News Leader News
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
- May 2, 2006
To the Editor;
The sixth meeting of the provincial Round Table on class size and composition is slated for the end of May, with no resolution in sight to solving the explosive class size and class composition issue, which led, in part, to last fallšs bitter teachers' strike.
Reading through the reports or statements of participating organizations at the Round Table, the mounting frustration of the provincešs teachers' representatives sitting there is understandable.
What emerges to date are: diversionary tactics (from the official and some would say, unrepresentative, provincial parents' group called BCCPAC); serving as apologists for the provincial government (from the provincial trustees' group called BCSTA) and virtual silence from the provincial principals' group (called the BCPVPA).
No doubt, all of these groups publicly profess to be addressing the urgency of the problem, and hopefully the next school year will open with a reasonable solution to an untenable situation. However, apart from what appears to be some intentional stalling, there are genuine dollops of hypocrisy combined with guilt for past inaction (or at least there should be) on an issue that goes to the heart of the instructional program in our schools.
As an experienced former principal and one who has maintained very close contact through a recent three-year stint as a school trustee, and by visiting(and speaking frequently in classrooms) with former teaching colleagues, I am saddened and dismayed by some of the ill-informed and out of touch statements emanating from the Round Table.
The level of frustration of many of my former teaching colleagues as they wrestle with onerous instructional workloads emerging from a combination of special needs, ESL and grey area kids in front of them, on a daily basis, (with little or, in most cases, no help) is palpable. Sadly, many are looking forward to early retirement; others have been compelled to take sick leave, while others soldier on in silence while doing a slow burn as they hear insulting and simplistic statements about more training for regular classroom teachers from the provincial parents' group as the solution to the class size and composition impasse. (The colleagues I am referring to here are some of the most skilled and highly trained classroom practioners I have ever met, with years of in-service and professional development on teaching strategies and classroom management behind them).
Incidentally, a prominent local radio host, during the course of an interview with me last year on the near impossible teaching-learning environment in some classrooms, informed me that his son, after five years of teaching quit the business entirely.
The costs to our public school system of the current impasse, not just in goodwill but in quality instruction, and most importantly, in providing equitable services to a broad range of kids, are enormous.
If I had my druthers I would march every single member sitting at the stagnated provincial Round Table into these classrooms and immerse them in the day-to-day instructional difficulties of my former teaching colleagues. It would certainly be -- based on their recent statements and positions -- an eye-opener for many of them to encounter real life teaching tribulations due to the chronic shortfalls in our system.
Unpalatable and uncomfortable though it may be for many of the current participants at the Round Table, it must be stated that the only group to seriously and consistently address this issue over the years and to keep it on the public agenda, were the classroom teachers of this province.
As cutback after cutback descended on classrooms across BC over a four year period (and for a number of years prior to that), and class sizes increased with the elimination of caps from the teachers' contract, the silence from the official associations and the representatives of the provincial parents', principals' and trustees' associations was stunning.
It was as if these drastic cuts never occurred.
Indeed some, as in the case of the financially beholden provincial parents' group, were busy defending the actions of the provincial government and denigrating teachers.
If you wish to challenge the veracity of the aforementioned statements ask yourself the following questions: when was the last time you heard a president of a provincial principals', parents', or trustees' associations express concern about the ongoing, negative impact of cutbacks on thousands of kids in this province? When was the last time you heard any of these groups talk about catch-up programs or services for the losses that thousands of our students incurred? And when was the last time you heard any of them express, even the slightest concern, about the ongoing overloading of the curriculum?
And how about our deputy minister of education, who is clearly part of the problem and not part of the solution, with his selective action-research quotes on class size issues, in his most recent newsletter to superintendents of schools. You certainly won't hear him quote the solid research studies that underline the need for seven years of support (not the five, as currently mandated by Victoria) for ESL students.
