EDITOR,
I would like to reply to some comments made by Mr. Trueman in the Jan. 14 edition of The Chief ("A writer's rebuttal," Letters). I would like to apologize to Mr. Trueman for the incorrect spelling of his name. Also, to clarify, I was not calling him ignorant but rather the statements he made. Still, some of the comments made by Mr. Trueman in his last letter should be given an alternative view.
Math-wise, I came up with the 10 months of school because teachers teach school that is in session from September to June (a total of 10 months). To be clear, by taking a "loss in salary" (which I did not describe as a "large pay cut"), I meant teachers lost salary that they would have received for the duration of the strike.
As far as days of instruction goes there may only be 185 days, but what about the time teachers may spend prepping and planning for the upcoming year in the summer? Or grading on the weekend? It should also be factored in that Canadian research has shown that teachers on average work 55.6 hours a week.
To me there still seems to be a value in professional development days for elementary teachers, too. Think about how elementary school curricula are not just "the times tables, the alphabet, grammar and spelling." For example, in the seventh grade alone, students in science learn about basic chemistry, ecology and earth science. Not even to mention the hidden curriculum.
I would also argue that pedagogy, even on the basics, does and has changed. New discoveries are frequently being made about knowing, learning and the brain in general. So it seems only natural to try and apply the knowledge around the discoveries to teaching in an effort to teach better; for example, research shows that excellent teachers can advance all students by 1.5 academic years.
Furthermore, I would add that changes in methods today include higher levels of student engagement and participation in classes. The "basic arithmetic and linguistic skills" may not seem overly basic to all students when one considers differing learning styles, learning difficulties, new English speakers, social classes, et cetera.
I find it hard to believe that teachers themselves would have gone on strike in the name of small class sizes (amongst worthy causes) in order to gain "more union members." It seems more plausible that teachers agree with the findings on smaller classes, which have found that both elementary and secondary school students "stayed more focused and misbehaved less" and there was "improved achievement overall" in smaller classes.
In the spirit of discussion I would like to thank Mr. Trueman for his thoughts; however, I certainly do not agree with many of them. I prefer to place my trust in our teachers based on actual facts.
Hayden Drygas
Squamish
