BCTF out to lunch again
Once again the the BCTF shows just how out of touch they are with reality. They claim that testing Grade 7 and Grade 4 students is harmful. Obviously this is just another example of them wanting to pick a fight with a government that doesn't promote their leftist ideology. In reality I wish Grade 4 and Grade 7 testing was around when I was in school. Testing is not harmful to students, in fact it can show where students weaknesses are so they can work on them and ultimately improve them. I think it is much better to find out where a child's weakenesses are in Grade 4 or 7 than wait until Grade 12 and find out their marks aren't high enough to go to university or do what they want to do with their career after graduating. Although this doesn't surprise me as the BCTF is probably the most left wing and most militant union in BC. This is really too bad since most teachers are hard working and good people, but unfortunately a few militant ones like Jinny Sims ruin it for all of them. Any teacher who dares to speak out against them will be blacklisted and punished.
I know Woosang, Brandon, and BC Tory have advocated Gordon Campbell tries to smash the union, but I actually support the premier here. The reality is in May 2004 during the HEU strike and last fall during the BCTF strike, Campbell's approval ratings took a big hit, so picking a fight with the BCTF, as much as they deserve it, won't solve anything. Rather a better solution is to write frequent letters to the editor to counter their propaganda so as to get the public onside. Once the public is onside the government then will go after them. Also lets remember as a supporter of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I still believe the BCTF has the right to exist and the right to promote their views within a reasonable limit of a free and democratic society. At the same time the Charter does not give the BCTF the right to bully its members or students. Likewise the Charter doesn't give them the right to make membership mandatory, if anything making membership mandatory may contrevene section 2 of the Charter, freedom of association.
I know Woosang, Brandon, and BC Tory have advocated Gordon Campbell tries to smash the union, but I actually support the premier here. The reality is in May 2004 during the HEU strike and last fall during the BCTF strike, Campbell's approval ratings took a big hit, so picking a fight with the BCTF, as much as they deserve it, won't solve anything. Rather a better solution is to write frequent letters to the editor to counter their propaganda so as to get the public onside. Once the public is onside the government then will go after them. Also lets remember as a supporter of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I still believe the BCTF has the right to exist and the right to promote their views within a reasonable limit of a free and democratic society. At the same time the Charter does not give the BCTF the right to bully its members or students. Likewise the Charter doesn't give them the right to make membership mandatory, if anything making membership mandatory may contrevene section 2 of the Charter, freedom of association.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 6:37 PM
42 Comments:
Miles,
My rhetoric may have misguided my point. I never advocated msashing and destroying the union (I think I may have used that word too, so I should clarify). I just want to reduce its power, especially by getting rid of mandatory membership. I think that's a good first step to ending their militant attitude. They do have a right to exist, but not in the manifestation in which they currently exist. Power corrupts most unions, and its clear the BCTF needs to lose power.
Miles, there is a difference between smashing the union and saying that it shouldn't be mandatory to join it.
Mandatory membership gives the BCTF and its local affiliates a helluva lot of power in that when and if they choose to expel a member from the union, they in effect have the power to fire that person.
In essence, teachers have more to fear from their union than they do from their employer.
And it's gotta stop.
There is no excuse to not end mandatory membership at this rate. The Premier has the power to do it. It's about time he finally made it happen.
I agree it shouldn't be mandatory, but I think it would be best to change this for all unions or else have someone take it to court. If you only do it for the BCTF, it will look unfair, therefore you either make membership in all unions optional or mandatory in all.
I believe union dues for funding bargaining and pensions should be mandatory. Simply speaking if the employer gives the union a raise, they will likely give non-union members a raise too so it is free-riding essentially. However, they should be required to have a separate political fund, which all members dues would also go to, but a member who wished to opt out would be allowed to. However, it would be an opt out, not an opt in.
Miles,
Great content. My view is that Teachers believe they are the only ones who know how to run the education System. The BCTF is a highly arrogant organization.
Check out walterschultz.blogspot.com
I know Woosang, Brandon, and BC Tory have advocated Gordon Campbell tries to smash the union, but I actually support the premier here.
Hold on here Miles. I think your statement here is misleading.
What I said on my blog was this.
"Someone really needs to stand up against these bullies. Sadly at this point, BC doesn’t seem to have a brave leader who would have enough courage to stop these bullies and stand up for parents and children."
I did not suggest that "Gordon Campbell" should "smash the union."
Any reasonable person could tell you that standing up against bullies don't always involve "smash"ing them.
I am not suggesting that any of you were suggesting Campbell smash them, but I am pointing out I currently support Campbell's approach. He is being as firm with them as the public will possible tolerate at the moment.
What you did say woosang was
This is the union that will physically and mentally threaten its members who don’t share their views.
Can you give a single verifiable example, or do you typically back up your arguments with falsehoods? What's next, they tap their members' phones and threaten their families?
The union did with one of the mediators chase him towards his car and when he started shaking since he has Parkinson's disease, the union was cheering that he was scared.
Yes, that was an unfortunate incident which I will not defend. However regrettable actions taken by a few people in an emotional state cannot be used to make sweeping statements about how the BCTF (however one defines that) treats its members. The way woosang put it it sounds like some members would be eligible for the witness protection program.
Not that it changes your example, but the guy wasn't a mediating a settlement - he was hired to remove language from a legally binding contract.
Which reminds me of how that worked. The liberals hired a mediator to remove the language governing class size. He resigned, citing that it would ruin his reputation. So they hired another. He also resigned. So they hired yet another. Again, resigned. So they tried a fourth time and hired another. Finally they they found a well-connected liberal with the "ethics" (i.e. lack thereof) needed to do it, and it went through. So the BCTF took the issue to court, where they won. That's right, what the government had done was illegal and the court voided the mediator's changes. That was the law. So what did the Liberals do? They quickly created a new law making their actions retroactively legal. Does that not strike you as weasel behaviour? Is it any wonder why many teachers regard the government with a degree of spite? Wouldn't you? Then, next time around, when a contract was imposed again and the teachers protested with their illegal walkout, the government had the gall to start wagging fingers, lecturing about how the illegal actions were a terrible example for the children. If you want to know how much the government cares about children, look no further than Ted Hughe's report on the effects of their changes to the Ministry of Children and Family Development.
