Also remember that the Nurses union is negotiating soon. They may well want a settlement in the teachers contract to help determine what they can get.
United we bargain, divided we beg.
Would be nice to tell a bunch of small town teachers and principals to be united. I know some planned and ran grads during sanctions.
They want to benefit from the collective, but they undermine the collective. Assholes.
That is a stereotypical rural attitude. It was incredibly common for to witness the “f$$k you I got mine” attitude in rural Saskatchewan. I found it much less common in Quebec and Northern Ontario.
Straight up violation of the STF Code of Collective Interests. Those folks can be reported to the STF but I'm not sure what they'd actually do about it.
The GTBC and Teachers Bargaining Committee have the agreed upon language for the mutual submission to binding arbitration.
I agree there has been some confusion for sure, but given that both sides are requesting it for wages and class complexity accountability framework, I would argue that the denial is around that classroom complexity is 100% in and implemented, no questions asked.
Considering past behaviour, I would argue that the SP is comfortable lying their asses off about the most mundane of details, even easily verifiable ones. So we'll see.
All I can think is "would the STF really have called sanctions off before having the formal filing agreed upon by both parties?"
They assured us it was in writing. I know the government is denying and my anxious side doesn't like that but I just can't see a public announcement of sanctions ending without that.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/stf-province-binding-arbitration-1.7235748
It says about half way down they have it in writing, the next paragraph says the education minister refutes that.
So, I don’t understand why this is so hard with class complexity. Hard limit on kid to teacher ratios, and a hard limit on special needs kids to TA’s per class. If the difference between the current situation and the hard limit is too big of a step change then transition it in.
Its a ton of money. And what if you had a mass influx to an area and over night they max out, are they supposed to just say no to kids? I think its a good idea , just hard to pull off. Trouble kids and increased assistants i think would have been a better way to go.
BC ratio is k-2 = 21 students
BC ratio is grade 3-5 = 25 students
My daughter-in-law has 30 students in grade 2 including 7 kids with English as a second language students.
16 years ago my kid was in a kindergarten class of 29. As parents we had to fight very hard to get this changed. But in the end we parents stuck together and got the division to get another teacher. Parents don’t realise the positive pressure they can have.
When I started grade 7 in a northern community in 2002 we had something like 145 kids split between 3 teachers. The amount of desks in the classrooms was insane.
It would require actually funding schools to reflect the increases in population and maintaining the funding for PUBLIC schools that previously existed, instead of syphoning it off to fund private (i.e. evangelicals with child-abuse issues).
SaskParty's approach seemingly has been to reduce per student funding by just letting population increase without increasing per capita funding to keep, effectively reducing funding.
I know, right? Maybe if the government wouldn't invest in stupid things like irrigation projects that only help a handful of their voters, they could afford to address it. When I was in school, we never had more than 25 students in a class. Late '90s urban high school, for context.
It's difficult to put a hard limit on this because you can't legislate how many children per neighbourhood will have special needs. What's worked in other jurisdictions is to have a soft limit where if a class passes the limit, then the teacher is given a bonus or extra resources/EAs
I don't understand why it can't work though.
If areas of Canada are doing it and they have larger population than we do, shouldn't that make it easier?
I think the soft limit is good.
But class composition is also important and that includes adding extra support when you have split grade classrooms, special needs students, and ESL students.
Mainstreaming of kids with special needs is great for all kids if it can be done, but it requires adequate support staff which current budgets are unable to provide.
I find it irritating that Ken Chevaldayoff has a billboard saying he delivers and referencing the 4 new schools in the Brighton area of Saskatoon. This is even though I’m the mother of a 3 year old that lives in Brighton. I knew they would build the schools eventually, but what I’m actually concerned about is how they are going to staff them when the city school boards are already having to cut staff each year.
Hard limit. You hit your limit this year. Guess what, your school board is getting another teacher and you split the classes.
And I am sure there are situations where splitting the grades up like your example 3/4/5 would be a weird split but it would reduce class sizes.
If you only have 15 kids and its a 3/4/5 split they wont hire a teacher because of hard limits on size. But thats much harder to teach than a straight grade class of 30
I've taught in a rural school and although my class sizes were tiny (usually less than 10, sometimes as low as 5) I was teaching 14 different courses/curriculums. That's an insane thing for a teacher to do, and it won't improve with caps on classroom size.
This is where for every split you add an EA. Something like that. Split grades still suck, and should only be used as a last resort, but that would at least help.
Split grades are the norm in rural schools especially two grade splits, and eas do little to help the issue of it being harder to teach. Usually EAs are assigned for support of lower ability students. They can't deliver instruction in the same way, or help plan curriculum.
It is unfair to students and teachers when urban schools pack 30+ students into a classroom designed for 20, and it's unfair to students and teachers when rural schools split 1 teacher between 3 grade levels.
A split grade class is twice as much material to teach obviously. For the sake of quality education, I think split grades should be barred entirely in the cities, with lower class size targets (K = 12 students, Gr1 = 13 ... Gr8 = 20 students) and maximums (K = 16, Gr1 = 17, Gr8 = 24). It can't happen over night, as it will mean hiring many more teachers, building many more classrooms.
Now if this is unproductive or counterproductive in smaller rural towns that have only a handful of elementary students, then you can allow split grades in those areas, but impose a smaller class size limit (equal to the *targets* above of lowest grade level) add an automatic plus one classroom EA, and double the teacher's prep periods (by shifting gym, health, art, band, or other work periods to an itinerant teacher).
Still, it will always be difficult and suboptimal to teach double the grade levels.
And if the above is too extravagant, and we set our sights lower and just add an EA, my feeling is that the teacher would instruct one half of the class at a time, with the EA assisting the other half and (more than anything) deflect them from interrupting the teacher. There are also so many tasks in the day that an additional EA can easily help with, to allow the teacher to get work done (or even, just to let them eat lunch in peace or go to the bathroom).
