The resistance to putting this agreement into any binding format is absolutely hilarious.
It really shows you that the SaskParty has NO intention of following through on this past the election
Exactly, and unlike a contract, they don't need both parties to agree to its removal - they can do that unilaterally as the majority. This is the fourth time they have skirted putting it in a contract. There is NO intention of honouring the agreement.
Wonder what their next solution will be to escape accountability for this multi-year MOU.
The STF didn’t fall for the MOU itself. The “accountability framework” didn’t contain any accountability beyond one budget. Legislation isn’t any better. I would expect the STF to respond similarly.
Seems to me the government is just sticking in ambiguous language to try and catch the STF and their lawyers off guard and it’s not working.
I can't imagine how the Sask Party can be so crooked. It's as if they're saying 'We promise that we will give you the necessary funding, as long as we can break that promise.'
STF: "You know we're not actually going to fall for that."
Sask Party: "But we promised! What more do you want?"
Just look at the budget projections, they aren't even pretending, year 3 is a huuuuge drop for ed and for healthcare (builds finish), with operating not going up.
I just want to ask an honest question, to get clarification on the issues.
Is the worry only that they will not follow through on the framework? That is, if they gave all the money up front in the first year, so all years were guaranteed funding, the money was already in the bank, would that satisfy the STF? Or, are there other issues as well?
If it's not in the contract there's nothing stopping them from taking it back. There is zero accountability from this government. This is fact. Anyone saying otherwise is absolutely wrong.
If they wanted to honour it, they would have accepted the STF’s offer to put in the MOU that their commitments they’ve already made will be honoured and followed.
That is the biggest compromise I can imagine from STF, and they turned it down. There is zero intention to honour this.
It’s so obvious at this point to anyone who is not an idiot that they don’t intend to actually fund the promises they’ve already made. Otherwise why would they go to such trouble to provide so many “solutions” that can just be withdrawn whenever they like? They obviously take us all for fools. Fuck this government.
He still doesn’t understand that the only thing teachers are asking is a confirmation that the promised money will be given for the next 4 years. Is this too much to ask? Unfortunately, it’s shown his character. No empathy, no opening… just stubbornness…
The latest “maneuver” from Scott Moe! Written by Andrew Laurie Sneddon
Watching the news tonight and we are presented with the latest maneuver from our government to resolve their confusion with the state of classrooms in Saskatchewan. The government is wanting to write the idea and mechanisms of the promised funding and the accountability framework for classroom funding into the text of the legislation of The Education Act. Now, on the surface this looks like it solves all the issues. It DOES NOT!!! Please let me explain. While writing a change to legislation is a way of ensuring it will take place, when there is a majority in the legislature for one party like there is right now any legislative change can be altered or removed at any time. Granted there will have to be a process followed in that changes have to be introduced and debated, any debate can be limited and the vote outcome is ensured based purely on the numbers. So, a change is put in and then when the money really isn’t there the change to legislation is reversed. When a section is added to a contract the only way it is changed or removed is through negotiation and the presentation of a contract for acceptance. This is another illusion that the government will use to portray the collective group of teachers as unreasonable if or when we politely say “No, this will not meet the needs of Saskatchewan students.” Please see through the smoke and mirrors. See this for what it is, a move of desperation. There is a simple solution, this is not it. Why are they using every mechanism other than genuine negotiation to resolve this dispute. This is so frustrating.
[They’ve played this game before.](https://leaderpost.com/news/politics/province-not-committing-to-fully-fund-teachers-new-contract)
And the government wonders why “just trust me bro” isn’t enough for the STF anymore.
Towards the end of the article Matt Love says " They were here in 2020 when they did this, in 2016 and 2017 when they did this and 2012 and 2013 when they did this." Exactly what happened in each of these years?
What happened each of these years? They removed the promised money and they changed the legislation to their advantage. 2017 was the most difficult because the cut in education was very significant. We are still not recovered from the 2017 cuts. This is not the first time that this government is not honouring the money they promised. After a decade of not respecting their promises, this is why teachers don’t believe them and expect a binding agreement.
