachers are due their fair share of blame for the current situation.
[quote=“Crazy Train”]
[quote=“chien22”]
The question is: is providing supervision during non-instructional time an ‘essential service’? According to the LRB - it appears not…
…The concern is this District’s response to job action: to cancel recess and begin the day 15 minutes later. This response is different than previously where administration and other appropriate staff worked together to provide supervision before school, at recess and after school. Administration has decided they are unwilling to provide supervision at this time. Why?
As for cancelling recess and beginning the day 15 minutes later? Why, when there appears to be no need to do so since Instructional time is usually defined as a minimum number of minutes required.[/quote]
Let’s detach from the term “essential service” that is so widely tossed about in this day and age and ask ourselves, Is adult supervision of school children during recess required? Absolutely, it is essential that these children are supervised. Now those who typically are tasked with this responsibility are no longer willing to do so. So now what? There are undoubtedly options including the one being chosen. You the teachers are operating within your rights, and so are those that have chosen to cancel recess. For every action there is an equal reaction and this move has entirely to do with the teachers job action. I’m not necessarily against the teachers but don’t sit up here on your high horse and blame the recess cancellation on those who have inherited the job of managing the schools within the mess surrounding labour negotiations. By all means do what you have to do to get a fair contract but also be clear that the teachers are due their fair share of blame for the current situation.[/quote]
Totally agree with your post Crazy Train.
To Crazy Train and Gracies Mom,
From the BCPSEA web site (the employer’s association), a quote from the LRB ruling:
“With respect to any before/after school, recess or noon hour supervision normally provided
by teachers, before/after school supervision related only to bus drop off and pick up, and
recess and noon hour supervision will continue to be provided by teachers subject to the
Employer utilizing management and excluded staff to the best extent possible to replace
teachers for these activities. The utilization of management and excluded personnel will be
discussed locally. If the matter cannot be resolved at the local level, either party may refer
the matter to the Board for mediation/adjudication. The principles set out in BCLRB No.
B417/2001, B431/2001 and B194/2011 shall apply to this decision.”
You will note: 1) teachers are required to provide supervision when the employer has used management and excluded staff to replace teachers for these activities. Has management even attempted to cover supervision?
2) there is a resolution process in place should the issue not be able to be resolved locally: has a resolution been attempted (management / PRDTU discussions), if so, and the discussion failed has the resolution process with the LRB been begun?
So the questions still remain although more specifically, why has Administration cancelled recess…and prior to cancelling recess did it meet the expectations of the LRB decision? 2) Why did they change the start time to the day?
In the Okanagan they decided to send the kids HOME 15 minutes earlier instead:
Last time this kind of thing happened, I was called in to cover recess, as I wasn’t part of the union. All the principals and other district staff covered recess and the other supervision duties. Eventually the district just hired people to cover the supervision.
What did the Prince Rupert district do last time this happened?
As for being ‘not impartial’ – no problem. I’ve been both part of the union and management in BC, having been both a teacher and principal. How about the Supreme Court, are they impartial enough for you, Gracie’s Mom? courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/ … 21cor1.htm
There’s no chance that the government is going to back down, no matter what the courts say. I’m sure even their own lawyers told them that the legislation (getting rid of class size limits, support for special needs students, etc,. in contracts) was illegal. Three times the courts have said that the actions were illegal, and the government persists. How much is this going to cost the taxpayers? Do they even care? So far it’s cost 10 years of court costs, and a fine.
Why would they do this when they know that their actions are unconstitutional? Guess who was education minister when the legislation was passed?
Clark.
MIG asked: ‘What did the Prince Rupert district do last time this happened?’
I believe that they followed the LRB ruling and provided supervision before school, at recess, and after school…as was expected then, and is expected by the LRB in the upcoming job action.
Unlike the situation you refer to, I do believe the District will not need to hire others to provide supervision because teachers are required to fill in…if and when all District administration and management resources are used to cover supervision.
However, currently the questions remain…why did the District choose to cancel recess and re-structure start times?
Bye the bye hitest…bet that was just a lucky guess 
The BCTF is on the wrong side of the argument…you will be hard pressed to find a BC voter who will agree with the demands of the BCTF at this point in time.
Simply put, teachers in this province have it pretty damn good if you ask me. They can top out in the 80,000+ range and get 3 months off (July/August/Winter & Spring Break).
[quote=“bthedog”]The BCTF is on the wrong side of the argument…you will be hard pressed to find a BC voter who will agree with the demands of the BCTF at this point in time.
Simply put, teachers in this province have it pretty damn good if you ask me. They can top out in the 80,000+ range and get 3 months off (July/August/Winter & Spring Break).[/quote]
Watch again this highly popular video by Sir Ken Robinson.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U)
Did you watch it in its entirety? No? Perhaps just a few moments to reacquaint. The opening two points are the most salient - economic and cultural.
Now, consider the following. Much has been done to move education towards the learning needs of and for the 21st century. Even though a good deal has been done, there is yet a long way to go. Evidently it is a never-ending story. Where is this going, you ask?
Consider the possibility that Sir Ken Robinson is speaking about all elements of the educational system being out of step with the date.
How can a 19th century core education system effectively deliver on 21st century needs? Well, Sir Ken says that it cannot. Fine. Yet here we are, attempting to advance education while being tethered to the trusty old Teacher’s Union. The core BCTF tenants we see in action were created shortly after the AFT (American Federation of Teachers) in and around 1917. And there it sits. An unmovable rock. A real 19th century millstone about our necks.
