Affordability Zone For BC Education

I am by no means an economist. I took economics in Grade 12 because I needed an elective and I had a crush on a guy who had signed up for the class. The rest of it was a big yawn. However, I have since lived long enough to learn the importance of priorities. I do know the difference between need and want.

There are laws in place to ensure it is clearly understood what the rights of a child are and as individuals and a society we are bound to uphold and defend the rights of our children.

Every child regardless of their gender, race, physical ability, mental ability or the amount of money their family has or does not have is afforded the same rights.

Pretty basic.

One of the rights of a child is a free education. Education has been agreed upon as being a need.

Teachers play a huge role in fulfilling that need. Stay with me, this isn't hard to follow. Teachers did not need to be teachers, they chose to be teachers - a want. Out of a desire to fulfill that want they created a need for a post secondary education.

Many teachers then apply their education to society's obligation to provide free education to its children. Other teachers apply their education to children whose families can afford to opt out of their child's right to a free education.

Our teachers are telling us more funding is necessary to meet the needs of our children.

Our government spent a reported $175,000.00 telling us how greedy the teachers are. Did the government NEED to spend OUR MONEY on that or did the government WANT to spend OUR MONEY on that?

British Columbia is reportedly one thousand dollars per child per year short of funding To fulfill the NEEDS of our children. Our government spent, on advertising, the amount of money it would cost to meet that NEED for 175,000 children for one year!

Our government has been fined, by the Supreme Court, to the tune of $250,000,000.00payable to the BCTF. That is OUR MONEY. Divide that by 175,000 children and see how far the $1000.00 per child per year takes us into the future. Did the government NEED to tear up the contract with the teachers or did the government WANT to tear it up?

This does not take into account the legal fees and court costs WE ARE PAYING . Are we footing the entire costs? Are there vested interests contributing to the legal fees? Why does the BCTF have to take a stand and defend themselves from our government to defend our children's rights? Why does the BCTF stand alone? Does our government need to break the BCTF or does our government want to break the BCTF?

How many children for how many years would the legal costs cover? How much funding would that amount to in the "affordability zone"?

The teachers want a raise, they don't need it. All they have to do to increase their net income is to stop spending their own after tax dollars on your children. It's simple economics.

You don't need a Father's Day Gift crafted by your child's own hand. You don't need another Christmas ornament. A teacher doesn't need to give her lunch over to a hungry child or scrounge up winter clothing for a child without. The classroom room walls do not need adorning. Your child doesn't need awards and incentives. Teachers don't need to spend weekends scouring garage sales for suitable reading materials. They certainly don't need to act like the annual book sale is a major event. They don't need to beg for help for your child. Teachers do all those things outside of providing your child's needed education because they want to.

More importantly teachers don't need to defend or justify their existence. If teachers wanted to be rich there are plenty of other degrees they could have sought and paid for.

So exactly what is afoot? Why, if it is every child's right to a free education is it not considered essential? Needs are essential! We as a society are bound to provide our children with the essentials.

What does Mr. Fastbender mean by "transform the education system"? He didn't say make improvements to. He didn't even say make changes. He said, "transform the education system". To transform means "to change something dramatically".

If some outside entity is talking about making a dramatic change to your child's life why wouldn't you demand to know what that entails? If we are paying these people, and we are, why aren't more of us insisting on being "in the loop"? There is not one parent who would tolerate any individual saying to them, "I am going to make a dramatic change to one of your child's basic needs" without questioning the person's motives. Without demanding details.

And why, if it is above board, would vilifying important people in your child's life be considered a vital part of the "transforming"?

Like I said in the beginning I am no expert in economics but something seems horribly amiss.

As for the guy in my economics class it turned out to be a bad case of puppy love. I came to realize I didn't need him. He grew up to marry a woman I am good friends with to this day. Turns out that what I really needed was some basic economics.

What do pictures of my dogs have to do with any of this? Absolutely nothing. What does the government's newly coined phrase, "The Affordability Zone" have to do with children in need?