Bill 115 is a nuisance to students, and Whats Going to happen?

[md]

mirhagk @ 2012-12-14, 9:47 am wrote:

Lol well I am doing what I can, I've joined a local political party so that I can get closer contact with those in charge. I'm considering attending one of the dinners to have a chat with people there.

Let me guess, the conservatives?

[mirhagk]

Yep, chose the only party that actually told voters what they were going to DO, rather than just say what they would like to see happen.

But my political views are very far off topic from this discussion, please feel free to start a new thread if you'd like to discuss that (in off-topic of course)

BTW this post should really be in student life anyways, it doesn't really talk about computer science at all.

[AntoxicatedDevil78]

I don't really know if we can move this topic. or should I just create a new topic in students life, to continue this post, or just copy everything and post it in the new topic, or just ask every one to post it again in order?

[AntoxicatedDevil78]

Hey guys, this topic will be continued in the correct forum

The link to the new topic is: http://compsci.ca/v3/viewtopic.php?p=267183#267183

[Dan]

I moved this to Off Topic as it is more politics then student life. The second topic has been locked as there is no need for a second one.

Also it may be of interest to any one reading that the OSSTF/FESSO members (i.e. most public high school teachers) will be voting next week on weather or not to have a "day of political protest". If the vote is successful it would mean there will be a one day strike of sorts protesting bill 115 just like the primary teachers did.

[AntoxicatedDevil78]

Thanks Dan,

Well Dalton Should have considered the lives of teachers and students !!

[mirhagk]

The thing I find ironic is that if taking away after school activities is successful for protesting, then they are just proving they don't need to strike.

Also I just found out that the catholic teachers agreed to it immediately lol. They don't want any attention on them.

[AntoxicatedDevil78]

mirhagk @ Sat Dec 15, 2012 11:31 am wrote:

The thing I find ironic is that if taking away after school activities is successful for protesting, then they are just proving they don't need to strike.

Also I just found out that the catholic teachers agreed to it immediately lol. They don't want any attention on them.

Seriously,
HA HA HA

Well I really believe they should remove catholic schools because Canada is Multicultural, and catholic schools don't support diversity!!

(II don't want to offend anyone)

[mirhagk]

I was going to say how religion has nothing to do with culture, but then I realized that sadly religion is something that people are born into nowadays.

It's a pretty common opinion that catholic schools shouldn't get public funding, which is why they are keeping their heads low. I'd curious to know the exact amount they'd save by doing it, but I honestly think there are other things they could be saving much more money on anyway, so it's not a pressing issue. (For instance OSAP loses nearly all its money to giving away money because they put a cap on how much you need to pay back. They could be so much more liberal with loans if they didn't have that cap [people defaulting on the osap loans is actually suprising small amount of lost money])

[AntoxicatedDevil78]

Well Soon schools can schools have saftey issues due to OSS's teachers leaving within the 5 minutes after the bell rings. even if OSS have security guards, it is't enough to protect the schools.

[AntoxicatedDevil78]

Would the Government have taken consideration from what the OET Union's strike?

[Aange10]

:/ Seeing as how any input from other parties - both providing factual, referenced, information and appeals with past experiences and personal opinions - has, as your response shows, been dismissed by you (Mirhagk) before you've given them any qualification for their paradigms, I'm going to withhold my opinion. I can tell debating anything with you will fester down into a knit-picking, circular argument in which every rebuttle is a twist on a minuscule detail almost irrelevant to the argument.

I don't mean to pen a post solely to 'flame', but it might be beneficial to reconsider your approach to discussion if you'd like to actually achieve more than reiterating your opinion and flexing your ability to jot malleable responses that you can adapt and manipulate later in order fortify a new 'counterargument'.

[AntoxicatedDevil78]

Now I will reveile my opinion,

Considering the Following;

-Less school security

-3.5 months

-Students clubs reduced by greta numbers

I Consider Bill 115's purpose reduced over the past few months.

[mirhagk]

I'm seriously confused aagne. Nowhere have I dismissed any factual information. Some opinions I did dismiss, but I dismissed them based on economic theories, and factual information.

I have only seen two actual references posted so far, both of which I have fully read and understood. Both were posted by Dan, and neither one was fully central to the point he was making. The teacher being fired was fired for not respecting a rule the school had implemented, not because of poor performance (if anything he was fired even though it sounds like he was a good teacher).

