It’s #NotAboutTheMoney to the teachers - were far more concerned about as many as 10,000 caring adults being removed from schools as well as losses in arts and tech programming, since they’re always the first to get his. In the face of a tradesperson shortage, even!
The mandatory e-learning will also be massively detrimental on a broad scale; it’s a mess pedagogically and will leave many students in the lurch, either without the very necessary teacher guidance or unable to access necessary technology. Mandatory e-learning is inequitable.
And perhaps most destructive to the government’s position, @Sflecce has even admitted that a) research suggests that class sizes ARE important, and b) that e-learning is not for everyone. He insists that remuneration is the issue because it is now his only option.
Further, having learned of the government’s intention to monetize and probably privatize e-learning, they’ve shown a failure to understand the overarching purpose of public education’s role.
Minister Lecce was educated at St. Michael’s College, which touts a student:teacher ratio of 14:1. This, by and large, is also the most common reason given when parents who are able choose private school for their children.
Lower student-teacher ratios and smaller classes also have significant knock-on benefits too: increased contact with the teacher, stronger relationships (arguably the key factor in student success), reduced behaviour and discipline issues.
Personal aside: having taught 11U physics classes anywhere from 24 to 39 students, I know which option I - and the students - would prefer.
Further to that, a large number of #OSSTF members are Educational Assistants, who face some of the highest numbers of workplace lost-time incidents in the public sector (more than police!)
Workload and safety are major concerns. Bill 124 is a major concern because of the threat it represents to collective bargaining for EVERY public sector worker, not just teachers.
I’m having further trouble reconciling the inconsistent messaging from the government. It’s about the deficit, but education spending has a known positive impact on both revenue and reducing other public spending - it’s an investment with a 30% return above what you put in.
It’s about reducing the deficit, but revenue streams are being cut. It’s about the deficit, but they’ll pay above a teacher’s daily rate to compensate parents for a strike day. (Aside: affected parents should ABSOLUTELY take that money).
But if the government is willing to spend more than a teacher’s salary on ‘compensation for affected parents’...it doesn’t add up.
Between 5000 and 10000 fewer teachers is anywhere from 30,000 to 60,000 lost course sections in secondary school. Some that make high school tolerable for some students, some that make it vibrant, some that get students into their post-secondary program of choice.
10000 fewer teachers is 10000 fewer lifelines for students in crisis, 10000 fewer band directors, coaches, club organizers, counselors, sounding boards, entertainers, supporters.
10000 fewer caring adults.
10000 fewer caring adults.
No raise is going to convince me to accept that.
The government’s positions - which were declared unilaterally, without bargaining, and without warning or consultation - can’t be seen as anything except an attempt to erode the strength of our education system.
Lecce’s own comments about e-learning and class sizes support this.
Lecce’s own comments about e-learning and class sizes support this.
The government, very plainly, is not in it for the kids.
#OntEd, @osstf, @OSSTFD20TEACHER, @OECTAProv, @ETFOeducators, and any other teachers following me, please give this a retweet and boost the signal. There are a lot of great teachers out in the cold today fighting the good fight because they know what matters and what’s right.
