Tri City News , Nov.10, 2011

On a frosty November 11^th at 11:00 A.M., the referee blew his whistle, and stopped the soccer game. I was fifteen. We all looked to the portly official for an explanation.

In thick Scottish brogue, he boomed, “Right lads, it’s time for a minute of silence to remember the lads and lasses who went before.”

Twenty two young boys in the throes of adolescence stood respectfully, steam rising from their backs. For a full minute they stood, alone with their personal thoughts.

It is that cold day that I remember as my first moment of meaningful personal reflection about the impossible circumstances faced by Canadians not much older than I.

Forty subsequent years in schools made me proud of the role our public school formalities have played in sculpting the civilized, respectful, way we Canadians recognize those who faced and fought two horrific world wars.

I love that Canadians don’t romanticize or glorify war. We don’t indiscriminately label everyone “heroes” or “fallen warriors”, and we don’t express unquestioning support for “our troops”, or for military endeavour. That isn’t what Remembrance Day is about in Canada.

 While July 1st is the day Canadians celebrate our country, wave the flag and parade our patriotism, November 11th isn’t. It is the day when Canadians take time for solemn personal reflection, reflection which tempers gratitude for service with a steadfast abhorrence of war.

But with fewer and fewer world war survivors and the advent of undeclared, invisible, guerrilla, and unilateral wars, Remembrance Day is at a crossroads. Will it, as my khaki clad colleague  hopes, morph into a day of genuflection to all things military; a deifying of military heroism to the point that poor young Canadians with few prospects will feel compelled by the romantic idea of fighting and dying for their country?

Today, as I vacation in Palm Springs, my poppy and those of a legion of snow birds will quietly and proudly juxtapose the U.S. Veteran’s Day parade of tanks, fly bys, military pomp, and fireworks celebrating past and present wars.

But at 11:00 A.M., I will again be the fifteen year old Canadian boy on that frosty soccer field, contemplating with Canadian countrymen, both the “lads and lasses who went before”, and the inhumanity of war.

Covid 19’s persona has changed. No longer the plague that will end the world, it’s now a highly transmissible virus that responds to mitigation much like other, less contagious viruses. That has re-assured us and convinced us that there will be a post Covid world if we are careful and committed to individual responsibility within an overall plan.

Although we’re far from finished with Covid, ( I will not say “out of the woods yet”) and with tragic death counts notwithstanding, what have we learned that might be valuable in dealing with  future global pandemics?

We’ve learned:

1) That although some people don’t like “experts”, jurisdictions whose Covid responses     were led by public health experts had much more effective mitigation results.

2) That fast, unanimous action, even those considered premature will save many lives, whether trying to keep infections out of the country, or in the later phases of mitigation/social distancing.

3) That countiries that chose to inject politics, conspiracy theories, and partisan rhetoric into their Covid 19 responses, are faring badly.

4)  That countries that are willing to accept and follow collective action for the common good have fared better than those countries which stress local and individual strategies, individual rights and/or are suspicious of collective action.

5) That international information, collaboration and initiative is needed to identify pathogens and suggest strategies for dealing with global pandemics.

Political criticism not withstanding, it would seem the W.H.O. must be that vehicle, despite American plans to withdraw from the organization.

6) That there are three stages in dealing with Covid 19, none of which can be “skipped.”

– contain the virus ( keep it out of the country)

– shelter at home until the infection curve is very low for at least 14 days.

– massive testing and contact tracing  to allow for slow, phased in re-opening, with quarantining of any new cases.

These steps seem quite clear to most of the world, though we’re not doctors.

And yet, we’ve also learned:

  7) That a large percentage of U.S. politicians and the American

public has not learned or embraced lessons 1-6 above.

Who benefitted from the policies of our last Provincial Government’s tax cuts  ,and who is benefitting from the targeted policies of the  current bunch?

Below is a comparison of benefit based on a  Surrey family earning less than 45K per year. That salary/wage level was chosen because that’s the level below which 2001 tax cuts actually cost British Columbians money.

Admittedly, it’s a cherry picked thumbnail sketch – not a  comprehensive analysis. It does, however, clearly show how  flat tax cuts, constantly touted as a fiscal stimulant, merely re-distributes money upward, while programmes targeted at reducing financial burdens on the working /middle class  can make a big difference in their purchasing power.

_______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

Beyond teaching measurable information, one of myriad contributions of our public schools, is to help define Canadianism for a diverse group of young Canadians.

Our observance of Remembrance Day is a concrete example of this function.

Thanks to our public schools, Canadians have been taught to “observe” Remembrance Day rather than “celebrate” it. Our observance is solemn and respectful. Military contribution is respectfully remembered, but is welded to anti –war sentiment.

We all learned in 13 Remembrance Day assemblies, to not cheerlead or romanticize war; to not use Remembrance Day as a recruitment vehicle; to not encourage our young people to seek the opportunity to die for their country.

We appreciate but bemoan that a generation of young Canadians were forced to make that horrific decision.

This solemnity is a tribute to our public schools, the architects of Canadian Remembrance Day observance.

Remembrance Day assembly planning committees struggle each year to balance honouring military contribution while denouncing the horrors of war.

Sometimes, (often in high schools) the anti-war sentiment wins out and “Where Have All the Flowers Gone” and “Imagine” dominates the ceremony.

Sometimes, vignettes of life in the trenches and of suffering families of those who didn’t return are emphasized in sometimes maudlin readings and mini plays.

But in toto , Canadians leave public schools with a well-rounded , personal relationship with Remembrance Day, one which informs their respectful observance(s) each Nov. 11^th.

But how will Canadians observe Remembrance Day in the future?
Will it remain a solemn observance or will it morph into a celebration of military service in general?

Now that there are fewer and fewer survivors of WW II to attend, address, and support school Remembrance Day  and cenotaph ceremonies, will we just  begin to substitute “Afhganistan” and “various, U.S led police actions ”  for  Vimy Ridge, Ypres, Juno Beach and Caen ?

Will we, in our zeal to “remember”, begin to glorify and romanticize the idea of dying for one’s country in un- justifiable wars or will we continue to focus our “Remembrance” on the tragic circumstances that morally required Canadians to fight against world-wide fascism?

Will we now slip into rhapsodizing about military service, genuflecting to the troops who “fight for our freedom”; marching them at football games after a Snow Birds “fly past”?

Now that face to face, uniform wearing, declared war is a thing of the past, are Canadian Remembrance Days now similarly passe?

I hope we Canadians continue to differentiate between the awful, “one off” imperative faced by young Canadians in the World Wars, and the military as a career choice made by young people today.

As it has been  for decades, it will fall to our public schools to form how Canadians observe future Remembrance Days.

We owe our solemn respect to those Canadians who were forced to fight in the two awful World Wars.

We owe our thanks to our public schools for so deftly sculpting the respectful Canadian observance of Remembrance Day.

The only way to resurrect our public schools, is the same way we attacked them – incrementally and with firm purpose. If there ever was a time when “just throwing money at the problem doesn’t work” is true, it’s now.
It’s like watering a parched lawn – you can’t just water it for 24 hours and expect the damage of a two month drought to be immediately reversed. It takes time and commitment & a constant reminder that we’re trying to overcome a decade and a half of cuts and cruelty to our schools, students,and teachers.

So; What do we do?

1) Increase funding incrementally, 2% above the cost of living each year for 10 years.Toss out “per pupil” funding and come up with an equitable formula which recognizes local needs  like demographics,special needs, and remoteness.Vancouver may need less per capita for transportation  than does Fort St. John. Howe Sound likely spends more money per capita on outdoor education than does Burnaby.

2) Increase hiring and maintenance budgets.
Lower the SER at least one student per class per year – province wide, to allow for smooth assimilation rather than keeping the status quo and adding frills because of difficult organization.
Hire more specialty teachers  and learning assistants/ aides.
Increase  maintenance budgets to reinstate programmes to make schools look less slovenly, unweeded and un-painted. Any Principal will tell you that a dilapidated school is one in which it’s hard to have pride and confidence.

3) Minimize the number of “strings” attached to funding
As budgets are increased, trust educators in the assignation of funds. Principals and teachers are professionals. You’d be amazed at what they can do. After all,they’ve made do with less each year ever since provincial bargaining was instituted in 1984 (NDP gov’t) They know more about running schools and helping kids learn than we do. Increase budgets generally,rather than targeting a million dollars for crossing guards in every school.

4) Raise Teacher salaries.
But while we’re not just “throwing money” at schools, it is time we gave teachers a significant raise. Teachers have been trading salary increases for working conditions & education funding for 30 years.
Whipsawing them using other gov’t settlements as a benchmark won’t do this time. We  should use firefighters, police, civic workers,and other teachers salaries in Canada as comparative benchmarks,rather than non professional gov’t employees.
Competative teacher salaries will help mitigate the teacher shortage we’re in as well as express our support for and confidence in public school teachers.

5) Resurrect respect for teachers as professionals again.
When negotiating, call them “teachers” not the “BCTF”. It’s teachers with whom we’re negotiating, not what we’re eager to impune as an evil, undemocratic union. When we choose to heap scorn on the “BCTF”,we must also accept that we’re heaping scorn on good old Mrs MicGillicuddy and our child’s teacher(s). indeed all the teachers at your local school.

When our neighbours hysterically attack teachers as lazy, entitled, socialist brainwashers, we should do what John McCain once did – firmly say something like;

“No ma’am, they aren’t. They are honest professional people, working hard to help educate our children.”
The individual,developmental  challenges we faced in school, or those faced by our own children shouldn’t be used to indict teachers in general.

Be sure that provincial curriculum is planned by teachers, not Ministry personnel, or
other non professional stakeholders.

Demand local accountability, not provincial. Make the FSA exams a periodic random sampling, to be used to inform system wide decision making and to remove them as tools used to rank schools/districts/ teachers/students.

6) Address private school funding.
Two tiered education promotes a class system in society and is something from which we staunchly defend public health care but are blasé about accepting in schooling our children.
Ending funding for private schools is political dynamite, but it’s the right thing to do.

Our schools are damaged. They need to be repaired, physically, educationally, and politically. It will take a long time, money, and a lot of political courage.
I’m not sure we have the commitment required.

I’m prepared for the Fraser Institute report on schools which will be used to help those who don’t know much about schools to conclude that our students aren’t doing any better since the new government’s funding and hiring ,being nice approach , so what was so bad about what’s  happened in our schools?

It’ll take ten years at least, maybe fifteen, but if we did these six things , our schools could be repaired, our kids school experience would get better each year.

The Vice Principal casually approached the herd of faux rebels who were in daily slouch outside the cafeteria.He knew to approach teenagers, especially these teenagers, sideways, not head on.

They were the only identifiable group in the school that cultivated a  “too cool for school” attitude. Slightly rebellious , but more entitled than truly problematic.

They were of various heights, weights, sizes, hair length. They were also in various stages of teendom, some full in the throes of allergy towards parents and authority, some just nibbling around the syndrome’s edges.

Most wore some part of a uniform – the accepted brand of jeans, acceptable footwear or a t-shirt of a band thought shockingly off colour, controversial or sufficiently grungy. They were experimenting with hairstyles, which feigned indifference but likely took hours daily to coif. None was indifferent to his indifference; each stringently conforming to non-conformity.

Some of them were cheerful, some a bit mono syllabic, but their consensus leader was downright snide – in look and speech.

Jason.

Jason was the identifiable leader of this posse. He was no James Dean (google it)., but he was the group’s Big Kahuna, (google “Cliff Robertson, Big Kahuna”) Jason was the one who epitomized teenaged angst and who passed judgment and doled out acceptance or disapproval to group members.

The group, although there were a few constant members, was itinerant – some went from being Boy Scout- like at home to slouching at lunch time with the group, except on Tuesdays and Thursdays (soccer practice). There was no hubcap stealing or “turf” or rumbles on friday night, it was just a day group with whom to share the burdens of teen aged disillusionment and oppression.

But for Jason and one or two followers, it was more than that.

Jason was a bright but unwilling student. Teachers complained about him regularly:

“ Jason won’t do anything in class, he just sits there…”

“ Never does any homework. Jason thinks he’s special…well I’ve got news for him…!”

The Vice Principal had successfully spent  time fostering relationships with  other members of the group but Jason remained aloof and defensive, unreachable, despite many deft approaches by the Vice Principal.

The Vice Principal  knew the other kids respected him, that they thought him sensitive and empathetic – that they could generally trust him to be fair and supportive. No one was spray bombing his name on the back of the school.

But he hadn’t reached Jason and he knew Jason was in trouble. He had seen the signs before. He would end up not being able to hide his contempt and would run afoul of one of the “more structured” teachers; or he’d get in trouble with the police.

Jason couldn’t make it through two more years of high school wearing contempt and anger on his sleeve – and he couldn’t be happy being merely the leader of a rebellion that was going nowhere. He was the negative leader, sought for anointing by other kids who slunk in and out of the rebellious group as it suited them. But Jason as the spiritual leader , was stuck.

The Vice Principal had  tried talking with Jason matter of factly, about other kids, his family,, local sports teams, the cafeteria food. Nothing but grunting acknowledgement followed by determined disengagement.

He’d tried asking Jason if he would help Mrs. Switz move a couple of things to her car. Mrs. Switz was a popular young teacher who had agreed to allow the Vice Principal to try this appeal to Jason’s adult, chivalrous nature. He performed the task, grumbling, but put upon.

The Vice Principal had learned from experience that contacting Jason’s parents was not helpful. They were unwilling to accept what they saw as a non-problem and were openly critical of the public school system. In addition, Jason very much resented his parents being contacted when he “hadn’t done nothin’ ”

The Vice Principal had  tried offering Jason a job, receiving and stamping textbooks for a week in the summer .

“Good money – Jack and Steve are gonna help too.”

“Naw…”

Practised in engaging teenagers, the Vice Principal approached them from the side, not head on, knowing the stupidity and peril of open confrontation with authority testing teenagers.

So this day, the Vice Principal casually approached the herd of faux rebels.

“Hey guys, how’s it going? .”

The Vice Principal approached the group . Very matter of fact, being sure not to look at Jason, he casually bent over and, as he picked up an empty potato chip bag from the floor, he said.”

“Hey Jason, “I’ll pick up this potato chip bag if you’ll pick up that empty Pepsi can on the floor over there for us – thanks a lot. ” Without looking back, the Vice Principal deposited the chip bag in the trash and continued down the hallway, still not looking at Jason.

The clump of sixteen-year-old boys loitered less aimlessly. The rebel leader had been challenged to help the Vice Principal – in a matter of fact way. No overt instruction had been given. Come at them sideways, not head on. The group waited to see if Jason would pick up the Pepsi can, fascinated with his  dilemma.

Jason stood unresponsive, and seeing the Vice Principal had progressed ten yards down the hall, he sneered at the Pepsi can, dismissing it from his focus.

Twenty yards down the hall, the Vice Principal slowly turned and looked back at the group. He waited until conversation had stopped and they were all looking at him. He stared at Jason, down at the distant Pepsi can and, in a loud, gymnasium baritone yelled.

“Jason, I asked you to pick up that Pepsi can, now pick it up! ”

There was no doubting his anger.

The entire hallway was quiet for what seemed like minutes. The rebel group stood motionless. Slowly, oozing contempt, Jason picked up the Pepsi can and deposited it in the recycling box beside the garbage can, with the disdain of someone who had just changed the diaper of a child not their own.

The Vice Principal, his will be done, huffed away around the corner, leaving an astonished group to mitigate Jason’s compliance.

“ Wow, I’ve never seen him that mad before.”
“He looked like he wanted to pound you!”
“Whatever”, said Jason, his snide quickly back intact.

Jason left the group and walked outside seeking solitude. He was confused.

The next day, Jason was noticeably absent from the group outside the cafeteria.
The pop can incident, forgotten by the other flighty group members, wasn’t forgotten by Jason.

An hour or so before dismissal for the day , the Vice Principal sent for Jason in Math class.

Trudging towards the office, Jason prepared himself for battle. He hadn’t looked for it, but here it was. He hoped his imminent martyrdom would be painless and quick. He rehearsed a few lines to express his objection to being picked on.

“Come in Jason”, said the Vice Principal, Jason did.
“Sit down “, said the Vice Principal. Jason did.

The Vice Principal stood, his back to Jason, looking out the window, as if contemplating what he was going to say. He turned.

He looked Jason in the eye. Jason looked away. The Vice Principal continued to look directly at Jason, who finally had to look at the Vice Principal or otherwise appear cowed.

“Jason… I owe you an apology” , the Vice Principal finally spat out in a pained voice.

“ Huh,”? Said Jason.

“ That’s right. I lost my temper yesterday and yelled at you in front of your friends”.

The Vice Principal walked back over to the window, put both hands on the sill and looked down at the floor.

“Jason, I’m an adult and I embarrassed you in front of your friends. It was inexcusable and I know better.”

“Whaaat” ? said Jason ,eyes wide.

The Vice Principal turned around and looked at Jason.

“ I hope you will accept my apology .I was not respectful and it wasn’t professional –I know better.”

The Vice Principal paused, looked at Jason and asked.

“ Will you accept my apology, Jason” ?

“ Huh, well, sure, I guess so, but …”

“ Thanks Jase.”. The Vice Principal sighed, relieved.

He wasn’t done yet.

“ Jason, I promise that I will never publicly embarrass you again as long as you are at this school .

“ I feel a lot better than I did yesterday. I felt bad all evening. To me, treating people with respect is the most important thing we learn in life, and when it’s difficult, it’s even more important. ”

“ I guess so”, said Jason, not quite knowing how to respond.

“By the way, Jason, I’m going to come to the cafeteria tomorrow and extend my personal apology to you again in front of your group.”