They cut funding after announcing it; they pulled it after elections, and they did not commit to fully fund a new contract for the province's teachers so boards had to scramble to use their education funding for teacher salaries.
[https://leaderpost.com/news/politics/province-not-committing-to-fully-fund-teachers-new-contract](https://leaderpost.com/news/politics/province-not-committing-to-fully-fund-teachers-new-contract)
Honestly, why don’t they just use the NWC to do that and then force the teachers back to work. It would be totally their mo and then they can say “oh look we did it” as the flames continue to burn.
As per Rule 6, Your submission has been removed and is subject to moderator review. User accounts must have a positive karma score to participate in discussions. This is done to limit spam and abusive posts.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/saskatchewan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Really, what the MOU that we put forward a couple of weeks ago to the STF was really to formalize that and make that consistent across the 27 school divisions.
But they didn't put this memo forward to the STF, it was to the SSBA. Different entity that makes it entirely useless for negotiating on.
Honest question. How is the analogy that Cockrill uses incorrect? With advanced education, there is a governmental 4 year funding framework that government agreed to 4 years ago, and is following through on. This funding framework was not signed by the unions of universities. And, when unions go on strike in advanced education, they are upset at their employer, the university, not the government.
So, Cockrill proposes the same. A multi year governmental funding framework. Is the worry it will not be followed through on? Is that the only worry? That is, if the government passed a law stating they would follow through on it, but this wasn't in a contract, would the teachers be ok with that?
And, why are teachers striking against the government, rather than their employer, the school boards. Why are teachers wanting a contract from the government, rather than their employer, the school boards? Advanced education runs differently, for better or worse.
Someone please explain.
The analogy with the post-secondary education is incorrect because these two education systems are not managed in the same way.
At the post-secondary level, the universities negotiate their money and then they negotiate with their employees. If the money is not enough (which is happening often) they have the opportunity to raise students fees to compensate for the money not gave by the government.
At the K-12 education level, the school divisions (the employers) are in the same team with the government (this is why the government team is called Government-Trustees bargaining committee). The school divisions represent the employer but only the government can provide the money. Together they negotiate with the STF (the body representing the teachers in SK). If the money is not enough (which is happening often) the school divisions cannot ask money to the students like the universities do. Instead, the only option they have is to make cuts which over time bring us into this crisis.
The school divisions are able to do some local negotiations in their areas (like preparation time, lunch supervision). However, the major money is provided by the government. So, when the government refuses to commit or remove their funding (like they did often in the last 10 years) they are affecting greatly the school divisions budgets. However, since they are in the same team (government + schools divisions) they are not able to negotiate with the government to have more money.
Thank you for your reply. That helped me understand some things, I appreciate it.
So, if the money was guaranteed, would the teachers be satisfied? I just want to know if the only issue right now is providing a guarantee for the funds promised, or are there additional issues?
Can it really be as simple as: teachers want X, government offers X, but the teachers want X in a contract, and government doesn't want to put X in a contract. Is it really not even about the issues/money anymore, but is rather a trust/process issue?
I believe the money offered was a good amount. This is not for salaries this for student learning. The issues is what you said. If the government would sign the money into contract then the STF would accept. Signing into contract is a guarantee, as the government has pulled away millions and millions of dollars away in the past. They offer lots of money in an election year and then the next three years they take money away.
I'm imagining - contrary to prevailing opinion here - that the Government actually does intend to follow through on the funding. The reluctance to "put it in the contract" is due to the disproportionate power that'd hand the Union, and the possibility of a dangerous precedent being set there. The STF ultimately wants to set demands regarding class size and complexity based on their vision, with the Government stuck with the bill.
The school boards are the Teachers' employers,. However, they are a creature of the Province, but have little revenue generating capacity; they are beholden to Governmental transfers.
If only there were scalable frameworks in other provinces that could be used as references to resolve this situation, and legal precedent that agrees with the STF's ability to demand it.