In the early part of the BC Liberal mandate they were left with a big mess left behind by the NDP. They had to make some tough choices here. Giving the teachers a 7.5% raise and funding smaller class sizes was simply not feasible so they had to do one or the other, but they couldn't do both. Thankfully the economy has turned around and the government now has the money to finance both.
The BCTF has always been a very left wing and militant union. Even under the labour union friendly NDP, they had every contract imposed on them since they couldn't settle. This is a group who has pointed to Cuba as the type of society we should emulate.
The fact is the government has reached agreements with just about every other union including the BCGEU, HEU, and Nurses Unions who are no friends of the BC Liberals. If they can settle, so can the BCTF. Also there comment about testing hurting kids is out to lunch totally. Thankfully when I started school the Social Credit was still in power and my problems were detected then.
Anyways as a side note, it is refreshing change to argue with someone to the left of me, since pretty much all my other responses have been towards people to the right of me.
Gosh Miles... I wish there were more people like you in the BC Liberal party. I see them as so right wing, it's hard for me to imagine someone who supports them provincially and not the reform oops conservative party federally.
Anyway, as for standardized testing not hurting students, I'd like to know if that's an informed opinion or just an opinion.
Go to Google Scholar, do a search for standardized testing. In order, the list of books/articles that come up are:
1. "Contradictions of School Reform: Educational Costs of Standardized Testing"
2. "Case Against Standardized Testing: Raising the Scores, Ruining the Schools"
3. (irrelevant article about cultural biases in IQ tests)
4. "Standardized Minds: The High Price of America's Testing Culture and What We Can Do To Change It."
5. "Beyond Standardized Testing: Assessing Authentic Academic Achievement in the Secondary School."
6. "Raising Standardized Achievement Test Scores and the Origins of Test Score Pollution"
etc., etc.
Do you see it as a possibility that the BCTF does have genuine educational-based concerns with the notion of standardized testing? Is it possible that the BC Liberals are implementing them for political rather than educational purposes? If the group that hangs around this blog is at all representative of the party faithful it sure seems to be scoring them political points.
The idea of standardized testing is controversial, but from my brief survey the experts seem to believe that it is generally a bad idea. Like global warming I'm sure you can find experts who disagree, but it appears that they are a small and shrinking minority.
Actually Brian the BC Liberals are not as right wing as some of the unions make them out to be. If that were the case pretty much every crown corporation would be privatized, health care would have been cut rather than increased and the government would have also taken a socially conservative position.
Yes there are some arguments against standardized testing, but I've heard many in favour. Provincial exams are a form of standardized testing and the reality is I believe students have the right to know where their strengths and weaknesses are as do the parents. While I am sure most teachers are fair and reasonable in their assessment, often one marks relative to others in a given class, but the problem is in the real world one must compete when getting into university against students from across the province. If you are at a school with poor averages, I believe the students has the right to know this.
But more importantly my worry is that this is a way for lousy teachers to avoid facing accountability. Now true enough that in poorer districts, students on average don't perform as well and I agree that needs to be taken into consideration. However, if at a given school, performance of students from one specific teacher are considerably lower than every other teacher, that probably means the teacher should be held accountable. Every job I've held and the new job I am about to start in two weeks was in the private sector where I can/could be fired for not performing. I believe teachers should too be held to the same standards. After all even politicians, can be fired, i.e. the voters come election time and indeed 20 some MLAs were fired last provincial election as were 38 MPs federally in the last federal election.
My suspicion is the BCTF is against standardized testing since it would point out who the bad teachers are. I for one believe the good teachers ought to be rewarded and the bad ones punished. That doesn't mean they should be fired immediately, but rather than should at first get a warning and if they continuously under-perform than fire them.
As a side note, Brian, if only federal Tories voted for the BC Liberals they would have lost the last provincial election considering the Tories won less than half the seats in BC. Also nevermind they would have won no seats in Vancouver, North Shore, Richmond, and Burnaby, so some Liberals, although certainly not all do vote BC Liberals. I suggest you stop reading the union propaganda who hate the BC Liberals simply because they don't offer the unions sweetheart deals. The reality is the BC has for most of its history been governed by a pro-free enterprise coalition be it the Liberals, Conservatives, or Social Credit, with only three NDP wins. On the contrary at the federal level BC has been all over the map. Ironically enough many of the Reform ridings federally went NDP provincially, so people often vote differently at different levels.
Well, the BC Libs have privatized chunks of BC Hydro and broken it up so that it would be easier to privatize in the future, they privatized BC Rail (what a mess that turned out to be - bribery and horrible damage to the cheakamus canyon), they turned BC Ferries into a non-profit which will make it easier to privatize in the future (now that they're used to higher interest rates, property tax and GST that they were exempt from as a crown corp.), they're running around trying to start up as many P2P's as they can, they're accepting plans from private power producers and they've contracted out a ton of stuff. About the only thing they haven't targeted is ICBC even though at one time it was a marked company too. Teresen gas was also sold to a large Texas company with a horrible environmental record under their watch.
Let's see what their plans are for health care. Gordon's trip to Europe seemed like a complete waste of time as he already had his mind made up that our system was broken before he went. Ah health care, a whole other debate for another time.
Social conservatism doesn't go over well in BC, thank goodness, but regardless they don't have much control over social policy (unless they want to start using the notwithstanding clause...).
I agree fully with grade 12 provincial exams. Something needs to keep consistency across the system and keep grading even.
As for using tests as a measure of teacher competence, I don't think that it's an accurate measure. Apparently you do, with some sort of correction factor for the socio-economics of the student population (although you know when results get put in the newspaper or in a report from the fraser institute (shudder) that never happens). Seems like an inaccurate and overly-complicated evaluation system to me. If what it comes down to is that you think it should be easier to fire teachers, well then standardized testing is a strange round-about first step towards achieving that goal.
I think that this whole standardized test debate is also timed by the Libs so that they can get the public on-side for when the teacher contract expires at the end of June. Apparently the Libs were conducting telephone polls asking what the minimum they would have to offer teachers in order to gain the public's support. They don't want to be on the wrong side of public opinion like last time. The plan? Vilify the BCTF and offer the minimum possible that gets the public on-side.
Is it any wonder why the teacher union is political? Their employer is the government and the gov't is political. They don't really have a choice.
