In my last posting, I questioned the legality of the stern security measures imposed for the G20 summit in Toronto. In yesterday's Globe and Mail, columnist Adam Radwanski finally addressed the issue, but his explanation of the legislation that allows for the suspension of our Charter rights is hardly reassuring, suggesting that Canadian democracy is at best an ethereal concept, and at worst, fragile and ephemeral.
When it comes to summit security, police answer to no one
Police make their presence known Tuesday on the streets of Toronto. Kevin Van Paassen/The Globe and Mail
With neither legislation nor precedent to limit their powers, the rights of Canadians come off second best
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail Published on Tuesday, Jun. 22, 2010 8:05PM EDT Last updated on Wednesday, Jun. 23, 2010 11:14AM EDT
It's known as the “red zone.” But given the extent to which police are being left to their own devices in locking down a large swath of Toronto for the G20, the “grey zone” might be more apt.
The federal government did police and local residents few favours by sticking the summit smack in the middle of downtown. That it’s in an area more difficult to secure than other available locations, such as the city’s Exhibition grounds, forced more heavy-handed enforcement than should have been necessary.
But it doesn’t help that, as officers are expected to balance security with civil liberties, there’s neither legislation nor clear legal precedent specifying what they can and can’t do. From the handling of protesters to the requirement of identification to enter public spaces and private homes, it’s left to their discretion.
Since each summit is different, there’s no choice but to be somewhat ad hoc in handling them. But civil liberties experts argue that it didn’t need to be quite this ad hoc.
On that front, the responsibility seems to lie more with a past government than the current one.
Following widespread criticism of how the RCMP handled security at the 1997 APEC meeting in Vancouver and (to a lesser extent) the 2001 Summit of the Americas in Quebec City, there was pressure on Ottawa to set ground rules for how such events should be policed. Instead, Jean Chrétien’s government opted to amend the existing Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act in a vague manner that, if anything, gave police further carte blanche.
“For the purpose of carrying out its responsibility [to secure multi-state conferences],” the amendment stated, “the Royal Canadian Mounted Police may take appropriate measures, including controlling, limiting or prohibiting access to any area to the extent and in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances.”
It’s not clear to what extent that legislation was considered as security plans were made for the G20. (A spokesman for the Summit Integrated Security Unit, the joint force headed by the RCMP, was quicker to cite the basic duty to keep the peace.) But it would at least be used to justify any tactics called into question.
Appearing before the House of Commons foreign affairs committee in November, 2001, University of British Columbia law professor Wesley Pue called the amendment “a terribly unfortunate piece of legislation” that “simultaneously reaches too far and is inconclusive.” His complaint that it failed to consider how police powers would be balanced with the rights of Canadians to move freely, to express themselves, to assemble, to enjoy their property, and to “go lawfully about one’s daily life without interruption or harassment by the police,” might strike Torontonians as prescient.
It’s debatable whether the law would withstand a court challenge. But part of the reason there’s so little precedent on police powers at international gatherings (a problem extensively documented in a study late last year by Dr. Pue and Capilano University professor Robert Diab) is that there’s rarely much incentive for anyone to bother with cases after the fact. Probably the most relevant decision came when a Quebec judge ruled against a lawyer’s complaint that the Summit of the Americas barriers infringed upon his right to move freely and protest peacefully – this just days before the event’s start, when ruling the other way might have forced its cancellation.
In fairness to the RCMP, it seems to have come a long way on securing national events since the APEC days of pepper-spraying students; by most accounts, its conduct around this year’s Vancouver Olympics was encouraging. But the G20 is in a whole other realm.
Most Torontonians probably wouldn’t fault police for erring on the side of caution. But the fact that they’re operating without any real restrictions, however noble individual officers’ intentions, could cause a bit of alarm.
For a few days, the related rights questions might get some attention. But history suggests they’ll soon be forgotten, at least until next time.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Saturday, June 19, 2010
The G20 Summit
This past week we visited our son in Toronto, and after an enjoyable visit I was once more reminded of the restrictions being imposed due to the impending G20 conference in Ontario's capital. Because the security perimeter has already been established, we had a rather difficult time getting to the Gardiner Expressway, obstructed as it was by concrete bunker type bases anchoring the huge fences designed to keep protesters and ordinary citizens at bay. The plan is to deny access to the restricted zone unless people can produce a passport or other photo i.d. as well as a compelling reason for entry, e.g. work, having the misfortune of living in the area, etc.
The restricted zone is quite large, encompassing many hotels and businesses, all of which will lose substantial sums of money because of lost patronage during the summit. The Harper Government is on record as saying there will be no compensation offered to those affected. As well, GO trains with Toronto destinations will have all their washrooms locked up except for one for the handicapped. Travellers are being told to expect substantial delays. Let's hope the delays won't be too long, given GO's decision.
The security for the G20 and the G8 (to be held in Huntsville) combined will cost $1 billion in tax dollars, and most of the public's outrage has been directed at that outrageous amount, while it seems that something more fundamental and basic to Canadians has been virtually ignored in the press: the fact that our Charter Rights, most notably our freedom of movement, has essentially been suspended for the duration of the summit.
My question is simple: how can any democratic government simply suspend those Charter Rights under the guise of security? The thoughtful reader will doubtless understand the implications of such an action.
The restricted zone is quite large, encompassing many hotels and businesses, all of which will lose substantial sums of money because of lost patronage during the summit. The Harper Government is on record as saying there will be no compensation offered to those affected. As well, GO trains with Toronto destinations will have all their washrooms locked up except for one for the handicapped. Travellers are being told to expect substantial delays. Let's hope the delays won't be too long, given GO's decision.
The security for the G20 and the G8 (to be held in Huntsville) combined will cost $1 billion in tax dollars, and most of the public's outrage has been directed at that outrageous amount, while it seems that something more fundamental and basic to Canadians has been virtually ignored in the press: the fact that our Charter Rights, most notably our freedom of movement, has essentially been suspended for the duration of the summit.
My question is simple: how can any democratic government simply suspend those Charter Rights under the guise of security? The thoughtful reader will doubtless understand the implications of such an action.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
An Article on the Importance of Critical Thinking
I was pleased to see that today's Globe and Mail has an interview with Martha Nussbaum who has just published a book entitled Not For Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities, which discusses how a healthy and functioning society needs to step back from the current obsession with education that teaches the acquisition of 'hard skills' to the almost total exclusion of any respect for the arts, arguing that the later are equally necessary in order to strike a proper balance and ensure an informed and critically-thinking populace.