Impeding any progress at the Round Table, is the use, or misuse, depending on your perspective, of the word 'flexibility' by several participants. Refusing to sign on to caps for class size, some groups favour district or school-wide 'averages.' These can be very deceptive allowing for a wide and unacceptable variation in numbers in individual classrooms.
A compromise solution may be necessary, but whatever solution is arrived at eventually must recognize that the 'teachability' of a particular class, to coin a phrase, has its limits. Some form of limits on the numbers themselves, adequate in-class support in the form of texts, and materials, and equally as important, the support of special ed assistants or teaching assistants to give the individual or small group instruction to needy students, should be part of the eventually agreed to settlement. A vague statement with all sorts of opting out clauses won't cut it.
With negotiations between BCTF and the provincial government now underway it's up to the Round Table to produce a fair and pragmatic solution that is implementable.
One likely 'solution' in the next week or two, will emerge in the provincial legislature, as the Liberals amend the School Act to provide class size limits in the low 30s for intermediate (Grades 4-7) while leaving the key issue of class composition languishing at the Round Table. In school districts such as Vancouver with class averages of 28 pupils in these grades this will actually increase class size.
If this happens it will clearly signal that the provincial government is not willing to put any money on the table to resolve the problem.
Further complicating the issue is the denial by our minister of education that shortages of in-class resources are a problem (ask yourself why many parents' groups are continuing to fund raise for texts and materials, or why classroom teachers continue to ask students to share textbooks) .
Also, it is time for the provincial principals' reps -- the next group closest to the classroom situation --to speak up at the Round Table on behalf of their students. If their provincial representatives think that the ministry of education is so in tune on innovation, they should ask themselves why 10,000 students protested the bungled bureaucratic portfolio caper recently imposed on Grade 10 students. Or why more than 3,000 parents recently opposed the changes to graduation procedures for special needs students.
Lastly, it's time to cut through the rhetoric and bafflegab emanating from the Round Table with its blizzard of educational buzzwords drowning out genuine progress.
Let's move on this issue in a substantive way and address real, pressing, day-to-day, needs facing teachers in overcrowded and, in many instances, instructionally untenable classroom situations across this province before the end of the current school year.
- Noel Herron, False Creek
To The Editor;
Census Canada uses every avenue possible via mail, the Internet, Newspapers, etc. to promote the Census for May 2006, but I question the legality of this exercise for Statistics Canada. Firstly, is the questionnaire not a violation of our privacy, secondly is the census strictly to be a head count for Canada's population and thirdly, is it not a breach of trust when the federal Government has outsourced the software to be used to a U.S, subsidiary of armaments manufacturer Lockheed Martin? On their own website, Statistics Canada have forfeited the co-operation and goodwill of all Canadians.
I want to share some information from a Constitutional expert as follows: Section 8 of the Constitution Act, 1867; "8. In the general Census of the Population of Canada which is hereby required to be taken in the Year One thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, and in every Tenth Year thereafter, the respective Populations of the Four Provinces shall be distinguished."
As you can see, the Supreme Law of Canada (the section referred here is Section 8 of the Constitution Act, 1867) has provided for the taking of a general Census every tenth year starting in the year 1871. This means that a Census can only be conducted in years ending in the number 1. Not in '1996' as was the last Census taken.
It is also made very clear that a Census is conducted for but one purpose, to ascertain "the respective Populations of the Four Provinces."The only question that can be asked in a Census is, How many natural-persons occupy a particular private-dwelling? There is no provision for the asking of any other questions.
1. While section 91.6 of the Constitution Act, 1867 does provide for the Parliament to "make laws in relation to" "The Census and Statistics," the Parliament is still bound by the unamendable provisions of section 8. In other words, Parliament cannot make a law that would be inconsistent or non-compliant with any section of the Constitution Act, 1867.
2. In your opinion, where does Statistics Canada find the lawful authority to require Canadians, "By law," to answer all of the questions asked on the Census forms provided to them? If you are relying on the Statistics Act then you must be able to show how that Act is in compliance with section 8. If you have not read the Constitution Act, 1867, you might also want to refer to section 19 of the Criminal Code of Canada. This is where the excuse of "just following orders" goes right out the window.
