Volunteerism not the issue for teachers

I found Barry Brewer’s letter (‘Teachers volunteer stance disheartening,’ Cape Breton Post, March 3) both ironic and disheartening. It seems that his perspective is exactly what reduces teacher resources in the classroom and their reason for being: teaching. He seems to believe that teachers have stopped all voluntary service to their communities. I can safely assure him that nothing could be further from the truth.

One of the many things at issue for teachers, if I may be so bold to make such a blanket statement, has never been volunteerism. At issue, with this particular issue, has been the expectation of volunteerism regardless of personal or professional commitments.

Most volunteers have the freedom to do so according to their availability and are not expected to commit if other commitments interfere. Teachers, on the other hand, are expected to do so on a scheduled interval (twice per week for six months, for example) regardless of other concerns. Teachers are expected to surrender their work-life balance because parents have stopped regularly volunteering their time.

Most households are two-income families and many parents do not have the energy or ambition to commit to a full hockey season (practices, games, fundraising events, trips, etc). Yet, teachers in two-income families are expected to put their families aside to do so. Volunteerism can produce “a good feeling” when done of one’s own free will. When it becomes an expected part of a job, it is merely unpaid labour. If parents are not expected to volunteer to support their child, why is it fair to expect the same of teachers?

The issue isn’t volunteering. Teachers have already committed to reintroducing some volunteer activities at their schools already. The issue is when volunteerism becomes an expectation and assumed duty, rather than an offering of “a service to individuals and groups out of the goodness of your heart.”

As became clear during the job action taken by teachers, government representatives believe that volunteering is a fair expectation without consideration for those who provide the time, experience and sacrifice to do so. That is not the case.

If Mr. Brewer would care to coach a team, run a club or society, provide supervision for field trips or extracurriculars, he can contact the school board. Once he pays for a criminal records check (at his own expense, as every teacher entering the field does) he can negotiate the scheduled volunteer commitment that will recur and/or change without notice. I can’t imagine a single school that won’t celebrate his commitment to his community and welcome him with open arms.

By the way, the word he was looking for is remuneration. Renumeration is recounting. Volunteering is hardly the reason teachers took job action. Schools have seen a steady decline in resources as needs and expectations have steadily increased. Repeated cutbacks by two subsequent governments made a growing problem insurmountable.

Following the teacher demonstration at the legislature on Feb. 16, television host Steve Murphy asked NDP leader Gary Burrill and Progressive Conservative leader Jamie Bailey what each would do to fix the education system, if they were premier?

Inclusion has destroyed the education system, one gradelevel at a time, and isn’t serving anyone well, including special needs students. Yet, neither leader mentioned the words inclusion or special needs. Nor did MLA Allan MacMaster in his letter in the Cape Breton Post (‘Suggestions to improve education system, Feb. 7).

MacMaster did think government was wasting $20 million to study solutions to our overloaded classrooms. Wasn’t that what the strike was supposed to be about? Over 300 teachers applied to be part of that council in the first three days. That clearly shows it is what teachers wanted. Nine teachers from “today’s” classrooms will get the opportunity to propose solutions to “today’s” classroom problems. The $20 million will fund those solutions.

Both leaders said they would scrap the no-fail policy. That would be difficult since no such policy exists. Wouldn’t that be a political double negative? The no-fail “practice” evolved because teachers must justify failing students; and in an inclusive classroom that could require as many as 4-6 different versions of the same assessment, possibly more.

Both suggested an attendance policy. Previous attendance policies have been disasters because they were based on excused absences, instead of on a minimum attendance requirement. Students decide not to attend, parents excuse them and schools must accept it. The no-fail practice is really an extension of the destructive social attitude that believes people are entitled to something-anything, whether they earn it or not.

When Nova Scotia decided that it wanted to have the highest percentage of high school graduates, attendance became one of the trade-offs. At first it wasn’t a problem. But, as inclusion moved through the system, assessment became increasingly difficult and the no-fail practice provided fertile ground for absenteeism to flourish. Soon math and literacy scores plummeted.

It’s time to show more concern for those who want an education and do attend school to reinforce the attributes that build better citizens and future societies. These aren’t correspondence courses. If students don’t meet that minimum attendance requirement, they should fail.

Politicians should be more careful when commenting on the education system. There are a lot more cow patties in today’s field of dreams. The prefix “un” continually came to mind; all were unmindful of the pleas of teachers and parents for a new inclusion model.

Everything needs a periodic evaluation, to identify weaknesses and decide how fix them. When a new inclusion model evolves, assessment will also evolve within the model. Teacher education programs must also be connected to ensure teachers are properly prepared to teach within that model, especially secondary teachers. They will require a much better understanding of the reading process, and how to integrate it into their assignment and assessment design, within those multi-level, inclusive classrooms.

I remember seeing an educational cartoon depicting today’s classrooms. There was complete chaos, students were running around and crawling over desks. The teacher was trying to console the visiting parents of one child, telling them: “We’ve created a safe, non-judgmental environment that will leave your child ill-prepared for real life.”

I thought, how true; welcome to Schitt’s Creek! Al Moore Glace Bay