Editor:
As the beginning of the school year rapidly approaches, parents are growing increasingly concerned that their children are going to be missing out on more days of school.
When school is scheduled to start on Sept. 2, Surrey students will not have been in classes for 80 days.
Every additional day out of school is hurting our children, something we hope that both sides in this labour dispute wish to avoid.
Parents understand that all educational partners care deeply about students. We recognise that both the BCTF and the government are trying to balance the interests of teachers, taxpayers, and most importantly, students.
One of the responsibilities of the Surrey District Parent Advisory Council is to advocate for Surrey parents, who feel strongly that students should be back in school, as scheduled, on Sept. 2.
Students deserve to be in classrooms that are free from this continuing labour dispute, and Surrey DPAC is calling on both sides to end all job action.
However this labour dispute is to be resolved, it needs to happen without our children being further impacted, as they unfortunately have been for two of the last three school years already.
We invite our partners in education to continue protecting the interests of students and ensure that on Sept. 2, schools are once again the places for students to learn in a safe, caring and nurturing environment.
If you have further questions, please contact me at b-holmes@telus.net or 604-319-4473.
Bob Holmes, Surrey District Parent Advisory Council
• • •
When the minister of finance announced strike pay for parents, I was one of many angry taxpayers.
Having listened to some angry parents, I realize that this is a sound investment that will save taxpayers millions of dollars.
On Sept. 1, some caring parents will opt out of our politicized public schools with some opting for private schools, some will form co-ops, some will take their $200 per week and buy good computer hardware to use for home-schooling.
When schools open again, the students remaining will include those from homes with incompetent or uncaring parents who have no interest in their child’s schooling, and special-needs children whose loving parents care passionately for their child and their education.
The minister of finance will have saved us millions of dollars, and the minister of education will have fewer children in public schools with enough to pay for a sound education of our children with special needs.
Anyone who does not like these economic realities might like to try to depoliticize the B.C. public school system.
Henry-Armstrong, White Rock