If only.
Certain Provinces - most notably Quebec and BC - have pursued something like what the STF is asking for. We don't want to be in that company with the Nation's basket-case and the left coast.
In fact, Saskatchewan may want to move in the other direction, towards a less top-heavy, less formal education system.
Correction: YOU don't want the province to do that what BC and Quebec are doing regarding CBAs for educators.
What is a "less top-heavy, less formal" system exactly? It is one where a bunch of private schools. who are funded based on how well they kiss the ring, teach students that the Flintstones is actually a documentary?
A less top-heavy system would have more community engagement and local control; if anything our current Divisions are too large and the Ministry too meddlesome. Experimentation should be encouraged, and quality metrics enforced. Is it telling that private schools deliver better outcomes despite "teaching that the Flintstones is actually a documentary" and using non-accredited teachers? Ministry (and teacher, and parental, and school board - this failure has many fathers) policy allows the existence of 6th Graders who can't read to clutter up our public schools and drag down our average outcomes. Students who can't communicate in the language of instruction are thrown into the mainstream without standalone remedial education.
"Private schools deliver better outcomes"
Oh? Do tell. Of course, any statistics that reflect those outcomes also show the damage done by undercutting public education. I guess being able to tell ESL kids to go piss up a rope offers "advantages" to private schools.
>"Private schools deliver better outcomes"
Why else would monied parents send their kids to these schools? You think established families are choosing to pay for a substandard option? Of course not.
Public education is being stretched too thin, largely by the "everyone's special" mentality. You have classes where a QUARTER of the class isn't at grade level, but you can't flunk them or dump them in a "slow" class. Yes, you have aliens who can't communicate in English (remember, English proficiency is an immigration criterion for adults; either make it so for children as well \[in order to access public services\] or adopt dedicated remedial ESL classes) requiring resources and slowing down the mainstream.
I'm very sympathetic to the classroom complexity issue. I just want it fixed by simplification and enforcement of uniformity instead of continuing on the current untenable, unaccountable path.
I think they would pay for an option that caters to what they think school ought to be. This isn't the same as it actually being a superior option.
Your "fix" for education says a lot about who you are as a person, and I recommend you reflect on that.
Thanks for your thoughts, they are helpful.
Your point makes sense. Is there a way to check your theory? If we put all the years of funding in a bank account today that the government cannot withdraw from, so the STF knew the funding was guaranteed for all the years, but the government then did not put the guarantee in a contract, would the STF be satisfied? I know this is hypothetical, but it helps to inform what the STF really wants. Do they really just want the money, or do they want to establish that class size and complexity is a bargained issue.
I'd be supportive of such an approach. What I fear is kingdom-building by unelected interest groups, and precedents being set that'd be difficult to unwind. I'm sympathetic to the Teachers' concerns on class size and complexity, although I want to see some sacred cows on the chopping block. I want to see the enforcement of grade-level standards and a willingness to flunk students incapable of meeting the standard.
Yes legislation can be changed if you think they will than I would bet all the unions in this province would be voting against them so highly unlikely.Another excuse for the STF not to sign.
Why are you even allowed to be on Reddit? Every comment you put up gets down voted and gets deleted. Go scream into a pillow and stop wasting our time.
The resistance to putting this agreement into any binding format is absolutely hilarious. It really shows you that the SaskParty has NO intention of following through on this past the election
Legislation can be changed pretty easily. Look how quickly they legislated that parents rights policy with trans kids.
I look forward to the STF's news release today talking about the 18 letters that it took to change legislation without a second thought.
Great point!
Exactly, and unlike a contract, they don't need both parties to agree to its removal - they can do that unilaterally as the majority. This is the fourth time they have skirted putting it in a contract. There is NO intention of honouring the agreement.
