Comments on: MOMS: Province, BCTF not putting students first in contract dispute http://momsnetwork.ca/2012/03/04/moms-province-bctf-not-putting-students-first-in-contract-dispute/ BC families supporting people with special needs Mon, 28 Jan 2013 23:33:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Bart Miles http://momsnetwork.ca/2012/03/04/moms-province-bctf-not-putting-students-first-in-contract-dispute/comment-page-1/#comment-402 Bart Miles Fri, 18 Jan 2013 21:49:47 +0000 http://momsnetwork.ca/?p=1695#comment-402 While there certainly is stronger evidence to support the impact of class size in the earlier grades, it seems to make good sense that class size would continue to make a difference to students in later grades, although the impact may not be as significant as it is in the early grades. The PISA study clearly supports this conclusion. While there certainly is stronger evidence to support the impact of class size in the earlier grades, it seems to make good sense that class size would continue to make a difference to students in later grades, although the impact may not be as significant as it is in the early grades. The PISA study clearly supports this conclusion.

]]> By: Wayne Fowler http://momsnetwork.ca/2012/03/04/moms-province-bctf-not-putting-students-first-in-contract-dispute/comment-page-1/#comment-257 Wayne Fowler Sat, 10 Mar 2012 22:09:52 +0000 http://momsnetwork.ca/?p=1695#comment-257 First I'd like to acknowledge that I think this is a good statement that would seem to represent the diversity of your organization while still stating strong and consistent values. To be honest, as a teacher and parent of two children with identified special needs, when I first heard the idea that a cap on IEP students was discriminatory I thought this group was really missing the point. Yes in it's own way it is but it was also an attempt to do better by those students we do have in our classes. However I am also not going to take the position that it is a panacea or that things can't be done better. If there are better methods out there then I, and I hope my union, would be happy to hear them. We likely do need to be more sympathetic to your position However if we are to work collaboratively there are some ways this organization may need to become more sympathetic to the needs of teachers. I'll speak directly to two of your recommendations. First is #4. An immediate return to work with no further disruption is only in the students best interest if the government agrees and demonstrates a genuine commitment to whatever process will accomplish the goal. Teachers just going back to work means that the interests of the students you speak for, the ones you will speak for in the future, and teachers will likely not be met. It would mean the government could just say "see the schools are open" and we would return to business as usual with the current less than adequate situation continuing. My second concern is the idea that all additional funding increases go into returning staffing. While this would of course benefit teachers as well as students it requires teachers to allow their interests to again be sidelined. As your statement noted teachers gave up salary increases to gain class size limits and this was then taken from us. What you are expecting is teachers to pay for these improvements twice. It cost us the first time, ultimately with no benefit, and now we are to start from scratch and put off the needs of our own families a second time until you are satisfied. I understand that my point violates your starting point of putting kids first but to me your position is a slap in the face to teachers and treats them as if they had no interests other than serving children. Those who disagree with teachers often say we are using the kids but there are times such as this were I feel students are used as a bargaining chip against me. If I am not willing to give and only gain by meeting the needs of the other "partners", I, by your position statement, don't put children first and therefore am somehow unworthy of the support of parents of students with special needs. First I’d like to acknowledge that I think this is a good statement that would seem to represent the diversity of your organization while still stating strong and consistent values.

To be honest, as a teacher and parent of two children with identified special needs, when I first heard the idea that a cap on IEP students was discriminatory I thought this group was really missing the point. Yes in it’s own way it is but it was also an attempt to do better by those students we do have in our classes. However I am also not going to take the position that it is a panacea or that things can’t be done better. If there are better methods out there then I, and I hope my union, would be happy to hear them. We likely do need to be more sympathetic to your position

However if we are to work collaboratively there are some ways this organization may need to become more sympathetic to the needs of teachers. I’ll speak directly to two of your recommendations.

First is #4. An immediate return to work with no further disruption is only in the students best interest if the government agrees and demonstrates a genuine commitment to whatever process will accomplish the goal. Teachers just going back to work means that the interests of the students you speak for, the ones you will speak for in the future, and teachers will likely not be met. It would mean the government could just say “see the schools are open” and we would return to business as usual with the current less than adequate situation continuing.

My second concern is the idea that all additional funding increases go into returning staffing. While this would of course benefit teachers as well as students it requires teachers to allow their interests to again be sidelined. As your statement noted teachers gave up salary increases to gain class size limits and this was then taken from us. What you are expecting is teachers to pay for these improvements twice. It cost us the first time, ultimately with no benefit, and now we are to start from scratch and put off the needs of our own families a second time until you are satisfied. I understand that my point violates your starting point of putting kids first but to me your position is a slap in the face to teachers and treats them as if they had no interests other than serving children.

Those who disagree with teachers often say we are using the kids but there are times such as this were I feel students are used as a bargaining chip against me. If I am not willing to give and only gain by meeting the needs of the other “partners”, I, by your position statement, don’t put children first and therefore am somehow unworthy of the support of parents of students with special needs.

]]> By: Cathie Camley http://momsnetwork.ca/2012/03/04/moms-province-bctf-not-putting-students-first-in-contract-dispute/comment-page-1/#comment-254 Cathie Camley Mon, 05 Mar 2012 00:11:06 +0000 http://momsnetwork.ca/?p=1695#comment-254 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is law in every jurisdiction in Canada, and therefore, under that law, so is our children's right to equitably access a public service - in this case, a public education. This is not a law that can be negotiated away or enhanced through contract negotiations or granted only in times of plenty. The law is the law, and when it is broken, there needs to be a consequence. Yet the Ministry of Education and many school districts have determined that equitable access is simply a goal that they are working towards achieving. What other Canadian law has been so ignored and rendered uninforceable as this one? It is my belief that there are few other groups of Canadians who have had their rights trampled upon with such regularity than those of students who have disabilities. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is law in every jurisdiction in Canada, and therefore, under that law, so is our children’s right to equitably access a public service – in this case, a public education. This is not a law that can be negotiated away or enhanced through contract negotiations or granted only in times of plenty. The law is the law, and when it is broken, there needs to be a consequence. Yet the Ministry of Education and many school districts have determined that equitable access is simply a goal that they are working towards achieving. What other Canadian law has been so ignored and rendered uninforceable as this one? It is my belief that there are few other groups of Canadians who have had their rights trampled upon with such regularity than those of students who have disabilities.

]]>