“ You don’t have to do that, sir” said Jason, slightly horrified.

“Jason, I do have to. My job is to help students at this school, not treat them disrespectfully. Don’t worry, I’ll make it quick and painless for you.“

The Vice Principal did go to the cafeteria the next day, and he did make it quick and painless. He stressed the importance of treating others with respect and that just because he got angry with something “someone” did didn’t excuse his responding by being disrespectful and losing his temper.

“ Right Jason”?

“Uh ,yes, uh… sir”, I guess so.

“Good. I also want to promise all you guys that I won’t disrespect any of you in public. If I am concerned about something you do, I’ll ask to talk to you privately about it.
If I’m disrespectful to any of you in any way, I’ll expect to hear from you… privately.

O.K. guys”?

Silence “O.K. guys “ ?

“Sure”, “OK”, “Yeah” murmured the bewildered group.

In the days and weeks after the apology, Jason didn’t become a stellar student and he didn’t put on a charm offensive. But he graduated on time, without major incident. He  even excelled in Physics 12.

Within a month of the “incident” another aggrieved rebel took over the leadership of the cafeteria loiterers, mostly because of  the vacuum left by Jason’s growing indifference to leadership.

Liberated, Jason happily became a peripheral member of the less rebellious (admittedly older) rebel group, until his grade 12 year, when he joined an intramural ultimate frisbee team at noon on Thursdays and Fridays and spent a lot of time with a very straight –laced girlfriend.

After graduation, Jason started his own home renovations business.
It soon thrived, much to the Vice Principal’s delight, because, reports say, of Jason’s assiduous attention to customer relations and respect for his employees.

Always  come at them sideways, never head on.

My “let’s have a parade” colleague wants to make Remembrance Day a national holiday. He suspects that bigger, more overt displays on Remembrance Day might intensify our appreciation of the sacrifices made by those who went before.

But would it? A national Remembrance Day holiday might actually diminish our appreciation, or worse, change it.

To justify a national holiday we would need more and bigger national ceremonies. We’d need more fly pasts, more flags, and more pomp and circumstance. We’d likely no longer be able to avoid the kind of hyperbole of heroism and romanticising of war we hear emanating from south of us.  We might unwittingly turn Remembrance Day into a celebration.

And Canadians don’t celebrate Remembrance Day, we observe it.

So I hope we don’t change Remembrance Day – because it’s a day Canadians really get right.

The first, mid-October poppies on lapels; silent, symbols which multiply as Nov. 11 approaches; like those in Flanders field;  such a powerful statement.

The placing of wreaths at cenotaphs, the twenty-one gun salute in Ottawa, the moment of silence on the eleventh hour of the eleventh month; it’s so solemn and poignant.

Thirteen years of Remembrance Day assemblies in our schools have helped each of us accept the solemnity of the day, allowing Remembrance Day to strike a balance between our deep appreciation for military contribution and our strong abhorrence of war.

Nov. 11th was declared a “day of remembrance” in1931. It was the very fact that it wasn’t declared a national holiday which forced Canadians to observe the day together in workplaces, offices and schools and develop our respectful observance of the day.

If we declare Remembrance Day a national holiday, Canadians would have time to organize Remembrance Day hockey tournaments, annual fishing trips, or shopping outings across the line.  No one is against hockey tournaments or fishing weekends, but I’m not sure that a part of the value of Remembrance Day should be to provide time off for recreational opportunities.

The way we observe Remembrance Day doesn’t require intensifying or improvement. The solemn balance Canadians have achieved in our observance of Remembrance Day is maintained by deep tradition, tradition that expresses the respectful remembrance of Canadians with perfect pitch and volume.

More isn’t better and louder isn’t stronger.

AS I SEE IT – Jim Nelson

So the annual hand wringing over the Foundation Skills Assessments tests begins again: Why are teachers so dead against them? Is it just that awful B.C.T.F. being radical again?

Should we keep our children from writing the tests?

The trouble with the FSA is not the tests but how they are used.
F.S.A. exams have become the B.C. banner of the accountability movement in education, a movement that has ruined American public schools over the last 20 years and yet is catching on in B.C. despite its disastrous effect on schools to our south.

The accountability movement started in the U.S., born of the North American tendency to analyze, regulate and measure things.

A good example of this is the development of American football.

Now, I enjoy an NFL game as much as much as the next person but American football’s metamorphosis from rugby is instructive in understanding the development of the accountability movement in education.

Americans didn’t play rugby for long; rather, they quickly felt the need to change it, to regulate and delineate the hell out of it. They divided the field into one-yard segments with 200 hash marks, added five officials, helmets and padding, statistics, instant replay, score clocks and down chains. They broke the game into quarters. Time-outs, huddles, motion rules, penalties — with designated yards for designated offences — all marched off precisely. There are signals for everything, a ritualized kicking game and 300-page playbooks with X’s and O’s and arrows.

Instead of rugby, with one ball, one referee, an emphasis on spontaneity and creativity, and an almost chivalrous adherence to fair play, our southern cousins ended up with football, a testament to rules, measures, specialization and intervention. I reiterate that I love watching NFL football.

But back to the analogy.

Unfortunately, the same cultural compulsion that changed rugby into American football proved unhelpful when applied to education.

Because education is more like rugby than football. It is interactive, free-flowing, spontaneous and creative. It’s not easily quantifiable, pre-packaged or measured. It is too complex to be judged by a standardized measure, no matter how strong the cultural imperative may be to do so.

How can a standardized test measure the “A-ha!” moment when a student suddenly appreciates the brilliance of Shakespeare? How can it measure the ability to co-operate or persevere or to help another student?

Learning takes place through relationships with peers and teachers. It can only be measured somewhat accurately using an aggregation of many and varied assessments, both objective and anecdotal.

We all wish it was simpler, that we could judge how students are doing with a simple urine sample or a multiple-guess test.

My opinion, although I’m a bit radical, is that an even more accurate indication of how well your child is learning is whether they are happy at school, whether they feel safe, are confident and engaged at school. If they “like” the teacher, have friends, feel good about their studies and enjoy school, they are learning just fine.

The B.C.T.F. is right on this issue. Although the union brings up red herrings such as how the poor children suffer undue stress when asked to write tests or how the poor teachers have to mark them, or the time it takes out of the curriculum or that the reason they are no good is because of demographic differences, yada yada yada. These are true but only peripheral reasons for objecting to the FSA.

Teachers and the B.C.T.F. know viscerally that trying to legitimize standardized measures is harmful to our schools and, thus, our children’s learning. They are the only ones standing against the accountability movement.

As a former school principal in the Tri-Cities, I applaud this stance. Were my children in Grade 7, I would encourage them to not write the F.S.A. exams. Had I a child in Grade 4, I would send him to school and quietly but firmly instruct the school that he is not to write the F.S.A. exams and that perhaps half an hour in the gymnasium or on the playing field might be a good alternative.

And so, sing along.

Following is “Turfin’ FSA,” sung to the tune of the Beach Boys’ “Surfin’ U.S.A.-by Jim Nelson and Dennis Secret:

Turfin’ F.S.A

If everybody had a notion, ’round District 43,

We’d call BS on the testing and we’d go on a spree,

We’ll throw ‘em all in the dumpster, autonomy has its day,

Tell the super we’re turfin’, turfin’ FSA

We’re giving testing the boot,

’Cause it just don’t compute.

And then we’ll set our sights on, the Fraser Institute.

Every district in B.C. will see us leadin’ the way,

Tell the super we’re turfin’, turfin’ FSA

$1.37 per litre for gas this long weekend. Oil company apologists have absolutely abrogated any responsibility for this, outright gouging of Vancouver drivers.

The price of gas has plummeted from $100.00 plus in 2010 to a little more than $45.000 in 2017.

Gas prices in Vancouver at the peak of oil prices (when oil was $110.00 per barrel) was $1.50 per litre. The price of oil has dropped more than 50%, while the price of gas at the pump has dropped 13%.

Now that oil prices are down more than 50% of 2010 levels, one would think gas at the pump would be about $.75 per litre or so.

But clearly, we don’t understand the sophisticated pressures on oil companies.

I see a hurriedly called brainstorming session of gas suppliers to come up with more creative excuses for their long weekend cash grab.

• We’ve used the Cherry Point refinery’s having a particularly difficult maintenance period – can’t use that old chestnut.
• We’ve blamed unrest in Venezuela – a couple of rebels feeling a bit lathered. But we kind of like these latest rebels ( they are against a left wing government), and that was a weak excuse anyway.
• We’ve carefully explained that Vancouver’s oil comes predominantly from the U.S. ,so the demand is greater, except in Abbotsford and Silverdale who can quite easily sell gas at 15 cents cheaper to compete with their local American gas competition. No one believes that one anymore.
• We’ve explained ad nauseum about the added gas tax we pay ( damn guvmn’t) but that’s dangerous because if anyone actually looks at the gas tax paid they would see that Vancouverites pay 11 cents more than other BC jurisdictions, while our gas prices are 30 or 40 cents higher, and even more on long weekends. They might also notice that gas taxes aren’t moving up on long weekends. We’d better gloss over that excuse.
• We’ve tried patiently explaining that sometimes we buy too much inventory at a higher price and so prices can’t go down until that inventory is use up. Unfortunately, we never buy too much when the price is lower so any excuse for an increase is immediately reflected in the price at the pump- so , people are becoming wary of that line.
• We’ve used the lower Canadian dollar excuse haven’t we? But that doesn’t explain why it’s just Vancouver we choose to punish each long weekend.

“ Come on people, think outside the box…”

We need a new excuse – a beauty, one we haven’t trotted out before, one that will explain why perennially low oil prices are never reflected in Vancouver prices and why we jack up prices at the pump every long weekend as high as we can crank them.

“I know”, says a small, ambitious voice in the background.
” We can say that the upcoming eclipse is causing an increased demand for gas, and that’s why the price went up ten cents on this particular long weekend!”

“Surely they’re not that stupid, are they?”

Well, if they swallowed the Cherry Point Maintenance excuse, they’ll believe anything”

“OK. Brilliant” says the brainstorming circle.

“Right, Sally, you work up some nonsense on the eclipse – once in a lifetime , people will be driving everywhere, demand up, yada yada. Throw in a mention of high taxes and we’ll get someone who is an “industry expert” to trot it out ASAP. And we’ll get that reporter, what’s her name again? She’ll make it sound objective.

“Don’t forget everybody, the excuse this time is :“

“Eclipse causing high demand, high gas taxes because of Mayor Moonbeam, and it’s too complicated to expect prices at the pump to match the international price of a barrel of oil “ (that is, unless the price of oil goes up, in which case there’s an absolute relationship between oil prices and prices at the pump)”

“OK. Get out there and crank up those gas prices – we’ve only got another 10 years or so to gouge the bastards – oh and remember, we’re not colluding”

If the BC(neo)Libs overturn the result in Courtenay /Comox, the parliament seat count would be 44- 40- 3.

That looks like a majority, but another election would soon result, as the BC(neo)Libs have few policies even close to palatable to the Greens or the NDP and their vote lead would be so scant. But regardless of the outcome of the recount there will be another election soon.

Although the recount result might have little legislative significance, it could have considerable political significance that could ultimately help the N.D.P.

1) It may keep Christy Clark as B.C.(neo)Lib Leader
Looking past Christy Clark is not something the B.C. voter is used to, but it’s not difficult to see the vultures gathering.

Kevin Falcon and perhaps even James Moore are circling the carrion of her BC(neo)Lib leadership. Either of them could resurrect BC(neo)Libs ,with Ms.Clark’s myriad controversies and missteps purged by her downfall.

If Ms. Clark can claim “A majority government”, she can hang on to the Premiership and party leadership for the brief period it will take for the government to collapse. If she leads the government into the next election, the electoral message may likely be “perhaps you didn’t hear us on May 9^th”
2) It would make the Greens position even more stark.

Were the seat count 44- 40 -3, once a speaker was appointed, the voting MLA count would effectively be 43-40-3 – a deadlock should the Greens vote with the N.D.P. True, the speaker can vote in a “tie” situation, but repeated tie breaking votes would soon rob the speaker of any appearance of parliamentary objectivity.
With a virtual tie in the house, the government could pass any legislation not voted against by all three Green MLAs. making Greens appear responsible for the passage of any regressive legislation, even if it’s a trade off situation.

While N.D.P. opposition is expected, the Greens would only have the power to allow passage of bills or force a tie breaking vote, a weaker and more stark position than the balance of power situation they are currently in.

3)It would likely strengthen John Horgan’s Leadership

Were a minority B.C.(neo)Lib government to limp along, John Horgan would get media coverage that he didn’t get during the election. The more people see of John Horgan the more they like him. A Christy Clark “majority” government would give him more media exposure and more opportunity to explain his party’s platform.

The N.D.P. would be expected to oppose the BC(neo)Lib legislation and would not be blamed for their imminent downfall – the three Greens would wear that,as the party that could prop up the government but didn’t.
Mr.Horgan would be able to both court and criticize the Green Party for dithering or vacillating on marginally acceptable legislation.

4) It would likely reinforce the anger of the B.C. electorate towards Christy Clark.

The overwhelming message of the May 9th election was “we’ve had it with Christy Clark, her dishonesty, her scandals, and her pay for play government.”

If she can limp along with a “majority” government, an angry electorate will speak even more loudly in the next election, likely identifying the N.D.P as the real opposition to smiling Christy ,especially given that Weaver has been courting the B.C.(neo)Libs so openly of late.

Of course this is all speculation. We’ll have to wait to see what happens in the imminent recounts. Yes, yes, it will “be interesting”.

But one thing is sure. For the N.D.P, facing a B.C. (neo) Lib. Party led by Christy Clark is politically and strategically a better option  than having a minority government fall in weeks and facing a B.C.(neo)Lib party purged of all sins by dumping Christy Clark for the people’s saviour, Kevin Falcon or James Moore.

Can Americans not see what’s happening to their democracy?

The U.S., by ceding control of its institutions to their President, is seemingly enthusiastically moving towards becoming a third world junta.

With the summary firing of F.B.I. Director James Comey, President Donald Trump further consolidated his power, by reigning in one of the last non-partisan checks and balances to administrative excess – an independent intelligence community.

We’re lucky there’s no Reichstag to burn down.

If  Trump’s campaign  colluded with Russia to win the U.S. election, as the schoolyard bully would say, “whatya gonna do about it…?”

Indeed, with the F.B.I. effectively silenced, who or what is left to stop Donald Trump’s excesses?

Donald Trump controls the Executive Branch of government,including the power of executive order, policy veto, control of foreign policy and the military,as well as the bully pulpit.

Donald Trump controls the Legislative branch of government; the House of Representatives and the Senate, the country’s law making bodies.

Donald Trump controls the judiciary branch, having appointed a conservative to complete the right wing majority. While it’s true that some local and regional judges can and have slowed some arbitrary fiats, they can’t stop them, with the right dominated Supreme Court as the final arbiter.

Donald Trump controls the media. His rhetoric, with complicit right wing outlets and shock jocks, has greatly reduced the power of a  major check and balance to executive power. The media is now seen by the masses as an enemy of the people. Gallup says only 32% of Americans have “some or great” trust in the American media and 47% believe that the media makes up “fake news” to make trump look bad.

Donald Trump controls the military, not just because he is Commander in Chief. He has solidified his control by filling his Cabinet with retired generals to shape and support foreign policy without pesky congressional oversight. His determination to increase military spending buys the allegiance of the U.S. military but also elevates his right to fire should he be questioned or disobeyed.

Donald Trump controls Wall Street. Promises of corporate tax cuts, eliminating regulation, a turn towards protectionism, and a willingness to use his office to punish or reward individual businesses or industries will keep corporate America enthusiastically in line.

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin may well control the world. Many posit, and the facts are beginning to substantiate , that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are fashioning an Ike-like worldwide military industrial complex- an oligarchy to control the world.

If world domination is a bit far fetched for you,at least consider this:

With  F.B.I Difector Janes Comey’s firing, Donald Trump now  controls the Intelligence Agencies of the U.S., and will  have appointed Trumpsters to head National Intelligence, N.S.A., C.I.A., and now the F.B.I.

So with Trump having control of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the US government, the military, the N.S.A., C.I.A. and F.B.I., who is there left to indict him or even investigate him should he commit indictable crime?

Given all this, what’s left of the checks and balances the U.S. fathers fashioned to curb executive (Presidential) power?

Any young Woodwards or Bernsteins out there, who progressively unearth the full scope of Presidential transgressions will be easily shouted down.

Congress? The US Congress has shown itself to be spectacularly blind to Presidential transgression – willing to sacrifice country for party and personal political expedience.

So; who or what is left to throw the President in the slammer? Or out of office?
Even if Robert Mueller supplies incontrovertible evidence of collusion, obstruction of justice, contravened emollients clauses, sexual abuse practices, or tax fraud, will Americans accept it, believe it, or care?

Given that Donald Trump controls all U.S. power sources and their checks and balances, who’s left to call B.S.?

I’m not confident there is anything that can stop this President should he choose to become the Supreme Leader of an oligarchic, military, theocracy.

Now there’s an objective headline from Postmedia’s  Vancouver Sun, fast becoming a B.C. facsimile of Breitbart News.

In his full front page hack job of NDP leader John Horgan, columnist Rob Shaw allows Premier Clark to muse unchallenged about what she sees ( strictly clinically of course) to be Mr.Horgan’s shortcomings:

“I know people sort of thought (former NDP leader) Adrian Dix was flip-flopping, but John Horgan … has got a bigger problem in terms of finding his spine, finding his backbone. That was something I’ve learned about him over the last little while in watching the NDP.”

