Pct2017

Socialist: Your poster pretty much sums up what it is about teachers that most of us dislike. No, you are not my childs Mom or Dad, much as you like to believe that you are better than those of us who are parents. No, you definitely do not put your student's needs ahead of yourself. If you had been in BC in 2012, you would have witnessed first hand just how ridiculous that statement is.. Maybe you do spend more on school supplies than your wardrobe, but that is because you are too cheap to buy a nice wardrobe. Lord knows you can afford it more than most. Rule follower? Hmm, an illegal two week strike in 2005 would seem to contradict that particular statement. I am assuming that the pearl about waking up early yadda yadda refers to your feeling that you put in ungodly hours at work. Well, we'll just let that one speak for itself. As to your assertion that teaching is much more complex today than it was back in the day, well good. But where I would argue with you is my first hand experience with having two kids in the school system. They watch way more TV in class than they do at home (would someone please explain to me what Dances With Wolves has to do with Canadian history or why the all important Canada Latvia quarter final hockey game warrants time out of class). My daughters curriculum for grade 10 English was exactly identical to her grade 11 English right down to the assignments. Same teacher who was too lazy to develop a different curriculum. I am sure that the four C's look great on a Power Point presentation but you need motivated individuals to deliver and I just don't see that in my kids schools. Look, there is no doubt that teachers do have a role to fill in society. What is missed by teachers like yourself (or at least the persona you present on this forum) and your union here is BC is that you really should learn just to shut up. The nurses union out here used to fight every political fight going and run lots of ads lamenting their plight (and let's face it, they have a lot more to complain about than teachers do), but about 5 years ago Deb McPherson et al figured out that if they just shut up, they can co-exist with whatever political party is elected to be their bosses. Now, they get contracts and raises and don't have to make fools of themselves to do it. If they can figure that out, why can't the BCTF? At the end of the day I say good on you for being proud to be a teacher. I truly hope you are good at it. But just shut up and do your job. And send that message to your union too please.

Squid, I'll see your two studies (well, one and a half, but I'll give you a mulligan because I suspect you are really young and need a few breaks) and raise you two. Look, small class size was all the rage back in the 90's and then it died when little or no definitive empirical data could support the massive incremental costs of it. BC is the only jurisdiction that I am aware of in the country or the continent that was stupid enough to embed it into the collective agreement with the teachers union. Everyone else was smart enough to legislate it so when it turned out to be a bad idea, it could be remedied. Good reading my friend, but read with an open mind. My personal favourite is Hanushek's study, but they all have merit. By the way, are you a teacher? Just curious. http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_199004_robinson.pdf http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2011/05/11-class-size-whitehurst-chingos http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/04/pdf/class_size.pdf http://hanushek.stanford.edu/publications/evidence-class-size

