Here's how other provinces have handled classroom size, complexity

Classroom size and complexity in other provinces WATCH: Here’s how other provinces in Canada handled the issue of classroom complexity measures.

The Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation (STF) has repeatedly made reference to classroom complexity measures being commonplace across Canada.

But how exactly have other provinces handled this issue?

As Saskatchewan’s teachers continue with strike action and the province stands by its promise of a “line in the sand” – refusing to discuss anything besides compensation at the bargaining table — many residents may look outside Saskatchewan’s borders for some sort of guidance on where the stalemate might lead.

What is class complexity?

Classroom complexity (or classroom composition as it’s more commonly known) is not a new challenge.

Factors that add complexity include students with learning disabilities, behavioural issues, language barriers, special education needs and much more.

“To stand in front of a class when you have so many students with needs and to be able to serve all of them – we need extra resources in the class,” Heidi Yetman told CTV News. “Whether it's a psychologist or a special-ed teacher, or maybe pulling out kids for extra help. Class complexity is linked to workload. If your class is complex, the workload is more complex.”

Yetman serves as the President of the Canadian Teachers’ Federation (CTF). The national organization represents 365,000 teachers across Canada through its 18 member organizations including the STF.

Many provinces across Canada have language in their collective agreements relating to class sizes, special needs students and class complexity. Examples include British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick.

Prince Edward Island has utilized a joint committee system in the past – where a panel of educators and government officials work to address class composition concerns. Funds specifically meant for these issues are included in PEI’s collective agreement with teachers.

B.C’s most recent collective agreement plainly outlines class size limits and dictates staffing ratios for positions such as special education, learning assistants and English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers.

Quebec, where Yetman spent 23 years as an educator, has its own unique measures.

“So Quebec has articles that makes sure that if there is a class that's complex, or that has too many students with needs, there are monies available for the district to divide that class into two and to hire another teacher. That's incredible,” she said.

“Now, I am not saying that other provinces have it (figured out), that it's all done, it's perfect — because it's not. But it's there to negotiate and that's really important.”

While measures in British Columbia are expansive by today’s standards – the ability to address issues of class size and complexity at the bargaining table wasn’t always an option.

David Chudnovsky served as the president of the B.C Teachers’ Federation (BCTF) from 1999 to 2002.

He explained that beginning in the late 1980’s, B.C educators were able to negotiate with school boards on topics such as smaller class sizes and guarantees of service for students with special needs.

“Eventually, the negotiations around class size composition and specialist teachers got moved to a provincial bargaining table,” he explained. “In 2002, the province brought in a law that effectively made it illegal to negotiate improvements for class size and composition and specialist teachers. That was Bill 28. And you won't be surprised that there was a dramatic response on behalf of teachers and on behalf of parents to this law.”

The passing of Bill 28 kicked off a 14 year legal battle between teachers and the B.C government that eventually ended with a 7-2 ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada – reinstating that the BCTF had the right to negotiate class sizes and composition and the province was wrong to supersede it with legislation.

“They only took 20 minutes to decide that we were right and that the government had been wrong all this time,” Chudnovsky recalled.

“Thousands of teachers were put in a position where they were able to provide less individual attention [to students]. That's why it's very, very important I would argue for teacher organizations wherever they are – in British Columbia, in Saskatchewan or anywhere else – to advocate in every way that they can, including in collective bargaining, for improved learning conditions for students.”

Resistance from the provinces

Saskatchewan’s insistence of its “line in the sand” not to include class size and complexity in bargaining and B.C’s historic attempt to mandate teachers working conditions through legislation both stem from the same place – fears of cost according to educators.

“I think there are two reasons. The first is that in the short run, of course, it's more expensive to hire more teachers and other education workers,” Chudnovsky said, while adding over the long term, such moves lead to "an enormous saving."

“The second reason is every cabinet minister once went to school and they think because they once went to school, they know and understand what's going on in schools better than anybody else. But that's not true in the healthcare system and it's certainly not true in the education system.”

“The people who know best … are the professional educators that are working in those schools. What they're asking for is the opportunity to negotiate. Not to run the place,” he added.

The cost of class complexity and size measures can be immense. In B.C’s case, the 2016 Supreme Court of Canada decision saw the government increase education funding by $250 million to bring staffing ratios up to pre-2002 levels.

The BCTF at the time claimed the province had eliminated 3,500 full time positions during the previous 14 years.

Yetman believes the course of some provinces – such as Saskatchewan – signifies a failure to safeguard public education by government.

“I really believe it's the government washing their hands from responsibility,” she explained. “That's really what it's about. It's like, we don't want to take responsibility of what's happening in the classrooms. We're handing the responsibility over to the districts. Fine, except give the money the districts need.”

She worries the government’s intentions include a push for more private education.

“In my mind, they're not investing in public education means, [and] I hate to say this, but kind of a direction going, ‘well, if it's not working, everybody can go to private school,’” Yetman said.

“There's a privatization piece to this … then we’re talking about inequality. Some will have and some will not have. So when governments wash their hands from the responsibility of education, to me, that is a sign and a dangerous one. If you look at what's happening in the United States – charter schools have taken over and those charter schools, it's been proven, are not improving education.”

In early January, the government made back to back funding announcements for pilot projects it claimed would address class size issues and foster “teacher led innovation.”

STF President Samantha Becotte claimed the announcements were an effort to avoid the bargaining table.

“Any election promises are all attempts to sidestep the bargaining process and avoid making long term commitments which would see improvements in our schools and classes across the province,” Becotte told reporters on Jan. 29.

“You don't have to look too far back in the history of this government to see that these promises to education quickly disappear or even clawed back from divisions after an election. We will not accept any empty promises. Students and teachers need real solutions.”

One size fits all 'impossible'

The Government of Saskatchewan has maintained that it believes the issues of class size and complexity should be handled by the province’s 27 locally elected school boards.

Don Hoium, chair of the Government-Trustee Bargaining Committee (GTBC) says the idea institution of a one size fits all approach to a vast education landscape would be ‘impossible.’”

"At the local level, the variation across our province is vast, from rural divisions to northern, small urban and large urban divisions and to try to look at something that would be a one-size-fits-all all for something as diverse as the K-12 education sector in our province, that will be impossible,” he said.

"In Saskatchewan, we have a very clear framework in legislation that says 'this is what's bargained about' and it deals with those items that are one-size-fits-all for every teacher in the province and that's why we address salary and benefits," he added.

Hoium went on to say there are “ample other tables” to discuss the level of funding for the education sector.

“It is not a matter for the provincial collective agreement,” he said.

'Find a solution'

Recalling the 14 year period which saw B.C teachers and the government face off in court – Chudnovsky urged provincial governments to remember who the true victims of a lesser education are.

“I can't speak about what could or would happen in Saskatchewan. What I do know is that from my experience and the experience of thousands in those 14 years, that we waited for the courts to vindicate the position of teachers. Some kids went all the way from Kindergarten to Grade 12 in a learning situation that was less than what it could have been – had the government and the school boards come to their senses and worked together with teachers to improve the education system,” he said.

“I'm no expert on what's happening in Saskatchewan, but I would encourage government to not waste those years … these are the professional educators, the people who actually know what goes on in classrooms every day.”

“Trust them. Talk with them. Find a solution with them.”