With regards to your side note I don't read union propaganda whatever that means. I'm trying to keep this debate civil, I'd appreciate the same effor from you. I also don't belong to a union (I see that fact as rather irrelevant, but you may be interested to know).
As for the comment about hating the bc liberals for not offering them "sweetheart" deals, what adjective would you use to describe the deals that were acheived before this last round of barganing? They weren't even deals, they were dictated.
The BC Libs are more right-wing than the Socreds or any government in BC's history.
Brian - I checked the Wikipedia article on standardized testing and while there have been some problems mainly in the United States, those can be avoided by better designs. Now I am not suggesting they are the end all be all, but I do think students should know where they are at rather than wait until Grade 12. One of the real concerns is grade inflation that since 60% (or at least that is what it was when I graduate) of the mark towards university admissions comes from a teacher's mark. In order to help the school's reputation they may want to inflate the marks
On the privatization, front, only the non-core assets of BC Hydro were privatized. Besides in Nova Scotia the Progressive Conservatives in 1992 privatized their electricity and if you know anything about Atlantic PCs, they tend to be mostly Red Tories. Privatizing BC Hydro is worth a lot in assets so it could help pay down the debt, however since it is a natural monopoly it would still have to be regulated so I can see the argument against privatization here.
BC Rail - was largely privatized, although I should note the federal Liberals privatized CN Rail in 1995 and turned a company with heavy debt into a successful profitable company. While I agree the handlings were not great, the privatization has lead to track upgrades that would have costed taxpayers a lot of money, so in the long-run I think it will be a good deal. Interestingly enough Prince George which went NPD in 1996 over fear of privatization of BC Rail, went solidly BC Liberal in 2005, so it obviously hasn't caused the problems people thought.
On BC Ferries - Considering the mess the NDP made with the Fast Ferries fiasco I think turning it into a non-profit organization is a wise idea to avoid having it used as a political tool again. It was here used along the same lines as the Vancouver International Airport Authority, which worked well and also I should note the federal government did privatize under the Liberals some of Marine Atlantic's routes.
ICBC hasn't been touched yet and until rates come down in provinces with private insurance I don't think it will be touched. That being said, a year ago I would have paid more in Alberta than BC, but this year (I turned 25 this year) I would have paid less in Alberta than BC. I should also note Dalton McGuinty who is no right winger rejected the idea of a public auto insurance company last provincial election.
On the health care issue, the Canada Health Act essentially limits what he can and cannot do. Besides Quebec has far more private health care than BC and never mind many European countries like Sweden, Germany, France, and Netherlands have very successful mixed systems. Now some like Britain and New Zealand haven't worked well while Australia's has performed roughly the same as Canada's. Terasen Gas was actually privatized under the Social Credit in 1989, while the American takeover had to get approval from Investment Canada who can reject foreign takeovers, although never has since its creation.
On Social conservatism, I agree it doesn't sell well in the Lower Mainland, but in the Fraser Valley and Interior, I would say it sells quite well considering that nutbars like Stockwell Day and Randy White win by huge margins. That being said, the point is not all of us are ideologically right wing on all issues. In fact I was a former Progressive Conservative and only switched to the Liberals due to my distaste for social conservatism. And yes the provincial government could cut off funding to abortion (which they haven't done) they could've used the notwithstanding clause initially when the ruling came down on gay marriage (which they didn't unlike Alberta who threatened to), and they could shut down the safe injection site (which Campbell supports, but Harper opposes). Campbell also when talking to him at the regional conference today said he supports Kyoto Protocol, whereas Harper doesn't, although he did criticize the federal Liberals for not having a plan on it.
I don't think standardized testing is the only way we should evaluate teachers. I also think the principal of the school and the parents should play a role here. My concern is now that even if a teacher was caught hitting a student they cannot fire them. I think standardized testing should be only part of, but not the only way of evaluating the teacher. If it is a poor area, off course scores will be lower, but one can still compare them to other classes with similiar socio-economic backgrounds. For example, if schools in working class neighbourhoods have an average score of 60%, but one teacher is at 40% year after year, then something is wrong in my opinion.
I do think the Fraser Institute rankings have their flaws, but back in 1997, my school got one of the worse results in the province mainly due to grade inflation. I had an average of 85% then, but dropped to 75% the following year as they started marking harder. Thankfully I realized my marks weren't high enough for university and I worked my butt off in Grade 12 to get them high enough rather than think I was doing a Okay and get an ugly surprise when the provincial exams came in. And note this was a private school (which is unusual, since they usually do well in the Fraser Institute rankings).
Off course they don't want to be on the wrong side of public opinion, but considering they have settled with the HEU, BCGEU, and Nurses Union who are all opponents of the BC Liberals then I think the BCTF will look quite silly if they cannot settle. I should note that Gordon Campbell's wife Nancy Campbell was a former teacher, I had her in elementary school for French, so he doesn't hate teachers as much as the BCTF claims.
The BCTF may need to be political on the education front, but considering how they take positions on pretty much every issue and always on the left side of the spectrum, I think they lose a lot of credibility. If they stuck to only education and weren't so ideological they would have more credibility. Even in neighbouring Alberta they are generally more reasonable as they've learned there the public has far less tolerance than here in BC for their antics. And even in Newfoundland & Labrador under Brian Peckford or Ontario under Mike Harris were far harsher towards the teachers than Campbell, yet both got re-elected with majorities.
The BC Liberals are more right wing than WAC Bennett, but pretty much every party has shifted to the right since the 60s. Compared to Bill Bennett, I would say they are in the same spot as his agenda wasn't all that much different. And lets remember all their right wing stuff was mostly done in their first term, nothing in the last couple of years other than a few spats with unions, but even this seems to be ending. After all Chretien in his first term governed rather to the right, but each subsequent term moved to the left and retired on the centre-left. Like in the case of Chretien, Campbell dealt with a financial mess that required dramatic changes, but since that is gone, there hasn't been anymore right wing policies yet. And considering Carole Taylor is pretty liberal I cannot see her introducing a right wing budget anytime soon. I think the choice of her as finance minister is probably a move to the centre.
"As for the comment about hating the bc liberals for not offering them "sweetheart" deals, what adjective would you use to describe the deals that were acheived before this last round of barganing? They weren't even deals, they were dictated."
Brian, do you know how many negotiated contracts there were between the BCTF and the provincial government when the NDP was in power?
Give up?
Zero. That's right, ZERO.
