NLTA ELECTION 2024
Questions and Answers
for Presidential and Vice-Presidential Candidates

I would encourage any member with curriculum concerns to submit their concerns to our Curriculum Committee for further study and analysis.

If elected as NLTA President, my focus will be on improving the workplace conditions, remuneration, and benefits for NLTA members. I trust and value the professional judgment of our members. As such, I will leave classroom strategies to our members.

I am open to collaborating with any group focused on human rights especially as to how those rights relate to service delivery within the classroom. Education is a human right and if the allocation of Human Resources does not adequately meet the needs of our students, then that must be addressed.

I will certainly support training programs for our teachers to assist them in making their jobs more manageable. I would hope that whatever mode of delivery is chosen by our employer, it occurs during the normal workday and includes opportunities for our substitute teachers as well.

Teacher Unions play a role in educating society about many issues. However, I feel that with the number of issues that we are currently facing inside of our schools, world issues can not become our main focus.

If successful, in all honesty, I suspect that all of my time will be occupied in lobbying/advocacy efforts to improve the working conditions for NLTA members. I will work diligently on their behalf and I think that lobbying for those policy changes would be more in line with the expectations of the majority of members I would serve.

I trust the professional judgement of our teachers for activities which occur inside their classrooms. I would not feel comfortable trying to influence the classroom practices of our hard-working members.

I would certainly encourage any member who encounters hate speech/discrimination to reach out to both the Association and the employer for further direction on how to proceed. For the record, discrimination of any kind should not be tolerated in our schools.

Resource allocation would be more the responsibility of the employer. However, if the Curriculum Committee were to discover any virtual resources that were deemed appropriate, I’m sure these could be shared with members for their own perusal.

Priorities within the education system are determined by our employer. This question may be best directed to them. However, our Curriculum Committee might be a good place to start with advocacy efforts to try to ensure long-term priorities are established within the curriculum for all global issues including genocide.

The Health Accord for NL released a report in 2022 called Our Province. Our Health. Our Future. A 10 Year Health Transformation. In it, they said that “The first response is to build a society in which every child has a healthy start in life.” The report also says that “Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest rate among all the provinces of children and youth with medically complex needs.” From my time on the provincial executive, I also recall reading that individuals with speech and language exceptionalities have an increased likelihood of being incarcerated and developing mental health disorders. None of this information is new so it is baffling to me that there hasn’t been an increase in SLPs in our province in recent years.

The information cited above should be incentive enough for our employer to invest more in SLPs. Not to mention the fact that early intervention is crucial if these students are going to improve and/or overcome the various speech and language issues that affect them. I believe we need to make sure that our employer is aware of each and every issue that you face in trying to do your job under current allocations and we need to make them understand that without your work, many of these students will always have trouble navigating through life and communicating with family, friends and future employers. We need to educate them because they obviously do not ‘get’ the true value of the work that you do. Educating our employer is the first step.

I would go so far as to argue that almost every primary school should have its own SLP on staff. After all, early diagnosis and intervention is key. A dramatic increase in SLPs is no doubt needed. SLPs should also have a designated work space and not have to work out of a glorified closet or find a free space to work from. This is not good enough. How can anyone feel like a valuable member of a profession when they don’t even have a home-base, so to speak.

I know that the Speech Language Pathologists Council does exceptional work, so as president, I would want to work very closely with them to make sure that I fully understand all of the issues. It would be a good idea to invite the SIC to do a presentation at Joint Council/BGM and to accompany the president to meetings with our employer.  Our membership also needs to be aware of the issues you face. I would personally want to sit down with some of our province’s SLP’s if elected so that I have all the facts and knowledge that I need to take to our employer to fully advocate for you.

At the end of the day, we all want to feel valued, heard and respected. I firmly believe that the things I’ve mentioned above can help make the positions more attractive and sought after

Thanks, Sandy, for the question. I will be quite honest with you in saying that until I became the Provincial Executive Liaison for the SLPSIC, I didn’t really understand the multitude of issues that exist for SLP’s in this province. Living in an area of the province that has been traditionally “underserved” by Speech-Language services (certainly not through the fault of any individual who has been assigned to the role, but rather through inadequate allocations, and the resulting overwhelming caseload which accompanies the position which serves our area), I was very excited to have the opportunity to connect with the members of the SLPSIC. I’ve learned of the many issues facing your members such as the need to consider “composition” of caseloads to address workload for SLP’s, the consideration of excessive travel in performing one’s duties, the lack of quality (and sometimes just physical) space provided by some schools for SLP’s to perform their duties, the issues with reimbursement for travel, the lack of replacement SLP’s when individuals are absent for valid reasons, the omission from increased remuneration during the last round of negotiations, and the continued failure of our employer to see the need of increasing the allocation of SLP’s in our system.

