On last night's BCTV News, the president of the BC Teacher's Federation said on camera something to the effect that in past teacher's strikes that have lasted three months, there was little or no harm done to the student's education.

Update And reiterated by their lawyer:

"In the past, there have been lengthy strikes and lockouts without serious consequences for students or the education system," the union's lawyer Diane MacDonald told the labour board.

And:

"By and large, it's not going to be harmful or injurious for people to miss a few weeks of school," [Surrey Teachers' Association president John] Wadge said. "There's a lot that can be done in terms of catching kids up. It's not as though you're trying to fill a container. They don't have to have X amount of knowledge by the end of the year, particularly in elementary school. It's not going to handicap them for the rest of their life or anything."

(Kids, I think you've found another excuse to skip school.)

Is this such a smart thing to admit to?

Does this mean I've wasted three months a year for twelve years in school?

Does this mean that teachers are extremely inefficient at teaching? (That's three months out of ninth months which means a 33% waste factor!)

What about grade twelve students taking pre-university courses?

Today's Local Weather Was: Cold and sunny.