Here is the interview:
Teaching the humanities: Vital to society?
Acclaimed philosopher Martha Nussbaum argues it is. She’s the latest sage to raise the alarm against higher education's growing obsession with knowledge you can take to the bank.
By John Allemang
From Saturday's Globe and Mail Published on Friday, Jun. 11, 2010 4:45PM EDT Last updated on Saturday, Jun. 12, 2010 1:56PM EDT
University students worried about getting a job see the study of the humanities as a waste of precious time. Research funding (of the new $200-million Canada Excellence Research Chairs, for example) overwhelmingly favour the useful sciences, politicians see technical skills as the key to global economic success and cultural commentators bash the liberal arts as a naval-gazing luxury. Times are hard for humanists.
But when economic growth becomes the focus of education, both democracy and human decency are in jeopardy. In her new book, Not For Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities (Princeton), acclaimed University of Chicago philosopher and legal scholar Martha Nussbaum argues that our culture of market-driven schooling is headed for a fall.
As the critical thinking taught by the humanities is replaced by the unexamined life of the job-seekers, our ability to argue rights and wrongs is silenced. In a society of unreflective, undiscerning yes-men and yes-women, politics becomes meaner and business can invite disasters such as the economic meltdown or the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
As Prof. Nussbaum explains in this question-and-answer session from Chicago, our faltering democracies need the intellectual strength that only the humanities can supply.
Question: How can the study of the humanities improve our political system?
Answer: The first thing you get from the humanities, when they're well taught, is critical thinking.
Philosophy in particular can play that role, not just in universities but in schools as well. Thinking about the logical structure of an argument is something we know children can do quite young.
The second thing you get from the humanities is a greater understanding of the world, its different groups of people, their histories, the way they interact.
The third thing you get is the training of the imagination.
You can't have a democracy when people don't learn to put themselves in the shoes of another person, who can't think what their policies mean for others.
Yet the governments prefer to fund technical education – which tells me that practical, marketable skills are considered more valuable in our democracies.
People may believe that, but they haven't thought hard enough. First of all, we badly need people who can think critically about authority and tradition.
And that's what democracy has always required, ever since the time of Socrates – not just accepting what's passed down from some kind of authority, but thinking critically about it, examining yourself and figuring out what you really want to stand for. And then having debates in that spirit of respectful critical inquiry with other people – you can't have a democracy that's run simply by sound bites and cultural authorities. And I'm afraid that's what we're increasingly slipping into.
Yes, we call our governments democracies, but I think they're functioning badly now. The atmosphere of vilification is so bad that good people steer clear of the political process. And if they get in, their lives are made miserable.
Do you think there's something inherently anti-democratic about the study of science, technology, engineering?
Not at all, if they're taught well with an attention to the basic structures of thought and inquiry.
But what we're getting now is the demand for a quick fix for economic problems using highly applied technical skills but without the focus on basic scientific education – learning about argument, scientific method. So it's that debased version of science that's particularly dangerous.
Who's doing the debasing?
It's a lot of people, starting with the politicians who are demanding a greater share of the global economy and are demanding more technical education. But I also see it in parents who want their children to get ahead – there's tremendous pressure to cut the arts and focus on useful marketable skills.
Their feeling is that we need to prune away useless frills to make sure our children remain competitive. Of course, it's very difficult to get into college now, and people equate that with a focus on narrowly marketable skills. But that's the wrong position to take because colleges want well-rounded people – people who excel in the arts are actually going to enhance their college profile.
When you're advocating for the humanities, it seems that you always have to make a case for their applied value – what's wrong with art for art's sake?
I think you do have to say what their role is in society, but I don't think you have to portray them as instrumental to some economic end. My gambit in Not for Profit is to say they have tremendous value as elements in a political culture.
Because even if people are not sold on the humanities and the arts intrinsically, they do value a healthy democracy. But of course the arts and humanities have value much more broadly in making lives that are rich in meaning, in illuminating aspects of the world, like giving us an understanding of human sexuality, or giving us an understanding of racial differences. All of these things are humanly important quite apart from their contribution to political culture.
Do you really believe our leaders want us all to improve our critical thinking? Surely a servile populace suits the needs of many.
For a while they can coast along in that belief, but something blows up in the end.
NASA, the space administration, is a good example of that. My colleague and I teach about NASA's experience in a course called Decision-making – how a culture of yes-people produced the disaster of the space shuttle Challenger:
You could see in the data that the O-rings were dangerous at a certain temperature, but no one was willing to point that out, and they packaged data the way they thought the leaders would want to hear it.
Now, NASA has reformed its culture and is much more encouraging of dissent.
People are saying BP and all the other oil companies should take a page out of NASA's book and reform their internal culture.
It's graduation time, and the people who've spent their university years studying the humanities are going into the world. Do you feel obliged to prepare them for the big surprise when their values of critical thinking don't fit the needs of the workplace?
I'm giving the graduation address at our law school, and I'm thinking of these wonderful people so full of critical ideas who are going to work for law firms. They'll be under great pressure to narrow themselves and do less of that searching. So our responsibility is to strengthen the side of the personality that wants to stay focused on that goal and help them fight the forces in life, including overwork, that militate against that need.
And then prepare them to be fired from their law firm for doing so?
You just have to figure out how you in your particular situation are going to do it. It might be through being a critical voice in your law firm. It might be by writing short stories if you can carve out a space. It might be through being a productive alum of your university. Or it might be by bringing up children who can think critically.
Here is the interview:
Teaching the humanities: Vital to society?
Acclaimed philosopher Martha Nussbaum argues it is. She’s the latest sage to raise the alarm against higher education's growing obsession with knowledge you can take to the bank.
By John Allemang
From Saturday's Globe and Mail Published on Friday, Jun. 11, 2010 4:45PM EDT Last updated on Saturday, Jun. 12, 2010 1:56PM EDT
University students worried about getting a job see the study of the humanities as a waste of precious time. Research funding (of the new $200-million Canada Excellence Research Chairs, for example) overwhelmingly favour the useful sciences, politicians see technical skills as the key to global economic success and cultural commentators bash the liberal arts as a naval-gazing luxury. Times are hard for humanists.
