So it may sound that I'm a bleeding heart union sympathizer. HOWEVER, i do question the tactics and strategy of the BCTF union exec. I mean, its sad...each side says they're trying to do what's best for the students, but it's the students who are suffering the most from this dispute. And by walking off the job, and breaking the LAW (and yes, even if its a law you don't agree with), it certainly does set a good example to students. It also doesn't help when you tell the media that students will NOT be adversely affected if they missed up to three months of school. Ummm...REALLY? So why am i paying taxes for 10 months of schooling when the TEACHER's UNION says that 7 months is all that is really needed to get an education. It doesn't make sense to me...and quite surely to a lot of the public.
I'm not a cynic, but i'm sure there are people out there who will be suspicious of the Union's motives. Unions are big business after all. The BCTF collects millions of dollars of dues from their members, to pay for their union executives and their modern and sleek Vancouver headquarters. How to pay for all that? Smaller class sizes = more classes = more teachers = more union dues. OK...maybe i'm stretching it there... but again, its all about public perception, and I think the Union exec has to be careful in the messages they send out...
If it was up to me, lets just go back to letting school districts negotiate their own contracts with their teachers. Education is not a one-size-fits all...it never has been, and never will be. The needs of students in Point Grey Vancouver will be quite different from the Whalley inner city school in Surrey. Let districts decide how best to allocate tax dollars depending on the student needs. Teacher salaries should be kept competitive, and at *least* in sync with inflation. The gov't brought in province-wide bargaining in the mid 90's because salaries were rising to high and the NDP was reeling from mismanaging the economy, so they thought they were doing the right thing...not knowing the long term repercussions. I don't mind if teachers get paid much more than they are now. And yes, those who know me know i am somewhat biased ;-), but there is a catch. And this is where some teachers might have my head -- ultimately a teacher's pay should be directly linked to a student's performance. They need to be accountable. If the student's perform well, the teacher should get paid well. Of course, measuring performance is the hard part. It can't be done by just standardized testing. Performance should be measured by a combination of student test results *and* feedback from students, parents, principals, and peers. This is how its done at my work, and in a lot of private sector companies...its called full-circle feedback, and i think it makes a lot of sense.
Both sides need to step back and realize that the current system is severely flawed, get back to the negotiation table and leave the students out of the dispute. But its not gonna happen that easily. I think both sides are in for a long fight. If anything, the whole thing is kind of entertaining at times... i think the funniest thing i heard today was when Gordon Campbell said that the teacher's are not setting a good example to the kids by breaking the law and going on strike. A caller into a CKNW talk show then made the comment that he's sure one to talk...considering he was caught drinking and driving!!! LOL.
Ed. Note Oct. 8 -
Canadared
Stress Kitten
Darren Barefoot

