Bill 33 ruling on the provision of relevant materials

Hot off the press from the 28 page ruling that came out today.... and since it is a public document...

Numbers in [square brackets] are the paragraphs from the ruling.

[9] During the legislative debates, concerns were raised about the nature, scope and content of the required consultations that will most frequently have to happen in September, one of the busiest times in the school year. The Minister said the principle was that there is to be consultation about class organization .... The Minister was unequivocal that the expectation and best practice was a conversation between principals and teachers. They meet and talk to each other about the best way possible to meet the students’ needs.

[24] BCPSEA is not a partner organization of the Learning Roundtable, but is responsible to advise its board of education employer members on the implementation of the new regulation.

[69] The striking feature of the definition is that it addresses what principals must do for teachers. They must provide information. They must provide time to consider the information before engaging teachers in consultation. They must consider any teachers’ views that are provided.

[70] Principals must provide “information relevant to a proposal for the size and organization of the class.” This suggests there was a concern with the quality or accessibility of the information base on which principal-teacher consultation dialogues were taking place.

[71] Principals must provide the information at a time that gives teachers two school days to consider the proposal for the size and organization of the class and to provide their views to the principal “before a decision is made respecting the size and organization of the class.”

[73] This context suggests the concern was not with the teacher knowing the proposed size and organization of the class or the names of the students in the class, which might be known as early as June, but with ensuring teachers have adequate access to information and time to reflect before being asked to articulate their views on the proposal. An unprepared consultation can be a hurried consultation that leaves teachers being consulted deciding it was neither a genuine opportunity to express their views nor a sincere effort to seek their views. Conversely, it can be an unfocused, inefficient, perhaps prolonged, search for accurate information that is not productive for either the principal or the teacher. In either scenario, it can be correctly characterized as futile or meaningless .

[74] Principals must consider teachers’ views in making a final decision about the organization of the classes. This reassures teachers their participation and expression of views will be considered.

[84] The requirement for “provision” in the definition of “consult” has two applications. One is to make available to teachers two school days for consideration of proposals for the size and organization of classes and the information relevant to the proposals. The application of “provision” in this context is scheduling, unlike the outcome in British Columbia Public School Employers’ Association [2007] B.C.C.A.A.A. No. 60 (Kinzie) (QL). An integral part of this “provision” is that teachers actually have the relevant information for at least two school days and do not have to spend those days seeking access to the information.

[85] This requirement might be recognition of the many demands on teachers’ time in the first weeks of the school year for individual and collaborative activities. At the same time, it places another burden on principals who must manage the process and have equal or greater demands on their time.

[89] BCPSEA is not correct in advising that instructing teachers how to access relevant information about individual students and having the teachers seek out and perhaps compete with colleagues and administrators for access to that information, with or without the assistance of non-enrolling colleagues who likely have ongoing student service and teacher responsibilities away from their offices or classrooms, is meeting the responsibility to make provision of information relevant to a proposal for the size and organization of the class.

[90] This approach, in effect, continues the status quo before the regulatory amendment and is not consistent with remedying a mischief or establishing a consistent consultation practice as was intended by making the regulatory amendment. Nor is it consistent with effective and timely consultation practice to have multiple users seeking access to a single source at the same time with the accompanying high risk of delay and frustration of the required consultation.

[91] Principals are responsibility to ensure there is a meaningful and effective consultation process, regardless whether teachers choose to take advantage of it. Timely notice, advance disclosure and provision of information that principal s consider relevant, time for teachers to consider the information and open-minded consideration of teachers’ views and whatever information teachers think is relevant and provide to principals are benchmarks or good practices that principals are directed to follow for an effective and meaningful consultation process. Timely provision of relevant information may persuade some teachers they will not disagree with the proposed size and organization of the classes and waive their right to continue with the process.

[94] If copies of the individual education plans for each teacher’s students have not been provided by the time of the notification package, the information in the individual education plans is relevant information. Principals are required to provide this information to teachers either by electronic access or by delivering copies of the documents to the teachers.

[98] In short, principals will not discharge their responsibility to make provision of relevant information to teachers by telling them the nature of the information relevant to the proposed size and organization of the classes assigned to them and saying to them if they want to discuss this information at the scheduled consultation meeting they can get it whenever it might be accessible to them through the custodian of the information.

[100] For the purposes of this dispute, decision and declaration it is not appropriate to comment on any source of potentially relevant information other than individual education plans, which have been determined and agreed to be relevant sources of information. If individual education plans for students in the class have not been distributed to teachers before the consultation notification package and they are not electronically available to the teachers, copies must be included with the materials in the notification package.