This really isn't what I thought I'd be writing about for my first blog post, but here I am. I find myself caught in between a world and education system upended by a pandemic, and wanting what is best for students now, next year, and beyond. As educators, we find ourselves in a complex situation, thrust into an emergency remote learning model we had little time to prepare for. Understandably, many educators will base their vote on this current reality coupled with the long and arduous battle we have already faced. For some, their families might be facing economic difficulty and they just want to avoid the uncertainty of more lost pay while on strike. For others, the emotional toll all of this has had is enough, and they just want to move on. Maybe they feel this tentative agreement is the best we could do given the global pandemic. That we would lose public support if we turned it down. All of these are very real concerns, and nobody can be faulted for what they choose to prioritize when deciding how to vote. Regardless of your choice, it doesn't mean you are any less "in it" for students. We all want to be in the classroom and we all want what is best for our students. Whether we even should have been negotiating or should be voting in the midst of the pandemic is another massive debate. This vote is complex.
But, I am choosing to make it simple.
The current tentative agreement HURTS KIDS.
So, I will VOTE NO tomorrow.
For me, it's that simple. I chose to be a teacher so that I can help students find their passion, support them through challenges, and help them find success, whatever that may mean for them. This tentative agreement makes all of those things more difficult to accomplish. It doesn't mean we won't still do all of the above. Because we are resilient. We will find a way. We always do. But, I will not willingly endorse an agreement that places obstacles in my ability to do so.
How does this tentative agreement hurt kids?
Raising the student to teacher funding average to 23:1.
For starters, let's remember that the government unilaterally imposed conditions that forced funding averages higher than the 22:1 in our previous collective agreement. They started at the ridiculous number of 28:1. We just wanted to maintain the status quo, but being in a deficit bargaining position from the start made that almost impossible. So 23 feels like a win, but it's not. This school year, many boards staffed somewhere between 22:1 (our previous agreement) and 22.5:1, and we already saw the very real impact this had on students. Educators from across the province shared stories of students with incomplete timetables, courses cut en masse in all districts, and electives slashed. None of this is the fault of School Boards who had to make the best out of the bad hand they were dealt.
I remember seeing a Grade 12 student on the first day of 2019/20. He looked lost. Asking what was wrong, he indicated he didn't have an important class he would need to graduate. He didn't know what he would do. He wasn't the only one with that look. Now, if we ratify this agreement, there will be many more like him. Unless Boards make tough decisions to cut from other areas (where would those even be?) to help maintain current staffing ratios and course allocations, we are going to see the very real impact this has on students. There will be Grade 12s with only 6 courses and no room for error. Some of them will not get courses in day school they need to graduate and will be forced to take it in e-learning or buy their credit in private school. Some schools will no doubt be forced to give spares to Grade 11s. None of this is good for kids.
Also, keep in mind that local agreements have not yet been reached. While we are currently operating at current class size maximums, those numbers could change. Consider this from OSSTF, when explaining what happens if we ratify the provincial agreement, but cannot come to terms on local agreements within 2 weeks:
"If an agreement can’t be reached, the default amendment included in the
provincial summary will be implemented and a maximum of 10% of classes could be
pierced by up to 2 students."
Let that sink in for a second. Currently, schools can pierce TWO sections by up to two students without seeking approval to pierce additional sections. 10% of however many sections your school offers is no doubt A LOT more than two sections, even if this is calculated on a system level and not school by school. So expect to have more than the current maximum number of students in classes in the next two years.
"Mandatory" Opt-Out E-Learning
How this was ever agreed upon is beyond me. What was wrong with the current opt-in system? Why can't we let kids choose e-learning if they want to? The whole premise of this is absurd. If kids can opt out, then it isn't mandatory. Why make kids and families go through a hoop jumping process to keep the level and quality of education they are accustomed to?
Because it all comes down to money. With the funding average for e-learning courses at 30:1 and class size maximums at 35, the government saves money for every e-learning course that gets run instead of a live face to face class. That is all this has ever been about. This pandemic has shown what we already knew - not every student will succeed to the same standard in e-learning courses. We know this. We are living the proof right now. So why support a system we KNOW is faulty?
Cuts to Support for Students Fund
This tentative agreement reinstates SOME funding from the fund previously known as the Local Priorities Fund, used to support special education unique learning needs, and mental health initiatives. That sounds like a win, right? It's not. Remember deficit bargaining? The government cut the fund at the start of the 2019/20 school year. Positions were lost and there was less support for students who needed it the most. This agreement also fails to provide retroactive funding to address those cuts to the 2019/20 school year. I'm not okay with that.
Tougher for LTOs to Receive Benefits
This may be district specific, but there is a new 90 day minimum for LTOs to be eligible to receive benefits, whereas previously any LTO was eligible to participate. I'm not an LTO, but this is not good for them.
1% Compensation
This is well down the list of priorities for me, and we all know that any increase below inflation, which 1% is, is effectively a salary decrease. Putting students first always was the goal. But, we already lost more than 1% of our salary this year fighting against a government focused on wreaking havoc within the education system. I voted to strike. I willingly lost that salary because I believed in fighting for what is best for students. Why should I accept to be in a worse position financially AND have to stomach cuts to the quality of education over the next 2 years? I'll gladly accept 1% if it meant not sacrificing elements of education. But accept both? Not a chance.
So for all these reasons, and many more, I will be VOTING NO to the current tentative agreement.
Whether or not you do the same depends on what you choose to prioritize at this time. Remember, whatever you choose, it doesn't make you any less invested in students and the future of education.
Comments
Post a Comment