But when economic growth becomes the focus of education, both democracy and human decency are in jeopardy. In her new book, Not For Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities (Princeton), acclaimed University of Chicago philosopher and legal scholar Martha Nussbaum argues that our culture of market-driven schooling is headed for a fall.
As the critical thinking taught by the humanities is replaced by the unexamined life of the job-seekers, our ability to argue rights and wrongs is silenced. In a society of unreflective, undiscerning yes-men and yes-women, politics becomes meaner and business can invite disasters such as the economic meltdown or the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
As Prof. Nussbaum explains in this question-and-answer session from Chicago, our faltering democracies need the intellectual strength that only the humanities can supply.
Question: How can the study of the humanities improve our political system?
Answer: The first thing you get from the humanities, when they're well taught, is critical thinking.
Philosophy in particular can play that role, not just in universities but in schools as well. Thinking about the logical structure of an argument is something we know children can do quite young.
The second thing you get from the humanities is a greater understanding of the world, its different groups of people, their histories, the way they interact.
The third thing you get is the training of the imagination.
You can't have a democracy when people don't learn to put themselves in the shoes of another person, who can't think what their policies mean for others.
Yet the governments prefer to fund technical education – which tells me that practical, marketable skills are considered more valuable in our democracies.
People may believe that, but they haven't thought hard enough. First of all, we badly need people who can think critically about authority and tradition.
And that's what democracy has always required, ever since the time of Socrates – not just accepting what's passed down from some kind of authority, but thinking critically about it, examining yourself and figuring out what you really want to stand for. And then having debates in that spirit of respectful critical inquiry with other people – you can't have a democracy that's run simply by sound bites and cultural authorities. And I'm afraid that's what we're increasingly slipping into.
Yes, we call our governments democracies, but I think they're functioning badly now. The atmosphere of vilification is so bad that good people steer clear of the political process. And if they get in, their lives are made miserable.
Do you think there's something inherently anti-democratic about the study of science, technology, engineering?
Not at all, if they're taught well with an attention to the basic structures of thought and inquiry.
But what we're getting now is the demand for a quick fix for economic problems using highly applied technical skills but without the focus on basic scientific education – learning about argument, scientific method. So it's that debased version of science that's particularly dangerous.
Who's doing the debasing?
It's a lot of people, starting with the politicians who are demanding a greater share of the global economy and are demanding more technical education. But I also see it in parents who want their children to get ahead – there's tremendous pressure to cut the arts and focus on useful marketable skills.
Their feeling is that we need to prune away useless frills to make sure our children remain competitive. Of course, it's very difficult to get into college now, and people equate that with a focus on narrowly marketable skills. But that's the wrong position to take because colleges want well-rounded people – people who excel in the arts are actually going to enhance their college profile.
When you're advocating for the humanities, it seems that you always have to make a case for their applied value – what's wrong with art for art's sake?
I think you do have to say what their role is in society, but I don't think you have to portray them as instrumental to some economic end. My gambit in Not for Profit is to say they have tremendous value as elements in a political culture.
Because even if people are not sold on the humanities and the arts intrinsically, they do value a healthy democracy. But of course the arts and humanities have value much more broadly in making lives that are rich in meaning, in illuminating aspects of the world, like giving us an understanding of human sexuality, or giving us an understanding of racial differences. All of these things are humanly important quite apart from their contribution to political culture.
Do you really believe our leaders want us all to improve our critical thinking? Surely a servile populace suits the needs of many.
For a while they can coast along in that belief, but something blows up in the end.
NASA, the space administration, is a good example of that. My colleague and I teach about NASA's experience in a course called Decision-making – how a culture of yes-people produced the disaster of the space shuttle Challenger:
You could see in the data that the O-rings were dangerous at a certain temperature, but no one was willing to point that out, and they packaged data the way they thought the leaders would want to hear it.
Now, NASA has reformed its culture and is much more encouraging of dissent.
People are saying BP and all the other oil companies should take a page out of NASA's book and reform their internal culture.
It's graduation time, and the people who've spent their university years studying the humanities are going into the world. Do you feel obliged to prepare them for the big surprise when their values of critical thinking don't fit the needs of the workplace?
I'm giving the graduation address at our law school, and I'm thinking of these wonderful people so full of critical ideas who are going to work for law firms. They'll be under great pressure to narrow themselves and do less of that searching. So our responsibility is to strengthen the side of the personality that wants to stay focused on that goal and help them fight the forces in life, including overwork, that militate against that need.
And then prepare them to be fired from their law firm for doing so?
You just have to figure out how you in your particular situation are going to do it. It might be through being a critical voice in your law firm. It might be by writing short stories if you can carve out a space. It might be through being a productive alum of your university. Or it might be by bringing up children who can think critically.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
When Is A Decision Not A Decision?
In a move that can only be seen as prompted by fear of political retribution from retired teachers instead of concern for struggling new teachers, the Ontario Government has changed the number of days retired instructors can teach without having their pensions suspended. The current law allows for 95 days for three years, followed by 20 days a year thereafter.
The Liberal Government, in its wisdom, will now allow retirees 50 days per year until, well, until pensioners decide they don't want to do it anymore. However, the change will be reviewed in 2015, after the province has had time to collect pertinent data.
Read all about this shameful decision in today's Globe and Mail article, reproduced below:
Kate Hammer and Caroline Alphonso
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail Published on Monday, May. 10, 2010 7:49PM EDT Last updated on Tuesday, May. 11, 2010 6:27AM EDT
For the first time, Ontario will closely track the supply teaching work done by retirees, after a Globe and Mail investigation revealed a system rife with loopholes that cost taxpayers millions of dollars each year.
Under new rules announced Monday, many pensioners will see an increase in the number of supply days they are allowed to work while the government and its teachers union collect data and prepare to re-evaluate the limits again in 2015.
As of 2012, all retirees will be allowed to work 50 days a school year while collecting their pensions, compared to the current rule of 95 days for three years and 20 days thereafter.
The province and its teachers union promised to review the limits after The Globe’s nine-month investigation, published in April, found that the Ontario government is spending millions of dollars bringing pensioners back into the classroom. The 20-year-old limits, which were put in place to address a long-evaporated teacher shortage, meant that young grads were struggling to find work while retirees padded their pension incomes.
