Cranbrook District Teachers' Association
Suite 202, 105 9th Avenue South
Cranbrook, BC V1C 2M1
Phone: 489-3717, Fax: 489-3727
Office Hours:  8:30 a.m. - 4:30 pm
Follow us on Twitter @ WendyLTurner twitter
“Any election advertising on this site has been authorized by the Cranbrook District Teachers' Association, registered sponsor under the Election Act, Wendy Turner, President, 250-489-3717.”

Wendy Turner
Member at Large
Pasted Graphic 1


'Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful citizens can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has.' Margaret Mead
Check out the new photos in the Album!

Bill 22 hurts students and attacks teachers’ rights 
Bill 22 makes working and learning conditions even worse 

  • repeals and reintroduces parts of Bills 27/28 that stripped class-size and composition contract language and were ruled unconstitutional by the BC Supreme Court
  • wipes out virtually all current class-size and composition limits found in the School Act (Bill 33)
  • no limits on number of students with special needs in a class
  • no limit of numbers of students in Grades 4 to 12
  • no consultation with teachers about their classes
  • no public accountability for school boards 
Bill 22 means no collective bargaining 
  • legislates net zero, no salary or benefit improvement, or anything that has a cost
  • ends free collective bargaining by imposing a government-appointed “mediator” who must operate under a narrow government mandate focused on employer concessions
  • the mediator is bound by net zero 
  • concessions regarding seniority, post and fill, layoff and recall, evaluation and dismissal, control of professional development must be part of the new contract
  • makes any strike action an offence subject to heavy fines for members, representatives, and the union
  • attacks fundamental Charter right of freedom of association
Bill 22 ignores the BC Supreme Court ruling 
  • BC Supreme Court Justice Griffin found contract stripping legislation regarding class size and composition was unconstitutional
  • Bill 22 repeals Bills 27 and 28 and then legislates them back into effect
  • fails to restore minimum service level guarantees for special education, ESL, teacher-librarians, and other learning specialist teachers
  • fails to restore language supporting the integration of students with special needs.

Cranbrook Teachers Stand Up for Public Education

IMG_8170

Pasted Graphic 6

Pasted Graphic 3
Victoria Rally ~ March 6th, 2012
photo[4]photo[3]


Cuts hurt kids with special needs
January 6, 2012

With discussion about proposed changes to the B.C. public education system, one wonders what the fate of children with special needs will be.
Over the past 10 years, the B.C. Liberals have cut in real dollars funding to public education which has had a negative impact on students with special needs. After illegally stripping key provisions from contracts with B.C. teachers protecting services for these students, there is $330 million less in the system that has resulted in growing class sizes and less support for students.

Specialists in learning assistance, special education, and counselling as well as support staff were cut during the term of the current government as students with special needs were and continue to be thrown into classes where necessary resources are lacking.

It is skeptical that the B.C. Liberal spin of grouping students by ability rather than age would benefit the public education system particularly when no additional funding is expected. It is also skeptical that the public supports these notions particularly when themes in the consultations such as restored funding, smaller class sizes and support for students with special needs were ignored. Any proposed changes without the necessary funding will invariably fail which will ultimately hurt those students who most rely on a strong nurturing public education system.

Regardless of how students are grouped, classrooms with fewer students and schools with adequate support provide the greatest opportunity for students who struggle to strive. However, that requires commitment and funding from the provincial government. If the government is not interested in securing resources to create those environments, then it should rethink changes to the public education system before it further causes harm to those students who can least defend themselves.