Every contract after they introduced province-wide bargaining has been imposed.
And, correct if I'm wrong, but they've also received far larger raises under Gordon Campbell & Co. than they ever received during that dismal decade of socialist rule in Victoria.
If it were only about standardized tests, I might be able to partially accept your point. But it's not.
This is an institution that has attempted to impose its ideological agenda in the class room, and that has resisted efforts to enhance the accountability of its membership at every turn.
Despite the rhetoric coming from the other side, this is not an attack on teachers, it is simply a statement of fact.
The reality is this Brian: the most recent round of standardized tests revealed the highest level of achievement in reading, writing and math in BC history.
That should be a credit to the fine teachers of this province, but the BCTF will have none of it.
Why? Because it undercuts their alarmist rhetoric about a crisis in our public education system, and thus undermines the cornerstone of their endless campaign for more money.
That is not an attack on teachers. That is a statement of fact.
It has become rather apparent that this organization cares about little more than pursuing its own material interests and advancing its own agenda in our school system.
And it has to stop.
That means giving individual teachers themselves the ability to choose whether they wish to affiliate themselves with that organization.
My point is Brandon that a standardized test is not an accurate measure of teacher quality.
For instance Jose, his sister is enrolled in an after school math program. Should her teachers' get credit for a good math score? I guess we'll have to pull down her scores to level the playing field, because she probably would have done worse, but no one really knows. What about the kid who's parents don't enroll him in after school tutoring but do take an active interest in his studies and homework. He'll probably do well too. But wait, maybe he has a learning disability, should we take that into consideration? Then we have the kids who's parents just don't give a rat's *ss what's going on at school or what homework has been assigned. This kid statistically will do less well. And then finally we have the few who's parents are addicted to something or beat their kids or don't feed them properly. All of these factors are completely out of the teacher's control yet will have a huge impact on the test scores.
Another problem is let's say there's a school 50 grade 4's, so two classes of 25. If you're the principal, and you have two grade four teachers, one with good classroom control and one with poor classroom control. You also know that 5 of the grade four students have behavioural problems, so you put them in the class taught by the better teacher. Now this teacher is going to have to try to deal with them all year and the distractions and problems they cause for the entire class and get them to perform well on the test at the end of the year, while the other has a relatively well behaved class. Perhaps those five students even dislike their teacher and have openly announced that since the tests don't count anyways they're going screw them up purposely!! hahaha teacher, take that! Plus that way when they get their scores back they can avoid the shame of trying hard and not doing well. This way they didn't even try. Can you imagine your frustration if you were that teacher?
What I'm saying is that using standardized test results to measure the quality of a teacher is grossly inaccurate and thus a completely unfair measuring stick.
If you're going to make comments about teachers pushing "their" political views into the general curriculum (wasn't if a few posts back everyone was saying how their teachers voted liberal?) you should back it up with facts or not say it at all. It's too easy to make things up.
You come across as very angry at the BCTF, possibly because they oppose the political party you support, I don't know. Maybe that's why the tests are seen as a tool to attack teachers, because the people who seem to be pushing them also seem so angry at the teachers. And the tests certainly could be used to attack them.
I'm not going to get into a debate about the bargaining history or speculate along with you about reasons the BCTF does this and not that. I really don't think that conversation will get anywhere; I know where you stand, you know where I stand, let's leave it at that.
The teachers never had a problem with admitting people with undergraduate degrees from T.W.U, they were opposed to starting an education program there where to be accepted into the program one would have to swear that they were against homosexuals and abortion and who knows what other socially conservative dogma goes on in that place. If I were running the BCTF I would want the best possibly candidate enrolled, not the best candidate that's against abortion. Is that really so shocking for you? Can you imagine if the government opened a new medical school, but would only admit students who were against homosexual marriage? That's insane.
I'm not going to reply over at Shultz' blog because he has a heavy handed comment approval system going on over there and doesn't contribute any comments anyway.
Funny how, for once, I have the urge to have Miles' back on this one.
I do believe that Miles did say that a) standardized testing was not a completely accurate means of determining teacher quality and b) definitely not the only means of determining teacher quality.
The problem above all is teachers can't get fired. The BCTF will challenge any firing in court.
This is why my friend's Physics teacher is still teaching, despite the fact he told an Asian girl to "Shut up. That means stop talking in English." and to "Sit down or I'll put you in a box and mail you back to Japan, or wherever it is you are from." Her and her classmates have tried to get him fired, but the response from the school was essentially: "We can't do anything. If we fired him, we'd have to fight it in a court challenge. Our hands our tied."
First and foremost, THAT needs to change. Bigoted morons like that shold not be in the classroom. Period. Evauating teacher quality is pointless unless you plan on doing something about the incompetent teachers.
I think standardized test scores aren't the only scores to look at. The teacher's assignment and test scores should also play a role. After all, the crucial difference between the standardized test and the teacher's test is that the teacher created the latter. It is, to an extent, a better reflection as to whether or not the teacher is testing fairly and the students are understanding the curriculum.
Brian, your claim is right- to a point. Standardized testing over one year does not properly reflect teacher quality. There are too many extraneous variables. However, if a teacher's class is doing consistently poorly on these tests, year after year, then I believe that is an accurate reflection of the teacher's skills. While extraneous variables to exist every year, those variables aren't the same year after year.
Having never attended K-12 school in BC, I cannot fairly assess whether or not teachers work their political agenda into the curriculum. I'm sure there are some that do, but, at the same time, I'm sure many don't. I also don't believe the teachers themselves are the ones who are the partisans.
The upper echelons of the BCTF, however, I cannot say the same for.
The BCTF, to me, has demonstrated time and time again that they are more concerned with their political agenda, rather than the students. Again, this is not the impression I get from the teachers, but rather from people like Jinny Sims.
Riddle me this, Brian. If the BCTF are not partisan, then why did they pump millions into an anti-BC Liberal advertising campaign, and millions more into the NDP campaign? There is no doubt that they are partisan, and that they have political agenda. Just follow the money trail.
But that is not to say the BCTF is pro-NDP either. Their political agenda makes Carole James look like George W. Bush, essentially. Hence why not even Glen Clark, who had the unions in his back pocket, could even negotiate one contract with them. Three attempts for Clark, three imposed contracts.
