It's hard to remember a time when there wasn't an awful lot of conflict between teachers and the B.C. government over the state of education in this province.
Certainly not in my years as a parent (nearly seven) and not even in my years as a reporter (more than a dozen).
Perhaps older and wiser mothers and journalists than I can recall a time of labour peace and stability in this sector, and I envy them if they can.
One of my first assignments after I left journalism school was to cover a teachers' rally in Richmond over the then-still-fresh "stripping" of contract provisions like class size and composition limits.
For a newbie reporter, it was an intimidating but eye-opening event. There was a sense among those protesting that the power of a collective voice (and perhaps common sense) would eventually win out.
Older teachers nearing retirement grieved the loss of agreements that had taken years to gain; younger teachers wondered how they'd be able to do their jobs the way they wanted to in such an acrimonious environment. There was frustration and sadness and, yes, anger in spades that day (and most of the days since, it seems).
Premier Christy Clark was education minister then, and though I have no memory now of what I asked her, I recall clearly the impression I was left with: here was one cool, calm, collected politician.
Clark was a master at giving a great, solid quote - and of answering her way around (and around and around) the original question.
Not much has changed: teachers are still fighting and worrying, education ministers are still good at giving sound bites, Clark is still calm, cool and collected. Rallies are still being held, questions are still answered in roundabout ways, we're still talking about contract stripping (it was, for the record, found by the courts to be illegal) and every few years we all struggle through a strike and lockout.
It seems endless - the main players change a little (except in the case of Clark), but not much else has.
I can't help but think that somewhere along the way, we've lost sight of the critical, at-the-core, heart of the matter - and maybe it's time to reevaluate that.
I remember returning to the newsroom that day, after the rally in Richmond, and trying to figure out why issues as fundamental to a child's education as class size or learning supports or composition had even become "agreements" in collective bargaining in the first place.
I chalked my confusion up to being young and uncertain of how the world worked, and then I got to work on filing my story.
But here I am, more than a decade later, now not so young and uncertain, a mother, having interviewed hundreds of teachers (and counting a few among my friends and family as well), and honestly I'm still baffled.
How is it that creating the best possible learning environment for our kids is not something held so sacred that it's just part of the framework of our system? Why did teachers have to bargain class size in the first place, as though the difference between 18 kids and 22 kids is nothing more than a "workplace condition"?
This seems to me like asking police officers to negotiate for limits on speeding in their contracts or for doctors to negotiate for drugs to be banned.
Reduced speeding and fewer drugs would certainly make the jobs of police officers and doctors "easier" but no one expects them to negotiate for them - we, as a society, have determined that certain rules and laws and limits are in our best interest and so we enshrine them into law. Why is the composition of a classroom any different?
As a reporter, I've always maintained an unbiased "let's hear both sides" approach - that's my job, and the job of all those who seek to provide information to the public.
But as an individual - as a parent, and more importantly as a human and citizen of this country and world - I support the teachers.
Not because I believe in their right as a union to protest (though I do), and not because I think that the government has repeatedly made poor decisions and, at times, illegal ones in the province's education system (though they have), and not because I want my children to have a conflict-free education (though I'd be ecstatic for it).
I support B.C. teachers because I believe in the fundamental power of public education - there is nothing else I can think of that can so thoroughly transform, empower and improve a society as quality public education.
When we talk about issues like class size and composition, what we're really talking about is creating a system for public education to exist in its best, most transformative, most powerful form.
Why that's not the priority of every single politician in this province - in the country, frankly - is not just confusing but infuriating.
That it's been left to teachers to "bargain" that framework into place is a sad testament to the fact that it's not a priority.
Until it is, we'll be having this conversation over and over and over again. And while we do, an entire generation of kids will grow up in a society that hasn't deemed it necessary to give them the best we could.
In return, our kids will not be able to give society the best they could.
Christina Myers is a longtime former NOW reporter, turned stay-at-home parent and freelancer. Follow her on Twitter @ChristinaMyersA, or read her blog at midlifeleap.wordpress.com.
