There is a fine line between legitimate advocacy and inappropriate pressure tactics like partisan hounding during parent-teacher interviews. During election campaigns, it is not unusual for groups to rally behind the political party or candidate most sympathetic to their interests and try to get them into office. In turn, parties try to corral as many interests as possible to broaden their appeal and build their activist network. The collaboration between political parties and citizen groups is well established and is a sign of a healthy, functioning democracy.

These groups use elections to increase their profile, get their issue on the agenda and solidify political alliances. The most recent example of party and interest group campaign co-operation unfolded during the province's Surrey by-election.

The BC Teachers Federation (BCTF) maintained its own election headquarters, conducted polling, went door knocking and managed its own get-out-the-vote campaign. As is their democratic right, the BCTF used the by-election to advance their cause [more taxpayer funding] and backed the successful NDP candidate. However, the question arises: when does advocacy work turn into partisan pushiness

Consider the following scenario and the subsequent issues. Last week, the Burnaby Teachers' Association distributed "advocacy kits" to its members. The kit points to parent-teacher interviews as an excellent opportunity to discuss their concerns with public education and advises members to rehearse by role-playing with colleagues.

Imagine you are a parent in Burnaby, you rush home from a long day at work to attend little Susie's parent-teacher interview. Perhaps you have been concerned about her homework load and planned to discuss this with her teacher.

However, once your scheduled time arrives, little Susie's teacher begins the interview with the dramatic query, "did you know your child's future is in danger " You catch your breath, probe for details and realize that the teacher was using an 'opening line' to engage you in a discussion about the teachers' union's narrow interpretation of what is "proper" education policy.

Like most parents, you were not prepared to engage in political debate but instead wanted to know how Susie was faring in grade four and are less than polite when reminding the teacher to get back to the issue at hand. After learning that Susie is doing fine but talks a little too much, you then begin to worry that your child may be treated differently because your were less than sympathetic to her teacher's "advocacy" work.

Should teachers be prevented from advocating their cause Of course not, but not during parent-teacher interviews, and they should not exploit, nor pervert the normal functions of their profession in order to harass a captive audience. Furthermore, the teachers' association should not force their members to engage in lobbying activities that impede their ability to perform the normal duties of the job.