His anger, along with my anger, for the BCTF, is not about the fact that we support the BC Liberals. Rather it comes from the militancy of the union: mandatory membership, intimidation tactics to ensure teachers blindly follow the BCTF agenda, I could go on.
Frankly the point of this is the standardized testing argument made by the BCTF has nothing to do with standardized testing. It's essentially a cover for their agenda.
I think BC Tory hits the nail on the head. A bad year should not result in the teachers being punished from standardized testing and likewise the socio-economic background of the classroom should be taken into consideration. However if a teacher year after year performs worse relative to teachers teaching other students with similar socio-economic backgrounds than something is wrong.
And lets remember, contrary to what some say, BC students are performing better and graduation rates have gone up, which I see as a good thing.
Hey Miles,
I didn't actually notice your 1:10AM comment until now (I had only read Brandon's tirade). You explained your points well and while I disagree with some of them I don't have time to outline my thoughts in detail now. (lucky you!)
And to BC Tory, I never said the BCTF wasn't political. What I said was
Is it any wonder why the teacher union is political? Their employer is the government and the gov't is political. They don't really have a choice.
As for doing some sort of complicated year-over-year statistical trend analysis of standardized test results while taking into consideration the socio-economics of the particular classes... doesn't sound feasible to me. It would probably take an army of statisticians and psychologists to attempt such a feat, and even then a different army of statisticians and psychologists analyzing the same data could probably come up with a completely different result.
Using standardized testing as a fair teacher evaluation tool is essentially impossible. Using it as an unfair political tool that will fit into a 6 o'clock news sound byte is very easy. Which do you think will happen?
A couple of points:
1) I am aware that because the government (i.e. the employer of the unions) is political, so the BCTF must be as well. However, just because the BCTF is political does not mean it shouldn't be able to work with the government. It seems the BCTF, time and time again, antagonizes the government just for the sake of antagonizing it. Between the fact that the NDP under union-friendly Glen Clark had to impose contracts on them three times, and the fact that the BC Liberals has struck deals with prettymuch every provincial union aside from the BCTF, I get the impression that the BCTF is simply being antagonistic.
2) As I said before, of course standardized testing is not going to be the only good measure of teacher quality. They should be looked at and compared to the teacher's grades and tests to see if the teacher is actually doing a good job teaching the curriculum and is testing fairly. Stnadardized testing, in my opinion, is only one method (and a minor one at that) of determining teacher quality.
Perhaps the BCTF is overly demanding, perhaps the barganing structure is flawed. Currently the relationship between the BCTF and the government is more poisonous than ever. For all the times the BCTF has been accused of being a bully, I think the government is far more guilty in this regard when you consider how the last 2 contracts were put through. In the end the gov't holds all the power... teachers aren't rich doctors, they can't simply refuse to not work to a year. That two week strike cost each one of them about 4.5% of their salary this year.
And of course there's going to be lots of posturing and demands leading up to the expiration of the current contract. It's barganing. It's how it works.
Given the fact that you consider standardized testing to be minor (and possibly inaccurate?) measurment, do you think it's worth the cost of writting, publishing, distributing, administering and evaluating them? Plus potentially have some teachers start teaching to test? Plus all the negative press the teachers receive over it will no doubt further disuade potentially good teachers from entering the profession. It seems to me the negatives far outweigh any positives. Unless you're a Liberal that wants to gain political points. It's the only way it makes sense.
I understand your points about how the raw data can be attributed to other factors beyond the quality of the teachers themselves.
Yes. the amount of income the parents of the students have, the level of their dedication to their children's academic and overall wellbeing, the general quality of the home life the students enjoy, they all have an effect on their performance in school.
But I can't help but observe that the argument presented against these tests is shifting.
The BCTF was attempting to make the argument that standardized testing is bad for students. You, on the other hand are making the argument that it is unfair to teachers.
Now, as Miles stated before, there are likely ways to remove elements that appear to unfairly target individual teachers. I think that we all realize that teachers get the hand they are dealt and have to work with it.
But I hardly see the problem with determining what the levels of performance are at the district-wide or province-wide level through standardized tests or how they are unfair to teachers.
The results of such tests would simply show the current level of performance in the system as a whole rather than reflect on individual teachers themselves.
Decision makers at both the district and provincial level can't make competent and informed decisions without being informed.
If, for example, those tests show scores falling throughout the system, they will realize that they have a problem on their hands and take the necessary steps to correct it. And given that they are the front line workers in the system, it would only make sense that teachers would have ideas to help correct it.
And yes, in that case, more money could possibly help the problem, in the sense that it could help attract higher quality teachers.
As I said before, the current case, the last round of tests showed the highest level of achievement than ever before.
If the BCTF were smart, they would try to assert the fact that teachers in the system were a big part of the reason for that increase, and that they should be rewarded for their efforts with higher pay. That would only follow the logic that giving teachers a reward for their performance would spur them on to perform even better in the future.
Instead, the BCTF appears to be more interested in manufacturing a crisis in the system than dealing with reality. And that seems to be driven by its ideological agenda more than anything else.
It's no more complicated than this: there is a free enterprise government in Victoria at the moment, and they don't like it.
How else, for example, can you explain how they got a relatively measely raise "imposed" on them by the NDP and go off relatively quietly, and then get a much larger raise "imposed" by the Campbell government (at a moment when the province was facing the largest deficit in its history) and scream bloody freakin' murder about it?
It simply doesn't add up otherwise.
"If you're going to make comments about teachers pushing "their" political views into the general curriculum (wasn't if a few posts back everyone was saying how their teachers voted liberal?) you should back it up with facts or not say it at all. It's too easy to make things up."
Fine, here you go.
"You come across as very angry at the BCTF, possibly because they oppose the political party you support, I don't know. Maybe that's why the tests are seen as a tool to attack teachers, because the people who seem to be pushing them also seem so angry at the teachers. And the tests certainly could be used to attack them."
Yes, I admit that I detest the BCTF.
That has nothing to do with who is in power. I detested them equally as much when their "brothers and sisters" were in power in the '90s.It is their own actions that I abhor.
And frankly, I am getting sick and tired of being accused of "teacher bashing" when I speak out against the BCTF and its games.
Teaching is one of the most noble professions ever devised. For example, without teachers we would not even be able to even have this discussion, as we would be illiterate. Indeed, we owe them a lot.