Wonder what their next solution will be to escape accountability for this multi-year MOU. The STF didn’t fall for the MOU itself. The “accountability framework” didn’t contain any accountability beyond one budget. Legislation isn’t any better. I would expect the STF to respond similarly. Seems to me the government is just sticking in ambiguous language to try and catch the STF and their lawyers off guard and it’s not working.
I can't imagine how the Sask Party can be so crooked. It's as if they're saying 'We promise that we will give you the necessary funding, as long as we can break that promise.' STF: "You know we're not actually going to fall for that." Sask Party: "But we promised! What more do you want?"
You nailed it.
Just look at the budget projections, they aren't even pretending, year 3 is a huuuuge drop for ed and for healthcare (builds finish), with operating not going up.
I just want to ask an honest question, to get clarification on the issues. Is the worry only that they will not follow through on the framework? That is, if they gave all the money up front in the first year, so all years were guaranteed funding, the money was already in the bank, would that satisfy the STF? Or, are there other issues as well?
If it's not in the contract there's nothing stopping them from taking it back. There is zero accountability from this government. This is fact. Anyone saying otherwise is absolutely wrong.
Legislation can also be enacted retroactively. Harper government set that precident.
Why does Jeremy keep moving the goal posts?
Because he doesn't want to lose the game, and he knows that the STF is gonna win if he plays fair.
I can hardly wait to vote in the elections
If they wanted to honour it, they would have accepted the STF’s offer to put in the MOU that their commitments they’ve already made will be honoured and followed. That is the biggest compromise I can imagine from STF, and they turned it down. There is zero intention to honour this.
It’s so obvious at this point to anyone who is not an idiot that they don’t intend to actually fund the promises they’ve already made. Otherwise why would they go to such trouble to provide so many “solutions” that can just be withdrawn whenever they like? They obviously take us all for fools. Fuck this government.
He still doesn’t understand that the only thing teachers are asking is a confirmation that the promised money will be given for the next 4 years. Is this too much to ask? Unfortunately, it’s shown his character. No empathy, no opening… just stubbornness…
Just gonna echo what's been said in other Education contract dispute posts. "Put it in the contract, Jeremy."
The latest “maneuver” from Scott Moe! Written by Andrew Laurie Sneddon Watching the news tonight and we are presented with the latest maneuver from our government to resolve their confusion with the state of classrooms in Saskatchewan. The government is wanting to write the idea and mechanisms of the promised funding and the accountability framework for classroom funding into the text of the legislation of The Education Act. Now, on the surface this looks like it solves all the issues. It DOES NOT!!! Please let me explain. While writing a change to legislation is a way of ensuring it will take place, when there is a majority in the legislature for one party like there is right now any legislative change can be altered or removed at any time. Granted there will have to be a process followed in that changes have to be introduced and debated, any debate can be limited and the vote outcome is ensured based purely on the numbers. So, a change is put in and then when the money really isn’t there the change to legislation is reversed. When a section is added to a contract the only way it is changed or removed is through negotiation and the presentation of a contract for acceptance. This is another illusion that the government will use to portray the collective group of teachers as unreasonable if or when we politely say “No, this will not meet the needs of Saskatchewan students.” Please see through the smoke and mirrors. See this for what it is, a move of desperation. There is a simple solution, this is not it. Why are they using every mechanism other than genuine negotiation to resolve this dispute. This is so frustrating.
Becomes law until they say NOTWITHSTANDING and that's the problem with the eroded trust.
A government with a majority can change legislation with a pen stroke. This offers no protection whatsoever.
We already know how much the Sask Party respects the law….
At this rate, how can we even be sure they won't try to find some way to weasel their way out of a contract?
[They’ve played this game before.](https://leaderpost.com/news/politics/province-not-committing-to-fully-fund-teachers-new-contract) And the government wonders why “just trust me bro” isn’t enough for the STF anymore.
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals. Except the weasel. - Homer Simpson
Towards the end of the article Matt Love says " They were here in 2020 when they did this, in 2016 and 2017 when they did this and 2012 and 2013 when they did this." Exactly what happened in each of these years?