“The 50-day limit is going to open up more opportunities, I think, for the new graduates because 50 days is less than a term,” said Minister of Education Leona Dombrowsky, who added that many long-term occasional supply contracts last a full term or semester and that under the new limits retirees will be prevented from working many of these jobs.
The biggest change is that the number of days that retirees work will now be monitored, as opposed to the old system that relied on self-reporting. The Ontario Teachers Pension Plan also will begin compiling and reporting data once the new limit is in full swing, in 2012. The data collection will continue over three school years, and a review will begin in 2015.
“I am happy that we are going to review it in 2015 and I’m happy that we will actually have some data … that will be very helpful and useful and instructive,” Ms. Dombroswky said. “I think for all the people that have been at the table that has been a struggle, in terms of understanding what is a fair number, what is reasonable.”
But those lobbying for changes to the policy expressed skepticism that the new limits would keep retirees out of long-term contracts, especially when the change will actually increase the amount most pensioners are allowed to work.
Through multiple access-to-information requests and appeals, The Globe found that retirees often earn twice as much as their newly certified colleagues, and the province’s 10 largest school boards alone could have saved $16.7-million last school year by offering long-term contracts to new teachers instead of pensioners.
When the new rules come into effect in 2012, loopholes will enable retirees to finish out the calendar month after they have worked their 50th day, padding their pensions with contribution-free income.
“It’s disgraceful. They’ve certainly sold out the interests of young teachers looking for work,” said Malcolm Buchanan, a retired teacher in Hamilton and former general-secretary of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation. “The 50 days, which may well go to 70 days depending on what day of the month the 50th day comes up, it going to just make the problem even worse.”
For years retired teachers were limited to working 20 days while collecting their pensions. Then in 1990, in the face of a dire teacher shortage, the limits were raised to 95 days for three post-retirement working years.
Twenty years later, there are two newly certified teachers for every job in Ontario, but decreasing the limits or closing loopholes would be seen as “impinging on people’s livelihoods,” according to Reno Melatti, president of the Ontario Teachers’ Federation.
Fifty, “it’s not a perfect number, but it’s between zero and 95,” he said. “Some may say it was an increase … but it’s a compromise to get some information and clear data and at the same time respond to some of the concerns.”
The current limits only apply to teachers returning to the classroom, but as of next school year, they will also apply to any retired teachers working for the ministry. Neither the union nor the ministry could provide the number of retirees on the government payroll.
RETIRED TEACHERS AND THEIR PENSIONS
• The 10 school boards spent $108.3-million on retired teachers returning to work as long-term and daily supply teachers in the 2008-09 school year.
• The boards would have saved $16.7-million if they gave long-term supply contracts to recently certified teachers instead of retirees.
• The average day rate for a retiree on a long-term supply contract with the York Catholic District School Board was $432.69, compared to $227.36 for the average teacher certified within the past three years.
• Retirees worked 2,861 supply assignments for the Toronto District School Board last year, while new graduates received 1,638 assignments.
• About 6,500 new jobs become available each year, according to the Ontario College of Teachers, but the college certified 12,774 new members in 2008.
The Liberal Government, in its wisdom, will now allow retirees 50 days per year until, well, until pensioners decide they don't want to do it anymore. However, the change will be reviewed in 2015, after the province has had time to collect pertinent data.
Read all about this shameful decision in today's Globe and Mail article, reproduced below:
Kate Hammer and Caroline Alphonso
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail Published on Monday, May. 10, 2010 7:49PM EDT Last updated on Tuesday, May. 11, 2010 6:27AM EDT
For the first time, Ontario will closely track the supply teaching work done by retirees, after a Globe and Mail investigation revealed a system rife with loopholes that cost taxpayers millions of dollars each year.
Under new rules announced Monday, many pensioners will see an increase in the number of supply days they are allowed to work while the government and its teachers union collect data and prepare to re-evaluate the limits again in 2015.
As of 2012, all retirees will be allowed to work 50 days a school year while collecting their pensions, compared to the current rule of 95 days for three years and 20 days thereafter.
The province and its teachers union promised to review the limits after The Globe’s nine-month investigation, published in April, found that the Ontario government is spending millions of dollars bringing pensioners back into the classroom. The 20-year-old limits, which were put in place to address a long-evaporated teacher shortage, meant that young grads were struggling to find work while retirees padded their pension incomes.
“The 50-day limit is going to open up more opportunities, I think, for the new graduates because 50 days is less than a term,” said Minister of Education Leona Dombrowsky, who added that many long-term occasional supply contracts last a full term or semester and that under the new limits retirees will be prevented from working many of these jobs.
The biggest change is that the number of days that retirees work will now be monitored, as opposed to the old system that relied on self-reporting. The Ontario Teachers Pension Plan also will begin compiling and reporting data once the new limit is in full swing, in 2012. The data collection will continue over three school years, and a review will begin in 2015.
“I am happy that we are going to review it in 2015 and I’m happy that we will actually have some data … that will be very helpful and useful and instructive,” Ms. Dombroswky said. “I think for all the people that have been at the table that has been a struggle, in terms of understanding what is a fair number, what is reasonable.”
But those lobbying for changes to the policy expressed skepticism that the new limits would keep retirees out of long-term contracts, especially when the change will actually increase the amount most pensioners are allowed to work.
Through multiple access-to-information requests and appeals, The Globe found that retirees often earn twice as much as their newly certified colleagues, and the province’s 10 largest school boards alone could have saved $16.7-million last school year by offering long-term contracts to new teachers instead of pensioners.
When the new rules come into effect in 2012, loopholes will enable retirees to finish out the calendar month after they have worked their 50th day, padding their pensions with contribution-free income.
“It’s disgraceful. They’ve certainly sold out the interests of young teachers looking for work,” said Malcolm Buchanan, a retired teacher in Hamilton and former general-secretary of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation. “The 50 days, which may well go to 70 days depending on what day of the month the 50th day comes up, it going to just make the problem even worse.”
For years retired teachers were limited to working 20 days while collecting their pensions. Then in 1990, in the face of a dire teacher shortage, the limits were raised to 95 days for three post-retirement working years.
Twenty years later, there are two newly certified teachers for every job in Ontario, but decreasing the limits or closing loopholes would be seen as “impinging on people’s livelihoods,” according to Reno Melatti, president of the Ontario Teachers’ Federation.
