he scale of the general strike movement at the end of 2023 in education gave the illusion that the benefits attached to sectoral agreements would be equal to the sacrifices made, both for teachers and for parents of students in solidarity in the torments of the strike. But aren’t hopes dwindling? We are beginning to understand that the gains will change very little in the daily life of classes.
What had we imagined? That teachers and education professionals grew on trees? If this rare workforce had been found in thousands of copies waiting patiently in the antechamber of the negotiations, we could have hoped that in exchange for a generous envelope of several hundred million, the daily life of the teachers, students and parents would change considerably. As we know, the picture is quite different: the elephant in this negotiation remained the shortage of personnel. Quebec has not been able to show off resources that it does not have.
He therefore fell back on a form of last chance compensation. As the color of the agreements negotiated by the Federation of Education Unions (FSE-CSQ) and the Autonomous Education Federation (FAE) is revealed, we see some serious trends emerging: in one corner, a significant increase in salaries proposed to all public sector employees, which could play a role in the attractiveness of the teaching profession – this is a notable gain. In the other corner, hopes for a better balanced “ordinary” class composition have been considerably diminished. Although the promise of classroom support could certainly give teachers a breath of fresh air, the real breath of fresh air would have come either from the reduction in teacher-student ratios and the addition of classes — and therefore teachers —, or the entry into the field of education professionals, about whom we have heard little, if at all.
Last Thursday, the Laval Region Education Union (SERL-FAE) rejected by 68% the agreement in principle concluded with Quebec. Questioned by the media, its president, André Arsenault, deduced that its members remained “faithful” to their initial demands on the composition of the class. To those who had imagined that a bonus ranging between $4,000 and $8,000 would be enough to satisfy teachers, many seem to respond instead that money does not bring happiness to a balanced and “manageable” class.
In their discussions, the employer and education union negotiators arrived at a target of 50% or 60% of the “in difficulty” class as a critical threshold for adding resources — or paying the bonus, otherwise. resources and/or mitigation measures. This admission of academic distress is thrilling. More than half of class groups screaming for help for support? Below this scale of half of the children provided with an intervention plan, we decode that the teacher must call on adaptation treasures to try to disclose a core of learning common to the entire group. You might as well apply for a job as a magician!
Much has obviously been made of teachers in this fall game of tug-of-war, but it would be unfair not to also classify parents and children as losers in this negotiation. Indeed, in front of the teacher, overwhelmed by so many different needs, impossible to meet all at the same time, are the children. Those who do not have the necessary help when the need arises quickly fall behind. Those who experience learning difficulties, but also behavioral difficulties, are disturbing and quickly feel disturbing. Those who would be apt to indulge in gluttony in the pot of knowledge risk getting bored. Many of these children, for different reasons, are at risk of demotivation. The road to dropping out can unfortunately be taken very early.
Parents forced to turn to the private sector so that their child can receive effective professional services may need to prepare themselves for a form of status quo. After having supported the teachers so feverishly this fall, with great blows of family disorganization, we risk finding some sulking faces here too. All that for this ? No one hoped for the complete redemption of the school system at the end of this negotiation, but the teachers’ message on class composition resonated so strongly that many believed in a major paradigm shift.
But of all the risks linked to a negotiation which would not have borne fruit, it is undoubtedly that of the retention of new teachers which could be monitored more closely. While the staff shortage hits and shows no signs of respite, the government’s biggest challenge was to offer working conditions intended to attract new players, but above all to satisfy those who are in place, to avoid too rapid desertion. . This bet does not seem to have been won.