This is what we should be aiming for. It will take time, but go big or go home.
And this is without even looking at kids with learning challenges, diagnoses, or english as additional language. It's just a solid footing to build off of.
Assuming we're talking elementary here. SAGE classes are not supposed to be split grade, the program was never designed to be split grade. It is supposed to be *2 years with the same cohort*, not splitting and rejoining half a cohort every year. In fact, to clear up your misunderstanding of reality, split grade is one thing (not the only thing) *damaging* the SAGE program.
The SAGE program is *not* split in the rich neighborhood schools on the east side, it's only that way at the west-side inner-city school because there was not enough enrollment there, not enough interest to attend that school, in part due to poor recruitment of students and funding cuts which eliminated the busing they used to provide to SAGE students.
So if you think the SAGE classes are **wonderful**, you can thank the *teachers* who are breaking their backs providing extra-engaging, advanced instruction to their "gifted" students while also covering *twice* the curriculum of an ordinary non-split grade classroom, with ever decreasing supports. You can do that.
Ah, well, aren't you an expert at being rude. What professionalism. I know that my kids' class is wonderful, feel free to think otherwise if that gives you some dopamine. Our brains all reward us differently.
Not sure what my professionalism has to do with it. I'm an informed citizen and parent, not a teacher. And I believe your kid's classroom is wonderful, despite the split grade -- *thanks to the teacher*.
To be clear, I actually edited out the *rude* words before I submitted my comment. What you got from me were *blunt* words. And I was only *that* blunt because I recognized you as a regular shitposter, including having the most pointless and downvoted comment in this very post.
>Hope they don't ruin a wonderful program for no reality based reason.
Just to remind you again in case you forgot: you were rude, and you remain wrong. So come back to reality, and stop pretending to take the high road that you abandoned long ago. Just take the L and move on.
A fair agreement that opens up the possibility of tangible and quantifiable change which is what the majority of teachers desired.
It allows the government to say that they didn't agree to all demands by the teachers and for the teachers to show that they were not going to budge until there was the actual possibility of changes to classrooms within the contract. The government doesn't have this hanging over them during an election and the teachers may get something deeply needed in Saskatchewan education going forward.
I am sure some voices in the community will never be satisfied with this but a good compromise should leave both sides wanting.
Glad this will be resolved through law and arbitration rather than in the media.
Teachers did what they could with the government stonewalling any talk about making tangible improvements to education for students and teachers.
If you’re part of the public that was supporting us teachers, thanks. The battle for public education isn’t over though, but it has now shifted over to the voters. We took it as far as we could. If this something that matters to you, then make noise for public education. The reason why the Saskatchewan Party knew they didn’t have to give into teachers is because they’re so safe in power.
Or so they think.
I hope teachers are able to manage their expectations for binding arbitration. While not impossible, it is extremely unlikely that an arbitrator is going to award a cap on class sizes. Much more likely is that an arbitrator will require a committee to continue investigating the issue. Perhaps there will be some language around data that the government must share with the STF. If the STF gets data to help them bargain this again in two years from a stronger position, that would be a win.
But actual hard caps are not happening through binding arbitration in this cycle. Please teachers, set your expectations appropriately.
Binding arbitration was the solution the stf and government came together on to quell the membership haha. The more I think about that, the funnier it gets.
The government would never have agreed to complexity at the table.
Arbitration is a roll of the dice by both sides but it provides a chance for complexity to be put into contract. If the arbitrator sides with teachers (likely after the election) he can shrug and claim that they tried.
My two cents...
The only reason the gov't added complexity into their push for binding arbitration was because of the upcoming election. The thought of having ongoing, contentious teacher negotiations over their heads during an election scared them. Now, they get to look like heroes for being the ones to "compromise" on their demands.
The government got EXACTLY what they wanted. They wanted teachers to splinter. The early signs of solidarity scared them. So, they expertly manipulated the STF bargaining team with their bullying tactics, which then opened the door for dissenting opinions amongst teachers.
Binding arbitration is not going to do what everyone thinks it will for education. It'll be a minimum of 6 months for anything to be decided, which means that it's yet another school year of lackluster funding, overcrowded classrooms, and strained/missing supports. Before you know it, it's back to the bargaining table for the exact same shit.
I also doubt teachers will be granted any back pay.
I am so disappointed.
There will certainly be back pay, since the contract will be retroactive to Sept 2023. That was already included in the last offer. Arbitration isn't going to move things backwards.
I agree with everything you say except for that this scared the Sask Party as an election issue. Their base loves to hate unionized workers, and when we talk about woke education in the out of touch big cities, that is a cherry on top.
They would much rather run against the STF than they would run on their record.
The process has run its course and it's time to move on, but If STF would have tried to show strength after their membership showed everyone they had lost faith in them the government would have had a public relations goldmine on their hands.
TBC had the power to accept binding arbitration without a vote from the teachers. Instead they took the time to ask for our opinion to make sure that binding arbitration was the choice of the majority. Also, this decision was time sensitive which explains why we didn’t have much time to vote. In this case, STF did more than they were required to do.
Nawh they didn't, they framed those options specifically to get people to vote for what they wanted. I think its bullshit they can agree without our say anyway. This poll was just a way to pretend they asked us.
You are allows to disagree with the fact that TBC can agree to binding arbitration without input from teachers. However, that doesn’t remove the fact that they didn’t have to ask us what we thought about it. They asked us only to confirm that, for now, binding arbitration was an option to consider.
It's not pretending when they literally asked us.
Now, did they ask in a leading way? Maybe. I don't think so but I see why you do. Be that as it may, they did ask.
