EDITOR,
The government is proposing to appoint a mediator to find a settlement to the teachers' dispute. This sounds like a logical process, doesn't it? However, the mediation process being imposed by this Education "Improvement" Act, Bill 22, is nothing but a sham! Let us remind ourselves of the purpose of mediation. A common dictionary definition is as follows: Mediation: 1. To settle or reconcile difference by intervening as a peacemaker. 2. To act between disputing parties to bring about a settlement. This must surely infer that both parties will reach an agreement through compromise with neither side having the upper hand in the negotiations. Well, that doesn't appear to be the interpretation held by the Ministry of Education in British Columbia. When you delve into the content of Bill 22, it becomes obvious that it is written to "stack the deck" in favour of the employer. Historically, a mediator is agreed to by both parties entering into mediation but in this instance the mediator is being appointed by the Minister of Education. What possible reason could there be for the minister to seek this level of control? It is the one sure way stripping teachers of their rights to bargain a collective agreement that meets the needs of teachers and students.
The bargaining issues that are being allowed to be addressed through the mediation process are designed to pre-determine the outcomes to meet the ministry's agenda. The continued erosion of teachers' basic employment rights and working conditions will result in a continued erosion of students' learning conditions. Teachers understand exactly what is necessary to meet the ever-increasing complexities of educating students to prepare them to become contributing members of a rapidly changing society. The ministry seems to believe that they must take control the professional development of teachers and strip them of their autonomy.
Issues that are of the utmost importance to students such as class size and composition are going to be taken from contract so that classes, from Grade 4 to 12, will have no limit. Research has proven that class size matters. Therefore, is it really worth risking a student's education by going to such extreme measures for reasons known only to the ministry? Some might suggest that this will streamline educational spending. This requires further consideration, however, as the most recent goal being set by the ministry is that each student will have an individualized program - a lofty but very expensive goal! I realize that technology is to be the means to this end, but I can not imagine how this will be accomplished cheaply.
The ministry is attempting to force teachers to contribute to the demise of public education while inviting them to assist in placing education in British Columbia onto the lowest rung of governmental priorities. Is it any wonder that the teachers are upset?
Phyllis Pritchard
Retired Teacher
Garibaldi Highlands
