Supreme Court to hear B.C. teachers’ appeal over class size, composition legislation

[DonLever]

From the Globe and Mail:

British Columbia’s teachers’ union is celebrating a Supreme Court of Canada decision to hear the union’s appeal over a 14-year-old legal battle with the province on bargaining class size and composition.

“It is huge,” Jim Iker, president of the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation, told a news conference Thursday morning.

‎“It’s about the ability to go into the collective bargaining process where there has to be real negotiations happening.”

He added: “We’re looking forward to the opportunity to present our arguments to the court and hopefully win back‎ important working conditions which we believe were unconstitutionally stripped from our collective agreement.”

‎About two hours earlier, Canada’s highest court ruled it would hear the union’s appeal of a 2014 B.C. Appeal Court ruling in favour of the provincial government, which had limited teacher bargaining on class size and composition.

In a statement, Education Minister Mike Bernier described the Supreme Court ruling as part of the democratic process.

“We are confident in our legal position and any further guidance the court may provide,” said Mr. Bernier.

He noted that the government is “working collaboratively” with the BCTF on such issues as new curriculum – a point Mr. Iker acknowledged.

The BCTF president said the union will begin work on its appeal, and is hoping for a hearing in the fall and decision by next year.

The province first imposed legislation that removed teachers’ ability to bargain class size and composition in 2002. After a B.C. Supreme Court judge deemed the legislation unconstitutional in 2011, the province imposed new legislation the following year.

Similar to the previous legislation, it restricted school boards’ power to determine staffing levels and establish class size and composition — the number of special needs students in a class, for example, or how many teacher assistants can be hired per student in a school.

The dispute led to an acrimonious strike that cut the school year short in the spring of 2014 and was not resolved until September of that year.

A B.C. Supreme Court judge ruled in 2014 that the legislation was unconstitutional and concluded the provincial government had attempted to provoke a strike during negotiations.

However, the B.C. Court of Appeal overturned that decision in April of last year. Four of five appeal judges found the legislation was constitutional and the province negotiated with teachers in good faith.

A long-term contract has been signed between teachers and the provincial government and Iker said relationships with the province have improved, but teachers still have a duty to resolve the issue.

As is usual in such rulings, the Supreme Court gave no reasons for its decision to hear the case. But the case is expected to have significant implications for the way governments negotiate with unions.

[John Tortorella]

What does composition mean in this sense. 

[Gurn]

"Similar to the previous legislation, it restricted school boards’ power to determine staffing levels and establish class size and composition — the number of special needs students in a class, for example, or how many teacher assistants can be hired per student in a school. '

 

 

[RonMexico]

Well at least the BCTF will get heard rather than being summarily dismissed. While many people seem to think that teachers have a self serving agenda (they don't), who would you rather have determining class size and composition? Some elected schmuck who hasn't been in a classroom for 25 years or someone who spends the school year in one while trying to educate the children of this province?

[Gurn]

Hopefully after this is settled -  government, parents, teachers, scientists and business leader can get together and create a system of education that will enable Canadian youth to kick ass in the future. We are really going to need smart, educated and innovative  people to solve a lot of the crap we are leaving behind us.

[aGENT]

4 hours ago, gurn said:

the number of special needs students in a class, for example

One of the biggest problems with our school system today. The 'inclusivity' sentiment is noble but in reality is impractical and dysfunctional.

You have special needs kids not learning subjects or at a pace relevant to them and you have the rest of the kids not learning due to disruptions and a lack of sufficient attention/instruction and teachers who are simply exhausted and frustrated trying to reconcile all of that.

Literally everyone is losing under that system.

[Kragar]

46 minutes ago, J.R. said:

One of the biggest problems with our school system today. The 'inclusivity' sentiment is noble but in reality is impractical and dysfunctional.

You have special needs kids not learning subjects or at a pace relevant to them and you have the rest of the kids not learning due to disruptions and a lack of sufficient attention/instruction and teachers who are simply exhausted and frustrated trying to reconcile all of that.

Literally everyone is losing under that system.

Agreed.  Efforts should be made to allow all kids to learn to their individual potential as best as possible.  

[inane]

1 hour ago, J.R. said:

One of the biggest problems with our school system today. The 'inclusivity' sentiment is noble but in reality is impractical and dysfunctional.

You have special needs kids not learning subjects or at a pace relevant to them and you have the rest of the kids not learning due to disruptions and a lack of sufficient attention/instruction and teachers who are simply exhausted and frustrated trying to reconcile all of that.

Literally everyone is losing under that system.

Inclusivity isn't the problem itself, it's having that as a policy or philosophy and then not funding it appropriately. 

 

[Lancaster]

Special education isn't always the best idea.  There are obviously some who are unable to integrate fully with the normal classroom settings, but some are borderline (slight hearing deficiency, but overall unnoticeable) who shouldn't automatically be "banished".

Anyways.... as for classroom sizes.... so they need more teachers now?

[aGENT]

2 hours ago, inane said:

Inclusivity isn't the problem itself, it's having that as a policy or philosophy and then not funding it appropriately. 

 

We can't afford to appropriately fund that philosophy. 

[Grapefruits]

9 hours ago, DonLever said:

From the Globe and Mail:

British Columbia’s teachers’ union is celebrating a Supreme Court of Canada decision to hear the union’s appeal over a 14-year-old legal battle with the province on bargaining class size and composition.

“It is huge,” Jim Iker, president of the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation, told a news conference Thursday morning.

 

‎“It’s about the ability to go into the collective bargaining process where there has to be real negotiations happening.”

He added: “We’re looking forward to the opportunity to present our arguments to the court and hopefully win back‎ important working conditions which we believe were unconstitutionally stripped from our collective agreement.”

