Educational Leadership Conference

I was one of the SD#57 trustees that went to the 2012 Educational Leadership Conference in Vancouver (Nov 15, 16). The participants were educational staff from Ministry to senior administration to trustees to principals and some teachers and students (1200 Participants).

There were 4 Plenary speakers and many breakout sessions. The theme of the conference was ‘Partnerships for Personalization: Leading and Transforming together’.  Most of the presentations are posted at http://www.bcssa.org/fallconference.html.

My plan is to blog about what I have taken from the conference and bring this to the district as a trustee, hopefully influence some change.

I observed collaboration as a predominant theme. Collaboration as a small school district seemed to be more successful district-wide than in larger districts who had more school-wide and some joint-school success. School-wide change was most successful when collaboration was a true co-creation process.

Daniel Wilson was a Plenary Speaker of the conference speaking on collaboration in learning communities. Through graphs and examples obtained from his work in the field of social-psychology, he showed how collaboration between team members of a extreme sport competition were the most successful in navigating their tensions when language, behavior and leadership roles were flexible. When language (body or words) was aggressive or authoritative then those teams were always the losers. The most successful teams were those that had true collaboration with the use of questioning statements Success also came from sharing of leadership when new leaders were recognized for their skill, performance at a task, or ability to fill in the regular leader was exhausted and couldn’t maintain the leadership role.

He also stated that 70% of true collaboration happens from informal conversations with colleagues and the other 30% is formal. So, water cooler conversations or beers after work do make a difference.

I have often sat in meetings thinking that we are being unproductive because we are following rules and structure and if we all stood up in a group and dropped the pretense then perhaps true conversations would ensue. I think those statistics affirm that my intuition is right.

A breakout session that I went to was the "Village of Attachment: Developing the Whole Child." This came from SD#41 Burnaby (see their presentation here)  The vision is that every child be in a nurturing relationship with an adult. They have expanded the word family to include a network of adults that work to bring out and guide children so that they have a purpose. Through finding commonalities they engage children to begin conversations and eventually relationships. Through these relationships the adult pulls out the child's reasons for purpose in life or their ‘spark’ to quote Peter Benson. A spark is a characteristic that gives them a purpose to life or motivation to do something. Their spark does not have to be what they eventually become or do for a profession, but it is developed in them.

This process is also transfered to adult to adult relationships. Whether within schools or districts it is about recognizing what we (individually or collectively) are good at and utilizing it to help improve us. This is where collaboration can be effective in openly recognizing our strengths and weaknesses and collaborating with someone who can help us where we want to improve. David Hargreaves (plenary speaker) spoke of this form of collaboration being practiced in Britain with teachers but it failed where it was mandatory. The key was to survey and see where our educators felt they wanted to collaborate and improve. Because making yourself vulnerable is part of the process, it needs to be kept transparent to avoid implying that any individual is incompetent.

It is my perspective that the 2010 school closure process had gaps in collaboration that has resulted in leftover tension that I hope will be addressed as the board starts conversations around strategic planning and an extended management and finance committee to discuss the budget. In order to collaborate there will be social tensions, but how we navigate the language, roles, vulnerabilities and competencies will result in co-creations that will result in a new placed trust and district wide visions. A village of collaboration and attachment is my optimistic vision.

2012 budget process

I recently received an email from a teacher who was concerned about the fact that our board of trustees approved all three readings of the 2012-2013 School District Budget at our May 29th board meeting. Here was my response, which I am pleased to share on my blog with others who have similar questions.

Thanks for your email regarding budget process and your patience in waiting for my response. The issues you raise are important for me also as I have many questions for our district staff, chair, and fellow trustees around budget process. I would like to comment on your questions and add my own thoughts about budget process. Of course I speak as one trustee and do not speak for the board.

The three readings in one session seem to be the process our district uses to pass its budget. As far as I can tell, budget consultation takes place in three areas. To put it very simply, the finance department works with fixed costs, the Senior Admin works with principals on what they are going to do with school money, and district staff work out what to do with what’s left over. The trustees have a chance to ask questions and make suggestions about many of these areas over a number of meetings leading up to budget approval. I think we put in about six hours on this. Given this process, passing a budget in one meeting is understandable as the trustees have already had their say. I can see how it does not look good from the point of view of others who may want to be involved in the process. If and when we decide to have more public and partner group consultation on the budget this process or tradition may need to change.

The problem is that anyone with feedback to give only had from Friday (when the board agenda was published) until Tuesday to read over the budget and consider a response. For my part I apologize for not consulting with any partner groups during this short period. I think it is not a realistic time frame for meaningful consideration. I remember the shock that many parents and partner groups had back in January 2010 when the District Sustainability report came out on a Friday to be approved in principle on the following Tuesday. There are many other examples in the last two years that followed that same process and it has added cynicism around decision-making. We need to give more time for input on big decisions, and I hope next year will look different.

