Generally I stay out of the comments of news articles. I have enough stress right now trying to figure out how I am going to plan my lessons, help my students, assess their learning and write their report cards in the hour and a half I have outside of actual instructional time.
(For those of you who aren’t teachers, I’ll give you an example: today, in my hour and a half, I had time to preview about 20 minutes of a film I’d like to use to give context to a review of data analysis; I also was able to give feedback on the writing of six of my twenty-nine students so that they can improve their non-fiction writing pieces before I do the final evaluation on them. I feel that giving them feedback on how to improve is crucial, because it gives them the opportunity to produce their best writing, which will not only result in a higher final evaluation but also teaches them that even good writers go back and rewrite constantly – no piece is ever truly “finished,” and everyone should push themselves to their best. I believe in my students’ abilities, and I want to help them achieve their best and be confident in their work.
I did not, by the way, have the time to write the Math test they are supposed to do on the next day I work.)
Today, however, I was drawn into a discussion on the Vancouver Sun article B.C. braces for four days of rotating strikes, and maybe more to come. After I asked one commenter to provide the evidence for his claim that “most teachers” are displeased with the union’s “strong arm tactics” – since 89% of the teachers who cast a ballot voted for the job action, and approximately 75% of the 41,000 members voted – another commenter replied to my question with the following:
“[H]ere’s the only data you really need. Court cases don’t matter, in the end, because it’s about how we’re not just going to keep spending more money on the system. Blaming the gov’t for court rulings that ignore the fact of limited funding isn’t helpful. In the end, the gov’t did what it did because it knows what factors are increasing costs. If you want a list of the factors that are increasing costs, just look at the demands the teacher’s union has made in the last 20 years. That’s it. That’s the problem.”
…
Court cases don’t matter? Blaming the government for court rulings that ignore the fact of limited funding “isn’t helpful?” Well, I can accept that it isn’t helpful … but as the court rulings would not have been required had the government not violated teachers’ constitutional rights, according to Justice Griffin – and in such a world where the government had followed the law they are sworn to uphold we would not therefore be faced now with a huge increase in funding for education – in this case, I think it’s fair that the government should be considered at fault.
So I did about two hours of research (so basically the amount of time that I would have normally spent giving feedback to the non-fiction pieces of my students; writing the Math test; assessing the French worksheets they did last week; and – if it wasn’t too late – figuring out how to make my next Math unit relevant to my students’ lives, were I not locked out), and wrote a response to his comment.
——
Your comment does not provide factual data. It provides your opinion. Here’s mine: court cases absolutely do matter. One of the (three) most important parts of government is the judiciary, which must be free to make independent and impartial decisions, and to apply the law without fear or favour, and without regard to whether the decision is popular or not.
Clearly Justice Griffin’s decision was not popular for you. That does not mean that her judgement doesn’t matter. The government made a decision that, according to Justice Griffin, was against the constitutional rights of teachers. Whether there is a financial aspect to the ruling or not is irrelevant: had the government legislated in a way that was not against our country’s constitution in 2002, they wouldn’t be having this problem now. They broke the law, and they – and unfortunately, we – must suffer the consequences. More than any other body, the government must uphold the law, not disregard it through legislating whatever they desire.
If you want a list of the factors that are increasing costs, consider the salary increases the BC Liberal government has given themselves and their staff members in the past ten years.
I’d like to note to begin that the Members’ Remuneration and Allowances Act that governs the salary of MLAs with or without a ministerial or parliamentary office “stipulates that basic compensation be adjusted April 1 of each year by the percentage increase of the BC Consumer Price Index.” To be fair, the Act froze this cost-of-living increase from 2010-2013 – so the MLAs have received, since 2006, 5.6% to keep up with inflation. Teachers have received no cost-of living increases.
Teachers did receive a wage increase in 2006-2011 (2.5% for the first four years and 2% in the final year), but have received 0% since then, which averages to 1.4% a year. (It may interest you to know that inflation, according to the BC Statistics website, has averaged out to 1.5% a year.)
In 2008, however, Deputy Ministers received a pay raise of 35% and Assistant Deputy Ministers one of 22% – more than teachers received over the 2006-2013 years entirely (“B.C. bureaucrats get huge pay raise”, CBC). More recently, “several staffers working for premier Christy Clark and other cabinet ministers” have received “an average 10% increase” in 2012 (“B.C. Liberals accused of salary ‘double standard’, CBC). BusINess Vancouver also notes that “Senior managers in the provincial government have been quietly given a 3% pay hike” – and this was just this past March.
Comparing salary increases, it seems that person-to-person, the government is making out a lot better than teachers.
Oh – and as I was doing my research for this response, I found this interesting quote on the Ministry of Finance’s website: “The province’s target position for executive compensation in the public sector market is to be from 3rd to 5th nationally amongst the provincial and federal governments.” This will “attract and retain a qualified, diverse and engaged workforce that strives to achieve high levels of performance in delivering government services to the people of B.C.” (“Executive Compensation: BC Public Service”).
Wouldn’t it be lovely if they would do the same to attract and retain a qualified, diverse and engaged workforce that strives to achieve high levels of performance in delivering education to the children of B.C.?
Reference Links:
BC Executive Compensation Disclosure
B.C. Liberals accused of salary double-standard
B.C. bureaucrats get huge pay raise
B.C. government senior managers get 3% pay hike worth 14 million
Leave a Reply