“John, he is not as strong a leader as I thought he would be,” said Clark. “He hasn’t been able to corral his caucus, there’s so much disunity in the group, they are always fighting with each other. He can’t seem to take a position on any of the important policies, things it’s obvious we are all going to have to take a position on.”

The fact that the Vancouver Sun would give the Premier a free front page to trash her political opponent without rebuttal is a terrifying indictment of what the paper has become.

With Global T.V. News offering nothing but traffic reports and recipes and C.K.N.W. solidly in the bag for the current  government, where can British Columbians possibly get any kind of factual information or analyses?

Shaw’s  swiftboating article also featured a photo of Premier Clark’s back, as she is symbolically walking back into the Parliament buildings. Disgraceful.

The Vancouver Sun has always shown it’s right wing stripes.They could be counted on to play a crucial role in past media coups of NDP Premiers, from Dave Barrett to Mike Harcourt to that other revilee, Premier Glen Clark.

Marjorie Nichols, Alan Fotheringham, et al, would carpet bomb them into submission for sins much less serious than any one of ten current or past Socred scandals. Still, there seemed to be some nuance required in their assassinations, and there was the occasional dissenting voice allowed, strictly to inoculate the public into accepting the paper’s objectivity.

But any pretence of objectivity has long since disappeared. This is the Sun’s most blatantly partisan story since the Supreme Court of Canada publicly spanked  Premier Clark’s government and forced  them to return B.C. school staffing levels to 2001 levels. So,after a fifteen year battle with a government the Supreme Court said acted unconstitutionally, what headline did the Vancouver Sun feel best encapsulated the story?

“Premier Hints at Extra Educational Funding” was the Sun’s headline.

Even worse,in this recent Horgan trashing piece, after columnist Rob Shaw had dutifully recorded all of Premier Clark’s ad hominem remarks about Mr Horgan, he had the gall to include a most spectacular irony:

“Clark said she’s not worried about the race, because she prefers to focus on being positive.”

It would be laughable if not so viscious and inappropriate.

The Vancouver Sun has lost all objectivity.It has become a shameless government shill.

If you must read the Sun, do the crossword puzzle, find out how the Canucks did, but please, consider their significant and transparent political bias when reading any “news” story or op ed.

In full rant recently, CNN’s Don Lemon, defined “fake news” as stories purposely concocted to mislead the public.

If that’s the criterion, government’s 2017 B.C. Education Budget is fake news. While the budget appears 256 million higher than 2016/2017, it does not represent the major
education funding increase it would have us believe.

Here’s there budget for 2017/18 and the proceeding two school years.

Yahoo! Happy days are here again!

Substantial right? Well, not really. Not if one takes a look at how it actually shakes out.

Line 1 – 76 million – allotted for enrolment growth. This is a formula –  not a funding increase. Throughout many recent years of enrolment decline, lower per pupil funding was never described as “cuts” by the government – a formulaic increase cannot now be claimed as a funding increase.

Line 2 – 120 million “annualized cost of interim agreement with B.C.T.F.(or more accurately,”teachers”). This money is to continue paying the teachers hired this spring as a result of the 50 million dollar “interim agreement to jump start”  addressing the Supreme Court of Canada decision against the Government. This is not a 2017/2018 funding increase, but a continuation of a 2016/2017 initiative.

Line 3 – 15 million – “for increased funding of student transportation.This is also continuation money for a transportation adjustment began last year. A cynic might say that transportation, the first thing cut by school districts years ago in response to annual funding cuts, was centrally resurrected to assure that students can get to their schools of choice.

This is not a funding increase, but another continuation cost of a previous policy.

Line 4 – 3 million – “ Rural education enhancement funding.” This is a sop to interior schools that the government has already announced will stay open despite local imperatives to close them in response to serial government budget cuts. This was committed to last year, and is a return of funding long removed, not a funding increase.

Line 5 – 28 million – “Relief of various school districts and other pressures”. This is the most dishonest of all the government’s budget   misrepresentations.

First, the money is pay back to school districts for downloaded expenditures already billed them for the “Next Generation Network”, a technological hardware upgrade.

Second, it’s not real money, merely the non- collection of an announced 2016/2017, 29 million dollar cut to “administration”.

Line 6 – 14 million – “Second “Economic Stability Dividend” – salary increase as per last year’s “affordability zone” contract.Increased educational funding? Hardly.

And finally, the 27.4 million dollars mentioned in the concluding paragraph for “curriculum implementation”. Clearly it was not included in the budget table because it is so obviously a mere re-imbursement of downloaded costs for curriculum resource needs paid by school districts in previous years.

In short, while the Education Budget has grown, there has been no significant increase in  education funding.

One would be remiss to not mention the  “Learning Enrichment Fund” into which the government will plough 100 million  dollars next year. The “L.I.F. , is a liquid fund,  controlled by the government, who can target it as they see fit. It’s a contingency fund, to offset litigation imperatives if it becomes absolutely unavoidable.

So, there is no  actual education funding increase for 2017/18.

Yet  once again, the government appears to be getting away with their claim that education funding will increase massively in next year’s budget.

It won’t.

Inarguably, and in pure Trump fashion, it’s fake news -fake news gone unchallenged by a media and public whose brains hurt from the government’s continuous  funding shell game. From multiple announcements of the same money to drive by, one year funding announcements, to cut and replace  funding, to representing routine maintenance as new funding, the misrepresentation and obfuscation is mind boggling.

It takes too much time, digging, and analysis to cut through the  subterfuge, and neither public nor media has much of a taste for it.

But the worst part of this fake news is that the government’s considerable circuitousness once again shows the considerable depth of their  animus toward public education .

The U.S. election is over and GOP zealots are almost peeing their pants to finally repeal Obamacare. Killing “job killing” Obamacare is their mantra, their raison d’être.It is their sacred duty to exorcise this creeping cancer. They don’t even know why anymore, their eyes are glazed over in hysterical solidarity.

Having spent most recent congressional sessions voting fifty six times to repeal it, they now have the troops and the mandate, to be successful on the fifty seventh and (hallelujah) ,the final,vote. “Can I get an amen?”

Instead of dying on this hill, Democrats should lay down their arms and let Republicans die on it.

Let it go.

Because Obamacare isn’t what progressive Americans wanted in the first place. It was a compromise, a sop to Cerberus, a watered down Republican scheme that was “the best we could hope for”. Many Democrats held their noses and supported Obamacare because at least it moved the ball down the field towards accepting health care as a right not a business venture.

Obamacare became the embodiment of evil immediately the black guy brought it in. It is the focal point of Obama hate, a dog whistle for racism and ungodly socialism.

GOP zealots and a compliant media have convinced 75% of Americans that Obamacare is bad and should be repealed.

So let it go.

Obamacare, though complex and a masterstroke of political finagling, is really not much. It’s a mandatory private insurance plan. Whoopee.The rest of the world shakes their collective heads.

Republicans want to repeal it and replace it with an optional private insurance plan of some ilk. (To be decided sometime after their repealing bile has subsided).

So let it go.

Let them remove Obamacare as a scapegoat that allows private health insurance companies to fleece the U.S. public with jacked up premiums and deductibles.

Let them transfer ownership of an untenable private health insurance system to themselves.

Let it go.

I know, Obamacare, was the first American homage to universal healthcare.

I know that lots of Presidents (and first ladies) tried and failed to reform heath care after having faced the withering blast of big pharma and lobbyists that carpet bomb any attempt at reform.

I know Obamacare was a modern miracle of political prestidigitation.

And I know Obamacare was a move forward. To require all people to have health insurance, and to help those who couldn’t afford it was a worthwhile goal. To outlaw “pre existing conditions”, lifetime caps and staying on parents plans until twenty six are things that even Republicans grudgingly support.

Ironically, the GOP “replacement” of Obamacare will be – guess what? While mumbling something about “state lines” and competition the GOP will come up with a  private insurance scheme in which companies can’t disqualify for pre existing conditions, can’t have a lifetime benefit cap, and must allow children to stay on their parents plan until they are 26. Sound familiar? It should, and it’s all the Republicans can do.

They can’t tell insurance companies, “OK, now that we’ve repealed that awful Obamacare, you can resume the life and death abuse you  foisted on Americans for a hundred years.

There’s nothing else they can do but re-fiddle Obamacare and perhaps re-name  it Trumpcare.

Without removing the profit motive from health care, the U.S. is doomed to a game of health care whack a mole – closing one care disqualifier as private companies find another way to disqualify patients or simply raise rates and blame the system.

Neither Obamacare nor any shiny new GOP system based on private insurance will work. They both depend on a model that expects private health insurers to serve the patient for a reasonable fee.

Currently, medical insurers get $.33 of every $1.00 spent in medical care.

Ultimately, it’s ending this travesty that will be the answer, not re jigging ways of having people pay $.33 of every dollar to pay for health centre waterfalls, foyers, and CEO bonuses.

So let Obamacare go Democrats, and work towards removing the profit motive from health care. Everyone knows this is the right answer but they are afraid of the fight and the unknown.

Let it go – and let the Republicans take their turn demonstrating the unfairness and inefficacy of for profit health care for a while.

Obamacare will still be President Obama’s legacy, and real, single payer health care may some day come to Americans out it’s modest beginnings.

But as long as Obamacare is around to take the blame for untenable health care costs, it will.

Let it go.

AS I SEE IT – Jim Nelson

So the annual hand wringing over the Foundation Skills Assessments tests begins again: Why are teachers so dead against them? Is it just that awful B.C.T.F. being radical again?

Should we keep our children from writing thePhoto tests?

The trouble with the FSA is not the tests but how they are used.

F.S.A. exams are the B.C. banner of the accountability movement in education, a movement that has ruined American public schools over the last 20 years and yet is catching on in B.C. despite its disastrous effect on U.S. schools.

The accountability movement started in the U.S. and was born of the American tendency to analyze, regulate and measure things.

A good example of this is the development of American football.

Now, I enjoy an NFL game as much as much as the next person but a look at American football’s metamorphosis from rugby is instructive in understanding the development of the accountability movement in education.

Americans didn’t play rugby for long; rather, they quickly felt the need to change it, to regulate and delineate the hell out of it. They divided the field into one-yard segments with 200 hash marks, added five officials, helmets and padding, statistics, instant replay, score clocks and down chains. They broke the game into quarters. Time-outs, huddles, motion rules, penalties — with designated yards for designated offences — all marched off precisely. There are signals for everything, a ritualized kicking game and 300-page playbooks with X’s and O’s and arrows.

Instead of rugby, with one ball, one referee, an emphasis on spontaneity and creativity, and an almost chivalrous adherence to fair play, our southern cousins ended up with football, a testament to rules, measures, specialization and intervention. I reiterate that I love watching NFL football.

But back to the analogy.

Unfortunately, the same cultural compulsion that changed rugby into American football proved unhelpful when applied to education.

Because education is like rugby. It is interactive, free-flowing, spontaneous and creative. It’s not easily quantifiable, pre-packaged or measured. It is too complex to be judged by a standardized measure, no matter how strong the cultural imperative may be to do so.

How can a standardized test measure the “A-ha!” moment when a student suddenly appreciates the brilliance of Shakespeare? How can it measure the ability to co-operate or persevere or to help another student?

Learning takes place through relationships with peers and teachers. It can only be measured somewhat accurately using an aggregation of many and varied assessments, both objective and anecdotal.

We all wish it was simpler, that we could judge how students are doing with a simple urine sample or a multiple-guess test.

My opinion, although I’m a bit radical, is that an even more accurate indication of how well your child is learning is whether they are happy at school, whether they feel safe, are confident and engaged at school. If they “like” the teacher, have friends, feel good about their studies and enjoy school, they are learning just fine.

The B.C.T.F. is dead right on this issue. Although the union brings up red herrings such as how the poor children suffer undue stress when asked to write tests or how the poor teachers have to mark them, or the time it takes out of the curriculum or that the reason they are no good is because of demographic differences, yada yada yada, these are peripheral reasons for objecting to the FSA.

Teachers and the B.C.T.F. know viscerally that trying to legitimize standardized measures is harmful to our schools and, thus, our children’s learning. They are the only ones standing against the accountability movement.

As a former school principal in the Tri-Cities, I applaud this stance. Were my children in Grade 7, I would encourage them to not write the F.S.A. exams. Had I a child in Grade 4, I would send him to school and quietly but firmly instruct the school that he is not to write the F.S.A. exams and that perhaps half an hour in the gymnasium or on the playing field might be a good alternative.

Jim Nelson is a retired Tri-City teacher and Principal.

SO SING ALONG…

Following is “Turfin’ FSA,” sung to the tune of the Beach Boys’ “Surfin’ U.S.A.-by Jim Nelson and Dennis Secret:

Turfin’ F.S.A

If everybody had a notion, ’round District 43,

We’d call BS on the testing and we’d go on a spree,

We’ll throw ‘em all in the dumpster, autonomy has its day,

Tell the super we’re turfin’, turfin’ FSA

We’re giving testing the boot,

’Cause it just don’t compute.

And then we’ll set our sights on, the Fraser Institute.

Every district in B.C. will see us leadin’ the way,

Tell the super we’re turfin’, turfin’ FSA

Call me a cynic, but B.C.’s teachers shouldn’t accept a nickel from the B.C. government until the government publicly explains what the money represents.

B.C. teachers and government negotiators have reached a deal to add $50 million dollars to the system this year to “jump start” negotiations. Neither side wanted “children and schools to suffer” while complex negotiations went on.

But what is this money? Is it a small down payment on a larger debt, or “new money” as chronically tone deaf Minister Mike Bernier posits? Will government try to sell it to voters as “new money” or what it actually is – a small portion of returned heist money?

And unless what it represents is clear, the beatings at the hands of the government will continue, despite their embarrassing and long overdue trip to the woodshed at the hands of the Supreme Court of Canada.

While $50 million dollars will be a welcome first drip in refilling the education bucket kicked over by Christy Clark in 2001’s contract stripping, the money represents different things to different people.

To public school advocates and educators, $50 million is a quick down payment on a much larger settlement, to be negotiated later. The B.C.T.F. has conservatively pegged the amount taken from schools over sixteen years at $300 million (it’s likely closer to $2 billion). Teachers think negotiations have just begun, and that more money will be forthcoming.

To the B.C government, $50 million is merely a strategic political move.

First, $50 million allows the government to buy educational altruism in the minds of voters fed up with sixteen years of B.C.’s education wars.

“The Supreme Court said we’ve been bad and mean for sixteen years; but now we’re excited about investing more money in children because now we suddenly care about public education- families first!” ( somewhat paraphrased)

$50 million buys the government a tube of culpability ointment which they will apply liberally (pun intended) from now until May’s election.

Second, to the government, $50 million is not a down payment, it’s a cap. Because there’s a provincial election in May they won’t ever be required to give a higher sum than $50 million.

Were the government to lose May’s election, they need only sit in opposition and snipe about why the new government wasn’t following the Supreme Court of Canada’s judgment, a process which their government had magnanimously just begun?

And should the government win May’s election, they will be purged of all sins and be able to claim a mandate for their prudent educational governance.

And don’t forget the card teachers have just dealt the government. If pressed, the government can now finally point to a successful, meaningful negotiation with teachers.

They also have the “taxpayers can’t afford anymore/ no one can negotiate with this militant union” strategy, which they can easily resurrect, having given so much new money to education.

Armed with a new mandate, how expeditiously might we expect further negotiations to go? Having won the election while touting a huge, $50 million dollar infusion of “new money” into the system, does anyone actually think they would immediately offer more the following year?

In the unlikely event they were forced, by the public, the media, or whatever Supreme Court police assure people comply with court rulings, a media honeymooning government might toss another $20 million of “new money” at education in year two, and perhaps a few million the following year.

To the government, this $50 million agreement represents at least a settlement cap, at worst, the final solution.

Let’s be clear. This provincial government has proven its dishonorable intentions since Christy Clark’s original sin in 2001 and sixteen years of pogrom and obfuscation.

B.C.T.F President Glen Hansman, social media and even Vaughan Palmer have adamantly described the $50 million dollars as a small refund on money unconstitutionally taken from schools.

But in discussing the $50 million dollar agreement, Education Minister Mike Bernier emphasized repeatedly that the $50 million was “new money ” piled upon the substantial 5 billion plus the government already gives to public education, despite plummeting enrolment. (up significantly since 2001 zzzzzz..)

The Supreme Court settlement is the only thing teachers have that can get this government to put any money into education.

By allowing government to take education off the front burner for this election cycle and tout $50 million dollars of “new money” as meaningful atonement for their sins, teachers may have sold their leverage at a bad time and far too cheaply.

My two kids were lucky enough to graduate from Tri City high schools, one in ’99 and one in 2001. They were lucky because they graduated just before  government cuts  began to affect educational resources  and programmes.

Now they’re both high school teachers in the same school district (one at his alma mater). Neither can believe the scarcity of  resources and paucity of student opportunity compared with when they were in school. Art, shop programmes, Journalism, Library, sports teams, drama, after school activities have seemingly withered away they often report when they (too seldom) drop by Mom and Dad’s.

Ancient technology,neglected maintenance, field trips – things that make school memorable and developmentally important to kids. Public schools have moved back in time and it’s possible they won’t get their vibrancy  back.

The B.C. government seems to  think PISA scores and measurable outcomes is what counts.They believe that teaching is easy, a soft touch, and that teachers require instruction and curricula from Ministry people unschooled in school and learning.

Every education initiative, announcement and re-announcement is a political strategy. Suspicion and disrespect for public schools and teachers permeates their actions and words.

And it’s so discouraging to see our public schools going the way of U.S. public schools.
The strategies are the same. Tried  and true. Defund,measure, indict,and repeat until the public is on side and demands “choice”, vouchers, merit pay, testing, measurable outcomes.