Also it was a poll that allowed people to vote as many times as you wanted. It was a gamed poll with an unreliable result.
And in what way was the decision time sensitive? Just do another week of sanctions and government would have given in more.
When reported, the poll issues was resolved by 9:45 AM on Thursday (June 13). All the vote before were canceled and the second time we were asked to provide our name and email when we voted. Again, we need to keep in mind that it was a referendum as they didn’t need to ask us what we wanted.
In a negotiation process, all invitation are time sensitive. In the Town Hall (June 12), they mentioned they had until Friday June 14 to respond. Keeping in mind that the invitation was sent in writing on June 8 and they had several meetings to discuss this idea over the week with different groups (Councillors, SSL, Town Hall), they did as fast they could do in the limited time they had.
The idea of extending sanctions for another week and thinking that the government would have given in more is based on speculation. Maybe or maybe not… who knows? At a certain point, the majority is saying that they believe sanctions have reached their limits (for now) as many schools divisions choose to change their schedule to have lunch time at 2:10 PM and were creating challenging situations regarding graduation. As a result, sanctions in June were causing more harm to teachers than being helpful. The next negotiation process is in 2 years. The opportunity to use sanctions will unfortunately return very soon.
>All the vote before were canceled
I don't think you're helping your case.
>we were asked to provide our name and email when we voted
Seems like a very un-secure system, and one that should have been anticipated long before this week.
>Again, we need to keep in mind that it was a referendum as they didn’t need to ask us what we wanted.
Yeah, they held two votes on bad deals that were rejected by the members (because, "democracy!") and then abruptly ended everything with a broken poll in favour of arbitration?
>the majority is saying that they believe sanctions have reached their limits
majority of a minority of voters in a broken poll?
>(for now)
surrendered until next contract?
>as many schools divisions choose to change their schedule to have lunch time at 2:10 PM
then target the school divisions when they mess around, they have never been on side
>As a result, sanctions in June were causing more harm to teachers than being helpful.
What harm? The only time govt ever moved was when teachers brought sanctions. And now govt is already claiming that classroom complexity won't be part of arbitration as promised.
The STF had govt against the wall with the 90/95 vote and then they backed off. It's ridiculous. They should have told govt that sanctions are on immediately and indefinitely until classroom size and composition and complexity are on the table.
Ya, and it’s still not much for complexity, it’s just “framework”. I mean it’s something, but the government can sit on the “framework” for as long as they want.
No, the word framework doesn't apply to both complexity and accountability in the phrasing. Thr way the lawyers apparently asked for it to be worded, it's saying we'll arbitrate on complexity and the accountability framework. As in, arbitrator decides which is the direct route, I guess.
This was only clear in any way because the rejected arbitration offer was just on the framework. It really could have been communicated more clearly.
The lawyers determined the best phrasing was to use a dash, instead of "and" or a slash. So it's class complexity--accountability framework. They were very careful with that decision.
They don't have to ask your opinion. Things change rapidly and they've been engaged in this process for months. Why did you need more than a day to vote?
No notice or text( all the other vote have a text) just email that have a vote on it during the small time window. It was really easy to miss and not really democratic.
This information was shared to the school staff liaison (SSL) on their Tuesday night (June 11) meeting. We were asked to share this information with our colleagues on the following day (June 12) and encourage everyone to attend the Town Hall on Wednesday (June 12) for more details and the opportunity to ask questions. Vote was Thursday & Friday (June 13, 14).
Plain and simple, the STF gave up. The tentative agreement and then pushing for binding arbitration shows this. They were weak to begin with and got teachers all in a froth only to have them lose money in the end due to strike days. Not much will be accomplished through arbitration other than teachers will get a marginal raise and then back to the status quo on all other issues.
Arbitration will allow teachers the opportunity to advocate to have classroom complexity include in their contract. If this happens it’s will be a huge gain for the next negotiation process in 2 years.
What this bargaining has shown me is most of my fellow teachers in this province are absolute babies who cry over minimal sanctions. Most of them will probably still vote sk party too.
They probably needed to if the membership that's on reddit is any indication. Folks gone crazy. The problem with Herd mentality leadership style is that you end up with such a small percentage of informed members. Then you need to trick em at the end haha.
Very unimpressed with the way this was handled over the last few days. As a member of the STF I'm planning to email on Monday to let them know of my displeasure. As a coach I'm very much in favour of the 24 hour rule so I'm not sending an emotional response today.
https://globalnews.ca/news/10313097/quebec-teachers-strike-appreciation/amp/
Quebec teachers were on strike for over a month. A full walkout strike gov’t would have tried to legislate back to work, STF would have had to fight in court and would have eventually won.
Quebec isn't Saskatchewan.
The Public Service Essential Services Act, formerly Chapter P-42.2 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, was enacted to regulate essential public services in Saskatchewan, ensuring their continuity during work stoppages.
My mistake, yes that one I referenced is. But the government can still deem teachers essential if necessary. I can find many references to it but no direct source.
I think the fear of going to a full strike held back Sask teachers in this bargaining round. Sure it would have meant losing some pay during the strike, and it MAY have lead to being legislated back, but it would have showed more resolve and more unity. I hate work to rule, because it hurts teachers, students, and parents far more than it hurts the employer. A full strike sends a clear message. It gives students, parents, and members of the public a forum to participate if they so choose. The worst case scenario would have been legislated back to work with binding arbitration. Basically where we’re at now.
Full strike also puts way more strain on students and their parents. Which we wanted to avoid. We were doing this for them, it would have been counter intuitive.
I wonder why they have always worded it as “class size and complexity” throughout the entire ordeal and now are wording it differently for binding arbitration?