Fifty, “it’s not a perfect number, but it’s between zero and 95,” he said. “Some may say it was an increase … but it’s a compromise to get some information and clear data and at the same time respond to some of the concerns.”
The current limits only apply to teachers returning to the classroom, but as of next school year, they will also apply to any retired teachers working for the ministry. Neither the union nor the ministry could provide the number of retirees on the government payroll.
RETIRED TEACHERS AND THEIR PENSIONS
• The 10 school boards spent $108.3-million on retired teachers returning to work as long-term and daily supply teachers in the 2008-09 school year.
• The boards would have saved $16.7-million if they gave long-term supply contracts to recently certified teachers instead of retirees.
• The average day rate for a retiree on a long-term supply contract with the York Catholic District School Board was $432.69, compared to $227.36 for the average teacher certified within the past three years.
• Retirees worked 2,861 supply assignments for the Toronto District School Board last year, while new graduates received 1,638 assignments.
• About 6,500 new jobs become available each year, according to the Ontario College of Teachers, but the college certified 12,774 new members in 2008.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Ontario schools crack down on retirees who ‘double-dip’ with supply jobs
Here is the latest results of the Globe and Mail's investigation into retired teachers 'double-dipping', thereby depriving new teachers of work and costing the school boards, i.e., the taxpayer, needless extra millions of dollars:
Globe investigation revealed having pensioners return to teach has cost the education system millions of dollars
Caroline Alphonso and Kate Hammer
From Monday's Globe and Mail Published on Sunday, Apr. 25, 2010 9:02PM EDT Last updated on Monday, Apr. 26, 2010 3:43AM EDT
While the Ontario government works to address the disproportionate amount of supply work that goes to retired teachers, some school boards are taking the matter into their own hands.
After realizing it was losing millions of dollars by replacing teachers in the $60,000 pay-range with retired teachers who earned more than $80,000, the Windsor-Essex Catholic district school board has stopped adding retirees to its supply list.
“You can spin it any way you want to, but it's wrong – allowing retirees to double-dip is wrong,” said Paul Picard, superintendent of human resources for the board.
The government last week vowed to crack down on the rules around pensioners returning to supply-teach after a Globe and Mail investigation revealed that a system rife with loopholes is costing Ontario taxpayers millions of dollars. A 20-year-old policy meant to deal with teacher shortage that has since evaporated allows retirees to teach as much as half the school year, or 95 days, in the first three post-retirement working years and 20 days in following years.
Mr. Picard said that he was always under the impression that the loosened work limits were temporary, and that the rule would return to the 20-day maximum that was in place before 1990. That never happened, and retirees take a big slice of the supply-work pie in some school districts.
In British Columbia , a province that, like Ontario, has grappled with tensions around retirees taking supply-teaching jobs from new teachers, one superintendent said retired teachers should only return to the classroom when there’s no one else with the expertise to do the work.
Keven Elder, superintendent of the school district in Saanich, B.C., said his schools only hire retired teachers to cover subject areas where there’s a shortage, and they regularly monitor the amount of work retirees receive.
“I would advise that the reasons for re-engagement of a retired teacher be clear and limited,” Mr. Elder said. “To me it isn’t about limiting the number of days, it’s about limiting the conditions upon which that person is reemployed as a teacher, and then adhering to those requirements.”
Sources say that one of the options being discussed in Ontario involves permitting retirees to work 50 days in the first three years, and 20 days indefinitely. The government and the teachers’ federation have not indicated whether changes are coming to the self-policing system and loopholes that allow teachers to work beyond any allotted days without their pensions being affected.
The Saanich school district isn’t alone in giving preference to working teachers over retirees on its supply list. Some school divisions in Saskatchewan will only hire retirees if no other substitutes are available. And in Prince Edward Island, retirees who take on long-term supply-teaching contracts have their pension payments stopped during the time of their employment.
The concerns raised in Ontario over retirees padding their pensions and pushing other supply teachers out of the classroom have also been voiced in B.C. A task force formed by the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation last year found the concerns were misplaced and that denying retirees work was ageist. The heart of any struggles supply teachers face getting work, the task force concluded, was that some districts placed too many of them on supply lists.
At his board, Mr. Elder said that retirees are generally denied a chance to teach if working teachers have similar qualifications. Teachers call in their own replacements, but if the district discovers that a retiree is getting much of the work, teachers are asked to look at other candidates.
“If there are a large number of people out there with your qualifications ready to fill in as you retire, you should expect that when you retire, you won’t be working any more. To me that’s just what a dynamic work force is all about,” Mr. Elder said.
A nine-month Globe and Mail investigation found supply assignments in Ontario were not divvied up evenly among the work force. Through multiple access-to-information requests and appeals to 10 of Ontario's largest boards, The Globe revealed last week that retirees worked just as many days in daily supply positions as newly certified teachers, all while picking up their government-subsidized pension cheques averaging $40,000 a year. The biggest school boards alone spent $108.3-million in 2008-09 on hiring retired teachers.
Although both groups earn the same in daily supply roles, retirees earned double the new teachers' rate for long-term assignments. The 10 boards would have saved $16.7-million in the past academic year had they placed new teachers in the classroom.
Globe investigation revealed having pensioners return to teach has cost the education system millions of dollars
Caroline Alphonso and Kate Hammer
From Monday's Globe and Mail Published on Sunday, Apr. 25, 2010 9:02PM EDT Last updated on Monday, Apr. 26, 2010 3:43AM EDT
While the Ontario government works to address the disproportionate amount of supply work that goes to retired teachers, some school boards are taking the matter into their own hands.
After realizing it was losing millions of dollars by replacing teachers in the $60,000 pay-range with retired teachers who earned more than $80,000, the Windsor-Essex Catholic district school board has stopped adding retirees to its supply list.
“You can spin it any way you want to, but it's wrong – allowing retirees to double-dip is wrong,” said Paul Picard, superintendent of human resources for the board.
The government last week vowed to crack down on the rules around pensioners returning to supply-teach after a Globe and Mail investigation revealed that a system rife with loopholes is costing Ontario taxpayers millions of dollars. A 20-year-old policy meant to deal with teacher shortage that has since evaporated allows retirees to teach as much as half the school year, or 95 days, in the first three post-retirement working years and 20 days in following years.