Do we have to go down this old, potholed, school privatization road?
Most, who know education, know public schooling is not that mysterious, and will only fail if we continue to Goebbles it into disrepute, using standardized testing ,underfunding and union bashing as weapons and corporate profiteers for patrons.

We don’t have to continue, like lemmings, down this road over the privatization cliff.  Why would we in B.C. want to ape U.S. public school strategies, repeatedly proven the least successful public school strategies in the world?

We don’t have to. It’s not that complicated.

What if instead , we did these five things:

1) Funded public schools( not private schools) equitably & adequately – no, I mean really.

2) Demanded extensive training for teachers – perhaps Masters degrees.

3)  Negotiated broad,reasonable terms of employment and budgets, leaving details to local  districts. ( end per pupil funding)

4) Allowed teachers professional autonomy for designing the teaching and learning within broad provincial curricula established by educators.

5) Adjusted teacher’s salaries to be the second or third highest in  Canada, then committed  to meeting annual cost of living increases in hard costs and teacher and support staff salaries.

We’ve done half of  number 4 already, although we did it badly, offering scant consultation and no money for implementing sweeping new curricula.

Alas, we have made no attempt at the other four suggestions however and they, or a similar amalgam are the only way to resurrect our wounded public school system.

By doing so,perhaps B.C. could avoid the following, frightening statistic:

U.S.      – 50% of public school teachers leave the profession within 5 years of entering it.

Finland- 97% of public school teachers remain in what is seen as a career, not a job.

Given this statistic, no PISA test is required to determine which country’s education system is operating more successfully. (One might be quite surprised to discover which system is more expensive, however.)

I wonder if my own two, high school teacher children will continue to see teaching as a calling,as in Finland  or just a poorly paid job ,as it’s seen in the U.S. and increasingly in B.C.

There has been a significant disrespect for teachers and public schools  baked into B.C.’s battle fatigued public by the government’s fifteen year vendettta.

Sure, it’s about serial funding cuts and eroding salary. But it’s the continuous disdain and disrespect heaped on schools and teachers that has really drooped the shoulders of  B.C. public educators. Too many teachers have been forced to teach defensively to cope – closing classroom doors, pulling out worksheets, hoping to make it through the week. Embracing volunteer activities with kids or going for a Friday beer or to a staff get together is not even an option to many, stressed teachers.

If we don’t rehabilitate our commitment to public schools soon, they will  be beyond repair, physically and politically.

I don’t want my uniform clad grandchildren to be bussed across town to a “Learning Academy ” that stresses rigour,test results and competition and is run for profit by poorly trained and paid trainees and corporate consultant.

Rather, I want them to walk ,with friends, to and from their neighbourhood school, where the grass is cut,the weeds pulled, and the school freshly painted. I want their teachers to be enthusiastic and well trained, empathetic and patient. I want my grandchildren to be active in school activities that are happily supervised and organized by teachers who have the time and inclination to do so.

What could possibly be a better investment in our future?

It’s about money and respect. A lot of money and a lot of respect. Teachers and public schools have gone  fifteen years with little of either.

Come on B.C. Let’s take the five steps above, buck up and defend our kids schools, their embattled teachers and support workers, and parenthetically, my own two ,not quite completely disillusioned, children.

We all know someone had to do it…

On the 12th day of Christmas the Premier gave to us;

12   Years of bad faith

11   Trumplike Tweets

10  Nine ways of cutting

9    Purchased Trollers

8   District downloads

7  Re- announcements

6  Crooked Appeal Courts

5  Impish grins

4 Stacked LRBs

3 Judicial spankings 

2 Loony Ministers

1  And another lump of coal for schools.

Re-posted from  Nov.22^nd, 2013

We’ve got lots of options and “choices” in our  public schools.

Early education, adult education, French Immersion, Montessori, special needs, gifted, music, drama, technology, behaviour, alternate, and  E.S.L   programmes- to name just a few. There are schools that specialize in Fine Arts, extended athletic programmes, and Career Preparation – there’s no shortage of choice in public schools.

“More school choice” isn’t a clamour for more programme options; it’s a dog whistle for more private options. Proponents of school choice want taxpayers to fund private options that will separate their child from the riff raff of different religions, cultures or of inferior ability or class.

While Canadians strongly resist two tiered health care, they seem to readily accept a two or three tiered, education system.

But we shouldn’t.

By any measure, Public Education in Canada has been and is one of Canada’s most successful social initiatives.

Canadian public schools are considered to be in the top five systems in the world, by international measures in Science, Math and Language Arts. One reason is that 95% of Canadian children still go to public schools respected and supported by Canadians.

And that’s what makes education  work- equity of opportunity, respect for public schools,and as Finland has proven crucial, extensive teacher training and professional autonomy.

For almost two hundred years, public schools have shaped Canadian culture and values.

Look at how Canadians observe Remembrance Day each November. We learned this directly from annual public school assemblies.

It’s not an accident that Canadians are polite and nice. It’s not genetic, it’s learned; in our public schools.

Public schools sculpt Canadian tolerance and empathy. They reinforce a shared history, quiet pride in country, and they keep us from the tyranny of class systems like those found in countries that encourage private schooling.

All Canadian children should attend local public schools. They shouldn’t be separated by religion, socio- economic status, colour or country of origin. They shouldn’t be home schooled, attend religious schools, Charter schools,Swedish Orthodox schools, or “Learning Academies” requiring uniforms and a private bus ride forty- five minutes across town.

Our children need to be in their neighbourhood school, with other children of different kinds, cultures and backgrounds. It’s best for our country and it’s best for them. And it’s so much more important to our children’s development than is succumbing to our misguided vicarious ambitions for our children.

Too often we mistakenly think school uniforms, more rigour, mindless compliance, discipline, and unrelenting pressure to excel is what’s needed at a time when what’s actually needed is  kids  just enjoying their childhood.

Don’t leap to conclusions or let the manifesto part scare you. The leap idea,  is  a sensible and exciting concept. Leapers say that incremental environmental steps are no longer sufficient interventions and that taking the “leap” toward non- carbon producing energy is the only way to save the planet.

Leaping proposals include:

• Shifting swiftly away from fossil fuels so that Canada gets 100 per cent of its electricity from renewable resources within 20 years and is completely off fossil fuels by 2050.
• No new infrastructure projects aimed at increasing extraction of non-renewable resources, including pipelines.
• “Energy democracy,” in which energy sources are  controlled by communities not  private companies.
• An end to trade deals “that interfere with our attempts to rebuild local economies, regulate corporations and stop damaging extractive projects.”
• Expand low-carbon sectors of the economy, such as caregiving, teaching, social work, the arts and public-interest media.
• Declaring that “austerity – which has systematically attacked low-carbon sectors like education and health care while starving public transit and forcing energy privatizations – is a  form of thinking that has become a threat to life on earth.”
• Paying for it all by ending fossil fuel subsidies, financial transaction taxes, increasing resource royalties, raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy, introducing a progressive carbon tax, and by cutting military spending.

Given the climate change catastrophes we’re witnessing and the environmental imperative most of us feel, the “leap” to be off carbon producing power within 20 years seems an almost conservative goal. One can tell “leaping” is an idea whose time is fast approaching by the fact that one feels like saying,”do we have that long to wait”?

Let’s not dismiss the idea of “leaping” toward an environmental solution just because we don’t like the connotation of the word “manifesto” or because it is written by lefties who delight in using incendiary, anti- corporate language, just to upset us.

The oil industry will scream bloody murder – they’re the most powerful lobby there is – but they know the time left for them to jack up gas prices before long weekends is growing short.

Early in U.S. President Obama’s mandate, the automobile industry supported his proposal that all cars  must achieve a minimum 35  MPG  within five years, because they preferred its predictability – they knew it was coming and planned for it .

Similarly, if the oil industry  knew up front that 2050 was the drop dead date for fossil fuels, their transition to other endeavours would be equally as predictable and more palatable.

The technology is there. Denmark is approaching country wide zero carbon electricity and other countries are getting close surprisingly painlessly.

Considering Denmark’s success and the commonplace floods and droughts and climate anomalies we see every day, the Leap Manifesto is becoming less and less scary.

The American school system is completely broken. The quote below is from a recent Donald Trump   Jr. speech. It shows the complete lack of understanding most Americans have about what public schooling is;

The other party gave us public schools that far too often fail our students, especially those who have no options. Growing up, my siblings and I we were truly fortunate to have choices and options that others don’t have. We want all Americans to have those same opportunities. Our schools used to be an elevator to the middle class, now they’re stalled on the ground floor. They’re like Soviet-era department stores that are run for the benefit of the clerks and not the customers, for the teachers and the administrators and not the students. You know why other countries do better on K through 12? They let parents choose where to send their own children to school. That’s called competition. It’s called the free market. And it’s what the other party fears. They fear it because they’re more concerned about protecting the jobs of tenured teachers than serving the students in desperate need of a good education. They want to run everything top-down from Washington. They tell us they’re the experts and they know what’s best.

The free market – learning and public schooling are products, to be squeezed and purchased by discerning, parent consumers, who along with shrewd entrepreneurs,are the real educational experts.

In this analysis, there is no room for public education- the most successful collective initiative of western societies. There is no recognition that public education needs a collective public commitment, adequate support and resources, comprehensive teacher training, and professional autonomy.

To them, schooling is merely the purveying of knowledge, without developmental, cultural, or other affective benefit.

This Trump Jr. rant  expresses a preference for class strata, preferred experience, inequitable opportunity, and reduced social mobility.

Don’t fall for “school choice” or “parent choice” cries. They are simply euphemisms for “let’s fund private schools so my kid doesn’t have to mix with the riff raff left to wallow in under supported, dilapidated  public schools…”

Oh,, and don’t fall for the newest private school dog whistle.

” I think the money should follow the student not go to the schools…”

Per pupil funding, vouchers, and Charter School grants are vehicles which allow governments to encourage private school attendance and simultaneoulsy de-value public schools.

U.S. public schools are like educational  lemmings, and if our Socred government has its way, we in BC will soon be following them over the cliff.

Ever wonder why Canadians are universally considered “nice”… and tolerant, considerate, and terminally apologetic?

Some of these things have been bred into us by family and are reflected in our social structures.

And there are historical, and anthro/sociological forces that have contributed to our Canadian persona.

But the architects, the purveyors of our Canadianism are our public schools.

Traits of Canadian character are mortared deep within our children during their thirteen years of attending Canadian public schools.

Each day during their most developmentally crucial years, our children spend six hours learning Canadian niceness and tolerance, practicing it, and seeing it modelled and encouraged by peers and adult mentors.

Our public schools have provided Canada a level educational playing field.They provide equity of educational opportunity, and in so doing, are the main vehicle of social mobility.

Public schools are what keeps Canada from having an identifiable class system, unlike other countries with private schools that inevitably separate people and promote inequality of opportunity.

Our public schools have taught us Canadian culture. They are why Canadians solemnly “observe” remembrance of military sacrifice and its horror rather than rhapsodizing about military heroism.

A Canadian observance of  religious holidays, festivals, and important occasions of other cultures  is learned in our public schools.

And the above  are only the cultural contributions made by public schools. The service they provide in the personal development of children is equally, if not more, profound.

Public schooling has been the most successful initiative of western democracies, and those who provide it serve our country as fundamentally as does any uniformed Canadian.

I want a ribbon to go on my car’s bumper that says “ I Support Canada’s Public Schools and Educators”.

I want to see a group of public school teachers march onto the field during half time of the Grey Cup Game so we can publicly thank them for their service to our country; for helping to pass on  Canadian values, beliefs, and culture to us all.

So, to all public educators, whose profound contributions are too often lost to the hand wringing of  fiscal austerity;

Thank you for your service to our country.

As we approach next year’s provincial election, it would seem prudent to establish a few Maher -like rules to govern the myriad education funding announcements we are in for over the next few months.

New Rule # 1)

With each new announcement of Ministry of Education largesse, Minister Bernier has to subtract the amount currently being doled out from the 4.2 billion removed from public education since 2001. He must supply a running total of returned money, which now, at rudimentary computation stands at about 4.160 billion  outstanding.

New Rule # 2)

The running total of how much money has yet to be returned to public education must be broadcast on CKNW every day, by every broadcaster.
In addition, Keith Baldrey has to tweet the up to date numbers daily, without sarcasm or impugning the teachers union.

New Rule # 3)

The amounts doled out must be parsed as to which political party’s MLA holds the ridings to which money has been gifted. For example, the millions announced for capital funding in Surrey went to constituencies where what percentage of annointed districts are represented by which party’s  MLAs?

New Rule #4

When making announcements about increased funding, the phrases “ as a result of good fiscal management “ and “because of our strong economic performance” may not be used to preface announcements unless sitcom laugh track is played and vomit bags are supplied to the audience.

New Rule #5

With every new funding announcement regardless of how small, routine, or re-announced, neither Premier Clark nor Minister Bernier may laugh , giggle, or even smirk at their Everest – like political cynicism.

These rules are effective immediately ; in force until the election is over ,or until Premier Clark and/or Minister Bernier collapse in laughter at our stupidity.

After the wettest couple of months ever, Tourism B.C. is struggling to come up with catchy new ad slogans to get the world to come to the coast in February.

Here are some suggestions:

1) “ Californians are flocking to Vancouver, there’s no drought about it…”

2) “ Come and enjoy Vancouver’s fifty shades of grey lifestyle…”

3) “ Come to Vancouver – it’s just like that plain in Spain…”
4) “ Vancouver, winter home of the Canadian Olympic storm watching  team.

5) “ Shell Busey says, “Vancouver – good, wetter, west…”

6) “ Come to Vancouver- it’s wet, but it’s a dry wet.”

7) “ Come to Vancouver and leave that greasy suntan oil behind…”

8) “ Super, saturated, British Columbia.”

9) “ Come to Vancouver , no resevoirations needed.”

10) “ Enjoy B.C.’s great outdoors – now with no campfire restrictions…”

Please feel free to add your own.

 1)Make a large, ongoing cut to the education budget – perhaps 29 million this year and 25 million next year. Call them “cuts to administration ” so it sounds as if fat cats are the only ones affected.

2) Announce and re-announce much smaller annual increases in per pupil funding –        don’t mention increasing hard costs like Hydro rates, heat, MSP rate hikes, or salary increments. Be sure to emphasize that these increases are in place despite dropping enrollment.

 3) Insist that building and programme inadequacies are due to local district budgeting  decisions, not provincial underfunding.

 4) Increase funding for private schools to draw off some fully funded students.

 5)  Sound confused and hurt when people complain about education cuts.

Repeat Steps 1- 5 as often as required – at least annually.

As counterintuitive as it may seem, we, in Canada and especially here in B.C., are under taxed.

We don’t pay enough taxes to support the basic public services we require.

We’ve been sold a lot of things over the years: the world is flat, smoking is good for you, climate change is a hoax, and other demonstrably ridiculous ideas,but one of the most diabolical of silly theories is the one we’ve been sold for years, that:

“Tax increases cause us to have less money, and tax cuts allow us to have more money.”

 Most of us believe this is true. It isn’t. Actually, the opposite is true. Tax cuts are invariably flat and thus benefit the wealthy.

The 25% tax cut by Gordon Campbell’s BC Liberal government in 2001 was a gift to the wealthy – let’s see, 25% of 2 million per year or 25% of $30,000 per year – who benefits more from this tax cut?

In addition, the less tax we pay, the more government revenues must be coaxed out of “flat” sources – sources where we all pay the same, regardless of income or wealth. User fees, tolls, casino revenues, medical premiums, license fees, and other flat strategies have replaced taxation as the source of government revenue.

And what do all these sources have in common? They’re flat – the poor pay the same as the wealthy.

The aggregate of what we pay these sources amounts to far more than what we’d pay under  a sensible, transparent, progressive tax system.

Interest groups, right wing think tanks,and the Canadian  Taxpayers Association constantly tell us we’re overtaxed. The reason they continuously rant against any tax increase is because taxation of income and/or wealth is the only source of government revenue that can be made progressive if we so choose.

Progressive taxation affects the wealthy instead of just squeezing money from the average citizen.

Our own B.C. government are masters of the flat revenue funding sources. While proudly insisting they haven’t raised taxes, our provincial government scoops 1.2 billion from gambling revenues, 862 million from the L.C.B, 480 million from ICBC, 1.23 billion from B.C. Hydro and 1.61 million in bridge tolls.

When these entities raise their rates, we all pay more each year – and we all pay the same. Jim Pattison or minimum wage renter, we pay the same ICBC increase, Hydro and ferry increase, the same tolls, MSP rates, license fee increases, and more.

We have been carefully taught to direct our frustration with our constantly diminished purchasing power on high taxes and public overspending. We take up the chant that we’re taxed too much and couldn’t possibly pay any more.

But we’re not overtaxed; we’re crippled by fee increases and taxation replacements.

If our government(s) would spend less time inventing ways to scoop flat rate revenue from us all and instead establish a fair, transparent, and progressive tax system, we would all benefit- and ordinary people would pay less.

So…it’s not unreasonable for us to actually clamber for higher taxes, instead of resisting them and paying more.

A ditty written wistfully, a day or two before December dismissal  by a stressed out educator.

I’ll Be Prone for Christmas  ( to the tune of “I’ll be Home For Christmas”)

I’ll be Prone for Christmas, not to be too crass,

But Christmas schtick and getting sick, may put me on my ass.

Saturday will find me, in contended slouch,

I’ll be prone for Christmas, dibs on the downstairs couch.

I’ll do dick this Christmas, mid herald angels harkenin’,

I’ll close the door , won’t read Dufour, my saw I won’t be sharpenin’.