3. How does this "lawful authority" comply with section 8 http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/c1867_e.html of the Constitution Act, 1867?
4. Are you aware of the fact that the Parliament of Canada cannot pass a law that is "inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution?" See section 52.1 of the Charter of Rights & Freedoms, 1982.
5. Are you aware that the asking of these many and various questions is "unconstitutional," as the asking of these questions is not provided for in the Constitution Act, 1867?
6. Does or will Statistics Canada sell any of the information gathered from the Census?
In summing up the 'lawful' requirement, to maintain our right to privacy of information, especially for the 20,000 'sheeple' that are expected to fill out the form online, we need only provide a head count.
Thank You for your co-operation.
- Kay Hardy, Princeton
Dear Editor;
Thank you for your last editorial regarding freedom of the press and censorship or banning certain letters to the editor. I do not speak out of self interest, only against encroachment of a police state.
There are many of us in the community who do not necessarily condone the use of any drugs. Some of us (law abiding citizens all) think that the use of some drugs is okay. Then some of us realize that the prohibition of marijuana only perpetuates the increasing need for drug enforcement laws and all that it entails. We have an ever-increasing use of this soft drug while law enforcement tries unsuccessfully to keep pace.
This is a vicious circle that can only be broken with an enlightened attitude. Better that we should take the same approach as we do for tobacco where we can see that continuing education has drastically cut its use.
More jails, more people incarcerated, more policemen, more gang activity and more prostitution is what we are faced with when we criminalize the use of drugs. Too bad that the establishment can not learn from history that prohibition simply does not work.
Allow me to use that tired old axiom just once more, "If you do not learn from history you are bound to repeat it."
Thanks again for your enlightened editorial. More people should step up and be counted.
Sincerely,
HP Toews, Princeton
To the Editor;
May 8 - 19, 2006 Grade 4 and Grade 7 students in Princeton are writing the 2006 Foundation Skills Assessment. (FSA) In some schools there is an increasing pressure on teachers to prepare students for this so called "assessment."
This is a great mistake. The FSA is not a legitimate form of assessment and in fact if these tests are given any kind of credibility the tests can damage student's ability to learn.
Some twelve years ago the UK embarked on a nation wide system of testing students. After twelve years of study the Assessment Reform Group (ARG) published their findings and came to conclusions that should alarm all.
Their research shows that the negative affects include loss of instructional time, narrowing of the curriculum, reduction of higher-order thinking skills, less self assessment and a loss of motivation and confidence among students.
All teachers know that assessment of student's learning is essential to good teaching practice. Every teacher uses a variety of methods to assess their students. Continuous assessment informs and guides teachers in developing programs for their students. The FSA is not a valid part of that assessment.
FSA tests do not constitute part of a students' marks. The ministry's participation guidelines clearly contemplate parents exempting their children: "In instances where a parent withdraws a student from participation (eg., via a letter to the school principal), the school concerned is obligated to mark that student as 'absent' and not as 'excused' on the student's answer forms." For more information on the professional concerns of teachers on FSA, contact the Princeton District Teachers' Union.
- Robert Tarswell, President, Princeton District Teachers' Union
Dear Editor,
The MS Walk held in Penticton on April 23rd was a success.
It was a typical Okanagan spring morning, beautiful and sunny, yet cool. It was a day of energy, enthusiasm, and purpose.
Personally, I had a very good day. I was pleased to have family members and many friends from Princeton, Kelowna, and Vernon complete the MS Walk with me. Research is the key to finding a cure for MS and I was able to raise a significant amount of money to be dedicated to research.
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. With each step we take, we are one step closer to finding a cure for multiple sclerosis.
Thank you to everyone who supported my fundraising efforts.
Yours truly,
Ken Carlson,
Princeton