Mr. Picard said that he was always under the impression that the loosened work limits were temporary, and that the rule would return to the 20-day maximum that was in place before 1990. That never happened, and retirees take a big slice of the supply-work pie in some school districts.
In British Columbia , a province that, like Ontario, has grappled with tensions around retirees taking supply-teaching jobs from new teachers, one superintendent said retired teachers should only return to the classroom when there’s no one else with the expertise to do the work.
Keven Elder, superintendent of the school district in Saanich, B.C., said his schools only hire retired teachers to cover subject areas where there’s a shortage, and they regularly monitor the amount of work retirees receive.
“I would advise that the reasons for re-engagement of a retired teacher be clear and limited,” Mr. Elder said. “To me it isn’t about limiting the number of days, it’s about limiting the conditions upon which that person is reemployed as a teacher, and then adhering to those requirements.”
Sources say that one of the options being discussed in Ontario involves permitting retirees to work 50 days in the first three years, and 20 days indefinitely. The government and the teachers’ federation have not indicated whether changes are coming to the self-policing system and loopholes that allow teachers to work beyond any allotted days without their pensions being affected.
The Saanich school district isn’t alone in giving preference to working teachers over retirees on its supply list. Some school divisions in Saskatchewan will only hire retirees if no other substitutes are available. And in Prince Edward Island, retirees who take on long-term supply-teaching contracts have their pension payments stopped during the time of their employment.
The concerns raised in Ontario over retirees padding their pensions and pushing other supply teachers out of the classroom have also been voiced in B.C. A task force formed by the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation last year found the concerns were misplaced and that denying retirees work was ageist. The heart of any struggles supply teachers face getting work, the task force concluded, was that some districts placed too many of them on supply lists.
At his board, Mr. Elder said that retirees are generally denied a chance to teach if working teachers have similar qualifications. Teachers call in their own replacements, but if the district discovers that a retiree is getting much of the work, teachers are asked to look at other candidates.
“If there are a large number of people out there with your qualifications ready to fill in as you retire, you should expect that when you retire, you won’t be working any more. To me that’s just what a dynamic work force is all about,” Mr. Elder said.
A nine-month Globe and Mail investigation found supply assignments in Ontario were not divvied up evenly among the work force. Through multiple access-to-information requests and appeals to 10 of Ontario's largest boards, The Globe revealed last week that retirees worked just as many days in daily supply positions as newly certified teachers, all while picking up their government-subsidized pension cheques averaging $40,000 a year. The biggest school boards alone spent $108.3-million in 2008-09 on hiring retired teachers.
Although both groups earn the same in daily supply roles, retirees earned double the new teachers' rate for long-term assignments. The 10 boards would have saved $16.7-million in the past academic year had they placed new teachers in the classroom.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
The Plight of Young Teachers Today
In Ontario, the various faculties of education are continuing to churn out 7500 new teachers per year, despite the fact that there are very few jobs available. This, along with the selfish practice of retired teachers taking supply and long-term contracts, means lean times for young teachers. Below is another article from the Globe and Mail series dealing with the scourge of retired teachers who won't give up the classroom.
Few openings for young teachers
7,500 more new teachers produced each year than there are retirements, official says
Caroline Alphonso and Kate Hammer
From Monday's Globe and Mail Published on Monday, Apr. 19, 2010 4:35AM EDT Last updated on Monday, Apr. 19, 2010 4:36AM EDT
In his search for work, Sid Nurcombe has been forced to cast a wide net – he is contemplating a move to South Korea.
The 27-year-old teachers’ college graduate has been struggling for a year to win one of the highly coveted spots on a school boards’ supply list. Openings are few and far between, and despite applying to two different boards near his parents’ home in Shelburne, Ont., he remains unemployed. While younger teachers on the supply lists aspire to move on to full-time positions, retirees can linger there for years.
“For me, it’s a huge impediment to getting in the system,” said Mr. Nurcombe, who added that he has a “significant” debt and still lives with his parents.
Young graduates need experience to land a full-time job, but supply-teaching opportunities often go to retirees padding their pensions with contribution-free income. Part of the modest income of the young teachers that do make it onto the supply list goes toward a pension plan that’s facing an imbalance: For each beneficiary, there are only 1.5 paying members, and that ratio is expected to decline to 1.2 within the next decade.
“It’s a real morale buster,” said Laura Drexler, a 37-year-old supply teacher who lives in a one-bedroom student apartment in Waterloo, Ont. Despite the broad expertise of three university degrees and her willingness to drive between three school boards to find work, Ms. Drexler earns a quarter of what she could earn full-time.
“There aren’t the jobs out there. There really aren’t,” she said.
Frank McIntyre, manager of human resources at the Ontario College of Teachers, said a number of changes designed to help alleviate a teacher shortage in the early 1990s, have been left unchecked for too long. “Now we’re producing about 7,500 more new teachers than there are retirements every year,” he said. “Nobody has put the brakes on.”
And there’s more at risk than just the livelihoods of aspiring teachers. Annie Kidder, a spokeswoman for the parent group People for Education, said there needs to be a balance between experience and fresh energy in the classroom.
“New teachers bring new ideas, perhaps more energy,” Ms. Kidder said. “They may not be quite so worn.”
Few openings for young teachers
7,500 more new teachers produced each year than there are retirements, official says
Caroline Alphonso and Kate Hammer
From Monday's Globe and Mail Published on Monday, Apr. 19, 2010 4:35AM EDT Last updated on Monday, Apr. 19, 2010 4:36AM EDT
In his search for work, Sid Nurcombe has been forced to cast a wide net – he is contemplating a move to South Korea.
The 27-year-old teachers’ college graduate has been struggling for a year to win one of the highly coveted spots on a school boards’ supply list. Openings are few and far between, and despite applying to two different boards near his parents’ home in Shelburne, Ont., he remains unemployed. While younger teachers on the supply lists aspire to move on to full-time positions, retirees can linger there for years.
“For me, it’s a huge impediment to getting in the system,” said Mr. Nurcombe, who added that he has a “significant” debt and still lives with his parents.
Young graduates need experience to land a full-time job, but supply-teaching opportunities often go to retirees padding their pensions with contribution-free income. Part of the modest income of the young teachers that do make it onto the supply list goes toward a pension plan that’s facing an imbalance: For each beneficiary, there are only 1.5 paying members, and that ratio is expected to decline to 1.2 within the next decade.