Fifteen days relaxin’, a humbug, no not me,

I’ll be home for Christmas , but horizontally.

In light of Monday’s liberating Canadian election, Here’s a blog from about a year ago that expresses one of the many frustrations that led Canadians to toss the bums out.  

Terror From the East –Nov 7^th, 2014

Run for your lives, the Jihadists are at the palace gates.

Is that the response Canadians are supposed to have to the recent tragic shooting in Ottawa?

And you want us to hijack the solemnity of Remembrance Day to ruminate about jihadists in the closet as we remember not just two world wars but various American led actions in oil rich foreign lands?

Sorry Andy, but this Remembrance Day I will, as usual, take time to solemnly remember those who died in two world wars. I’ll wear my poppy, and reflect about what those young soldiers endured and about the horrors of war.

But I won’t sully Remembrance Day by joining you, Stephen Harper, and Peter McKay in looking for terrorists under every rock, and wringing my hands about impending jihad.

Make no mistake; I too am concerned with what effect the shooting in Ottawa will have on our country. But it’s not the jihadists I’m afraid of, it’s the hysterical response of our government, who stand poised to parlay the actions of a disturbed individual into a rationale for dismantling our civil liberties.

Last summer, my wife and I arrived in Ottawa on a warm fall day. We weren’t on Parliament Hill five minutes when we ran into our M.P. Finn Donnelly strolling down the sidewalk. We had a nice chat and noticing Olivia Chow walking down toward the main block, we called her over for a conversation and a selfie.

No R.C.M.P. in sight, no secret service, no militia or machine guns. We both came away teary eyed by Canada’s political openness.

And nothing has changed. Canada is still the same, despite jihadist hysteria and the actions of a lone   man who tragically found a focus for his rage and a chance for fifteen minutes of fame.

In response, Tories now want to spend 1.2 billion on attack drones, ease preventative detention and arrest requirements, introduce national security bills, and expand counter terrorism programmes and electronic surveillance.

You may be correct in thinking that on Remembrance Day Canadians should re-double their vigilance, but we needn’t look as far east as you suggest to find those who would harm our Canadian way of life.

Low Hanging Fruit Actually High Handed Decision Making

The B.C government is really pushing the anti education envelope in it’s recently announced three year school budget plan.

They call their latest demand for  cuts to school administration “low hanging fruit”; you know, the kind that’s hanging over the fence and easily picked.

What the tortured and inapt  metaphor ignores however is that the education tree has not only been picked clean years ago ,we’ve devoured the windfalls, and already committed future crops to fill historic crop shortages.

It’s not about low hanging fruit, it’s about pressing percieved advantage and kicking public education while it’s down. It’s about control, centralization, and privatization, and chopping down the public education tree out of long standing political spite and petulance.

2002 Minister of Education Christy Clark’s stripping of contract provisions for class size and composition declared her determination to regain control of education in B.C., control the Liberal Government perceived as slipping away to teachers. Fourteen years later, she’s still fighting that battle.

In 2002, blowback, both political and judicial, was significant, and the Liberal government had to draw in it’s claws for a while. It’s important to note however, that this battle for control of education still underpins government decision-making in B.C.

Whether personal or political, Christy Clark has shown an almost obsessive  animus toward teachers and public education.

Since the big stink in 2002, the Liberal government has been satisfied to annually poke public education in the eye, with small annual per pupil funding increases which were more than consumed by inflationary hard costs. (Hydro rates, M.S.P increases, unfunded salary settlements, carbon offsets, special needs and other downloaded costs.)

It’s been a simple and effective strategy. Each year, they cite education as a priority in a family first agenda, and each year they muse confusedly about why school districts can’t manage within the annual per pupil increases they supply.

Until now, the media and the public have generally bought the government’s strategy.

While the underfunding data are there and are the real unpicked low hanging fruit, it takes a while to get that while districts lose $8,000.00 plus for every student lost, they don’t accrue anywhere near $8,000.00 in reduced costs. (A school still has to light and heat classrooms as it loses $24,000 for the three students who left the school).

So we’ve had fourteen years of budget increases that equate to cuts.

But few, except for educators, complain. We’ve become blasé about cuts – how bad could they be if there’s a nominal funding increase each year?

In the face of increased griping by the education community, much of the public has become immune to the plight of public schools.

Media support can only be described as tepid. Instead, the media has been satisfied with a “pox on both their houses” stance, merely repeating and rewriting each other’s anecdotal  indictments. The only stories with legs are the ones which involve union overreach.

No young Woodward and Bernsteins are being tasked with uncovering the real problems of education underfunding in B.C.

For a tired, bombarded public,problems in school funding must be a result  of  local district incompetence or teachers getting paid too much, or a horrible, militant union.
So the fourteen year death by a thousand cuts funding strategy has been accepted by many British Columbians as prudent and frugal, after all “throwing money at the problem won’t help…”

But this year, after so many years of surgically nipping at the edges of education, buoyed by public frustration and teacher battle fatigue, the government launched a new offensive in its relentless  battle to show who’s boss in education.

“ I’ll bet we could sell cutting millions more from public education if we pulled a switcheroo and cut bloated administration costs. Everyone hates high paid administrators, even teachers. Some say we’ve been hard on teachers, this way we’ll appear frugal and fair.”

“ And the most diabolical thing” said this hypothetical brainstormer, ” is that we could more than recoup the pittance we had to give teachers to settle the strike, which would make the strike seem even more futile and at the same time, send a strong message about who’s in charge of education in this province.”

This, admittedly hypothetical reconstruction is the only possible explanation for the government’s move into overt attack mode instead of being satisfied with merely delivering education the annual stiff poke in the eye.

To those who don’t know, “administration” isn’t just highly paid superintendents and Principals. Secretaries, curriculum experts, and other personel qualify too.

The cuts have already been made – for years. To satisfy this latest Sheriff of Nottingham money grab, school districts won’t just be cutting martini swilling excess from places that seldom see kids. They’ll be cutting services to classrooms and kids, to meet the number, the same thing they’ve been doing for fourteen  years.

What the Government calls low hanging fruit, is actually more high handed decision making-  an acceleration of their almost inexplicable vendetta against public schools.

Jim Nelson

Most people, including educators, don’t know what’s important about schools. We inaccurately talk about grades and measurable outcomes and that which is least important.

So what are the important things about schooling? Here’s some things more important than test scores:

Walking to and from school with friends.

Being in classes with smart kids, not so smart kids, troubled kids, and kids of different socio economic and cultural groups. Being in classes with kids with special needs.

Practicing making decisions in a safe place away from parents. Learning to work with others. Learning to accept disappointment and relate to teachers and adults.

Learning the value of routine, of striving, and accepting responsibility.

Learning to self regulate behaviour and effort.

Getting turned on to a special interest, sport, activity, or subject.

Having fun in school and enjoying the experience.

Learning to be a good citizen, tolerant and supportive of others and willing to contribute to a group goal or help other kids learn.

Being kind, thoughtful, and empathetic.

Learning to be calm, happy, challenged, and unafraid of life.

These are the most important things that public schools, with support, offer, in partnership with parents.

None of these things can be accurately measured except through continued, subjective observation by parent, student, and teacher.

If school gives my child these things, I don’t care about high marks, standardized test results, uniforms, discipline, or keeping them away from the riff raff.

The competition, and the various sorting strategies we use to classify success in school don’t encourage kids to learn – only to win.

Tests, tough discipline, competition are the simple things that we cling to when we don’t understand or appreciate public education’s real mandate and contribution. They have their place, but it’s not an important one – let alone the main one

We seldom talk about these important things.

Instead, we analyze literacy scores, Math awards, best athlete, honours classes, IB, and test scores – anything to measure success and feed our need for vicarious triumph, when high scores are actually the least important thing public schooling offers children.

We mistakenly believe academic performance has something to do with wearing a school uniform. We think it important enough to pay big bucks and drive to cross town learning academies or preparatory colleges.

We think academic rigour important enough to pay to keep our children away from public school riff raff, be they special needs, a different religion or (gasp) no religion at all. Some think their children learn better when kept away from students of different races, socio economic classes, or academic abilities. They don’t.

If your child likes her school, if she is happy there and likes her teachers, she is likely doing just fine. Leave her and the school, alone. Share her successes unconditionally. Let her own her schooling. If you see a problem, quietly find out from the school what’s happening and work with them to make it appear as if your child has solved the problem herself, rather than having mommy or daddy fix it for her.

The most important thing we can do for our children is to let them go to a neighbourhood school on their own terms. They are learning to be their own person and they need to practice without our manipulating and criticizing each bump and difficulty.

Everything we do as parents should be supportive of getting our kids to take charge of their own schooling and enjoying their school days – they have plenty of time for mortgage worries and scrabbling for success.

Once they do take responsibility, you have only to sit back and cheer.

That’s what schools offer our kids, and it’s a huge contribution – especially if we let it happen, instead of obsessing over competition, results, test scores, and strict discipline.

The headline should have read:

“ Liberal Government Suggests Colonel Sanders  Investigate Missing Chickens Scandal.”

That’s how ridiculous the government’s suggestion that Ombudsperson, Jay Chalke, is just the person to unravel the scandal surrounding the Liberal’s Reaganesque firing of eight medical researchers in 2012.

Even though Mr. Chalke likely oozes integrity from every pore, this inquiry would be impossible for him to complete with any credibility.

Mr.Chalke is an ex Liberal Assistant Deputy Minister who led the Justice Service Branch from 2011 until 2015. The medical firings were in 2012, during his tenure. Mr. Chalke could hardly have been unaware of the action, even if he only heard about it over cocktails at the Bengal Lounge.

Mr. Chalke was appointed Ombudsperson scant weeks ago – May 26^th, 2015. In other words, this scandal was already percolating when he was appointed provincial watchdog.

Skeptics might accuse Mr. Chalke of being a Liberal homer. They might suspect that the ensconcing of a Liberal team member as ombudsperson might have been a strategy in anticipation of the burgeoning public outcry surrounding this festering scandal.

Because an Ombudsperson’s investigation is the government’s last chance to keep control of the situation.

Other government attempts to quell the outrage over the medical firings have only served to inflame public sentiment.

They tried to choke it off with a full investigation by the public service agency. This turned out to be a bit of a frost, as Victoria lawyer Marcia McNeil’s mandate was neither to place blame nor determine whether or not the firings were warranted.

“Although many mistakes were made, no disciplinary action is recommended or considered.”

This did not satisfy anyone.

The Government tried settling with those fired, reinstating some and giving cash settlements to others.

Premier Christy Clark personally apologized to the families of those fired.

This still did not satisfy the public. A person had died because of these firings.

The public and the media demanded specifics. They wanted names named.

The government tried the B.C. Rail strategy:

“We’d love to talk about the medical firings but we wouldn’t want to compromise the ongoing R.C.M.P. investigation into the matter”

Oops, turns out there never was a police investigation.Strike that gambit.

They publicly admitted that “mistakes were made” and insisted “we’re taking steps to make sure this kind of thing will never happen again.”

Not good enough. No details, no documentation. No attempt to discuss the who, why, when, and how the firings took place.

Demands for a full public inquiry came from all quarters. The Vancouver Sun did a front-page editorial, insisting a full public inquiry was the only way to clarify what happened and to discover those responsible.

Columnists, pundits, talk radio hosts, and the Twittersphere joined the chorus crying for a public inquiry.

The government tried empathy. Minister Terry Lake insisted that they were just as tortured as was the public about this incident. He maintained they wanted to get out as much information as possible to the public, but they were just so concerned about protecting the reputations of those involved that they couldn’t decide on an efficacious process to do so. So difficult, so upsetting, we’re all suffering, they said.

They tried explaining how expensive, slow, and inconclusive public inquiries could be. They gave examples.

But even this was seen as subterfuge by an un-mollified, angry public.

The hordes are now at the gate. The rabble is screaming for answers. A full public inquiry seems inevitable.

Ah, but enter the solution – an Ombudsperson’s investigation.

The Ombudsperson’s Investigation is the government’s last chance to diffuse hysteria over what appears to the layman to be the petulant sacking of eight people the government didn’t like much.

An Ombudsperson’s investigation would give the government breathing room and control that a public inquiry wouldn’t afford.

An Ombudsperson’s Investigation would take months, even years.

It would be a private process until a report is filed, and while the investigation was going on we certainly wouldn’t want to compromise it by discussing  anything at all about the firings, would we?

It would buy the government time to find other shiny objects with which to distract the media and the public.

It would give people time to forget the whole thing, as they did B.C. Rail.

And it would give the government time to develop a scapegoat or two.

The government knows an Ombudsperson’s investigation isn’t good enough for the public and they have to be cagey as they proceed towards commissioning one.

The newly appointed Ombudsperson is demanding more powers if he is to undertake this investigation. The government seems to be balking at the suggestion. They aren’t sure it’s appropriate to change the Ombudsperson’s mandate. They appear resistant.

This dance of reticence has already been accepted by columnists as proof of the Ombudsperson’s independence, but it’s all show, feigning tough negotiation only to enhance the credibility of the exercise. The government wants to be dragged kicking and screaming into what they wanted all along – an Ombudsperson’s investigation. They’ll reluctantly accept the idea and blame its non result on those who pushed for it.

It’s Brer Rabbit psychology:

“Oh please, Brer Bear, do whatever you must just please, please don’t throw me into the briar patch…”

Ombudsperson Chalke is in an untenable position in regard to this proposed investigation.

He knows the whitewash the government wishes him to apply. He knows what will be said by the public if he applies it and what his future career might look if he doesn’t apply it. Look what happened to the last Ombudsperson the government didn’t like.

Yes man or hatchet man, he can’t win.

Even if Colonel Sanders is honest and forthcoming, any report he submits concerning the missing chickens will not be accepted by an angry public, a suspicious public, a public demanding answers, a public that has a sinking feeling they’ve been bamboozled once too often by this government’s prestidigitation.

What I like best about Canada Day is what we don’t do to express patriotism.

We don’t cheerlead our country or engage in loud reverie, hundred gun salutes, or glorification of military endeavour.

We Canadians share a mature love of country that doesn’t need the re-assurance of cloyed fanfare or patriotic pomp. We express our patriotism quietly.

As usual, our family will make its patriotic statement by going to Port Moody City Hall for the Firefighters Golden Spike Days pancake breakfast. We’ll eat pancakes and sausages on a paper plate, among friends, neighbours, (and ex-students); drinking sketchy coffee and mingling.

The City Hall plaza won’t be plastered with Canadian flags. There will be no brass band playing “The Maple Leaf Forever”; no ceremony or speeches glorifying our troops or our freedom. We know all that. It will be calm, civilized, friendly, and maybe a bit cheesy; just like Canada.

Over pancakes the talk won’t be about Canada, but to its annual participants, this local Canada Day tradition is a stronger homage to country than fireworks and a fly past.

In the evening, we’ll watch C.B.C. show the Canada Day celebrations in Ottawa; a celebration of understated Canadian proportions – open air, apolitical, scrupulously balanced French, English, and First Nations content, and not too long.

When in Palm Springs (in my recent “snowbird” incarnation), I am repeatedly amazed at how deep Canadian patriotism is.

When, during happy hour, an American friend slips into discussing American politics, Canadians listen, and commiserate without engaging. Conservative or liberal, easterner or westerner, there is a shared, knowing glance; there’s no point arguing; Canadians have a different vision, with which we are quietly, almost smugly, comfortable.

This remote patriotism shows that love for Canada, though reserved, is deeply felt and unshakeable. The fact that Canadianism is so portable is a testament to its strength.

We tried hysterical flag-waving during the Vancouver Olympics; to the point that other countries started to bristle somewhat. Flag waving feels good, but it’s just not how we roll.

Canadian patriotism is like a sixty -year marriage; its real strength lies in tacit, respectful
sharing, seldom involving much overt, physical expression.

This Canada Day, may we all appreciate what Canadians so strongly and quietly, share;

… and maybe have some pancakes.

“Taking control” of education has been the agenda of the B.C.Libs. since 2002’s contract stripping -the original sin.

The newly elected Liberal Government tasked Christy Clark, then Minister of Education to break what they saw as an unwarranted control of education by teachers. The government set out to right the wrong.

But somewhere in the process, the animus Ms. Clark holds for teachers and public schools turned personal and became overt.

Ms. Clark’s anger with teachers has long trumped any desire she may have had to fund healthy public schools.

War room strategy replaced planning for adequate support of healthy public schools.

And the Liberal government’s educational pogrom of the last 14 years has been as much a strategic political success for Ms. Clark as it has been an educational disaster.

Far from defending public schools,many parents responded to the continuous political unrest in public schools,  by bailing to private schools, which now house 12% of B.C.’s students.

So, now, what began in 2001 as a focussed vendetta to show teachers who’s boss, has morphed into a multi- faceted effort to accelerate the migration to private schools.

This year’s acrimonious teacher contact negotiations was a public education smack down success for the government.

They won. They gave public schools and teachers almost nothing, and they’ll recoup more than they gave with increased cuts.

They broke the teachers spirit.

One would think that  there might be some time for a little cuddling after such a  defiling.

But there has not even been time for a post coital cigarette for battle fatigued public educators.

If anything,the attacks on public education from government have increased, in order to keep the unrest up and encourage more parents to leave the chaos in our public schools.

$54 million in administrative cuts, appointing a VSB forensic auditor, and now, government scrutiny of Professional Development Days.

These actions are designed to imply that:

• there’s still lots of extra money in school district budgets
• local fiscal mismanagement is a big problem in public schools
• Vancouver, a perennial cuts fighting district, is particularly poorly run
• Pro D-days are not used wisely by teachers.