But this is the reality: when I was in school I had some teachers who went the extra mile to help, who put their students before themselves and who had a genuine interest in seeing them succeed. I also have had teachers at the opposite end of the scale, who have been almost disinterested in their jobs, and who verbally berate and abuse their students on a daily basis.
It's not my imagination Brian. I've experienced it. I've lived it.
Given the amount of trust children place in their hands, teachers can be a powerful force in their lives. And they can either be a beneficial force or they can be a destructive one.
If you haven't been on the receiving end of a verbal assault from an abusive teacher, I can only tell you that you can't truly how destructive it can be.
Perhaps for you to understand my own situation better, perhaps I should explain it.
I have a physical disability that severely impairs my motor skills. So I was precisely the kind of special ed. student that the BCTF claims to champion.
So my personal perspective might be quite different than what you might have assumed at the outset.
And to give you an idea of how I've seen teachers unions work, I'll give you the following example:
When I was in Grade 11 or 12, my high school was going through the provincial accreditation process. To pass accreditation, the Ministry of Education told them that they had to scrap the "X-Block."
X-Block was one hour of time set aside at the end of the last day of an eight day class schedule. It was the time in which students could go to get tutorial assistance from the teachers in whichever of their classes they chose.
Admittedly, most of the students would use it as an opportunity to go home an hour early. In the veiw of the Min. of Ed., it was bringing the school below the minimum amount of instructional time it mandated, and was essentially forcing the school to scrap it.
But there were a fair number of students who were using X-Block as an opportunity to get extra help, and for those of us who actually used it, it was very beneficial.
It was especially beneficial for me in that I had two major spinal surgeries around that time that caused me to miss several months of school, and I needed the help provided to help get back on track.
To help resolve the situation, the school administration called meetings that were open to the teachers, a PAC representative, a student council representative and whatever other students who might want to attend. Given that it was an important issue for me, I attended and offered my input. Whether or not the teachers were initially ambivilant, disinterested, or simply delegated the responsibility of attending to their union, I don't know. What I can tell you is that only one or two initially attended the meetings.
When discussing what to do about the issue, I offered a proposal. It would involve shaving 15 minutes of the alloted time for the class that would replace X-Block, and adding 15 minutes to the scheduled dismissal time, leaving students a 30 minute window every 8 days when they could get tutorial assistance from their teachers.
That proposal, when divided, would have worked out to to an extra 1.875 minutes per school day. A pretty minor sacrifice of the teachers time if you ask me.
So what happened?
Well, the union notices hit all the teachers mailboxes, denouncing the proposal as a major and wholly unnacceptable deviation from the terms of the contract.
The contract said 32 hours per week, not a nanosecond more. And whoever the union rep was recommended that his or her fellow members not budge a millimetre.
When the next meeting was held, a bunch of teachers suddenly came out of the woodwork and attended the next meeting in an effort to kill my proposal. And they succeeded. X-Block died, and was replaced by nothing.
This is precisely the kind of reason why I detest teachers unions. They berate us constantly with their sanctimony about caring about the kids and the like, and when someone proposes to extend the school day by what would amout to less than 2 minutes a day, they go crazy.
That, Brian, is precisely why I don't buy for a minute the idea that they are fighting standardized tests to benefit students. They are doing so to benefit themselves.
"The teachers never had a problem with admitting people with undergraduate degrees from T.W.U, they were opposed to starting an education program there where to be accepted into the program one would have to swear that they were against homosexuals and abortion and who knows what other socially conservative dogma goes on in that place."
Well as far as I understand it, the BC College of Teachers (BCCT), with the support of the BCTF, opposed allowing TWU graduates into the school system, on the basis that the criteria for entry into TWU required a certain code of moral conduct.
The argument was that these criteria would lead to homophobic graduates who would be hell bent on attacking gay people in the class room.
The matter went to court, and TWU won.
People on the left don't seem to realize that we have freedom of conscience and religion in this country, and that people are free to have socially conservative views.
Whether or not TWU, as a private institution, holds up Biblical atandards of conduct among its students has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of its graduates.
Just because people might personally oppose homosexuality or the like on their own religious and moral grounds does not mean that such people will automatically try to impose their views on others.
Yes, no TWU graduate ought to be in a position to impose their personal religious and political views in the classroom. But the same can most certainly be said in reverse as well: the BCTF ought not be able to impose their views on those same matters in the classroom either.
I sould mention that in my own case, while am not overly zealous on either issue, I am pro-life and I don't support the Liberal Party's version of same-sex marriage. Does that mean that I should automatically be banned from the teaching profession, on the assumption that I can't resist bringing up either issue in the classroom?
I would certainly hope not.
This is the ultimate example of the pot calling the kettle black.
Addding all of this up, I have no time for the BCTF and its games. It is an institution that defends the worst teachers at the expense of the best, that attempts to impose its own political agenda on children, that fights any genuine effort to enhance the accountability of its members, that fights any genuine effort to inform parents about the performance of the system and refuses to yield its own power over that system.
It is an organization uses the children of this province as pawns in its endless game to preserve and promote its own agenda, its own power and its own material self-interest.
If individual teachers want to join it or its local affiliates, fine. They should be free to do so. But I see absolutely no reason why mandatory membership in it ought to go on a moment longer.
Quite the contrary.
Brandon,
That was an impassioned piece. I understand where you're coming from and can see why you think many of the things you do. I also don't think that the BCTF is perfect (what large organization is, including the Liberals). I would however contest many of your points, which I don't have time for at the moment.
The one thing which I would like to quickly say though is that they were worried about the education program being taught at TWU, not admitting their graduates. FYI, from the appeal:
"
Trinity Western University ("TWU") is a private institution in B.C., associated with the Evangelical Free Church of Canada. TWU established a teacher training program offering baccalaureate degrees in education upon completion of a five-year course, four years of which were spent at TWU, the fifth year being under the aegis of Simon Fraser University ("SFU"). TWU applied to the B.C. College of Teachers ("BCCT") for permission to assume full responsibility for the teacher education program. One of the reasons for assuming complete responsibility for the program was TWU's desire to have the full program reflect its Christian world view. The BCCT refused to approve the application because it was contrary to the public interest for the BCCT to approve a teacher education program offered by a private institution which appears to follow discriminatory practices. The BCCT was concerned that the TWU Community Standards, applicable to all students, faculty and staff, embodied discrimination against homosexuals. Specifically, the concern stemmed from the list of "PRACTICES THAT ARE BIBLICALLY CONDEMNED", which encompassed "sexual sins including . . . homosexual behaviour". TWU community members were asked to sign a document in which they agreed to refrain from such activities. On application for judicial review, the B.C. Supreme Court found that it was not within the BCCT's jurisdiction to consider whether the program follows discriminatory practices under the public interest component of the Teaching Profession Act and that there was no reasonable foundation to support the BCCT's decision with regard to discrimination. The court granted an order in the nature of mandamus, allowing approval of the TWU proposed teacher education program for a five-year period subject to a number of conditions. The Court of Appeal found that the BCCT had acted within its jurisdiction, but affirmed the trial judge's decision on the basis that there was no reasonable foundation for the BCCT's finding of discrimination."