“It’s a real morale buster,” said Laura Drexler, a 37-year-old supply teacher who lives in a one-bedroom student apartment in Waterloo, Ont. Despite the broad expertise of three university degrees and her willingness to drive between three school boards to find work, Ms. Drexler earns a quarter of what she could earn full-time.
“There aren’t the jobs out there. There really aren’t,” she said.
Frank McIntyre, manager of human resources at the Ontario College of Teachers, said a number of changes designed to help alleviate a teacher shortage in the early 1990s, have been left unchecked for too long. “Now we’re producing about 7,500 more new teachers than there are retirements every year,” he said. “Nobody has put the brakes on.”
And there’s more at risk than just the livelihoods of aspiring teachers. Annie Kidder, a spokeswoman for the parent group People for Education, said there needs to be a balance between experience and fresh energy in the classroom.
“New teachers bring new ideas, perhaps more energy,” Ms. Kidder said. “They may not be quite so worn.”
Friday, April 23, 2010
The Problems of Retired Teachers Continuing to Teach
I have written in the past about my heartfelt opposition to teaching after retirement, mainly because it deprives young people of much-needed opportunities to get started in their careers. This past week the Globe and Mail has had a series of articles addressing this issue, the first of which I am reproducing below:
Ontario school boards squander $16.7-million by hanging on to retirees April 16, 2010.
Caroline Alphonso and Kate Hammer
From Monday's Globe and Mail Published on Monday, Apr. 19, 2010 4:00AM EDT Last updated on Wednesday, Apr. 21, 2010 11:31AM EDT
Ontario’s largest cash-strapped school boards squandered $16.7-million in the last academic year by enabling retirees to pad their pensions with supply-teaching work rather than hiring new teachers, a Globe and Mail investigation has found.
Retired teachers working in 10 school boards, representing half the student population, collected $108.3-million in the 2008-09 school year from taxpayers on top of their government-subsidized pensions, taking advantage of a system rife with loopholes that leaves new teachers scrambling for crumbs.
The investigation revealed widespread overspending, with boards favouring retirees over new teachers for supply assignments at a higher pay scale that, in some cases, doubled the cost to the taxpayer. One retiree working in the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board worked a total of 106 days in 2008-09, earning an estimated $47,000 on top of what is already one of the most generous pensions in the country.
Other provinces, such as Prince Edward Island, have reined in such largesse by stopping pension payments when a teacher takes a long-term supply assignment. But in Ontario, even as Premier Dalton McGuinty has been lambasting postsecondary institutions for loose spending, the policing system to make sure retirees aren’t milking the education budget relies on an honour system.
The issue has angered new teachers who can’t get work, and sparked ongoing discussions between the Ontario Teachers’ Federation and the government – yet nothing has changed. Even the architect of the original policy that allowed retired teachers to work more supply days while collecting their pensions recognizes the time for it has come and gone.
Minister of Education Leona Dombrowsky acknowledged the current policy poses challenges, particularly for new teachers, but added that retirees bring much-needed expertise to the job. She said parents have expressed concern that an inexperienced supply teacher doesn’t have the necessary skills to lead a classroom.
“I’m not going to debate your numbers other than to say sometimes behind the numbers there are very particular situations and circumstances that might require a board to consider engaging someone who is retired,” she said. “I think that both the Ontario Teachers’ Federation and the province are aware that there are areas where we have challenges ... And we are working with the teachers’ federation to see how we can address those going forward.”
But those longing for change are tired of waiting while school boards overspend by millions of dollars each year.
“The system has been abused by some retirees,” said Malcolm Buchanan, a retired teacher in Hamilton and former general-secretary of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, who has been petitioning the province to change the rules. “A number of people are at fault here. School boards are at fault for hiring retirees in the first place. The second fault is they don’t monitor the number of days retirees work ... And [at fault are] individual members who take advantage of the rules.”
The current system was designed two decades ago to address a teacher shortage. Prior to 1990, retired teachers were allowed to teach a maximum of 20 days a year before their pensions were affected. A change allowed for 95 days in the first three working years after retirement, and 20 days indefinitely thereafter. The shortage of the 1990s, however, has long evaporated – for every job, there are about two newly certified teachers graduating each year.
Chris Ward, the province's former minister of education who introduced the bill that led to that change, believes the policy is no longer needed and should be abandoned.
“[With] the current environment in Ontario, I would have to say that it makes little sense to me that retired teachers would be able to spend as many as 95 days in the classroom,” said Mr. Ward, who served as minister in the David Peterson government. “Frankly that’s just keeping young teachers out of the system and we need more young teachers coming in.”
The Globe’s nine-month investigation, which included multiple access-to-information requests, has for the first time determined the practice’s cost to taxpayers. The Toronto District School Board, for example, doled out almost twice as many supply assignments to retirees than to new teachers in 2008-09. These veterans earned double the new teachers’ rate for long-term assignments without paying into the pension plan. (Both groups earn the same for daily supply work, the bulk of which goes to retirees).
Had it hired new teachers for those jobs instead, the TDSB could have saved $7.6-million dollars. The Peel District School Board could have banked $3.4-million and both York Region boards could have set aside more than $1.4-million each, the data reveal. The total savings amounted to more than $16.7-million for 10 of Ontario’s 72 boards. Retirees in long-term contracts, to fill in for a teacher who is, for example, ill or on maternity leave, earn, on average, $400 a day, because pay grids negotiated between boards and the unions take into account a teachers expertise and years of experience.
According to the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, retired teachers in the province make on average $40,000 a year, and generally bow out of the 9-to-5 grind by age 57. Retirees also don’t see pension deductions from their paycheques – a further drain on the pension plan into which taxpayers make half the contributions.
The onus is on teachers to declare when they have crossed the yearly limit of days worked, and their pension cheques should be stopped. The OTPP said that there were 629 pension suspensions last year, and while the majority were self-declared, it declined to divulge how it tracked down the others.
“Self-reporting was adopted … because it was considered to be the same concept as income tax , which sees individuals being responsible for filing their own returns,” said spokeswoman Deborah Allan. She added that procedures are regularly reviewed.