These are all strategically valuable aspersions to cast if your goal is to encourage B.C. parent’s to get away from the distemper of public schools and agree to pay half of their child’s education in private schools.

The privatization of education is now an obvious goal of the B.C. Government.

It’s significant that Christy Clark personally announced the appointment of a “Private Schools Advocate” recently.

Having personally taken control of education over fourteen years, she’s spiking the ball.

Can’t we stop giving so much attention to criminals and terrorists?

Fifteen minutes of fame is one thing, but the insatiable appetite of the media to   chronicle the life stories of those who kill or blow up people is troubling.

24 hour media feeding frenzies bestow rock star status on the disturbed among us, and give angry lone wolves macabre glorification when they act out their violent tendencies.

And worse, the more violent and senseless the action, the more attention the perpetrator gets and the deeper we cower in our beds after each, ensuing media circus.

Perhaps it’s just that now have we the digital capacity to thus immerse ourselves in tragedies, or maybe it’s a government conspiracy to keep the population afraid and acceptant of wealth disparity or Draconian government initiatives.

Either way, it’s frightening, and we seem to be encouraging violence with our inordinate preoccupation with it.

Our media should treat the actions of extremists and disturbed lone wolves with the disrespect they deserve. If we insist that the western world is under attack every time a deranged person does something, we risk encouraging that which we decry.

Report the act, but not the person. Indicate that the appropriate authorities are taking action and describe the positive manner in which the majority of the citizenry is behaving and move on.

In a younger life, as a school Principal , I quickly learned that one doesn’t discourage poor behaviour by predicting disaster when troubled students act out.

“I ‘d like to say that to whomever painted “Mr. Nelson is a jerk” on the back of the school that spray bombing buildings is an anti social and disrespectful act…”

Really? Is this information a spray bomber requires? Why do you think he did it in the first place?

Don’t respond. Say nothing. Smile and have the graffiti removed immediately. Act as if it’s inconsequential. Find out who’s responsible and reluctantly suspend them from school until there is an agreement about his paying for and repainting the wall, preferably when there are a few kids around to see him painting.

The power of depriving miscreants of attention combined with a cheerful stiff upper lip that things are generally positive can’t be under estimated.

I hear you cry, “ but surely graffiti and acts of extreme violence and murder can’t be equated.”

Perhaps, but here’s another example of how to “extinguish” behaviour.

When was the last time you saw a “streaker” at a televised sports event?

We had no idea how to respond to drunken naked tossers who cheerfully disturbed the big game. We laughed a bit, talked about the perpetrator and then, as streaking became common, we got angry and preached about getting tough. Surprise, streaking became even more common- a fad, and we were worried about how to make them stop.

Streaking high profile events became pervasive enough that we were motivated to figure out how to discourage it. News outlets unanimously stopped giving streakers any media attention.

Suddenly, streakers weren’t televised or talked about. The camera moved to an announcer, who parenthetically mentioned that “some idiot” was responsible for a game delay and then quickly went on to consult a commentator about the game.

It worked. Immediately. No fifteen minutes of fame. Bored indifference shown by everyone. No more streakers.No glory, no fun, no attention. Anger didn’t work.Fear didn’t work. Removing all attention from the act however,worked spectacularly well.

A similar strategy has been successfully used in Metro Vancouver school gang policing strategy.

In the 80’s,local tweeners began donning LA Raiders or Chicago Bulls sports uniforms, with matching bandanas, hood ornaments on a chain around their necks, and a half bottle of Drakkar Noir cologne liberally sprinkled over everything they owned.

Schools responded by asking police about their possible “gang affiliation” and were rewarded with organizational charts of “Los Diablos”, “Red Eagle”, and “Lotus” gangs, their colours, their practices.

For a year or two, anything that happened in schools was attributed to these uniformed tweener “gang members”.

Oozing rapport,we tried to urge them out of dressing that way. Some schools banned “colours”. We tried school liason officers that would interact with kids and talk them out of their imminent graduation to hard-core gang membership. Kids responded by buying an extra kerchief and splashing on some extra cologne.

Finally, we became resigned to the idea that we couldn’t fight conformity and we stopped talking about colours and “gangs”.

Local police also stopped calling young kids “gang members” or  “wannabees” and just dealt with the disturbed among them as “active youth” instead of giving them the lofty status of “gangbanger”.

Surprise. As quickly as it started, the gang wannabee thing faded. No one got angry at them any more. No attention, no fun – and that cologne really did smell awful.

Kids migrated to blue hair, Mohawk haircuts, and piercings to announce their individuality and we got on with life sans “gangs.”

The above are low level anti social behaviours that were effectively extinguished by denying attention to bad actors.

Clearly, radical terrorism and lone wolf violence won’t just stop if we simply ignore it and hope it goes away. There are long held cultural, religious, and political beliefs that spawn real violence. These are not children or drunken sports fans we’re dealing with so of course it’s not that simple.

I’m also not suggesting that we shouldn’t attempt to address and improve the hopeless and helpless situations that can make people violently strike out.

But I am convinced that an effective first step in the “war on terror” (after dropping the name “war on terror”), would be a media moratorium on unearthing and analyzing myriad gory details of horrific crimes and cradle to grave exposés of every moment of every criminal’s disturbing life.

Infamy is a gift we give too eagerly, too often and to too many.

As long as we continue to make people famous for blowing up or killing people, more people will be moved to blow up or kill people.

While the recent judgement of the Supreme Court to allow doctor assisted dying  is gratifyingly forward looking and sensible, it really doesn’t change much for Canada’s terminally ill or those in severe, chronic, pain.

For years, hospitals and doctors, in consultation with patients and family, have negotiated “do not resuscitate” orders for seriously ill patients. In addition, “comfort care” is a euphemism for aggressively mitigating pain to the point that comfortable death replaces therapeutic care as the goal of treatment.

Doctors, families and terminally ill patients have been quietly  making these decisions for years. It ‘s a compassionate and appropriate practice.

My family experienced “comfort care” when a family member, whose pain was considerable and whose prognosis was bleak, died a comfortable, medically expedited death, through the cessation of therapeutic medication and a significant increase in pain medication.

A very sensitive doctor invited us in to discuss possible treatment options. Our family member faced the prospect of a feeding tube, virtual immobility, and because her heart was healthy, a long, slow, uncomfortable death. It was a no brainer. Her pain medication was upped and she died peacefully two days later. She was ready.

I know how I would have responded had an officious politicians who didn’t know our loved one or her medical condition, tried to prohibit her humane death on the basis of religious dogma or a trumped up thin edge of the wedge argument.

It always seems that those who purport to want “small government” are the loudest voices encouraging the government to legislate people’s moral and  medical behaviour.

No law could know what was best for our loved one in her dying days. No law could presume to be helpful in sorting out the end of life medical circumstances of individual Canadians. The right law is no law  for families and loved ones dealing with prolonged uncomfortable death.

And can we stop calling medically expedited death “assisted Suicide”? It’s such an unnecessarily incendiary term. “Assisted suicide” conjures up an image of third parties preparing nooses, loading the 45, or casing out the Patullo Bridge for grandma’s imminent swan dive. That is not what happens today and it’s not what this Supreme Court ruling suggests.

I’m proud to be a Canadian today. The unanimous decision of the Court to support people’s right to choose doctor assisted death over long, painful palliative care or hospice, is the latest in a series of actions that affirm both the common sense and efficacy of the Canadian social conscience.

The overreaction to the decision is weak and won’t fly. Canadians are a socially sensible and compassionate lot, and the argument that this ruling is the thin edge of the wedge, that before long we’ll be offing grandma the first time she loses her car keys will be seen for how ludicrous it is.

Single payer health care unanimously accepted.A woman’s right to choose firmly embraced. Recently, marriage equality legislated with no fuss, and now, the unanimous acceptance of allowing the chronically ill, their families, and their doctor to make dying with dignity decisions at the end of life.

Bravo Canada.

The Sky is Falling!

Watching U.S. President Obama’s State of the Union speech recently, I was struck by how many “sky is falling” predictions made by adversaries over the years have been ridiculed by time.

Gas prices didn’t go through the roof, the unemployment rate didn’t worsen, the country didn’t collapse and Shariah law didn’t take over the U.S. judiciary.

Though ridiculous in hindsight, such ideas had their moments of popularity, and some, purveyed by 24 hour news cycles and relentless social media still enjoy a significant following in the U.S.

The power of our media is growing exponentially and some media mantras endure, despite all evidence to the contrary.

One in four Americans believes Barak Obama was not born in the U.S. and that climate change is not made worse by human activity.

One in four Americans believe God will decide who wins the Super Bowl, and one in three Texans believe humans and dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time.

We can convince anyone of anything regardless of whether there is a shred of truth in the idea.

And as we careen from tecnological advancement to techonological advancement we become increasingly susceptible to sound bites and simple, pithy messages, many of 140 characters or fewer.

It’s not a conspiracy, but it is frightening.

We’re kept in a constant state of anxiety over things, many of which are proven over time to be not worth getting lathered over.

And it’s not just Americans who are afraid, and led around by zealots, slacktivists and an hysterical media.

Here’s some Canadian examples of womped up mortal fears which didn’t quite pan out.

 Y2K Scare.

As we approached the year 2000 we were told that world data systems would likely collapse. Computers wouldn’t move from 1999 to 2000 and analogue data would somehow be likewise overwhelmed.

People began hoarding water and emergency supplies in preparation for the millennium cataclysm.

It turned out to be a Maple Leaf power play – quite the fizzle.

The Canadian flag

Speaking of the Maple Leaf, the flag of which Canadians are now so proud, was going to ruin the country if they “shoved it down our throats” in 1965.

People said it would never replace the red ensign. Ex- patriots and Brits screamed (yes screamed) that Canada’s rich heritage was being thrown under the bus and that if we adopted the Maple Leaf flag, Canada as we know it would be gone forever.

Once the decision was made many said they would refuse to recognize the new flag. People who had never flown a flag before pledged to now fly the red ensign on their houses forever.

Quite the overblown brouhaha.

Health Care

When Canada followed Tommy Douglases Saskatchewan and adopted medicare, the outcry was deafening.( for Canada)

It was a socialist plot. it will destroy our freedom and everything we hold dear. Doctors will never accept it. People will go to the doctor on a whim, whenever they have a hangnail, and we will quadruple health care costs.

Overblown, relentless , Chicken Little hysteria.

(The Americans have added “death panels” and other abhorences to the opprobrium over Obamacare.)

Land Commision Act ( 1970’s B.C.)

The Land Commission Act, brought in by Dave Barrett’s oft called “communist” government in 1972, for the first time designated B.C. land for farm, industrial, recreational or residential use. After years of the benevolent dictatorship of Bennett the first, B.C. was far behind the rest of the country in such innocuous, sensible regulation.

At the time however, it was as if there was a communist takeover in the offing. There was a media supported, McCarthyist response from Socreds and influential talk show hosts.

(Premier) Dave Barrett was a communist, who would take our land from us. Editorial cartoons featuring all manner of commissar and Kremlin jokes abounded. B.C.’S Land Commission Act prompted the biggest red scare hysteria in living memory – and that’s saying something in B.C.

Headlines in the Vancouver Sun quoted a Social credit zealot admonishing,

“When the Red tanks rolled into Czechoslovakia, we didn’t hear any N.D.P. protests” !

The Land Commision Act is now a law no B.C. government would dare repeal or replace. And surprisingly to some, time has shown that B.C. didn’t turn into a Russian satellite nor were we all required to wear red underwear – two of the sillier suggestions of the day.

The melodramatic, overblown red baiting over the Land Commission Act was an early portent of the now rampant rhetorical pogroms we unleash on even the most sensible initiative.

Things like…

Bike lanes, oil pipelines, avoiding oil spills, funding education,addressing poverty, and myriad other initiatives so heaped with fear and hyperbole that normal folk can’t resist the rhetorical barrage.

Remember when rainbow crosswalks and marriage equality were going to destroy the family unit and heterosexual marriage? How much has that affected us? 

On issue after issue, our perceptions are now formed by hysterical media carpet-bombing, with internet feeds and social media evangelizing the message instantly. 

We can destroy reputations in hours, lose a career through a single mistake, promote or destroy causes with re –tweeted oversimplifications.

We can convince millions of anything in hours. We needn’t do our own research, fact check, or break a sweat analyzing things. A lie can go around the world before the truth can get its pants on. 

Marshal McLuhan is spinning in his grave. His theme, “the media is the message” has become an understatement.

So when the carpet bombing hysteria starts and people insist that we’re doomed if we allow “X” to happen, take a pill – it’s OK. When spending more on education would collapse the economy or when we’re all hippies and fiscal fools for considering the environment before supporting strip mining and drilling everything in sight, relax – take it with a grain of salt, because hindsight and history usually makes fools of hysterical Chicken Little’s.

The sky will likely fall someday, and we can almost believe the election of Trump in the U.S. may, alas, hasten that day, but for now, let’s try to confine  our exposition to  well below Defcon 1.

Mention a salary increase for teachers and you’d think a bunch of greedy moneygrubbers were forcing Scrooge McDuck to open his money bin for ransacking.

The public doesn’t get angry with the BCGEU, or CUPE or nurses, at contract time or any other time, regardless of how spirited contract negotiations become.

So why do we spew anger, almost hatred, for the “B.C.T.F.” when teacher contracts come up?

Firefighters and police quietly negotiate contracts that beat the cost of living without much fanfare each year. Regardless of the size of the salary increase, we accept it without ado.

We never feel the need to tell firefighters that the public is their boss. We don’t feel the public purse threatened when nurses ask for a raise.

Why does discussion of teacher’s job and working conditions make us respond so viscerally, so angrily, as if someone had let the words “ fast ferries” slip?

Under normal circumstances, one would think teachers had a fairly good case this time.

They had taken an extra “0” compared with other public sector workers. Statistics showed a clear erosion of both teacher’s salaries and funding for education.

And they had two court rulings instructing the government to restore language and funding stripped from education in 2002 and fining them for not bargaining in good faith.

They had a strong case, one would think they would have enjoyed significant public support in their negotiations.

But the teachers case didn’t make it to the consciousness of most British Columbians.

Tired of seemingly endless squabbles between teachers and government, many chose to vilify teachers, or at least the “B.C.T.F.” which has become the whipping boy in the dispute.

Why?

It’s All About Aggregate Experience

People judge groups of people based on the aggregate of their experiences with that group

Who hates firefighters, their union, or anything about them? No one. You’d be crazy to.

We know some firefighters were accused of treating female recruits badly. Many moonlight at other jobs, and some drink too much and go to strip clubs. But this anecdotal information is water off a duck’s back to us, as it should be.

Such anecdotes don’t bother us because our aggregate experience with firefighters though limited is positive. They put out fires, wear uniforms, collect money for muscular dystrophy and attend community events being helpful and friendly or flipping pancakes at pancake breakfasts.

Our aggregate experience with firefighters outweighs any “bad” things we may hear about individual firefighters. We thus accept that they know their job and are doing it. So when Delta firefighters get an eye-opening raise, we say – OK, they deserve it.

And firefighter performance is easily measured. Building on fire, fire out; – success. Cat in tree; cat out – ah job done. Community activity; firefighters present – good.

The point is not that firefighters don’t deserve public appreciation, or salary increases, they certainly do. The point is that the occupation is impossible to criticize; not because all firefighters are wonderful but because our aggregate experience with them is unavoidably and overwhelmingly positive.

The same is true of police. Their performance is easily measurable; bad guy caught, in slammer – job done. There is occasional criticism of police being over zealous or bullying, but the aggregate of our experience with police is that they risk their lives and help keep us safe. Negative anecdotes about cops don’t outweigh our positive aggregate experiences.

Nurses nurture. My Dad had a wonderful nurse, we liked good old nurse what’s her name when my wife gave birth. Illness cured – job done, easily measured, they deserve a raise. Don’t know much about what the job entails but I give it an 8 – I like the beat.

On the other side of the coin, we don’t like lawyers because our aggregate experience with them is negative. We often don’t know what lawyers are talking about – they talk in language with which we are not quite familiar and often make us feel inadequate.

Lawyers seem to make piles of money for doing even the smallest thing, which we suspect their secretaries actually do for them in five minutes.

So any negative anecdotes we hear about lawyers aren’t overlooked but rather are accepted, intensifying our already jaded view of them.

I realize this is an extremely simple and unfair characterization of lawyers, but people’s low opinion of lawyers, right or wrong, is based on their aggregate experience with them regardless of how limited that experience is.

So what about teachers?

Those who work in schools generally have a positive aggregate of experience with schools. They have seen enough of the positive things that go on in schools. This allows them to discount anecdotal school horror stories as anomalies rather than rule.

But what is most people’s aggregate experience with teachers?

First, we all went school for 13 years so we all know all about school and teachers. We all had difficulties, and we remember the crabby teacher(s) who were bossy, or embarrassed us. Teachers corrected us, often ineffectively. We were young and our perceptions were intense, magnified by youthful insecurities.

We left school with some residual resentment, and we went about our business, got a taste of a competitive world. Our aggregate perceptions of school and teachers were those of a child transferred to our adult minds.

Then we had our own children and they went to school, and don’t you know, they had similar difficulties in school, sometimes coming home in tears, experiencing an intransigent teacher who seemed to make little attempt to appreciate that special thing about our child. Our hearts bled for our child and our almost forgotten frustrations bubble up.

As parents, when we did go to our child’s school, we saw some teachers yell at kids. We saw rules and subjugation, just like we experienced.

And we saw other children behaving badly and seemingly not being disciplined.

We saw meaningless reams of homework, we saw our child excluded from a group or activity and felt our expressed concerns glossed over.

The only time we heard from the school was when our child was in trouble. We often felt our parenting was being questioned and that we were supposed to fix a problem that it seemed to us wasn’t our child’s fault.