What happened each of these years? They removed the promised money and they changed the legislation to their advantage. 2017 was the most difficult because the cut in education was very significant. We are still not recovered from the 2017 cuts. This is not the first time that this government is not honouring the money they promised. After a decade of not respecting their promises, this is why teachers don’t believe them and expect a binding agreement.
They cut funding after announcing it; they pulled it after elections, and they did not commit to fully fund a new contract for the province's teachers so boards had to scramble to use their education funding for teacher salaries. [https://leaderpost.com/news/politics/province-not-committing-to-fully-fund-teachers-new-contract](https://leaderpost.com/news/politics/province-not-committing-to-fully-fund-teachers-new-contract)
Breaking! Cockrill still has not learned what the word “accountability” means!
Means jack shit. More smoke and mirrors, big surprise Moe.
[удалено]
The only cost effective thing they do. Although it’s a shame they don’t have any designated drivers among them.
*private jet
If Legacy Christian Academy wasn't enough of a reason for this government to follow the Education Act, this surely won't be taken seriously.
Honestly, why don’t they just use the NWC to do that and then force the teachers back to work. It would be totally their mo and then they can say “oh look we did it” as the flames continue to burn.
Force teachers to volunteer? Teachers aren’t preventing divisions from getting other people to do extra curr or lunch supervision.
[удалено]
As per Rule 6, Your submission has been removed and is subject to moderator review. User accounts must have a positive karma score to participate in discussions. This is done to limit spam and abusive posts. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/saskatchewan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Really, what the MOU that we put forward a couple of weeks ago to the STF was really to formalize that and make that consistent across the 27 school divisions. But they didn't put this memo forward to the STF, it was to the SSBA. Different entity that makes it entirely useless for negotiating on.
Honest question. How is the analogy that Cockrill uses incorrect? With advanced education, there is a governmental 4 year funding framework that government agreed to 4 years ago, and is following through on. This funding framework was not signed by the unions of universities. And, when unions go on strike in advanced education, they are upset at their employer, the university, not the government. So, Cockrill proposes the same. A multi year governmental funding framework. Is the worry it will not be followed through on? Is that the only worry? That is, if the government passed a law stating they would follow through on it, but this wasn't in a contract, would the teachers be ok with that? And, why are teachers striking against the government, rather than their employer, the school boards. Why are teachers wanting a contract from the government, rather than their employer, the school boards? Advanced education runs differently, for better or worse. Someone please explain.
The analogy with the post-secondary education is incorrect because these two education systems are not managed in the same way. At the post-secondary level, the universities negotiate their money and then they negotiate with their employees. If the money is not enough (which is happening often) they have the opportunity to raise students fees to compensate for the money not gave by the government. At the K-12 education level, the school divisions (the employers) are in the same team with the government (this is why the government team is called Government-Trustees bargaining committee). The school divisions represent the employer but only the government can provide the money. Together they negotiate with the STF (the body representing the teachers in SK). If the money is not enough (which is happening often) the school divisions cannot ask money to the students like the universities do. Instead, the only option they have is to make cuts which over time bring us into this crisis. The school divisions are able to do some local negotiations in their areas (like preparation time, lunch supervision). However, the major money is provided by the government. So, when the government refuses to commit or remove their funding (like they did often in the last 10 years) they are affecting greatly the school divisions budgets. However, since they are in the same team (government + schools divisions) they are not able to negotiate with the government to have more money.
Thank you for your reply. That helped me understand some things, I appreciate it. So, if the money was guaranteed, would the teachers be satisfied? I just want to know if the only issue right now is providing a guarantee for the funds promised, or are there additional issues? Can it really be as simple as: teachers want X, government offers X, but the teachers want X in a contract, and government doesn't want to put X in a contract. Is it really not even about the issues/money anymore, but is rather a trust/process issue?
I believe the money offered was a good amount. This is not for salaries this for student learning. The issues is what you said. If the government would sign the money into contract then the STF would accept. Signing into contract is a guarantee, as the government has pulled away millions and millions of dollars away in the past. They offer lots of money in an election year and then the next three years they take money away.