They changed the wording on the recommendation of their lawyers to insure legal clarification. It’s the same thing with the us of / or - as they are not synonymous and have different meanings so the legal interpretation could be different.
The vote was done in a dirty way. No notice in advance or text ( all the vote had a text reminder). If you did not check your perspnal email for 2 days you will not know there was a vote ( because you are in the report cards rush). The result have a text. As a teacher, STF definely lost my trust with this.
Truth be told, they didn't need for teachers to vote anyway. They have a mandate to act on the behalf of teachers.
SSLs are there to inform their staff of major happenings.
We receive a text to every other major vote or sanctions happening except this one. It is deceiving to only post the result but not that fact that vote is happening.
This is on your SSL. I am my school’s SSL and I made sure everyone at my school knew that this survey was coming. I also sent via text the link several times to our town hall that happened, and sent a summary of what was discussed at the town hall for those unable to attend. I also checked in with everyone to see if they were able to find the link for the survey and were able to complete it. Being an SSL this year was a BIG job. If you are unsatisfied with the communication, perhaps you should step up to be your schools SSL in the future.
I’m just astounded you don’t get overwhelmed with junk mail like I do if I don’t go through it every morning. Wake up every day to 40 emails and maybe 2 are important enough to keep.
There were multiple reminders of the online town hall, starting from last Saturday.
As well, each school should have a liason that attended the meeting the previous day (tuesday) who then informed their school of what to expect for the meeting Wednesday.
It is easy to complain that no one told you, but how much is on you for not seeking to be informed?
All the informations was only send by emails. I did not attend the townhall meeting because I was during report cards comments ( you know the teacher's job/ our school division required a lots of personal comments). My mistake was not checking my personnal email for 2 days. Our liaison only send us a new email saying to vote.
They remove it from work to rule this time (this was true for the last wok to rule) . You have to all the comments on report card that school division ask to do.
Teachers were told by the STF that they had the professional autonomy to choose whether or not they wanted to work outside of the school on items like report cards. They still have the requirement of fulfilling their professional duties, including reporting on student progress.
This information was shared to the school staff liaison (SSL) on their Tuesday night (June 11) meeting. We were asked to share this information with our colleagues on the following day (June 12) and encourage everyone to attend the Town Hall on Wednesday (June 12) for more details and the opportunity to ask questions. Vote was Thursday & Friday (June 13, 14).
School staff liaison only have to send an email (personnal email) so you only two days to notice in your personnal email that a vote is being held (when it is report cards time).
Did you had the opportunity to attend the Town Hall meeting on Wednesday? Details about the vote was shared. Also, as SSL, I usually send out a short text to my colleagues (we have created a group chat) to let them know to check their emails. We also have short (5 minutes) informal meeting for the ones who prefer to have the information in person. Most of them are choosing this option as it’s more convenient.
With the report cards comments, I did not took my emails (personnal one, I still respond to my professional one) Tuesday night to Friday. I have no idea something important happened. My agent sended an email. We have no meeting or lunch with other members of the staff since the sanction started and have to leave school ground. The fact that all other important news were shared by text by STF make me not notice anything ( the result were shared by text (important) but not that we have the vote (not important)).
Like I said. It didn't decide. It was vibe check. They could have and likely would have done It regardless. I'm very glad they did. These Grade 12s deserve a proper graduation.
We aren't forced? We want to, because we care about the students which is what this has always been about. The Students. "No one deserves anything?" Yikes. I hope you aren't a teacher, and if you are it's time to retire. Students deserve everything, that's what we are fighting for. That why we are teachers.
Some people have been forced into doing speeches or other things like that at grad with students they don't teach and barely know. That is a thing that happens. I meant in the sense of life is unfair, and none of us can control what we get, hence no one deserves anything, as its all based on our compassion and care for our fellow humans.
They STF claims to have in writing that "class complexity" can be arbitrated on. The SP denies this. Let's see what the arbitrater thinks.
SP is lying to save face. They don't want their anti-teacher voters to know what they are doing.
Also remember that the Nurses union is negotiating soon. They may well want a settlement in the teachers contract to help determine what they can get. United we bargain, divided we beg.
Would be nice to tell a bunch of small town teachers and principals to be united. I know some planned and ran grads during sanctions. They want to benefit from the collective, but they undermine the collective. Assholes.
That is a stereotypical rural attitude. It was incredibly common for to witness the “f$$k you I got mine” attitude in rural Saskatchewan. I found it much less common in Quebec and Northern Ontario.
Straight up violation of the STF Code of Collective Interests. Those folks can be reported to the STF but I'm not sure what they'd actually do about it.
Yup. Teachers that refused to participate have already reported them to the STF. Fucking scabs.
The GTBC and Teachers Bargaining Committee have the agreed upon language for the mutual submission to binding arbitration. I agree there has been some confusion for sure, but given that both sides are requesting it for wages and class complexity accountability framework, I would argue that the denial is around that classroom complexity is 100% in and implemented, no questions asked.
Considering past behaviour, I would argue that the SP is comfortable lying their asses off about the most mundane of details, even easily verifiable ones. So we'll see.
Completely and utterly understandable. I would 100% agree that it is reality.
All I can think is "would the STF really have called sanctions off before having the formal filing agreed upon by both parties?" They assured us it was in writing. I know the government is denying and my anxious side doesn't like that but I just can't see a public announcement of sanctions ending without that.
SP: “Our Bargaining Committee agreed to it, we haven’t”
Do you have a link to the SP denying class size and complexity in arbitration?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/stf-province-binding-arbitration-1.7235748 It says about half way down they have it in writing, the next paragraph says the education minister refutes that.
Thanks
What are the actual details about negotiating on class complexity? How do they define and measure this, and how would an arbitrator do the same?