As parents. we saw needy children that couldn’t read or write, even by high school, and we couldn’t help feeling that school is less rigorous that it was when we were in school, not realizing that when we were in school there were likely just as many non readers as there are now, we were just too young and self consumed to notice.

We bore these frustrations, hoping that our child would benefit from the overall experience of school.

So when contractual bickering continued year after year, our aggregate experience with teachers left many of us predisposed to reject teacher’s demands.

And with all that, apparently success in teaching and learning can’t be accurately measured. We saw teachers continually resist standardized accountability measures. This was frustrating, especially when we remembered some of our teachers who we thought sub standard and yet seem to enjoy invulnerable tenure.

We saw teachers go on strike no matter who the government was.

There seemed no way of getting rid of ineffective teachers and we blamed the union for protecting them and insisting they get a raise.

In short, most of us haven’t had enough positive experiences with schools and teachers to overwhelm our personal experiences and anecdotal stories about them.

Once our negative experiences with a group outweigh our positive experiences, we add each negative remark to the quiver of arrows we shoot at them; in line at the supermarket or online on Twitter.

If our aggregate experience with teachers is negative, why is it that the “B.C.T.F.” get almost all the criticism and anger rather than “teachers”? After all they represent teachers don’t they? Why do we hurl invectives at the “B.C.T.F.” rather than at “teachers”?

Again, it’s aggregate experience. Although our aggregate experience with teachers may be negative, our perceptions have all been somewhat inoculated. We all know hard working and caring teachers who are difficult to criticize.

But our aggregate experience with the B.C.T.F. the negotiating arm of the teachers,is and can be totally negative. So we vilify the scapegoat B.C.T.F. without having to criticize individual teachers.

We get angry that the “B.C.T.F.” perennially disagrees with almost everything their employer offers and their negotiations with government always end in back to work legislation or job action. We hate that they always seem to complain about underfunding and working conditions, year after year.

We hear from the media about how “militant” the B.C.T.F. is, how they can’t negotiate with any government and how they don’t like resource development or BC Liberals, and how they use children as pawns for their own greedy purposes.

We absorb each negative slight heaped on the “B.C.T.F.” because our aggregate experience with schools is not positive enough to allow us to analyze criticisms through a prism of respect as we might for a firefighter, nurse, or cop.

And we can focus our anger on the B.C.T.F. without having to hate good old Mrs. Switz at the local school, who we know to be kind, caring and hard working.

Government representatives speak rhapsodically about teachers and harshly about the unreasonable B.C.T.F., simultaneously providing a scapegoat for B.C.’s education woes and deflecting attention from demonstrable education underfunding and Supreme Court censure.

The media, who have long ago forgotten about bargaining issues, find it easier and more sexy to pile on the B.C.T.F., the lightning rod for our frustration with the discord in our education system.

And so now the vilification of the B.C.T.F is a universal sport. Educational issues are forgotten and instead, we spend our time discussing the shortcomings of the B.C.T.F., it’s leaders and its strategies.

Even some teachers, all of whom know the system has been serially and dangerously underfunded, have been unable to stay off the B.C.T.F, bashing bandwagon in a futile attempt to stem the tide of public anger towards teachers.

Why are we so angry with the B.C.T.F.?

We are slaves to our aggregate experience.

And we mistakenly think our aggregate experience with schools, born of personal youthful memories and snippets of stressful times in our child’s development, are sufficient data for us to effectively judge the efficacy of teachers and schools.

AS I SEE IT – Jim Nelson

So the annual hand wringing over the Foundation Skills Assessments tests begins again: Why are teachers so dead against them? Is it just that awful B.C.T.F. being radical again?

Should we keep our children from writing the tests?

The trouble with the FSA is not the tests but how they are used. F.S.A. exams are the B.C. banner of the accountability movement in education, a movement that has ruined American public schools over the last 20 years and yet is catching on in B.C. despite its disastrous effect on U.S. schools.

The accountability movement started in the U.S. and was borne of the American tendency to analyze, regulate and measure things. A good example of this is the development of American football.

Now, I enjoy an NFL game as much as much as the next person but a look at American football’s metamorphosis from rugby is instructive in understanding the development of the accountability movement in education.

Americans didn’t play rugby for long; rather, they quickly felt the compulsion to regulate and delineate the heck out of it. They divided the field into one-yard segments with 200 hash marks, added five officials, helmets and padding, statistics, instant replay, score clocks and down chains. They broke the game into quarters. Time-outs, huddles, motion rules, penalties — with designated yards for designated offences — all marched off precisely. There are signals for everything, a ritualized kicking game and 300-page playbooks with X’s and O’s and arrows.

Instead of rugby, with one ball, one referee, an emphasis on spontaneity and creativity, and an almost chivalrous adherence to fair play, our southern cousins ended up with football, a testament to rules, measures, specialization and intervention.

Unfortunately, the same cultural compulsion that spawned American football proved unhelpful when applied to education because education is like rugby. It is interactive, free-flowing, spontaneous and creative, rather than easily quantifiable, pre-packaged and measured. It is too complex to be judged by a standardized measure, no matter how strong the cultural imperative may be to do so.

How can a standardized test measure the “A-ha!” moment when a student suddenly appreciates the brilliance of Shakespeare? How can it measure the ability to co-operate or persevere or to help another student?

Learning takes place through relationships with peers and teachers. It can only be measured somewhat accurately using an aggregation of many and varied assessments, both objective and anecdotal.

We all wish it was simpler, that we could judge how students are doing with a simple urine sample or a multiple-guess test.

My opinion, although I’m a bit radical, is that an even more accurate indication of how well your child is learning is whether they are happy at school, whether they feel safe, are confident and engaged at school. If they “like” the teacher, have friends, feel good about their studies and enjoy school, they are learning just fine.

The B.C.T.F. is dead right on this issue. Although the union brings up red herrings such as how the poor children suffer undue stress when asked to write tests or how the poor teachers have to mark them, or the time it takes out of the curriculum or that the reason they are no good is because of demographic differences, yada yada yada, these are peripheral reasons for objecting to the FSA.

Teachers and the B.C.T.F. know viscerally that trying to legitimize standardized measures is harmful to our schools and, thus, our children’s learning. They are the only ones standing against the accountability movement.

As a former school principal in the Tri-Cities, I applaud this stance. Were my children in Grade 7, I would encourage them to not write the F.S.A. exams. Had I a child in Grade 4, I would send him to school and quietly but firmly instruct the school that he is not to write the F.S.A. exams and that perhaps half an hour in the gymnasium or on the playing field might be a good alternative.

Jim Nelson is a retired Tri-City teacher and principal.

SO SING ALONG…

Following is “Turfin’ FSA,” sung to the tune of the Beach Boys’ “Surfin’ U.S.A.-by Jim Nelson and Dennis Secret:

Turfin’ F.S.A

If everybody had a notion, ’round District 43,

We’d call BS on the testing and we’d go on a spree,

We’ll throw ‘em all in the dumpster, autonomy has its day,

Tell the super we’re turfin’, turfin’ FSA

We’re giving testing the boot,

’Cause it just don’t compute.

And then we’ll set our sights on, the Fraser Institute.

Every district in B.C. will see us leadin’ the way,

Tell the super we’re turfin’, turfin’ FSA

There have always been those who have spent their adult lives disliking teachers and public schools. It’s understandable. Traditionally, most dissatisfaction with schools and teachers was born of personal experiences, or experiences of their children, and from anecdotal horror stories.

But not any more; there’s a new constituency of anti public education bloggers inhabiting the Twittersphere.

These are the educational libertarians. (this is my term, not theirs)

Educational Libertarians feel that public education is an irresistible force, usurping their rights as parents to bring up their children as they see fit. They feel the education system seeks to bring up their children for them and is unresponsive to parent’s wishes.

They feel threatened by an educational fraternity that they see as constantly working to strengthen their empire and their grip over kids, parents and family.

Educational libertarians believe that education should be offered like any other competitive service. Parents should be free to either accept or reject the service.

The compulsory, universal mandate of public education for all frustrates libertarians. They see the system as one which shackles children and them as parents.

Educational Libertarians see public education as shady and power hungry, in the same way Eisenhower saw the military industrial complex.

They see teachers as resistant to accountability. Educational libertarians do not accept that teachers and schools cannot be rated like other occupations. The fact that it’s difficult to “fire” poor teachers is unacceptable to them.

Libertarians argue that teaching is not a profession for this reason- teachers are not accountable because their service can’t be refused and they can’t be fired therefore, they are not professionals.

Educational libertarians feel parents should be the primary educators of their children. They believe they know their children best and are thus best qualified to decide how their children are educated.

They feel extreme frustration that parents, the employers of a huge, lifetime tenured, unresponsive and patronizing group of employees are ignored, even ridiculed should they rage against the machine.

Educational libertarians hold their beliefs very strongly. Those with whom I converse regularly are not just whimsically opposed to teachers and public schools for no reason – they’re committed.

Many educational libertarians research and read voraciously to inform and exposit their frustration and anger with the education machine.

Their beliefs are only strengthened by the usual discourse about education and schools and they are invulnerable to contrary argument, because they see it as coming from the education behemoth itself.

Anecdotal information about how hard teacher’s work, how committed they are to children or how much they contribute to our kids and society only hardens their views.

Decrying standardized testing is teachers fighting against the accountability with which everyone else has to deal.

Talking about child development, or executive function as important school contributions, or other discussions about educational issues are pointless until one addresses the basic belief; that the system is working against children, parents, and family.

The analyses above are just conclusions I have drawn from my considerable online interactions since the teacher’s strike, with many, very well spoken, if angry bloggers.

My reason for presuming to speak for educational libertarians however (which I know I’ll hear about online), is not to refute their beliefs but only to identify them.

Personally, I have learned much from discussions with even the most argumentative educational libertarians. I have finally put some meat on the bones of the anti teacher, anti public school sentiment so prevalent today.

I share some of the concerns they express, especially those about the need for the education system to  respond and change more nimbly.

During the strike, I thought the rampant teacher bashing we engaged in was just a bunch of people who had a bad school experience or whose child had a clumsy or even lousy teacher.

I now know better.

Some of it was that, but much of it was much more than that – born of  a new, stronger, educational libertarianism that is not going away.

I’ve had some lousy teachers –some really lousy teachers, who did some spectacularly unhelpful things.

One scared the heck out me; I cowered for the entire term. She yelled, and hit kids with a pointer. I “did my work” and got straight “A’s”, for fear of physical punishment. All the lessons I learned that year were about fear.

Some teachers I had were not very bright; in fact, I think I was smarter than some of them. I  suffered through deadly dull classes and meaningless busy work. I often felt bossed around, punished needlessly, and unfairly treated. Many teachers didn’t understand me and made no attempt to. I saw silly, unnecessary rules and punishments.

Teachers gave me  Herculean worksheets and made me try to learn numbingly boring things in which I had no interest.I wrote  thousands of “lines”, and attended more detentions than I care to remember.

We had to recite the Lord’s Prayer daily and listen to a ten-minute Bible reading every morning until grade 6.

I was strapped for playing tetherball at the wrong time and again for climbing a horse chestnut tree that was out of bounds.

In elementary school, a teacher gave us  fifteen pages of math word problems to do over Christmas vacation.

In Grade 10 I refused to write the Roman numerals from one to ten thousand as a punishment for something inconsequential I’d done. I fought the “sentence” and lost, even though the teacher was insensitive and crabby. (and wrong)

I had ridiculous assignments and worksheet teachers and I ran afoul of the main office several times for breaking silly rules – no eating lunch in the hallways, no basketball shooting for the first half of lunch hour, no painting the Principal’s headlights black at the school dance. (well perhaps that rule made a bit of sense.)

I had a high school Principal so clumsy and ineffective with people that many of us could hardly remain civil towards him. Insecure, arbitrary and irascible, he reminded me of the awful Macy’s psychologist in “Miracle on 34^th Street,” who tried to get Kris Kringle fired as Macy’s store Santa. (thus painting his headlights black at a school dance)

If my adult impressions of public school were based solely on these memories I would likely have joined the somewhat hysterical cadre of anti-education tweeting trolls on the internet.

Yes , I had some lousy teachers, and yet, I still became a teacher and a fierce supporter of public schools. Why?

Because in addition to the bad experiences I list above, there were myriad good things and some inspiring teachers and friends of all colours, abilities, and proclivities. School afforded me 13 years of rich self-actualization, in the company of hundreds of kids my own age – school was a petrie dish of child development.

School gave me a place to be my own person, away from my Mom and Dad.

That is not to criticize my parents, they were great. They were smart enough to know that school helps kids practice values instilled at home; that schools, despite their warts, complemented their parenting rather than usurping or competing with it.

They also knew that teachers had a more fleeting emotional relationship with children that gave them a more objective credibility than a parent. Handled artfully, the triangle of school, parent, child, helps the child and the parent, who can step back and be supportive of their child’s progress at school, rather than having to helicopter over every moment of their child’s development.

Despite and between the malpractices I list above, school and teachers allowed me to experience and experiment with activities, friendships and relationships that allowed me to develop as more than an appendage of my parents.

In school I learned where I stood with other people. I could practice and develop strategies for getting along with smart kids, dumb kids, athletic kids, funny kids, studious kids, – the cultural mosaic of kids who came to public schools to learn the same lessons I did.

As a retired teacher and Principal, I am now wise about schools in a way I wasn’t before and I’ve concluded that the real benefits of public school are the un- measurable ones, the child development ones.

I now realize that teaching “stuff” to kids is only a minor benefit of public schools. The different kinds of clouds, square root, the line of British monarchs, these are just the vehicles we use as we help children enter and come to grips with, the next stage of their development as people.

I have often said that I learned as much at school as I did in school.

My schools were close by. We could walk or ride a bike to and from school with neighbourhood friends we gathered along the way.

Walking to and from school with a couple of friends every day is a more valuable learning experience than social studies class.

And so is unstructured playtime. Before and after school touch football games, ball hockey and other pick up games spawned at school. Kids make up their own rules and are often so intensely involved they have to be asked two or three times to come in from lunch hour.

As a Principal, I often wanted to let them play a while longer on a sunny day, rather than calling them in to Math class.

Assuredly, none of the things I describe above that happened to me in school should happen in school; but then, my perceptions come from my memories as a child. I can’t consider them from the perspective of the adults who, with varying success, had to deal with my admittedly precocious behaviour.

But more important, it’s not helpful to form one’s opinions about public schools based on a small sample of childhood memories, either your own or your child’s. The childhood monsters we saw in the closet should look different viewed through adult eyes.

We should look beyond anecdotal childhood memories of things that happen(ed) in schools and appreciate and nurture the irreplaceable, developmental lessons our children learn from parent and public school.

So yes, I had some lousy teachers. We all did.

But no matter how bad the teacher or how good the parent, the invaluable developmental cocoon offered by neighbourhood schools can’t be replicated; in even the most sensitive and attentive of homes, or in cross town, uniformed learning academies with rigour and high standards.

– Andy Hargeaves, a proponent of Finnish public education methods and arguably one of Canada’s leading education commentators, succinctly sums up what has been happening in the U.S. and Canada in school reform.

“Following the lead of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, and before them, Augusto Pinochet of Chile, [the school reform movement] set about centralizing more of the curriculum and introducing more testing to hold teachers accountable,” Dr. Hargreaves wrote in an e-mail.

“It provided a new generation of consumer-oriented parents with information about the performance of schools, and published rankings of schools to stimulate market competition between them. Instead of measuring what we value, we have got stuck in valuing what we can easily measure.”

AS I SEE IT    –  Jim Nelson

The Tri-City News – AS I SEE IT: FSA tests may be a political football in B.C. but the real game of education is rugby//

Bringing BC’s Communities together

// Friday, 10/31/2014 10:12 pm

SEARCH:
select region
BC Cariboo
BC North
BC Thompson Nicola
Fraser Valley
Greater Vancouver
Kootenay / Rockies
Okanagan Similkameen
Richmond / South Delta
Surrey & Area
Tri-City / Maple Ridge
Vancouver Island Central
Vancouver Island North
Vancouver Island South
//

Mobile Edition Photo Store/Gallery Classifieds Auto Travel Jobs

TOP NEWS HEADLINE : Jobs lost as de-inking plant closes in Coquitlam

TOP SPORTS HEADLINE : PoMo pair set to tackle Olympic ice

TOP BUSINESS HEADLINE : Chamber winners announced

TOP ENTERTAINMENT HEADLINE : Art & air blend into custom biz

TOP COMMUNITY HEADLINE : Making music without instruments

TOP LIFESTYLES HEADLINE : YOUR HISTORY: Chinese-Canadians part of Coquitlam’s past and present

TOP OPINION HEADLINE : EDITORIAL: Does proposed Coquitlam smoking ban go too far?

• Home
• News
  • Local News
  • BC News
• Sports
  • Local Sports
  • BC Sports
• Business
  • Local Business
  • BC Business
  • Video Showcase
• Entertainment
  • Local Arts & Entertainment
  • BC Arts & Entertainment
  • TV Listings & News
  • Movies & Theatre listings
• Horoscopes
• Weather
• Calend

//

// <![CDATA[
document.write(”);// ]]>

//

AS I SEE IT: FSA tests may be a political football in B.C. but the real game of education is rugby

Buy The Tri-City News Photos Online

// // Email Print Letter to Editor // Share

others also read…

The Tri-City News

• EDITORIAL: Find a use for FSA test results
• SD43: FSAs are going well. Union: FSAs waste of time
• FACE TO FACE/O’NEILL: Scrap the ALR and get real about B.C.’s land needs
• Centaurs win B.C. AAA senior high school football title
• Centaurs bound for B.C. high school football final

Tri-City / Maple Ridge

• Students who don’t write FSA test score a ‘zero’

Text

Published: January 21, 2010 6:00 AM
Updated: January 21, 2010 9:23 AM

// <![CDATA[
function commentWrite(o)
{
var commentString = ‘
‘ + o[‘num_posts’] + ‘ Comment’ + (o[‘num_posts’] == 1 ? ‘‘ : ‘s’);

document.write(commentString);
}

// ]]>
0 Comments

AS I SEE IT by Jim Nelson

So the annual hand wringing over the Foundation Skills Assessments tests begins again: Why are teachers so dead against them? Is it just that awful BCTF being radical again? Should we keep our children from writing the tests?