‎About two hours earlier, Canada’s highest court ruled it would hear the union’s appeal of a 2014 B.C. Appeal Court ruling in favour of the provincial government, which had limited teacher bargaining on class size and composition.

In a statement, Education Minister Mike Bernier described the Supreme Court ruling as part of the democratic process.

“We are confident in our legal position and any further guidance the court may provide,” said Mr. Bernier.

He noted that the government is “working collaboratively” with the BCTF on such issues as new curriculum – a point Mr. Iker acknowledged.

The BCTF president said the union will begin work on its appeal, and is hoping for a hearing in the fall and decision by next year.

The province first imposed legislation that removed teachers’ ability to bargain class size and composition in 2002. After a B.C. Supreme Court judge deemed the legislation unconstitutional in 2011, the province imposed new legislation the following year.

Similar to the previous legislation, it restricted school boards’ power to determine staffing levels and establish class size and composition — the number of special needs students in a class, for example, or how many teacher assistants can be hired per student in a school.

The dispute led to an acrimonious strike that cut the school year short in the spring of 2014 and was not resolved until September of that year.

A B.C. Supreme Court judge ruled in 2014 that the legislation was unconstitutional and concluded the provincial government had attempted to provoke a strike during negotiations.

However, the B.C. Court of Appeal overturned that decision in April of last year. Four of five appeal judges found the legislation was constitutional and the province negotiated with teachers in good faith.

A long-term contract has been signed between teachers and the provincial government and Iker said relationships with the province have improved, but teachers still have a duty to resolve the issue.

As is usual in such rulings, the Supreme Court gave no reasons for its decision to hear the case. But the case is expected to have significant implications for the way governments negotiate with unions.

It's to suck more money out of the tax payers pockets.  This back and forth is costing a fortune to both sides.

[inane]

35 minutes ago, J.R. said:

We can't afford to appropriately fund that philosophy. 

Well we can, we choose not to. Either way, it's not the philosophy that's the problem. 

[aGENT]

49 minutes ago, inane said:

Well we can, we choose not to. Either way, it's not the philosophy that's the problem. 

Saw this coming a mile away and no, we can't. 

[Industrious1]

Everyone deserves the right to be heard and to be treated fairly...which I think has been lacking in these negotiations for a very long time.

Even better that it is probably a step in the right direction that can hopefully stem the tide of completely unprepared younger workers that are trying to get a foothold in an increasingly challenged workplace situation.

Give these kids the tools to succeed!

[inane]

9 hours ago, J.R. said:

Saw this coming a mile away and no, we can't. 

I don't think you know what 'can't' means.

 

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, inane said:

I don't think you know what 'can't' means.

 

I don't think you know what 'reality' means 

Theoretically I 'can' survive without my legs, arms and after gauging out my own eyes (prior to arm removal). That doesn't make it smart or advisable.

Costs have to actually make sense. Cost/benefit analysis exists for a reason. The costs have to make sense given the benefits. The costs to fund fully inclusive schooling at an acceptable level would be EXTREMELY prohibitive.

And even with that fantasy level of funding, I'm still not convinced having kids learning at such extreme variances of ability and indeed subject matter is particularly helpful anyway.

There are other ways to promote inclusivity than trying to square peg/round hole it via tax payer dollars in to classroom composition.

[inane]

I'm not saying it's not expensive, hard, etc. But we CAN do it. It is possible.

Jumping to the 'oh we can't afford this' attitude is just lazy. 

[Ryan Strome]

17 minutes ago, inane said:

I'm not saying it's not expensive, hard, etc. But we CAN do it. It is possible.

Jumping to the 'oh we can't afford this' attitude is just lazy. 

I can not believe I share your opinion.

+1

[AngelicHearts]

I never understood the whole argument about having smaller class sizes. Sure, it might be quieter and less distracting when there aren't as many people in the classroom, but I don't really see how it would suddenly improve academic performance by a significant amount or whatever their argument for it is. Even if the class is large then it's the teacher's responsibility to make sure everyone follows the rules and stays quiet. If anyone disobeys the rules then just send them out of the classroom so that the other students won't have to put up with the disrespectful behaviour.

A lot of kids these days don't take education seriously and they just go to get it over with and then move on to develop bad habits such as drinking or doing drugs. I have a friend who graduated high school with me and she never really cared much about school and she just aimed to simply pass classes and not even bothered trying to get good marks. In the end, she never ended up going to college and she started to drink, smoke, do drugs, and a handful of other bad things... I just find it sad how people are taught not to do those things, but they still go and do it anyway. I guess I went a bit off topic.  

If they have significant evidence that smaller class sizes are better then maybe it's a good thing to vouch for, but I personally never noticed a difference in anything whether I was in a small class or a large one.

[Gurn]

" Even if the class is large then it's the teacher's responsibility to make sure everyone follows the rules and stays quiet. If anyone disobeys the rules then just send them out of the classroom so that the other students won't have to put up with the disrespectful behaviour. "

 

I'm going to guess you rarely, if ever, have to deal with a p' ed off autistic kid.   Or the kid with Downs syndrome, who are usually happy, but if not watch out. Or the kid withPreader Willies(sp) a disease that leave the victim feeling super hungry, even if he just had the big meal deal. These kids will eat and drink anything, Lysol, solvent, chalk whatever.

Then add in English as second language kids, the kids that get no breakfast or lunch, the kids that are abused, and on and on.

Most of the public looks at schools as a babysitting facility, yet expect their kid to be ready for the outside word in 12-16 years.

 A review of EVERYTHING education is must. The world is changing at an ever increasing rate and "we" are being left behind.