As you can see, hopefully, I have been brought up to speed by your members on the many issues you are all facing. And, if successful, it would be my intention to continue to meet regularly with your SLPSIC Executive to further my understanding of your issues/concerns, or any others which may arise.

However, you did ask me a question. “How would you advocate to make sure we make these positions more attractive so that they are not only filled but also sought after in this province?”

I feel very confident, after my time as your SLPSIC’s liaison, that I am able to speak assertively and passionately about the needs of both our SLP’s and those students who avail (or need to avail) of your services. I believe it is necessary to highlight for our employer, and the public, the importance of the vital communication services you provide. Not the least of which is the direct connection between speech-language services and our students’ ability to read. This is vitally important to all stakeholders within a system which has seen reading levels suffer dramatically over the past several years. As communication needs increase, so should the allocation for SLP services. In areas, like Labrador, where recruitment remains an ongoing issue, improved recruitment bonuses is a must. As well, improvements to remuneration (allowances) for all SLP’s across the province must be sought through collective bargaining. In the short-term, I would suggest that our employer create two full-time “substitute SLP’s” who could be used to replace your members who may be away from work for valid reasons (for extended periods), and could also be used to decrease caseloads for all current SLP’s.

My intention, if elected as President, is to inform the employer, parents/guardians, and the public as to the inadequacies that currently exist in SLP services for students, and by continuing my relationship with your SIC, we must set out a manageable plan for the future. I certainly do not claim to have all the expertise in this area, you can all supply that. However, I will have a voice, as President, and I intend to use that for the betterment of the professional lives of all NLTA members (regardless of their numbers within the Association.) We will be in this Together!

The question posed here is very technical in nature but I can relate given the fact that my spouse is a non-educator who has restricted timelines available for their personal leave. Your described scenario is a prime example of where teachers are placed in ethical situations based on the parameters that confine our work year. For this reason we must continue to advocate for personal leave for our teachers and TLA’s. In a profession where we should uphold honesty and integrity we are forced to choose when family commitments arise during our 195 day timeframe. Systemically, and well beyond the 2025-27 timeframe for which you are selecting your President, government may need to review dispersal of leave time in an effort to make our profession more enticing to incoming educators. Leave which is respectful of geography for specialized health services and leave which addresses families in diverse and non-traditional circumstances.

Thanks, Todd.

This is a clear instance of how we need to ensure that the employer understands the ramifications of such decisions on the retention of current employees.

Denying such applications for unpaid leave does nothing other than force our members to dip into their sick bank. Members willing to go unpaid for a leave of absence clearly are attempting to be honest and open with the employer, and this should be commended. If it is for the fact that there is a shortage of substitutes, then NLSchools is trading one problem for another, in that they will eventually lose good teachers to other teaching jurisdictions, or other career paths for a lack of flexibility.

Time and time again, government has offered us “gains” that would be financially advantageous to them, meaning gains that cost them nothing. This is one of these gains that if we can have added to the collective agreement, and convince them that it is in their best interest to have it there, for reasons as, like you said, it actually saves them money, then that needs to be our spin.

I would add that perhaps there would need to be a very clear timeline in place to alleviate stresses on substitutes, say having an application submitted or approved 30 or 60 days in advance for the employer to agree. But, if the proposal is sound in reasoning and backed by logic, then I feel there should be no reason for this to be ignored going forward.

One key point is this; as we all have learned time and time again, that unless we have this explicitly stated in our collective agreement, then there is no way to simply lobby the employer on this matter. Our lobbying has been nothing short of ineffective, and this has put even greater pressure on the collective bargaining process.

Thanks for the question. I believe the situation that you have described could be addressed through the creation of a bank of “personal leave” days in our next round of negotiations. There are many legitimate reasons why members may need to be absent from work which are not covered under the leave provisions of our current Collective Agreement.

I feel that the creation of “personal leave” would allow members the flexibility to use their accrued leave in situations that require us to be absent from work due to the unforeseen circumstances that can arise in our lives, but may never show up in a prescribed list of situations (as is the case with Family Leave) in our Collective Agreement.

With regards to members being denied “unpaid leave” by the employer, I can’t speak for their rationale. However, I will state that there shouldn’t be a double-standard in terms of giving approval for leaves based on the availability of a substitute. I know of many circumstances where leave has been granted to members involved in extracurricular activities, when no substitute was available, and internal coverage was necessary. If these types of leaves can be approved for the benefit of the social-emotional wellness of students (which I understand), shouldn’t unpaid leave requests also be approved for the sake of the social-emotional health of the employees?