The trouble with the FSA is not the tests but how they are used. FSA exams are the B.C. banner of the accountability movement in education, a movement that has ruined American public schools over the last 20 years and yet is catching on in B.C. despite its disastrous effect on U.S. schools.

The accountability movement started in the U.S. and was borne of the American tendency to analyze, regulate and measure things. A good example of this is the development of American football.

Now, I enjoy an NFL game as much as much as the next person but a look at American football’s metamorphosis from rugby is instructive in understanding the development of the accountability movement in education.

Americans didn’t play rugby for long; rather, they quickly felt the compulsion to regulate and delineate the heck out of it. They divided the field into one-yard segments with 200 hash marks, added five officials, helmets and padding, statistics, instant replay, score clocks and down chains. They broke the game into quarters. Time-outs, huddles, motion rules, penalties — with designated yards for designated offences — are marched off precisely. There are signals for everything, a ritualized kicking game and 300-page playbooks with X’s and 0’s and arrows.

Instead of rugby, with one ball, one referee, an emphasis on spontaneity and creativity, and an almost chivalrous adherence to fair play, our southern cousins ended up with football, a testament to rules, measures, specialization and intervention.

Unfortunately, the same cultural compulsion that spawned American football proved unhelpful when applied to education because education is like rugby. It is interactive, free-flowing, spontaneous and creative, rather than easily quantifiable, pre-packaged and measured. It is too complex to be judged by a standardized measure, no matter how strong the cultural imperative may be to do so.

How can a standardized test measure the “A-ha!” moment when a student suddenly appreciates the brilliance of Shakespeare? How can it measure the ability to co-operate or persevere or to help another student?

Learning takes place through relationships with peers and teachers. It can only be measured somewhat accurately using an aggregation of many and varied assessments, both objective and anecdotal.

We all wish it was simpler, that we could judge how students are doing with a simple urine analysis or a multiple-guess test.

My opinion, although I’m a bit radical, is that an even more accurate indication of how well your child is learning is whether they are happy at school, whether they feel safe, are confident and engaged at school. If they “like” the teacher, have friends, feel good about their studies and enjoy school, they are learning just fine.

The BCTF is dead right on this issue. Although the union brings up red herrings such as how the poor children suffer undue stress when asked to write tests or how the poor teachers have to mark them, or the time it takes out of the curriculum or that the reason they are no good is because of demographic differences, yada yada yada, these are peripheral reasons for objecting to the FSA.

Teachers and the BCTF know viscerally that trying to legitimize standardized measures is harmful to our schools and, thus, our children’s learning. They are the only ones standing against the accountability movement.

As a former school principal in the Tri-Cities, I applaud this stance. Were my children in Grade 7, I would encourage them to not write the FSA exams. Had I a child in Grade 4, I would send him to school and quietly but firmly instruct the school that he is not to write the FSA exams and that perhaps half an hour in the gymnasium or on the playing field might be a good alternative.

Jim Nelson is a retired Tri-City teacher and principal.

SING ALONG…

Following is “Turfin’ FSA,” which is sung to the tune of the Beach Boys’ “Surfin’ U.S.A.” and was written by Jim Nelson and Dennis Secret:

If everybody had a notion, ’round District 43,

We’d call BS on the testing and we’d go on a spree,

We’ll throw ‘em all in the dumpster, autonomy has its day,

Tell the super we’re turfin’, turfin’ FSA

We’re giving testing the boot,

’Cause it just don’t compute.

And then we’ll set our sights on, the Fraser Institute.

Every district in B.C. will see us leadin’ the way,

Tell the super we’re turfin’, turfin’ FSA

Chorus (sung with echo and repeated): Rip ’em up, chuck ’em out, FSA…

You’ll see them chuck ’em at Moody, at Citadel and Kway,

At Meadowbrook, Stibbs and Seaview, and up at Pinetree Way,

All over the East Zone and even Vanier,

Tell the super we’re turfin’m turfin’ FSA.

Instrumental…

Repeat chorus.

Along with their colleagues, Coquitlam teachers went on strike for five weeks to make a stand for public education. It cost them each $8000 or so.

School administrators, muzzled for the duration of the strike by district staff, continued to collect their pay. School trustees, superintendents, district staff, and CUPE all collected their pay. Education Ministers got paid as did Premiers. Heck, even parents are getting $40 per day per strike day, per child.

Everyone got paid- except teachers, and the first day they go back to work, Coquitlam stiffs them a day’s pay.

What? Coquitlam? Arguably the most progressive school district in B.C.? You sure you don’t mean Abbottsford, or Chilliwack… or Langley?

No I don’t (although Abbotsford also didn’t pay their teachers – surprise)

Yes, Coquitlam school district didn’t pay its teachers for Friday, September 19^th– at least that’s the way it looks to teachers.

The first day after the strike, was the “prep” Friday. Teachers would come into school, prepare classrooms, get class lists, make course changes, and generally wind up June’s untidy finish and get ready for a Monday start. Fair enough says everyone.

But with a bad taste still in their mouths from a long, acrimonious strike, most teachers were in no mood to “volunteer” a day to prepare, even if it meant a messy start on Monday. Many teachers would not have worked Friday had they known they would not get paid.

So they asked if they would be paid for Friday.

“Oh yes, the strike and lockout are over as of Thursday and all teachers will be paid beginning on Friday, Sept. 19^th .”

So said the B.C.T.F., B.C.P.S.E.A., and even the government.

But at the end of the month, Coquitlam Teachers, having worked 8 days in September, including Friday September 19^th , got paid for 7 days.

Coquitlam teachers were understandably furious, and several of them got a bit insistent at the school board meeting this week, where the unfortunate situation was explained to them.

The explanation goes as follows:

Coquitlam teachers contractually get paid for twenty days each month, because some months have more school days, some fewer. Because it averages out to about 20 days per month, for simplicity’s sake, and by mutual agreement, that’s what teachers get paid each month.

So because teachers were on strike for 13 days in September, they get paid for 7 days rather than the 8 they worked.

The explanation would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic.A school board with a $13 million dollar credibility problem isn’t capable of heading this off at the pass or even fixing it before it hit the fan?

A superintendent of schools can’t phone the union president and have him in to discuss the situation and perhaps agree on how to ameliorate or postpone the pain?

“Bit of a sticky wicket here Charlie, might you drop by the board office for a moment to hash it over?”

It could have been avoided so easily. A postponement, an incremental levy of some kind, or even an up front agreement to take the one day hit in September; anything but to just let it baldly appear on the first pay statement without explanation.

Coquitlam  has a new Secretary Treasurer who has to prove he’s not like the last guy, upon whom has been dumped the blame for the district’s 13 million dollar deficit. I suppose that’s why he didn’t do what any secretary treasurer should do, suggest options to avoid such fiscal catastrophes.

But it’s not just his fault. Did no one realize how awful the optics of this would be; how cruel and disrespectful a statement it made to Coquitlam’s  teachers?

Did anyone consider that this might not be the best way to welcome teachers back to their classrooms?

5 weeks of a grueling strike, convinced most teachers that the provincial government is unrelentingly anti teacher, but most teachers felt secure in the knowledge that the school district was generally supportive and appreciative of their contributions to education in Coquitlam.

So much for that idea.

If you’re not a teacher, it’s hard to comprehend how astoundingly insensitive this move was. It’s an et tu Brute, the unkindest cut of all, and it will take a long time to overcome.

Coquitlam school district has always been rightly proud of the work relationships enjoyed among union groups, teachers, management and trustees over the years.

Coquitlam teachers will be mollified, it will all have been just an unfortunate misunderstanding.Trustees will assure everyone that they love Coquitlam teachers, central office will be diplomatically apologetic – all as comforting as an abusive spouse trying to make amends.

I’m not sure this genie can be put back in the bottle.

But apparently, as Peter Fassbender might cheerfully say,

“The beatings will continue until morale improves.”

The P.N.E. is over. Labour Day weekend is all that stands between summer indolence and the new leaves to be turned over by students beginning on Tuesday, the first day of school.

It’s a time of unease, for students and parents. Will it be a better year?

Will last year’s big worry repeat itself, or be forgotten amidst new successes?

What teacher(s) will she get? I hope it’s not Mr. McGillicuddy – he’s demanding and harsh… but maybe that’s what she needs.

I just want her to be happy at school. How can I best help her return to school successfully?

If I appear confident and reassuring, it will help. I’ll minimize my advice and help her plan her own return to school, from when to get up to what to wear; I’ll allow her to take on the responsibility.

If my only stated expectation is that she enjoys herself (“have fun…”) and if I accept that she’s going to school for herself not for me, it will help.

Latch key situation or not, I will be home when she returns after her first day.

I’ll be sure to be busily distracted by some low-key, calm activity that can be easily interrupted and postponed. I’ll wait for her to initiate the post mortem of her day, rather than pouncing on her for a recounting before she can put down her backpack.

If she comes home happy, I’ll share it with her. I’ll listen and empathize and focus on her happiness, asking clarifying questions; letting her talk rather than giving advice or alluding to my own past school experiences. I’ll act as if her good day is not a surprise; that’s just how good school is and should be. I’ll calmly return to what I was doing, leaving her to bask in her happy day.

If she comes home in tears, with stories of mistreatment by teacher or peers, my first response will be empathy not anger. Feelings aren’t facts, so I’ll listen. I’ll validate her despair without taking a side. It will likely be a disappointment or hurt rather than a major incident – unless I make it one with my response. I’ll ask her what she might do to make it better. I won’t join her anger. I’ll reassure her.

I’ll give her time; and space. I’ll watch and listen. Flurries of text messages or emails from friends means overt misunderstanding or conflict. If I fan this flame of melodrama, it definitely won’t help her or me.

If there is no peer contact, it likely means someone clumsily or accidentally hurt her feelings.

Either way, I’ll reassure her at every relapse, empathizing, minimizing, distracting if possible.

I’ll matter of factly remove rash solutions; things like, “I’m never going back to that school again!” I’ll avoid expressing outrage with the school, teacher, or peer, knowing that it’s probably a misunderstanding born of nervous anticipation.

If it’s clear that something threatening or inappropriate has happened, I’ll listen and empathize first and then without her knowing, I’ll go to the school; that day, with a view to describing her unhappiness, gathering information and working with the school to help my child solve the problem. I’ll assume the school wants to help. I’ll be calm but resolved, and I won’t criticize students or teachers.

The best possible outcome would be that my child faces and solves the problem herself. The next best outcome is that the problem is resolved without my child knowing that it was fixed for her. The worst and most ominous outcome is that mommy or daddy stomp into the school and forces the school to fix the problem.

But mercifully, none of this will likely happen. First days of school are usually short, great days. For her sake, I’ll try to remain the calm, empathetic, reassuring adult.

I won’t let on that I’m as nervous for her as she is for herself.

Sure, it’s easy. Local governments  always got along quite well with  teachers. Here’s some strategies local governments used for years that provincial governments might consider employing.

• Embrace the idea that teachers are professionals, with special and valuable training and skills. Tell teachers and the public this regulary. Preface each discussion and speech about education with this information.

• Publicly express support for public education. Indicate that public education plays a valuable role in the intellectual and cultural development of our children and is one of the most successful initiatives undertaken by western societies.

• Say that public education is not an expense but an investment, the best investment we can make in our country’s future.

• Sugggest that teachers know how to plan, assess, and provide effective learning opportunites and that defending teacher’s professional autonomy is the best thing we can do to improve education. Cite B.C.’s international reputation for education excellence to substantiate this idea.

• Say that teacher accountability is best when it’s local – accountability to students, parents, colleagues, and Principals – the best judges of effective student learning. Suggest that we should seek to strengthen local accountability, not centralized measurements.

Perhaps throw in a quote to illustrate the point:

           “Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count: everything

             that counts cannot necessarily be counted…”

                                                                                   Albert Einstein

There are other non-monetary strategies available to government to  improve relations with teachers:

• suggest that educators are best equipped to make education decisions, not people                       from unrelated fields;
•  suggest that parent involvement in schooling should be predominantly at the local level not at the political level.

None of these strategies costs any money, but provincial  governments have not chosen                    to try them since 1994, when provincial  bargaining was first mandated.

I’m sure provincial governments would be pleasantly surprised  at how easy B.C.’s    teachers are to get along with if they tried some or all of the above strategies.

 An Old American Spiritual

In North America and certainly in B.C., sane analysis of public education has long been abandoned; replaced with vitriolic anecdotal attacks on public schools and teachers.

We direct most of our unrelenting ire at “the teacher’s union”. The teacher’s union is a scapegoat safely removed from our neighbourhoods. It’s more palatable to hate the union than to rant against the local school or our child’s teacher, good old Mrs. McGillicuddy (who really works hard, unlike those union types).

Public school bashing is not new. It’s an old southern folk song, the lyrics of which Canadians, and especially British Columbians, are just now learning to sing with gusto. (because we have such a perky anti education choir leader).

The old, anti –education U.S. spiritual that helped Americans through the difficult days of destroying their public education system has become a conservative anthem in Canada; with B.C. supplying the most inspiring voices.

B.C Public Schools Doing Well Despite It All

Why do we sing such an anti public education song? Surely our public schools must be abject failures in order to engender such public hostility? In fact, no; international measures continue to rank Canada’s public schools among the best in the world and B.C.’s public schools the best in Canada.

But rather than laud these statistics to vindicate and support public schools, we use them to excuse cutting funding, depressing salaries, increasing funding to private schools, and even for unconstitutional and petulant government behaviour.

We’re All Education Experts

So why do we attack one of the best public education systems in the worlds? One reason is because we’re all experts on education. We’ve all been to school. We all had a Mr. Switz who was bossy and lazy. We all have a foggy residue of personal rebellion (those teachers think they’re so smart).

Many of our anti education impressions come from memories of young brains that didn’t know that there were so many kids with challenges in our class – I could read – surely everyone else in my class could too? What’s all the fuss about? There were forty in my class and it didn’t affect me.

Anti- Education Anecdotes

We also attack public education because of the flood of over simplified anecdotal outrages we are fed.

“ 5 year old boy suspended for hugging a girl…”

They don’t include the rest of the story, that the lad’s serial hugging was unwanted, repeatedly complained about and that his parents were combative when asked how they could work together to help Johnny curtail his unwelcomed hugging.

Media all over the U.S. and Canada instead chose to use this story as an example of public school malpractice.

“ Shouldn’t public schools encourage love, not squelch it by wielding institutional power over a five year old? ”

This, and other incomplete anecdotes, appeal to long  latent school angst lurking in all of us.

 Our Child’s Experience

Our attitudes towards public schools are also formed by our children’s experience, the struggles they face, the worries we face as parents – these stresses we often project on schools in our state of worry. So for some understandable reasons, we are pre-disposed to criticize public schools. When governments attack public education or teachers, we often join in the chorus or we’re slow to defense.

Dismantling Public Schools

It’s important to realize that our unwillingness to defend public schools is doing more than just giving voice to our individual experiential biases towards education; it’s endangering the future of the public school system.

Because attacking public education isn’t just a random act of austerity. It’s not an attempt to put teachers in their place. It’s not about saving taxpayer money or fighting waste, or defending struggling private sector workers.

The anti public school campaign is about dismantling public schools, or more correctly, relegating public schools to the task of educating society’s riff raff – you know, the ones I don’t want my Mary to associate with.

Privatizing education plays a  part of institutionalizing the income inequity that conservatives have attained over the last twenty years. Privatizing education emasculates middle and working classes and helps reinforce a class system. It’s the coup de grace to  hopes of regaining our lost social egalitarianism and economic mobility.

Dismantling public education will remove the last cultural and economic field leveler our country has. Unions are on the ropes, now if we can just get rid of public schools…

Now I know it would be a stretch to accuse our own, provincial politicians of such a sophisticated conspiracy, but encouraging a two, or even three tiered education system underpins the neo conservative vision.

Private Schools Pushed

In B.C., private school funding has increased at three times the rate of public school funding since 2005. As a result, private school attendance has reached 12% of B.C. students. The Kool-Aid is being drunk. Public schools in the U.S are foundering, according to all international measures. Serial underfunding of public schools, championing school choice, voucher systems, Charter Schools – anything that will allow my child to avoid the riff raff of society and keep those minorities in their place.(somewhere else)

It May Be too Late

Personally, I think it may be too late for B.C.’s public schools. The only way to save our public schools is too stop publicly funding their alternative, and that’s not imminent . Our current premier’s attitude toward increasing public education funding is a Charlton Heston-like “from my cold, dead hand…”

In addition, our Premier’s child goes to private school, as do (incomprehensively) the children of some public school educators. So we’re stuck with a two-tier school system.

Having learned nothing from the American destruction of public schools, we’ll likely continue to mercilessly slag a world class public system, helped and encouraged by a media not much disposed to real analysis.

Like educational lemmings we’ll follow the American school system over the educational cliff, vilifying public educators as we go, chanting;

“Free from riff raff, free from riff raff, thank God Almighty, we’re free from riff raff. ”