Ron Crocco, principal at Jean Vanier Catholic High School in Richmond Hill, Ont., said school administrators often seek out retired teachers for their familiarity and experience. “I’m torn in some ways because I want to give the new teachers some work, and yet, when I have a person who is going to be off, I want to make sure that I have someone who can teach the classes,” Mr. Crocco said.
In the minds of many retirees, the perks are warranted.
“If you couldn’t supply teach, most of us wouldn’t retire because you just can’t afford to go cold. It’s a huge drop in pay,” said retired teacher Corrine Donnelly, who is in her sixth year of substitute teaching in Bradford, after working full-time for 32 years. “You’re assuming that we can all afford never to work again,” she said.
She said she was passionate about teaching, and justified her decision to keep working postretirement. “I did retire early from my own job. I did free up a permanent job for somebody.”
Ontario school boards squander $16.7-million by hanging on to retirees April 16, 2010.
Caroline Alphonso and Kate Hammer
From Monday's Globe and Mail Published on Monday, Apr. 19, 2010 4:00AM EDT Last updated on Wednesday, Apr. 21, 2010 11:31AM EDT
Ontario’s largest cash-strapped school boards squandered $16.7-million in the last academic year by enabling retirees to pad their pensions with supply-teaching work rather than hiring new teachers, a Globe and Mail investigation has found.
Retired teachers working in 10 school boards, representing half the student population, collected $108.3-million in the 2008-09 school year from taxpayers on top of their government-subsidized pensions, taking advantage of a system rife with loopholes that leaves new teachers scrambling for crumbs.
The investigation revealed widespread overspending, with boards favouring retirees over new teachers for supply assignments at a higher pay scale that, in some cases, doubled the cost to the taxpayer. One retiree working in the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board worked a total of 106 days in 2008-09, earning an estimated $47,000 on top of what is already one of the most generous pensions in the country.
Other provinces, such as Prince Edward Island, have reined in such largesse by stopping pension payments when a teacher takes a long-term supply assignment. But in Ontario, even as Premier Dalton McGuinty has been lambasting postsecondary institutions for loose spending, the policing system to make sure retirees aren’t milking the education budget relies on an honour system.
The issue has angered new teachers who can’t get work, and sparked ongoing discussions between the Ontario Teachers’ Federation and the government – yet nothing has changed. Even the architect of the original policy that allowed retired teachers to work more supply days while collecting their pensions recognizes the time for it has come and gone.
Minister of Education Leona Dombrowsky acknowledged the current policy poses challenges, particularly for new teachers, but added that retirees bring much-needed expertise to the job. She said parents have expressed concern that an inexperienced supply teacher doesn’t have the necessary skills to lead a classroom.
“I’m not going to debate your numbers other than to say sometimes behind the numbers there are very particular situations and circumstances that might require a board to consider engaging someone who is retired,” she said. “I think that both the Ontario Teachers’ Federation and the province are aware that there are areas where we have challenges ... And we are working with the teachers’ federation to see how we can address those going forward.”
But those longing for change are tired of waiting while school boards overspend by millions of dollars each year.
“The system has been abused by some retirees,” said Malcolm Buchanan, a retired teacher in Hamilton and former general-secretary of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, who has been petitioning the province to change the rules. “A number of people are at fault here. School boards are at fault for hiring retirees in the first place. The second fault is they don’t monitor the number of days retirees work ... And [at fault are] individual members who take advantage of the rules.”
The current system was designed two decades ago to address a teacher shortage. Prior to 1990, retired teachers were allowed to teach a maximum of 20 days a year before their pensions were affected. A change allowed for 95 days in the first three working years after retirement, and 20 days indefinitely thereafter. The shortage of the 1990s, however, has long evaporated – for every job, there are about two newly certified teachers graduating each year.
Chris Ward, the province's former minister of education who introduced the bill that led to that change, believes the policy is no longer needed and should be abandoned.
“[With] the current environment in Ontario, I would have to say that it makes little sense to me that retired teachers would be able to spend as many as 95 days in the classroom,” said Mr. Ward, who served as minister in the David Peterson government. “Frankly that’s just keeping young teachers out of the system and we need more young teachers coming in.”
The Globe’s nine-month investigation, which included multiple access-to-information requests, has for the first time determined the practice’s cost to taxpayers. The Toronto District School Board, for example, doled out almost twice as many supply assignments to retirees than to new teachers in 2008-09. These veterans earned double the new teachers’ rate for long-term assignments without paying into the pension plan. (Both groups earn the same for daily supply work, the bulk of which goes to retirees).
Had it hired new teachers for those jobs instead, the TDSB could have saved $7.6-million dollars. The Peel District School Board could have banked $3.4-million and both York Region boards could have set aside more than $1.4-million each, the data reveal. The total savings amounted to more than $16.7-million for 10 of Ontario’s 72 boards. Retirees in long-term contracts, to fill in for a teacher who is, for example, ill or on maternity leave, earn, on average, $400 a day, because pay grids negotiated between boards and the unions take into account a teachers expertise and years of experience.
According to the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, retired teachers in the province make on average $40,000 a year, and generally bow out of the 9-to-5 grind by age 57. Retirees also don’t see pension deductions from their paycheques – a further drain on the pension plan into which taxpayers make half the contributions.
The onus is on teachers to declare when they have crossed the yearly limit of days worked, and their pension cheques should be stopped. The OTPP said that there were 629 pension suspensions last year, and while the majority were self-declared, it declined to divulge how it tracked down the others.
“Self-reporting was adopted … because it was considered to be the same concept as income tax , which sees individuals being responsible for filing their own returns,” said spokeswoman Deborah Allan. She added that procedures are regularly reviewed.
Ron Crocco, principal at Jean Vanier Catholic High School in Richmond Hill, Ont., said school administrators often seek out retired teachers for their familiarity and experience. “I’m torn in some ways because I want to give the new teachers some work, and yet, when I have a person who is going to be off, I want to make sure that I have someone who can teach the classes,” Mr. Crocco said.
In the minds of many retirees, the perks are warranted.
“If you couldn’t supply teach, most of us wouldn’t retire because you just can’t afford to go cold. It’s a huge drop in pay,” said retired teacher Corrine Donnelly, who is in her sixth year of substitute teaching in Bradford, after working full-time for 32 years. “You’re assuming that we can all afford never to work again,” she said.
She said she was passionate about teaching, and justified her decision to keep working postretirement. “I did retire early from my own job. I did free up a permanent job for somebody.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