I didn't refer to his article, because it was an offshoot, and had next to nothing to do with my point (that teachers can't be fired for skill, they can only be fired for breaking laws, and now I realize that they can be fired for breaking school board rules). If anything is article actually proved my point further

Quote:

The School Act authorizes suspensions for only three reasons: if there are reasonable grounds for believing the teacher has been guilty of gross misconduct, neglecting the teacher?s duty or neglecting to obey a lawful order of the board.

(but that is suspension, not being fired, which is why I didn't bring it up).

In fact several of my posts were all about the reference material that both me and Dan posted, explaining what some of them meant, and my opinion on them.

I then commented on MD on how unreasonable he was being so black and white about schools being necessary. I actually don't have a super strong opinion either way on that, because there is simply not enough information, and not enough clarity to make such a black and white decision.

I also agreed that basing salary on components that are related to their ability to teach (ie masters in education, additional course etc) was a very good idea, and I'd like to see that continue to happen, but merely cut out the automatic extra pay for seniority and rewarding non-useful degrees (which from the sounds of it isn't rewarded that much, but I do know from discussions with several teachers that it is rewarded somewhat, I just don't know the actual formula, I would love to see it if anyone could find it).

The only points that I dismissed were any that weren't based on fact, but merely opinion, and I dismissed them with economic theories.

My point was, and is, that having more of a free market for teachers would naturally get better teachers for the same amount of money, that is well established economic theory. Having more of a free market means rewarding for skill, and nothing else. That means not having minimum pay, and automatic increases (based on seniority etc), and it means holding teachers accountable for the ability to teach (something that I agree is hard to do, but there is no effort to even try to do it).

I do agree with Dan that using a TED talk as a source of information is not a good idea, which is why I used it as a supplementary resource, an appeal to authority. However if this appeal to authority is to immediately be dismissed, then so should any other potentially biased resources, which includes (but is not limited to) personal experiences, newspaper stories, observational studies, and pretty much any information that normal the media uses to prove its points. I don't personally think all of that should be dismissed, just taken with a grain of salt, which is why I think the TED talk is still somewhat valid as a supplementary resource.


I would love to hear about where I dismissed anything, I tried to find and describe the major points I had, and any instances where it may have seemed I dismissed something.

I have definitely changed points of my opinion as a result of this discussion, and while understanding that others would not like to pursue it, and still disappointed, as any chance to learn and listen to others opinions, and try to help point out the potential flaws in their argument while they point out the flaws in mine. I didn't realize that actually reading other's references, and finding parts that contradict their point counted as nitpicking, and I am legitimately confused as to how I could have addressed other's arguments more than I have, other than outright agreeing to anything I see (which would make me incapable of independent thought).

I do realize others get frustrated that I am not a fan of just listening to hearsay, and going along with public opinion, but I don't think I've dismissed any actual information, because I love factual information, I search for it all the time. I yearn for discussions like this, because the best way to find factual information about both sides of an argument is to find it for one side, and have a discussion with someone who is finding information for the other side. We can swap references, point out flaws in arguments etc, both people improving. Perhaps it'd go better if I take the wright brother approach of randomly switching sides halfway through? That'd require someone else to switch as well, so if someone would like to volunteer I'd love to do that.

[AntoxicatedDevil78]

mirhagk @ Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:34 am wrote:

I'm seriously confused aagne. Nowhere have I dismissed any factual information. Some opinions I did dismiss, but I dismissed them based on economic theories, and factual information..

Well mirhagk, You have created an Your facts aren't going to change the lives of students disturbed by an political decision!

mirhagk @ Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:34 am wrote:

I have only seen two actual references posted so far, both of which I have fully read and understood. Both were posted by Dan, and neither one was fully central to the point he was making. The teacher being fired was fired for not respecting a rule the school had implemented, not because of poor performance (if anything he was fired even though it sounds like he was a good teacher)..

This is a fact but, teachers all over ontario should take action to solve it asap, I agree that teachers are willingfully doing there jobs, no complaints to the teachers, the union's action to political tactics are compromising student lives, ironically the bill is named "putting students first" while not supporting students.

mirhagk @ Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:34 am wrote:

I also agreed that basing salary on components that are related to their ability to teach (ie masters in education, additional course etc) was a very good idea, and I'd like to see that continue to happen, but merely cut out the automatic extra pay for seniority and rewarding non-useful degrees (which from the sounds of it isn't rewarded that much, but I do know from discussions with several teachers that it is rewarded somewhat, I just don't know the actual formula, I would love to see it if anyone could find it)..

I would disagree to this point, a teacher who is willing to teach, wouldn't care about the pay

and also teachers salaries shouldn't be compromised.

I'll give more reasones soon