DAVID KOMLJENOVIC

Kamloops

LRB dismisses employer's attempt to force report cards and fine the BCTF
The BC Labour Relations Board has dismissed an application by the BC Public School Employers’ Association (BCPSEA) to compel teachers to do report cards and to fine the BC Teachers’ Federation 15 % of teachers’ salaries and benefits.
In his decision, the LRB’s Associate Chair of Adjudication, Michael Fleming, noted that both parties had agreed to the structure of the essential services order which is in place, and that none of the circumstances that gave rise to BCPSEA’s complaint were unforeseen or unpredictable. Fleming found that BCTF members are in full compliance with the order and there are no grounds to change it.
BCTF President Susan Lambert said: “Although report cards are an important tool, they are not essential. They are only one way in which teachers communicate students’ progress to parents. Face-to-face, phone conversations, e-mails, handwritten notes, quiz results sent home—many different kinds of informal communication are providing parents with a clear understanding of their children’s progress. Some parents have told us they feel better informed this way than with the traditional formal reporting.”
The LRB agreed that “BCTF members are providing a range of feedback to students and parents.” Fleming wrote: “BCPSEA’s initial application arguably suggested that teachers were refusing to inform parents by other methods regarding the progress of students. However, I find BCPSEA has not provided an evidentiary basis for this suggestion...”
Similarly, Fleming found no evidence to impose a 15% penalty. “They [teachers] are not performing certain non-essential duties but there is no assertion teachers are working only 85% of their scheduled time while receiving 100% pay.” He also noted that teachers are teaching more in place of doing non-essential duties.
“This has always been a ‘teach only’ campaign,” Lambert said. “Teachers are teaching, and students are learning. Throughout this job action, our members have been working 110% and more, as always.”
Lambert expressed concern over the employer’s motivation in bringing this application forward when it clearly had no credible basis in fact. “Now the LRB has sent a strong message to trustees. Instead of attempting to put more pressure on teachers, they should be pressuring government to send BCPSEA back to the table with a new mandate to negotiate a collective agreement that respects teachers and meets the needs of students,” Lambert said.

Support for teachers
The Board of Directors of the Charter for Public Education Network (CPEN) Society wish to convey to the BCTF Executive and the teachers of British Columbia our support for your struggle to improve the economic well-being of teachers, the working conditions of teachers and the learning conditions of students.
Our organization exists to advance the cause of public education and to advocate for and support the promises and principles of the Charter for Public Education. However, we are greatly concerned with policy directions that undermine the progressive and democratic vision articulated in the charter. It is essential that all students in the province have the material conditions for a good life, a safe and healthy home, and the rights articulated in the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child. The failure to fully fund the public education system so that it can meet the needs of all learners is a threat to the future of our province. To sustain a free, just, and democratic society, we must ensure provincial funding is sufficient to meet the educational needs of all students, without fees charged to parents or the children.
A society that values education and takes responsibility for providing a superb education to all children and young people will not deny teachers the salaries and working conditions that go with an excellent school system. We also support your struggles to make your rights to collective bargaining meaningful. Rights to collective bargaining are another integral aspect of a democratic society, and teachers, like all other workers, deserve that right.
Please convey to your membership and those engaged in the struggle our appreciation and support for your efforts to improve public education in British Columbia.
Mike Zlotnik, Board of Directors, Charter for Public Education Network (CPEN) Society

Unfortunate that voice of teachers is diminished on new council: BCTF 
It is regrettable that the voice of teachers will be diminished on the new BC Teachers’ Council, but a new clarity on the body’s mandate is welcome, BC Teachers’ Federation President Susan Lambert said today.
Bill 12, The Teachers Act, repeals the former Teaching Profession Act and dissolves the BC College of Teachers. It will be replaced with a new council with a more focused mandate, including setting standards for certification of teachers, approval of teacher education programs at universities, and adjudication of serious disciplinary matters.
“This new clarity on the mandate of the council is welcomed by the BCTF, although its structures do not address all of the concerns we raised in meetings with Education Minister George Abbott,” Lambert said.
Today’s legislation was prompted by a fact-finder’s report that cited cases of individuals with criminal records being allowed to begin teaching or continue working in the classroom. “The allegation by some that the Federation used its influence on the college to protect unethical teachers is completely unfounded,” Lambert said.
She noted that in a series of meetings with the former and current ministers of education, the BCTF called upon them to investigate the cases cited. This request was turned down each and every time.
“Although the BCTF doesn’t have the ability to investigate these cases ourselves, we do know that at least one was adjudicated during the period when the college was comprised entirely of government-appointed councillors, not BCTF-endorsed ones,” Lambert said.
Teachers hope that the new council and its structures within the Ministry of Education will be able to put these issues in the past and earn public confidence.
“Teachers, more than anyone, are invested in maintaining high standards of professional practice and ethical conduct. It’s in all of our interests for there to be fair, transparent and effective processes to discipline and, if necessary, decertify any teacher who violates the trust that society places in us to safeguard and teach the next generation,” Lambert said.