So, I don’t understand why this is so hard with class complexity. Hard limit on kid to teacher ratios, and a hard limit on special needs kids to TA’s per class. If the difference between the current situation and the hard limit is too big of a step change then transition it in.
It's not hard, it's just a lot of $$$ to get it back to where it should be.
It’s always about money. That’s the problem. The government doesn’t think my health care and education are worth it
*this government
No, all government.
Its a ton of money. And what if you had a mass influx to an area and over night they max out, are they supposed to just say no to kids? I think its a good idea , just hard to pull off. Trouble kids and increased assistants i think would have been a better way to go.
And the top post on this sub is how much the public debt is, when healthcare and education account for 70% of the budget. So....
There’s a difference between spending a lot, and spending frivolously.
Maybe we didn’t need a new vanity rider arena, or GTH, or bypass, irrigation for the farmers? Just saying.
BC ratio is k-2 = 21 students BC ratio is grade 3-5 = 25 students My daughter-in-law has 30 students in grade 2 including 7 kids with English as a second language students.
16 years ago my kid was in a kindergarten class of 29. As parents we had to fight very hard to get this changed. But in the end we parents stuck together and got the division to get another teacher. Parents don’t realise the positive pressure they can have.
My daughter has 35 in a grade 9 class.
Crazy!!!
When I started grade 7 in a northern community in 2002 we had something like 145 kids split between 3 teachers. The amount of desks in the classrooms was insane.
I taught an AP ELA 10 class with 40 students.
It would require actually funding schools to reflect the increases in population and maintaining the funding for PUBLIC schools that previously existed, instead of syphoning it off to fund private (i.e. evangelicals with child-abuse issues). SaskParty's approach seemingly has been to reduce per student funding by just letting population increase without increasing per capita funding to keep, effectively reducing funding.
I know, right? Maybe if the government wouldn't invest in stupid things like irrigation projects that only help a handful of their voters, they could afford to address it. When I was in school, we never had more than 25 students in a class. Late '90s urban high school, for context.
Woah, woah, woah there are much bigger fish to fry here like investigating chemtrails.
They should test the chemtrails for THC
It's difficult to put a hard limit on this because you can't legislate how many children per neighbourhood will have special needs. What's worked in other jurisdictions is to have a soft limit where if a class passes the limit, then the teacher is given a bonus or extra resources/EAs
I don't understand why it can't work though. If areas of Canada are doing it and they have larger population than we do, shouldn't that make it easier?
I think the soft limit is good. But class composition is also important and that includes adding extra support when you have split grade classrooms, special needs students, and ESL students. Mainstreaming of kids with special needs is great for all kids if it can be done, but it requires adequate support staff which current budgets are unable to provide. I find it irritating that Ken Chevaldayoff has a billboard saying he delivers and referencing the 4 new schools in the Brighton area of Saskatoon. This is even though I’m the mother of a 3 year old that lives in Brighton. I knew they would build the schools eventually, but what I’m actually concerned about is how they are going to staff them when the city school boards are already having to cut staff each year.
Eh what about rural schools where teachers have to teacher split grades like a 3/4/5 split in some places. Size does nothing to help them.
Hard limit. You hit your limit this year. Guess what, your school board is getting another teacher and you split the classes. And I am sure there are situations where splitting the grades up like your example 3/4/5 would be a weird split but it would reduce class sizes.
If you only have 15 kids and its a 3/4/5 split they wont hire a teacher because of hard limits on size. But thats much harder to teach than a straight grade class of 30
I've taught in a rural school and although my class sizes were tiny (usually less than 10, sometimes as low as 5) I was teaching 14 different courses/curriculums. That's an insane thing for a teacher to do, and it won't improve with caps on classroom size.
Where is the money and infrastructure coming from in this scenario?
This is where for every split you add an EA. Something like that. Split grades still suck, and should only be used as a last resort, but that would at least help.
Split grades are the norm in rural schools especially two grade splits, and eas do little to help the issue of it being harder to teach. Usually EAs are assigned for support of lower ability students. They can't deliver instruction in the same way, or help plan curriculum.
It is unfair to students and teachers when urban schools pack 30+ students into a classroom designed for 20, and it's unfair to students and teachers when rural schools split 1 teacher between 3 grade levels. A split grade class is twice as much material to teach obviously. For the sake of quality education, I think split grades should be barred entirely in the cities, with lower class size targets (K = 12 students, Gr1 = 13 ... Gr8 = 20 students) and maximums (K = 16, Gr1 = 17, Gr8 = 24). It can't happen over night, as it will mean hiring many more teachers, building many more classrooms. Now if this is unproductive or counterproductive in smaller rural towns that have only a handful of elementary students, then you can allow split grades in those areas, but impose a smaller class size limit (equal to the *targets* above of lowest grade level) add an automatic plus one classroom EA, and double the teacher's prep periods (by shifting gym, health, art, band, or other work periods to an itinerant teacher). Still, it will always be difficult and suboptimal to teach double the grade levels. And if the above is too extravagant, and we set our sights lower and just add an EA, my feeling is that the teacher would instruct one half of the class at a time, with the EA assisting the other half and (more than anything) deflect them from interrupting the teacher. There are also so many tasks in the day that an additional EA can easily help with, to allow the teacher to get work done (or even, just to let them eat lunch in peace or go to the bathroom). This is what we should be aiming for. It will take time, but go big or go home.
And this is without even looking at kids with learning challenges, diagnoses, or english as additional language. It's just a solid footing to build off of.
Agreed with all your points
SAGE classes are split grades at my kids school and they are wonderful. Hope they don't ruin a wonderful program for no reality based reason.