Squid: Wikipedia? Really? Regardless, you missed my point about studies regarding class size. Yes, you bring up two "studies" (well, one actually as you only give some mysterious quote with no citations for the second) that kind of, sort of show positive results from reduced class size. Now, you have to know I could match your two and raise you two studies in a heartbeat. My point is that class size is probably one of the most studied aspects of public education and results are all over the board. Simply stated, it is inconclusive. It is also interesting that the mystery study that you quote from actually substantiates my original argument. To quote: "Although no significant differences were observed in the gains of both male and female students, improved outcomes were again larger amongst minority and disadvantaged students". I had said that class composition should be addressed, which incorporates the argument that minority (assumed ESL) and disadvantaged (assumed challenged) should be getting more TA or EA help. But, I would argue that the BCTF does not want this to happen because TA's and EA's are not members of the BCTF. But the core of the statement is that reduced class size resulted in no gains for the "average" students. But I really got a chuckle out of the result of the "study" which stated that teachers increased satisfaction with their job. Let's see, less work for teachers due to less students equals greater job satisfaction. Now that is ground-breaking. I hope that you can see that you have shown why class size as it correlates to student outcomes is a most slippery subject to quantify as you yourself cited both sides of the argument while trying to use studies that substantiate your preconceived notion. If you want a good read on this subject and can open up your mind about it, read Malcolm Gladwell's most recent book David and Goliath. He is spot on in his analysis (IMHO) and obviously cites many studies that contradict your Wikipedia "research" (it is interesting that even that bastion of unverified information Wikipedia only gave the quality of the article that you cited a "C", which is the lowest grade allowed by the site). The studies that Gladwell cited showed that there is no change in student outcome when you are reducing class size from 24 to 22 which is the case that the BCTF is fighting for. There is an interesting potential for a study to be done right here in BC. Class size was reduced for exactly 3 years from 1999 to 2002 by Glen Clark with concurrence from Kit Krueger and the BCTF. Interesting aside is that it cost Krueger his job as the membership of BCTF wanted smaller classes and a raise, but I digress. So, if class size is so vastly important, why has the outcome of those three years of reduced classes not been studied to death? Why does our dear beloved BCTF not toddle out statistics about how much better student outcomes were during those glorious three years? Hmm, maybe because it really made no difference to the students, only to the teachers and the taxpayers.

Much has been made of the "issue" of class size and composition. While I do believe there is validity in the concern over class composition (back in my school days, there was segregation for special needs kids and ESL was not a prevalent issue), I do not think that class size has ever been shown to have a correlation to student outcome, or at least there are enough contradicting studies to muddy that water. Most of my elementary school photos show about 35 of us and who knows how many were not in attendance on picture day. I happen to feel that I go a fine education under these circumstances, as did my classmates. Reductions in class size would appear to only make the workday easier for the individual teachers and fatten up membership in the collective of teachers known as the BCTF. The third, seldom discussed variable on the quality of education in our classrooms is the actual quality of the educator. To my mind, this has a much greater effect on the educational outcomes of students than class size. Yet, it is rarely addressed. Those of you who have kids in the school system, quickly name one teacher who has been dismissed for poor performance. I can only cite instances where crappy teachers were shuffled off to the next school, none that were dismissed. Now, what you may ask is the answer to this problem? Well, before answering that question, one must ask what is the core of the problem to start with. Basically, in order for an incompetent teacher to be fired, the school administration has to jump through a bunch of hoops, which is OK. But who are the school administrators? They are teachers. Therein lays the problem. So back to the solution. I think that each school should have a principle who has an educational background just like there is now. However, the second in command (currently vice-principle in larger schools) should be totally removed from the teaching vocation. He or she should be hired to run the business side of the school, including making all hiring and firing decisions. Suddenly you will have someone in the school who is not afraid to take the hatchet to incompetency and who will not accept rejects from other schools. Let's say they fire the worst 20% of teachers in each school and are given a free hand to hire the best candidates for replacements. Wow, now you have the potential for better student outcomes that is staggering.

When a male in our society is shorter in stature than most, he typically develops the " Short Man Syndrome". He feels at some subconscious level that he must make up in attitude what he lacks in height. Well, I am here to declare a new syndrome called the "Short Work Year Syndrome". Teachers know at some subconscious level that they are embarrassed to have their 5.5 hour work day set by the attention span of a 6 year old. They also know that there is no other job available that demands a total of 192 days work per year. It also must be at the front of their minds that at least 70% of their work associates failed at their first attempted career path at university so they fled to the easiest faculty available. So, where teachers lack in dignity and acceptance as relevant in society, they make up by continually pumping their own tires. You read it here first.

Sorry, but I really have to take exception to that statement. BC teachers had a professional association in the BC College of Teachers, but it was rendered totally ineffectual by the teachers UNION, the BCTF. The College was disbanded around 2012, leaving the teachers of BC as the only body of university educated professionals to not have an overseeing association. I am a member of a professional association, and please believe me that the BCTF is the antiChrist to a professional association. Can I make that any clearer?