Jim Iker, much like Pauline Marois, is unable to let the notion of ‘pure laine’ go. Grey Canadians have had their shot and the new Canadians seem unwilling to settle the old grudges. The economic forces and cultural ‘genes’ of the 19th century have evolved and it might be time for the BCTF make that paradigm shift out of the 19th century.
Will the BCTF (like the PQ) recognize their best before date before it’s too late?
[quote=“bthedog”]The BCTF is on the wrong side of the argument…you will be hard pressed to find a BC voter who will agree with the demands of the BCTF at this point in time.
Simply put, teachers in this province have it pretty damn good if you ask me. They can top out in the 80,000+ range and get 3 months off (July/August/Winter & Spring Break).[/quote]
So basically it’s ok to break the law, if the victims make 80,000 a year? Does that apply to all laws?
How much do you make a year? Is it ok if I take away some of your rights if you make enough money?
Who cares what the courts say, right?
In today’s news, Canada has just surpassed the United States as the wealthiest Middle Class in the world.
The median income for a Canadian Middle Class family is just under $70,000. Middle Class range is from anywhere from $60,000 to $85,000 placing single teachers near the very top of the Class. To make it to the Upper Class, a family income would need to pass the $125,000 mark or someone in the family would need to become part of the Central Office. A teaching couple or a teacher and another family member earning low Middle Class wages would take this family over the top. If benefits were included in this calculation, a single teacher with decent seniority has joined the Upper Class in Canada.
Might be a reason why is the public is not all that interested in meeting BCTF demands.
[quote=“MiG”]
So basically it’s ok to break the law, if the victims make 80,000 a year? [/quote]
What law was broken?
I agree with much of PinchLoaf’s post.
As a taxpayer I would be more than willing to give the teachers a pay raise if we had accountability and could get rid of those who don’t measure up. But therein lies the problem; the union would never agree to that. Teachers will always be judged to the lowest common denominator, and if I was a good teacher I would be pissed off that the union would choose to protect the deadbeats. I get that it is very hard to measure performance when there are so many variables, but it isn’t impossible.
The old style model of union vs. management is not only outdated, but in the case of education it is innapropriate. You have two sides using kids as a rope in a tug of war and both sides claiming their position is for the best interest of the students. I don’t believe in strikes or lockouts because they always involve harm to an innocent third party. And in this day and age of trying to eradicate bullying, I find it distasteful to use such a tactic.
[quote=“MiG”]
[quote=“bthedog”]The BCTF is on the wrong side of the argument…you will be hard pressed to find a BC voter who will agree with the demands of the BCTF at this point in time.
Simply put, teachers in this province have it pretty damn good if you ask me. They can top out in the 80,000+ range and get 3 months off (July/August/Winter & Spring Break).[/quote]
So basically it’s ok to break the law, if the victims make 80,000 a year? Does that apply to all laws?
How much do you make a year? Is it ok if I take away some of your rights if you make enough money?
Who cares what the courts say, right?[/quote]
If I was making 80,000+ for 9 full months of work (on tax payer money) I wouldn’t be bitching in the first place and I certainly wouldn’t be biting the hand that feeds me… I would consider myself privileged and content to be making that type of money. There is a reason why the BCTF comes off as the most greedy of all public unions in this province…they have become wildly out of touch.
You guys bitching about wages are completely missing the boat. 80k is not a lot of money, trades people even apprentices who actually work a full year are making 80-150k/yr. In Prince Rupert 80k seems like a lot of money but if you take that same salary and move to vancouver I think you will find things change quite a bit.
Personally I’d like to see wages pegged at inflation and maybe a slight cost of living allowance or something of the sort. I think class size and composition are much larger issues for both teachers and students. Its hard for teachers to teach and students to learn when there are large classes or more special needs kids. I think you may find the more reasonable teachers would be willing to move on the remuneration a bit if their jobs were being made easier.
It might however be time for a better pay structure where teachers are paid less overall but more expensive centers like vancouver are paid a cost of living incentive.
If BC wanted to pay teachers $80k to babysit 40-50 students, spend countless hours after work marking assignments, exams, etc, and spend more hours after work preparing for next day’s lesson, I would seriously look out-of-province for work. Maybe even a career change…
I remember being in the Math 12 course with 49 others in the classroom. I’m amazed the teacher didn’t have a mental break down during the whole semester.
She was a good teacher.
[quote=“jesus”]You guys bitching about wages are completely missing the boat. 80k is not a lot of money, trades people even apprentices who actually work a full year are making 80-150k/yr. In Prince Rupert 80k seems like a lot of money but if you take that same salary and move to vancouver I think you will find things change quite a bit.
Personally I’d like to see wages pegged at inflation and maybe a slight cost of living allowance or something of the sort. I think class size and composition are much larger issues for both teachers and students. Its hard for teachers to teach and students to learn when there are large classes or more special needs kids. I think you may find the more reasonable teachers would be willing to move on the remuneration a bit if their jobs were being made easier.
It might however be time for a better pay structure where teachers are paid less overall but more expensive centers like vancouver are paid a cost of living incentive.[/quote]
I am sure there are thousands of people living on Vancouver who would gladly take 80k a year and not have one damn thing to bitch about.
[quote=“bthedog”]
I am sure there are thousands of people living on Vancouver who would gladly take 80k a year and not have one damn thing to bitch about.[/quote]
Sure… and they can do it too all they need to do is go to school or take some training. You know, earn it… but in vancouver 80k is more like 40k up here.
BC teachers are some of the lowest paid teachers in all of Canada. Alberta teachers make $20,000 more per year than BC teachers. Just a statement of fact to counter your anti-union rhetoric. We get it, you hate unions.