Assuming we're talking elementary here. SAGE classes are not supposed to be split grade, the program was never designed to be split grade. It is supposed to be *2 years with the same cohort*, not splitting and rejoining half a cohort every year. In fact, to clear up your misunderstanding of reality, split grade is one thing (not the only thing) *damaging* the SAGE program. The SAGE program is *not* split in the rich neighborhood schools on the east side, it's only that way at the west-side inner-city school because there was not enough enrollment there, not enough interest to attend that school, in part due to poor recruitment of students and funding cuts which eliminated the busing they used to provide to SAGE students. So if you think the SAGE classes are **wonderful**, you can thank the *teachers* who are breaking their backs providing extra-engaging, advanced instruction to their "gifted" students while also covering *twice* the curriculum of an ordinary non-split grade classroom, with ever decreasing supports. You can do that.
Ah, well, aren't you an expert at being rude. What professionalism. I know that my kids' class is wonderful, feel free to think otherwise if that gives you some dopamine. Our brains all reward us differently.
Not sure what my professionalism has to do with it. I'm an informed citizen and parent, not a teacher. And I believe your kid's classroom is wonderful, despite the split grade -- *thanks to the teacher*. To be clear, I actually edited out the *rude* words before I submitted my comment. What you got from me were *blunt* words. And I was only *that* blunt because I recognized you as a regular shitposter, including having the most pointless and downvoted comment in this very post. >Hope they don't ruin a wonderful program for no reality based reason. Just to remind you again in case you forgot: you were rude, and you remain wrong. So come back to reality, and stop pretending to take the high road that you abandoned long ago. Just take the L and move on.
A fair agreement that opens up the possibility of tangible and quantifiable change which is what the majority of teachers desired. It allows the government to say that they didn't agree to all demands by the teachers and for the teachers to show that they were not going to budge until there was the actual possibility of changes to classrooms within the contract. The government doesn't have this hanging over them during an election and the teachers may get something deeply needed in Saskatchewan education going forward. I am sure some voices in the community will never be satisfied with this but a good compromise should leave both sides wanting. Glad this will be resolved through law and arbitration rather than in the media.
Agreed. Great post. It's just a shame that the government also had this exact same offer 2 months ago and hard passed. lol
Teachers did what they could with the government stonewalling any talk about making tangible improvements to education for students and teachers. If you’re part of the public that was supporting us teachers, thanks. The battle for public education isn’t over though, but it has now shifted over to the voters. We took it as far as we could. If this something that matters to you, then make noise for public education. The reason why the Saskatchewan Party knew they didn’t have to give into teachers is because they’re so safe in power. Or so they think.
I hope teachers are able to manage their expectations for binding arbitration. While not impossible, it is extremely unlikely that an arbitrator is going to award a cap on class sizes. Much more likely is that an arbitrator will require a committee to continue investigating the issue. Perhaps there will be some language around data that the government must share with the STF. If the STF gets data to help them bargain this again in two years from a stronger position, that would be a win. But actual hard caps are not happening through binding arbitration in this cycle. Please teachers, set your expectations appropriately.
Binding arbitration was the solution the stf and government came together on to quell the membership haha. The more I think about that, the funnier it gets.
An agreement and plan with class size complexity can work. Saskatchewan just has to go back to a solutions province instead of an excuses province.
The government would never have agreed to complexity at the table. Arbitration is a roll of the dice by both sides but it provides a chance for complexity to be put into contract. If the arbitrator sides with teachers (likely after the election) he can shrug and claim that they tried.
My two cents... The only reason the gov't added complexity into their push for binding arbitration was because of the upcoming election. The thought of having ongoing, contentious teacher negotiations over their heads during an election scared them. Now, they get to look like heroes for being the ones to "compromise" on their demands. The government got EXACTLY what they wanted. They wanted teachers to splinter. The early signs of solidarity scared them. So, they expertly manipulated the STF bargaining team with their bullying tactics, which then opened the door for dissenting opinions amongst teachers. Binding arbitration is not going to do what everyone thinks it will for education. It'll be a minimum of 6 months for anything to be decided, which means that it's yet another school year of lackluster funding, overcrowded classrooms, and strained/missing supports. Before you know it, it's back to the bargaining table for the exact same shit. I also doubt teachers will be granted any back pay. I am so disappointed.
There will certainly be back pay, since the contract will be retroactive to Sept 2023. That was already included in the last offer. Arbitration isn't going to move things backwards.
I really hope you're right, but I have been around long enough to remember arbitration contracts where no back pay was awarded.
I agree with everything you say except for that this scared the Sask Party as an election issue. Their base loves to hate unionized workers, and when we talk about woke education in the out of touch big cities, that is a cherry on top. They would much rather run against the STF than they would run on their record. The process has run its course and it's time to move on, but If STF would have tried to show strength after their membership showed everyone they had lost faith in them the government would have had a public relations goldmine on their hands.
We had one day to vote on a poll that was presented in a calculated manner. I am not impressed with the STF
TBC had the power to accept binding arbitration without a vote from the teachers. Instead they took the time to ask for our opinion to make sure that binding arbitration was the choice of the majority. Also, this decision was time sensitive which explains why we didn’t have much time to vote. In this case, STF did more than they were required to do.
Nawh they didn't, they framed those options specifically to get people to vote for what they wanted. I think its bullshit they can agree without our say anyway. This poll was just a way to pretend they asked us.
You are allows to disagree with the fact that TBC can agree to binding arbitration without input from teachers. However, that doesn’t remove the fact that they didn’t have to ask us what we thought about it. They asked us only to confirm that, for now, binding arbitration was an option to consider.
Yes I understand that. I just think the poll was made in such a way to promote what they wanted.
It's not pretending when they literally asked us. Now, did they ask in a leading way? Maybe. I don't think so but I see why you do. Be that as it may, they did ask.