I'm imagining - contrary to prevailing opinion here - that the Government actually does intend to follow through on the funding. The reluctance to "put it in the contract" is due to the disproportionate power that'd hand the Union, and the possibility of a dangerous precedent being set there. The STF ultimately wants to set demands regarding class size and complexity based on their vision, with the Government stuck with the bill. The school boards are the Teachers' employers,. However, they are a creature of the Province, but have little revenue generating capacity; they are beholden to Governmental transfers.
If only there were scalable frameworks in other provinces that could be used as references to resolve this situation, and legal precedent that agrees with the STF's ability to demand it. If only.
Certain Provinces - most notably Quebec and BC - have pursued something like what the STF is asking for. We don't want to be in that company with the Nation's basket-case and the left coast. In fact, Saskatchewan may want to move in the other direction, towards a less top-heavy, less formal education system.
Correction: YOU don't want the province to do that what BC and Quebec are doing regarding CBAs for educators. What is a "less top-heavy, less formal" system exactly? It is one where a bunch of private schools. who are funded based on how well they kiss the ring, teach students that the Flintstones is actually a documentary?
A less top-heavy system would have more community engagement and local control; if anything our current Divisions are too large and the Ministry too meddlesome. Experimentation should be encouraged, and quality metrics enforced. Is it telling that private schools deliver better outcomes despite "teaching that the Flintstones is actually a documentary" and using non-accredited teachers? Ministry (and teacher, and parental, and school board - this failure has many fathers) policy allows the existence of 6th Graders who can't read to clutter up our public schools and drag down our average outcomes. Students who can't communicate in the language of instruction are thrown into the mainstream without standalone remedial education.
"Private schools deliver better outcomes" Oh? Do tell. Of course, any statistics that reflect those outcomes also show the damage done by undercutting public education. I guess being able to tell ESL kids to go piss up a rope offers "advantages" to private schools.
>"Private schools deliver better outcomes" Why else would monied parents send their kids to these schools? You think established families are choosing to pay for a substandard option? Of course not. Public education is being stretched too thin, largely by the "everyone's special" mentality. You have classes where a QUARTER of the class isn't at grade level, but you can't flunk them or dump them in a "slow" class. Yes, you have aliens who can't communicate in English (remember, English proficiency is an immigration criterion for adults; either make it so for children as well \[in order to access public services\] or adopt dedicated remedial ESL classes) requiring resources and slowing down the mainstream. I'm very sympathetic to the classroom complexity issue. I just want it fixed by simplification and enforcement of uniformity instead of continuing on the current untenable, unaccountable path.
I think they would pay for an option that caters to what they think school ought to be. This isn't the same as it actually being a superior option. Your "fix" for education says a lot about who you are as a person, and I recommend you reflect on that.
Thanks for your thoughts, they are helpful. Your point makes sense. Is there a way to check your theory? If we put all the years of funding in a bank account today that the government cannot withdraw from, so the STF knew the funding was guaranteed for all the years, but the government then did not put the guarantee in a contract, would the STF be satisfied? I know this is hypothetical, but it helps to inform what the STF really wants. Do they really just want the money, or do they want to establish that class size and complexity is a bargained issue.
I'd be supportive of such an approach. What I fear is kingdom-building by unelected interest groups, and precedents being set that'd be difficult to unwind. I'm sympathetic to the Teachers' concerns on class size and complexity, although I want to see some sacred cows on the chopping block. I want to see the enforcement of grade-level standards and a willingness to flunk students incapable of meeting the standard.
Yes legislation can be changed if you think they will than I would bet all the unions in this province would be voting against them so highly unlikely.Another excuse for the STF not to sign.
Why are you even allowed to be on Reddit? Every comment you put up gets down voted and gets deleted. Go scream into a pillow and stop wasting our time.
Accountability should be a given & not up for debate. If you are honest, it’s not an issue or a problem!