For more information than you probably care to read, see here.
I said that standardized testing was not the bst method of detemrining teacher quality, although it is still a method. Standardized testing still has the asset of pointing out areas of strengths and weaknesses for children, and that's why I think they are important.
I think Brandon makes a good point that standardized testing can also show what parts of the provinces or groups are struggling. That way the government can put more money towards those groups and more resources towards helping them. Perhaps maybe smaller class sizes in poorer districts than wealthier districts might be an idea. Standardized testing can show this and help here. It is not the end all, be all, it is only one of many components in education.
As for the TWU issue, I happen to disagree with Brandon here. What a teacher's views on SSM and abortion is really his or her business so long as they don't discuss it in class, but I am concerned that TWU actually wants teachers to indoctrinate students with Christian values. I think if someone took courses at TWU, but got their education degree elsewhere, fine, but if only at TWU I would be a bit concern, but having not attended that university I cannot say for sure. I do know Chris Kempling ran as the Christian Heritage Party candidate in the last federal election, which is one of only two parties (Western Block Party being the other) that is to the right of the Conservatives if you can believe it.
As for the BCTF's political agenda, if they were less dogmatic, I might have more respect for them. My problem is they have a certain ideology and are unwilling to bend on it. Yes the government may have come down on them too quickly, but if they couldn't settle with the NDP, I don't think it would matter what the BC Liberals offered, they were determined to pick a fight since they wanted the government out of office.
Brian:
You might be right on the specific details on the case. This is how the initial decision is described on the archives of the BCTF website
EGADS! TRINITY WESTERN WINS
Earlier this week the B.C. Supreme Court ruled that Trinity Western University, an evangelical school in Langley, has the right to train teachers for the public school system despite a policy that discriminates against gays and lesbians. TWU demands that students sign a code of conduct which prohibits pre-marital sex, adultery and homosexual activity, which it says is "biblically condemned." More than 200 students are currently enrolled in TWU's teacher education program, which has been operating for more than a decade under the auspices of SFU. In his ruling, Justice William Davies said the B.C. College of Teachers failed to provide evidence that TWU graduates will be intolerant of homosexuals. The College has not announced whether it plans to appeal the decision."
What I am saying is that if it can be proven that TWU was living up to the same standards as any other program in the province to train teachers, then its admission criteria ought to have been a non-issue.
Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, whatever: each ought to be able to set up if their own educational institutions if they choose. And as long as those institutions meet or exceed the standards in simlar public institutions, their graduates ought not be discriminated against.
I think the point is illustrated by the fact that the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) entered this particular case as an intervenor on behalf of TWU. The BCCLA could hardly be considered a right-wing organization, by any stretch.
I should say though that I appreciate the fact that you acknowledge that this is about more than just partisanship on my part.
I think that most reasonable people on the left would also oppose the BCTF's agenda if they truly understood how extreme and self-serving it truly is
Miles:
The fact that you may be concerned about TWU graduates wanting to indoctrinate kids hardly means that they ought to be banned from teaching.
I hate to have to say this Miles, but it is true: I think you really need to conquer your own prejudices.
Because that is exactly what this is. You are assuming or "prejudging" whether or not these people would bring they're own views into the classroom, and suggesting that these people be discriminated against based on that assumption.
Whether or not any of these people support the Christian Heritage Party or even the Rhino Party is none of our business, so long as they do not bring their personal agendas into the classroom.
Barring these people on an assumption flies in the face in the socially liberal "live and let live" ideal that you so often say you champion.
True civil libertarians understand that liberty can only truly exist when it is reciprocal.
If the curriculum at TWU meets the standards and does not promote religious indoctrination then fine. However, if it promotes religious indoctrination then it is not fine.
That being said while I don't think attending TWU should bar someone from teaching, I find their views taught at TWU absolutely abhorent and competely out of touch with the modern world. Besides the gay rights issue, where my position is well articulated elsewhere, I think asking people not to have pre-marital sex is completely unrealistic in today's world. This made sense when people got married in their late teens or early 20s, but not now when most people don't get married until they are close to 30.
I agree though that the BCTF is quite radical. It is one thing to be centre-left. I don't agree with them, but I think they have some valid and reasonable points. From what I've seen, I suspect that is where Brian falls. However the BCTF is not centre-left, they are far left. Jinny Sims is about as far to the left from Carole James as Gordon Campbell is to the right of her, so that is pretty far out there when you consider Carole James is already on the left side of the spectrum. More importantly if the BCTF is reasonable and moderate, how come they couldn't settle even when the NDP was in power. And explain why ever other union including the HEU, BCGEU, and Nurses Union have settled even though they are certainly not supporters of Gordon Campbell by any stretch of the imagination.
No time, but the BCTF's contract doesn't expire until the end of June. The others' expired at the end of March. That's why they haven't settled yet.
There were no problems settling wiht the teachers before the NDP forced them into province-wide barganing. That was a mistake. (Before it was on a district by district basis). I think that the BCTF has gotten kicked around by the government and the media for ages and it has radicalized some people, but it is not the hotbed of extreme far-left crazyness some seem to preceive it to be. I ask only that you listen carefully to what they say with an open mind as the deadline draws closer. Don't discount the words before considering them. Don't discount the words because Jinny Sims looks annoying.
I agree with Miles on the social conservatism issues.
