After five meetings with the
government-appointed representative responsible for dealing with the
repercussions of the court decision on Bills 27 and 28, the BCTF has written to
Paul Straszak to halt any further discussion until after the court hearing,
slated for October 11, 2011.
“Throughout these meetings we have
been very clear that we expect the government to respect the Supreme Court
ruling by repealing the offending legislation, restoring our constitutional
bargaining rights, and returning our illegally-stripped collective agreement
provisions,” said BCTF President Susan Lambert, adding that those provisions
included firm class size limits, guarantees of services for students with
special needs, and equitable access to skilled specialist teachers—all crucial
factors in maintaining quality teaching and learning conditions.
Instead, the government
proposed a vague framework for discussion on a “Class Organization Fund (COF)”
which, by contrast to the fair and objective processes illegally removed from
the collective agreement, offers no assurance of universal access to services
based on the needs of students.
“This proposed Class
Organization Fund would pit classes, schools and school districts against one
another in a race for scarce resources,” Lambert said. “Ultimately it would create competition
between vulnerable students for the very services they so urgently need to
succeed at school. It’s profoundly unfair.”
Aside from being
inherently inequitable, Lambert outlined other fundamental flaws in the
proposal:
- If
teachers disagree with management about how COF funds are to be allocated,
their students will receive no funding;
- There
are no assurances as to stability of the funding from one year to the next;
- It is
not enforceable under the collective agreement; and
- It in no
way addresses the rights issues that were at the heart of the Supreme Court
ruling.
“This proposal is a tacit admission by government that more funding
is needed to address class size and composition issues, and to provide services
for students with special needs, ESL learners and aboriginal students,” Lambert
said. “And teachers agree. But that is a completely separate issue from our
successful Charter challenge, which was about asserting our constitutional
right to negotiate working conditions and restoring our contract provisions
which were illegally taken away.”