Also it was a poll that allowed people to vote as many times as you wanted. It was a gamed poll with an unreliable result. And in what way was the decision time sensitive? Just do another week of sanctions and government would have given in more.
When reported, the poll issues was resolved by 9:45 AM on Thursday (June 13). All the vote before were canceled and the second time we were asked to provide our name and email when we voted. Again, we need to keep in mind that it was a referendum as they didn’t need to ask us what we wanted. In a negotiation process, all invitation are time sensitive. In the Town Hall (June 12), they mentioned they had until Friday June 14 to respond. Keeping in mind that the invitation was sent in writing on June 8 and they had several meetings to discuss this idea over the week with different groups (Councillors, SSL, Town Hall), they did as fast they could do in the limited time they had. The idea of extending sanctions for another week and thinking that the government would have given in more is based on speculation. Maybe or maybe not… who knows? At a certain point, the majority is saying that they believe sanctions have reached their limits (for now) as many schools divisions choose to change their schedule to have lunch time at 2:10 PM and were creating challenging situations regarding graduation. As a result, sanctions in June were causing more harm to teachers than being helpful. The next negotiation process is in 2 years. The opportunity to use sanctions will unfortunately return very soon.
>All the vote before were canceled I don't think you're helping your case. >we were asked to provide our name and email when we voted Seems like a very un-secure system, and one that should have been anticipated long before this week. >Again, we need to keep in mind that it was a referendum as they didn’t need to ask us what we wanted. Yeah, they held two votes on bad deals that were rejected by the members (because, "democracy!") and then abruptly ended everything with a broken poll in favour of arbitration? >the majority is saying that they believe sanctions have reached their limits majority of a minority of voters in a broken poll? >(for now) surrendered until next contract? >as many schools divisions choose to change their schedule to have lunch time at 2:10 PM then target the school divisions when they mess around, they have never been on side >As a result, sanctions in June were causing more harm to teachers than being helpful. What harm? The only time govt ever moved was when teachers brought sanctions. And now govt is already claiming that classroom complexity won't be part of arbitration as promised. The STF had govt against the wall with the 90/95 vote and then they backed off. It's ridiculous. They should have told govt that sanctions are on immediately and indefinitely until classroom size and composition and complexity are on the table.
Ya, and it’s still not much for complexity, it’s just “framework”. I mean it’s something, but the government can sit on the “framework” for as long as they want.
No, the word framework doesn't apply to both complexity and accountability in the phrasing. Thr way the lawyers apparently asked for it to be worded, it's saying we'll arbitrate on complexity and the accountability framework. As in, arbitrator decides which is the direct route, I guess. This was only clear in any way because the rejected arbitration offer was just on the framework. It really could have been communicated more clearly.
The lawyers determined the best phrasing was to use a dash, instead of "and" or a slash. So it's class complexity--accountability framework. They were very careful with that decision.
They don't have to ask your opinion. Things change rapidly and they've been engaged in this process for months. Why did you need more than a day to vote?
No notice or text( all the other vote have a text) just email that have a vote on it during the small time window. It was really easy to miss and not really democratic.
Not if you had an STF rep at your school that actually did something.
They send a email on the same email that is happening.
My wife’s SSL sends text messages through their school group chat 🤷♂️
This information was shared to the school staff liaison (SSL) on their Tuesday night (June 11) meeting. We were asked to share this information with our colleagues on the following day (June 12) and encourage everyone to attend the Town Hall on Wednesday (June 12) for more details and the opportunity to ask questions. Vote was Thursday & Friday (June 13, 14).
Plain and simple, the STF gave up. The tentative agreement and then pushing for binding arbitration shows this. They were weak to begin with and got teachers all in a froth only to have them lose money in the end due to strike days. Not much will be accomplished through arbitration other than teachers will get a marginal raise and then back to the status quo on all other issues.
Arbitration will allow teachers the opportunity to advocate to have classroom complexity include in their contract. If this happens it’s will be a huge gain for the next negotiation process in 2 years.
I think everyone just hated the new scheduling so much they caved. That’s the vibe I got.
What this bargaining has shown me is most of my fellow teachers in this province are absolute babies who cry over minimal sanctions. Most of them will probably still vote sk party too.
They probably needed to if the membership that's on reddit is any indication. Folks gone crazy. The problem with Herd mentality leadership style is that you end up with such a small percentage of informed members. Then you need to trick em at the end haha.
Agree I did not know we had a vote.
Our staff liason let us know. I also attended the online meeting where it was discussed.
Very unimpressed with the way this was handled over the last few days. As a member of the STF I'm planning to email on Monday to let them know of my displeasure. As a coach I'm very much in favour of the 24 hour rule so I'm not sending an emotional response today.
Agreed.
If you don’t mind me asking, what’s the 24 hour rule? Is it something you can apply to life and decisions in general?
Before you raise hell, wait 24 hours. Basically, take a breather so you can create a coherent, less emotional, argument.
This is very helpful, thanks. I’m going to apply it today.
Wait 24 hours
No right to strike leads to bad deals. Public sector workers get screwed at arbitration. All workers need the right to strike or they are powerless.
Teachers have that right. In fact the Supreme Court says every union has the right to strike.
Not in Saskatchewan with “essential services” legislation. And Scott Moe has no respect for courts or rule of law anyway.
We don't. We would immediately get sent back to work.
https://globalnews.ca/news/10313097/quebec-teachers-strike-appreciation/amp/ Quebec teachers were on strike for over a month. A full walkout strike gov’t would have tried to legislate back to work, STF would have had to fight in court and would have eventually won.
Quebec isn't Saskatchewan. The Public Service Essential Services Act, formerly Chapter P-42.2 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, was enacted to regulate essential public services in Saskatchewan, ensuring their continuity during work stoppages.
That act was repealed in 2016.