Local bargaining—local solutions to local conditions
Our schools and students have different needs in different parts of the province. It hardly needs to be said that the nature of the local economy and the demographic makeup of the community varies substantially between large urban areas and more rural and resource based communities.
For many decades teachers and school boards negotiated locally. This changed when a provincial bargaining system was imposed in the mid-1990s. Bargaining moved to the provincial level, with only a very few items negotiated locally.
The longer this situation existed, the more out of touch with the different realities the collective agreement has become. In this round of bargaining, the representatives from the local unions around the province decided to try to bring negotiations about important issues back to the local level. It is the hope that this will produce a collective agreement that is more reflective of the local realities.
The bargaining law provides for both provincial and local bargaining. But when the BCTF tried to get the provincial employers’ council to agree to local boards and union locals negotiating on important issues, the answer was a big NO.
The BC Public Schools Employers Association (BCPSEA) has kept a stranglehold on local Boards of Education. Over the term of the recently expired collective agreement, BCPSEA consistently refused to approve variations that the boards and unions had agreed to locally.
Since provincial bargaining began in March of this year, BCPSEA has directed the local Boards of Education to refuse to negotiate with local teachers on important matters. It wanted to maintain its stranglehold on what could be negotiated locally to reflect local conditions.
BCPSEA’s obstruction of local bargaining is one of the key reasons that bargaining has not lead to any agreement, despite months of negotiating meetings. Union locals that have tried to negotiate with their boards have hit roadblocks set up by BCPSEA.
Class size and class composition are key areas for teachers. No advances have been made and BCPSEA has held that these cannot be negotiated locally.
An arbitrator was asked to rule on what could be negotiated locally in hearings held on August 25 and 26. The ruling on August 28 should open the door for more productive negotiations locally...unless BCPSEA continues to interfere and prohibit local negotiations on important issues.
The text of the arbitration award can be found here. acro007

“Net zero” is less than zero
The provincial government has given direction to its agents to refuse to offer any increases to teachers in the current round of bargaining. They are calling this “net zero.”
What they seem to mean is that any improvement has to be gained by giving up existing conditions in some other area of the collective agreement.
For teachers, this is an impossible situation.
The government in legislation in 2002 stripped from the collective agreement many of the working conditions provisions that would presumably have been on the table to trade under the “net zero” directive.
Many of these “tradable” provisions were achieved as a trade off in collective agreements in the 1990s for lower class sizes, limits on class composition and staffing formulas for learning specialists like librarians and special education teachers. This put teachers further behind in salaries and with no contractual provisions that could be traded.
Even if teachers still had these provisions to trade off for salaries, that would not have been a good idea. Satisfaction in teaching comes from a combination of good conditions for the work and fair and reasonable salaries. Unfortunately, BC teachers now have neither of those, thanks to government policies.
A zero increase would widen the already huge gap between the salaries of teachers in the rest of the Western provinces as well as Ontario. An Alberta teacher, for example, already makes about $20,000 a year more than a teacher with equivalent training and experience in B.C.—and has a lower cost of living.
Accepting a zero salary increase would only make the situation worse. And it would further entrench what Justice Griffin said in a court decision was a feeling by teachers “that the government did not respect them or consider them to be valued contributors to the education system.”
The refusal of government to change its “net zero” direction to the BC Public Employers’ Association is further evidence of that lack of valuing of teachers.