I agree the province wide bargaining certainly didn't help and that is something that could be changed. That being said even on district by district bargaining, there was a strike at my school twice in 1991 under the Social Credit and 1993 under the NDP, so even there, there were problems. There are some sensible people in the BCTF, but Jinny Sims is quite radical as was David Chudnovsky. The former BCTF president David Chudnovsky has been considered one of the more radical members in the NDP caucus along with Harry Lali and Leonard Krog. Gregor Robertson, Mike Farworth, and David Cubberley are examples of more moderate ones. I don't agree with their views, but I respect them.
"That being said while I don't think attending TWU should bar someone from teaching, I find their views taught at TWU absolutely abhorent and competely out of touch with the modern world.
Well, I know you're not a fan of Christianity by any stretch, but applying your own liberal high-mindedness would be to give to Christians the same respect you would give to anyone else's beliefs.
In the words of Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it.”
If you are a true libertarian and a true small-l liberal, you'd be fighting for the rights of the TWU graduates in question, rather than opposing them.
Perhaps there was a stike, but at the end was there an agreement? Everyone should go away feeling good or feeling screwed... if only one party feels good or only one screwed, then the relationship and any mutual respect will break down.
Just listen to Jinny Sims and try not to judge her words past actions.
I for instance despise Gordon Campbell. However I was very pleased when they announced funding for Alzheimer's research. I am also very pleased with the economy. I don't pre-judge him or his party when a new issue is brought forward. It's just that more often than not, after proper thought, I disagree.
It's in everyone's best interest to be non-partisan and non-ideological.
Brandon - I have no problems with Christians, some of my family members go to church every week. But I thought Christianity was about loving thy neighbour. What I oppose is hatred in any form whether racism, homophobia, and sexism. Now yes they have the right to hold their beliefs, but I have the right to argue why they are wrong.
Brian - I don't automatically disagree with everything Jinny Sims says. I think she is right the bargaining process is flawed and needs changes. My concern is she strikes me as quite ideological compared to some other unions. Other unions such as the IWA may lean to the left, but they are less rigid in their ideology. You could off course argue Gordon Campbell is a right wing ideologue, although he has run a more centrist government in his second term than first term. Some may say he is simply doing this to avoid what happened to Mike Harris who was re-elected after one term as a right winger, but then turfed after continuing his right wing policies. But I would argue the situation in 2001, warranted major cuts, whereas now there is no need for spending cuts.
"I thought Christianity was about loving thy neighbour."
It isabout that. And that's precisely my point.
Just because people have certain moral views does not mean that they automatically "hate" people who don't adhere to them.
I think that watching guys like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell has led you to the conclusion that virtually all Christians are filled with hate. That's simply not true.
Look at Ned Flanders for example. A lot of churchgoing people are really like that.
Brandon - I don't believe all Christians are full of hate. I have always gone after the religious right, not Christians per se, and that means people like Jerry Faliwell and Pat Robertson, not people like Mother Theresa. The religious right are people who use religion to justify their hatreds, rather than religious people. It is no different than Osama Bin Ladin using Islam as justification for terrorism. That doesn't mean I think all Muslims are terrorists, in fact most Muslims are peace loving people who abhor terrorism even if they disagree with American foreign policy. Likewise most Christians are not hate filled people, but the religious right are.
This is precisely the kind of crap I'm talking about
Had the strike been a legal one, there may have been a case for this. I wouldn't be pleased with it, but at least there would be some legitimacy. Teachers shouldn't face the choice between breaking the law and being blacklisted by the union. Now some may say the law was unjust. But lets remember there was nothing from stopping the teachers from demonstrating after hours, writing letters to the editor, and even campaigning to defeat the current government if they dislike them. However, rather than follow the law and try and get rid of one you don't like through the proper avenues, Jinny Sims and her cohorts think they are above the law. We have elections and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms where people can vote against the government they don't like and launch court challenges if they feel their rights are violated. If they cannot win the proper way and the law doesn't violate the Charter, they have no ground to stand on.
Miles,
It never fails to astound me how many people think they know what it's like to be a teacher. Regarding your comment about performance...you mention that you are held accountable for your performance at work. Does your work include trying to get 30 ten year olds to listen during instructions when they have not had any breakfast, and very little in their lunch bags? Or they had to go to their mom's work at 5 in the morning because they can't afford daycare? Perhaps their parents are divorcing and the child is having difficulty focusing. Does your job involve outside influences such as the above? With regards to testing, I agree students should know how well they are doing. That is what I do every day when I assess them; I tell them what they are doing well, and where they need to improve. I give out class tests, and assessment activities that give them feedback right away. The FSA testing at Grades 4/7 is a statistical assessment whose sole purpose is to rank schools. The students do not receive their results until the following year. How is that helping them? The results do no give them any concrete information: what skill they need to work on, for instance. The tests take 6 hours to administer. I believe my students would be better served if they were working on a research project of interest to them, or working on a skill that needs improving. The only reason those test exist is for the Ministry to rank schools, and parents of "bright" children to gloat over how much better than other students their child is doing. On a last note, if belonging to a union would be a choice, then those choosing not to join should negotiate their own contract. Unions were created because of the employer's lack of care for their employees. I am not afraid of my union. I am afraid of my boss... without a union what would prevent him from hiring someone he "likes" better, a family member, or family friend. That's how things were done in the past. I do not want to go down that road again. I am not a member of the BCTF executive, but I AM THE BCFT. I give them feedback about what I need in my classroom, I vote on their recommendations, I participate in discussions about what I want to see happen. They do not opperate in a void; we are encouraged to participate. And to all those who think we have it so easy: teaching is not an exclusive club. You too can join up. Just register with one of the fine universities, pay your money, and give the next 5 years of your life to learning about being a teacher.
Mary M - I am under no illusion how tough a job teachers have. But that doesn't mean they should be left off the hook and have no accountability. Sure the area they teach in should be taken into account. I should also note working in the financial sector where I work is not as easy as some. You are dealing with other people's money and if you invest their money in the wrong area you can lose a lot of business. Sure it is a different type of work. I should also note that the BCTF finally was able to make a settlement when a signing bonus was offered and a pretty generous one I might add of 16% increase over four years I believe.
The reality is the BCTF is one of the most militant unions. I've heard some teachers from friends who have parents of teachers that say they've been blacklisted for supporting political views that go against the BCTF. If they stopped focusing on promoting their socialist agenda and instead focused more on students they might have more credibility. In Alberta they are less militant, yet get paid better.
Post a Comment
<< Home