Article content continued

Even former premier Dalton McGuinty, not exactly a deficit hawk, understood the need to control education spending. In 2012, his government legislated two-year wage freezes, pay cuts and benefit reductions for teachers. Compared to that, Ford’s move to increase class sizes over four years through attrition is a warm hug.

As further context, it’s worth remembering rational economist Don Drummond’s 2012 public service reform report proposed larger class sizes and later retirement for teachers. Instead, McGuinty tried to legislate his way out of the spending hole he had dug.

Perhaps the most discouraging thing in this dispute is teachers’ unwillingness to support greater use of technology in schools

Drummond’s report is a reminder that teaching unions should be glad that Ford didn’t go after the really big stuff. It would be perfectly reasonable to ask why teachers have a pension setup that allows them to retire in their 50s in a society where even those few who still have indexed pensions need to retire much later or face big payment reductions. Introducing a retirement age of 65 for new hires would have been financially attractive for government and taxpayers.

The other issue the government has chosen not to tackle is the disparity between the teaching duties described in the contract and the actual job. How can it not be part of a teacher’s job to fill in report cards or to run field trips? The gap between the contract and reasonable expectations enables teachers to work to rule and hurt students with no harm to themselves.

Perhaps the most discouraging thing highlighted in this labour dispute is teachers’ unwillingness to support greater use of technology in schools. There is only one reason to oppose the government’s plan for secondary school students to take two online courses, and that’s its effect on the total number of teaching jobs.