Do school labour disputes risk bypassing students’ interests?

Won’t somebody please think of the children?!

There was an interesting article last week by Janet Steffenhagen of the Vancouver Sun dealing with a recent labour decision involving the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation (BCTF) and the British Columbia Public School Employers’ Association (BCPSEA).

The claim arose from an alleged violation of the class size prohibitions under section 76.1 of the School Act (BC), which only allows school boards to put more than a certain number of students in each class if the principal of the school either obtains the consent of (or consults with, depending on the grade) the teacher.  As a result, the teachers’ union was demanding:

1. a declaration that certain boards of education had violated section 76.1; and
2. compensation awards for the teachers hard done by, with additional funds to support the local teaching community.

In other words, teachers were the ones to suffer from this misconduct, and they should be rewarded accordingly.  As the arbitrator put it:

When a board of education exceeds grade level size and composition standards for a class and does not meet the requirements with respect to the class, the burden of the breach is primarily borne by the teacher(s) of the class, not the principal, superintendent, trustees, or even individual students.

It was that last part that really irked Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond and John Bird, two heads of groups with the welfare of children as a primary goal.  What the teachers get from the arbitrator’s decision is clear, but what do the students get? Haven’t they suffered from being jammed into classrooms together with an overwhelmed teacher?  Turpel-Lafond hinted further that this is an example of how the educational system is increasingly shaped by labour disputes and financial constraints.

Labour issues do play a central role in defining the rules that apply to educational actors.  The School Act is structured to place the ball in the BCTF’s court where a school board steps out of line, particularly on the issue of class sizes, which has been the subject of legal disputes in the labour context for many years.  There is no clear mechanism (or, at least, no clear precedent) for a student who advance a claim, for example, if a school board violates section 76.1.

Interestingly, the BCTF appears to dispute the notion that this model benefits teachers while prejudicing students: see the BCTF press release on the decision here.

Another point that’s been made on the decision is who should pay for the breach.  Almost anytime a government body is found liable and a damages award is ordered, that body pays but the burden flows directly to the taxpayers, which further reduces the resources available to students.  See here for a letter to the editor of Times-Colonist from a former BCTF leader, arguing that the individuals who made the impugned decisions should be disciplined.