,
25 tweets,
7 min read
Read on Twitter
2. My understanding is that the govt/employer (represented by the BC Public School Employers' Assn - "BCPSEA") is proposing class size and composition language that would be applied to all school districts, and that this is a change, not a concession, to current language.
3. Following the @BCTF'S 2016 victory in the Supreme Court of Canada, old contract language (pre- 2002) was restored. Bargaining used to be done locally, so contract provisions varied from district to district.
4. Some districts, like the @VSB39, have clear and detailed language when it comes to class size and composition, while others have weaker class size language and some have nothing regarding composition. BCSPEA wants to "change" that by giving all districts common language.
5. Which makes sense, on the surface. As always, the devil is in the details and the implementation. Because these "changes" have to be cost neutral, if it results it improvements for some districts, and assuming they were staffing only to mean minimum contract requirements
6. They could have to add staffing to meet new provincial language (if the BCPSEA proposal makes it into an agreement). Where would the funding come from the add that staffing? Because if its a cost-neutral proposal, it has to come from somewhere within #bced, I assume.
7 I see I made a typo in #5 - it should read "to meet minimum contract requirements" - apologies
8. Because that proposed common class size/comp language, along with ratios for non-enrolling teachers (special ed, counsellors, libarians, ELL etc), is weaker than currently exists in many districts, including Vancouver, would the money be pulled from those districts?
9. To pay for other districts to hire the teachers they may need to add to comply with new contract language? Would that mean teachers in some districts would be laid off, while others would need to hire?
10. And would that mean that teaching and learning conditions in some districts (again, like @VSB39) would worsen, with larger class sizes and less support for students with special needs, fewer librarians, counsellors etc
11. While others might see some improvements?
12. What would this to to districts' ability to organize schools, classrooms and staffing for Sept? That work is already well underway, If class size maximums change and composition provisions change, and funding is re-allocated among districts, that's a logistical nightmare
13. I could see support for common CSC language, but for also agreeing that any districts that had previously bargained stronger language could keep it, so this doesn't become and exercise in creating winners and losers, by robbing Peter to pay Paul.
After what teachers went through since 2002, and how hard they fought to have their rights restored, govt & BCPSEA should understand that asking some locals to give up their class size and comp provisions for something weaker, that would mean some of their members being laid off
I missed numbering my last tweet, so this shall be # 14. Asking some locals to give up their restored CSC provisions for something weaker, that will result in their members possibly being laid off, is a total non starter that will not be agreed to. Full stop.
15. I'm making assumptions here that districts will staff to minimums required, as opposed to what students need. When I was on the @VSB39, we staffed over minimums in non-enrolling because we believed students needed more counsellors, librarians etc
17. ...too many counsellors, librarians, resource teachers etc. In fact it was consistently the opposite. Then someone explained to me that he was referring to the minimum required by contract language. I've come to realize that's the sad state of the culture and attitude
18. Of many #bced administrators: that the goal is to staff to the minimum you can get away with under contract language, which has nothing to do with what students' needs. It's disheartening how little you hear about students' needs from administrators. It's all about the adults
19. If government wants to improve class size and composition, it can fund improvements any time it wants to. It doesn't need a contract with the @bctf to do that. The teachers' contract is an agreement about salaries and working conditions. CSC is a workload issue.
20. So whatever makes it into the new contract, districts must, of course, abide by those, but trustees should also direct their senior managers to also consider students' needs. Staffing to the minimum permitted under contracts has become a practice because of years of austerity
21. And demonstrates why it's so important to get strong and clear language, as without that, students learning conditions and supports would be much worse than they are now. All of us who care about #bced should thank teachers for fighting this fight, year after year.
22. Because you can be darn sure that without teachers' resistance to "changes", our #bced system would not still be as as good as it is. It would be far worse if they hadn't pushed back so hard. Too few at the top seem to really put students' needs first, which is a sad reality.
23. I see the critics are out, slamming teachers again. We all need to be allies and stand up for teachers and remember how much we really owe them.
24. I shudder to think of where our school system would be now without the teachers digging in and fighting for better class sizes, composition, and non-enrolling positions. Anyway. End of thread. What do you think? Am I understanding the gist of the #BCPSEA proposals correctly?