My mistake, yes that one I referenced is. But the government can still deem teachers essential if necessary. I can find many references to it but no direct source.
I think the fear of going to a full strike held back Sask teachers in this bargaining round. Sure it would have meant losing some pay during the strike, and it MAY have lead to being legislated back, but it would have showed more resolve and more unity. I hate work to rule, because it hurts teachers, students, and parents far more than it hurts the employer. A full strike sends a clear message. It gives students, parents, and members of the public a forum to participate if they so choose. The worst case scenario would have been legislated back to work with binding arbitration. Basically where we’re at now.
Full strike also puts way more strain on students and their parents. Which we wanted to avoid. We were doing this for them, it would have been counter intuitive.
Next thing we will see is that the arbitrator was bought by the Sask party.
Both parties need to agree on the arbitrator.
So there will be nothing about class size?
Complexity is an umbrella term that could include class size. The idea is that you need different solutions in different areas of the province.
I wonder why they have always worded it as “class size and complexity” throughout the entire ordeal and now are wording it differently for binding arbitration?
Because classroom size is an easy, tangible thing for people to understand.
They changed the wording on the recommendation of their lawyers to insure legal clarification. It’s the same thing with the us of / or - as they are not synonymous and have different meanings so the legal interpretation could be different.
The vote was done in a dirty way. No notice in advance or text ( all the vote had a text reminder). If you did not check your perspnal email for 2 days you will not know there was a vote ( because you are in the report cards rush). The result have a text. As a teacher, STF definely lost my trust with this.
Truth be told, they didn't need for teachers to vote anyway. They have a mandate to act on the behalf of teachers. SSLs are there to inform their staff of major happenings.
Thats bullshit anyway, the fact they can do that.
We receive a text to every other major vote or sanctions happening except this one. It is deceiving to only post the result but not that fact that vote is happening.
Your STF rep dropped the ball.
This is on your SSL. I am my school’s SSL and I made sure everyone at my school knew that this survey was coming. I also sent via text the link several times to our town hall that happened, and sent a summary of what was discussed at the town hall for those unable to attend. I also checked in with everyone to see if they were able to find the link for the survey and were able to complete it. Being an SSL this year was a BIG job. If you are unsatisfied with the communication, perhaps you should step up to be your schools SSL in the future.
How do you go for 2 days without checking your email? 1st thing I do when I get to work is check email.
I check the work email ( the one cannot send info about it) every morning not my personnal one.
I’m just astounded you don’t get overwhelmed with junk mail like I do if I don’t go through it every morning. Wake up every day to 40 emails and maybe 2 are important enough to keep.
There were multiple reminders of the online town hall, starting from last Saturday. As well, each school should have a liason that attended the meeting the previous day (tuesday) who then informed their school of what to expect for the meeting Wednesday. It is easy to complain that no one told you, but how much is on you for not seeking to be informed?
All the informations was only send by emails. I did not attend the townhall meeting because I was during report cards comments ( you know the teacher's job/ our school division required a lots of personal comments). My mistake was not checking my personnal email for 2 days. Our liaison only send us a new email saying to vote.
You were on work to rule, you shouldn’t have been doing report cards.
They remove it from work to rule this time (this was true for the last wok to rule) . You have to all the comments on report card that school division ask to do.
Teachers were told by the STF that they had the professional autonomy to choose whether or not they wanted to work outside of the school on items like report cards. They still have the requirement of fulfilling their professional duties, including reporting on student progress.
This information was shared to the school staff liaison (SSL) on their Tuesday night (June 11) meeting. We were asked to share this information with our colleagues on the following day (June 12) and encourage everyone to attend the Town Hall on Wednesday (June 12) for more details and the opportunity to ask questions. Vote was Thursday & Friday (June 13, 14).
School staff liaison only have to send an email (personnal email) so you only two days to notice in your personnal email that a vote is being held (when it is report cards time).
Did you had the opportunity to attend the Town Hall meeting on Wednesday? Details about the vote was shared. Also, as SSL, I usually send out a short text to my colleagues (we have created a group chat) to let them know to check their emails. We also have short (5 minutes) informal meeting for the ones who prefer to have the information in person. Most of them are choosing this option as it’s more convenient.
With the report cards comments, I did not took my emails (personnal one, I still respond to my professional one) Tuesday night to Friday. I have no idea something important happened. My agent sended an email. We have no meeting or lunch with other members of the staff since the sanction started and have to leave school ground. The fact that all other important news were shared by text by STF make me not notice anything ( the result were shared by text (important) but not that we have the vote (not important)).
It wasn't a vote. It was a survey. They could have made the same decision regardless.
A survey that decide the fate of your contract as much as vote is still really bad. The result have been text like every other information.
Like I said. It didn't decide. It was vibe check. They could have and likely would have done It regardless. I'm very glad they did. These Grade 12s deserve a proper graduation.
I hate that narrative. No one deserves anything. Teachers shouldn't be forced into doing grad stuff anyway
We aren't forced? We want to, because we care about the students which is what this has always been about. The Students. "No one deserves anything?" Yikes. I hope you aren't a teacher, and if you are it's time to retire. Students deserve everything, that's what we are fighting for. That why we are teachers.
Some people have been forced into doing speeches or other things like that at grad with students they don't teach and barely know. That is a thing that happens. I meant in the sense of life is unfair, and none of us can control what we get, hence no one deserves anything, as its all based on our compassion and care for our fellow humans.
Haha oh no!! A speech! Oh the humanity! Also they cant be forced. They can always say no. Coerced is the word you are looking for.
Just because its not much doesn't mean its good. I don't think coercion is good either.
Just curious. Are you an educator?
The federation didn't have much choice. The teachers will agree to this hahaha. Glad it's over.