I wonder if the board had delayed the budget vote till June, do you think even with public input much could have been changed? School organization and staffing decisions have already taken place. If we would have started some open budget talks in January there might have been time to debate major directions and make amendments between meetings, but we had just taken office and were not ready to alter the course of the district. To be honest, we’ve had a very full agenda and are still working out what needs to change and how. For example, three trustees (including myself) asked for a more open budget process next year, so I ask you to be patient with us, it may happen. I would love to see all of our processes in School District 57 become increasingly open and transparent, but I also realize we are a new board and change takes time. During this budget cycle there was more consultation time given to the board prior to passing the budget. We have removed confidentiality clauses from our committee meetings. I think this is necessary for a first step in getting dialogue elsewhere. During the Policy and Governance section of last week’s board meeting we discussed opening up committees to partner groups. I requested that when the committee reviews this policy that all committees now be open to partner group representation.

One thing that the public, or partner groups, or individuals can do to help us is to provide some input upfront on what kind of consultation they would like to see at the board level. Partner groups are free to react to what they see happening, but I’d like to see some prior description of the process they want in the form of a proposal or request. Share your vision, help us develop ours is what I mean. One recent example is the DPAC recommendation that our district look at some kind of inclusive long-term sustainability planning. We’re still considering what that might look like. An older example was the More with Less Report that you and I were both involved with in 2010. The more people that come to us before a process is finished or becomes an issue, the more we are educated about how it fits into the district plans. I’m particularly interested in hearing how board decisions (like the budget) affect student learning both positively and negatively. This is one of the reasons I think we need more open dialogue with and between partners.

I’ve spent some time investigating what other districts do around budget consultation and there are many that are quite deliberate about gathering input. Some also have strategies for engaging the government on funding issues. You might recall seeing SD79 Cowichan Valley in the news for adopting a “restoration budget.” They did so after extensive public consultation. I might possibly be alone on our board in applauding their efforts, but I think we can find more agreement that education is underfunded. School boards need to wrestle with that issue by engaging their community and the government. This is an advocacy role that I take seriously. I have been asking for more consultation for the board on SD business and have voted no when that has not happened.

I’m not sure what “open” could mean in the future. I believe that we should seek public input because this is a public school district spending public tax dollars. I believe that partner groups like teachers have felt left out of the district conversation for a few years through their voice on the District technology team, Success for all Leadership Team, Social Responsibility Working Group, etc. This board is slowly opening up that process but the partner groups, too, have to take up the challenge and change the conversation. They need to avoid apathy and keep us on our toes, as you are doing. This is a board who will listen and we are learning and doing our part. I would love to see some kind of yearly forum around budget, strategic plans (sustainability), and the achievement contract. A chance for Senior Admin and the trustees to share plans and ideas. Better yet would be for partner groups to be involved in the creation of these plans, including the parts of the budget that do not involve fixed costs, like salaries. This would be new and scary for many in our school district, but again other districts have figured out how to do this.

The issue of surplus spending came up at the board meeting. We have postponed a decision on this for a month in order to get input. I’m not sure what this will look like, but be assured I’ve asked about it. Maybe we can use this to test how willing the partner groups are to be involved in educating us about what they’d like to see around consultation. I know June is busy with summer on everyone’s mind, but I’d welcome any suggestions you or others have on what a process for reviewing surplus spending should/could look like. I understand something is supposed to go up on the website but I haven’t seen it yet. I have attached a copy for you.*

My own personal lesson I am learning is to stick by my values as a trustee. One of them is to vote only when input from the public and partner groups has been requested for major decisions. I am far enough along in my learning curve that I would like to start insisting that real consultation take place if I am expected to agree to big ticket items like budgets, achievement contacts, or significant new programs or plans. This does not mean I wish to challenge all decisions. It means that some decisions need consultation with appropriate partners to be inclusive and transparent.

* the document http://www.sd57.bc.ca/fileadmin/cao.sd57.bc.ca/FORM_AND_DOCUMENTS/Unappropriated_Surplus_Proposals.pdf is available on the district website http://www.sd57.bc.ca/ and feedback is due by June 14th, 2012 by email to wdemarsh@sd57.bc.ca.

Minister Abbott's Visit to Prince George

http://twitpic.com/99fnl9

Our group of SD57 Trustees met with Education Minister George Abbott today. Our discussion included funding formula concerns, advocacy for children without adequate support, capital project funds, career training programs at risk from funding cutbacks, issues with the BCED plan, and the troublesome relationship between the Ministry, boards, and the BCTF.

We had 13 issues and 17 questions in total. 8 were all we had time for. I did not take notes of the answers because the answers were all very "ministry predictable," the sort of stuff you can read online. Although Minister Abbott can be very personable with a dry sense of humor, but he can also give very long answers that sometimes turn into elevator music in my mind. Our superintendent can also do that. Quite a few education types do that, must be their teacher background!

Here are all the questions I had prepared, although I only had time for Topic 1 2nd issue and Topic 3 2nd issue.

Topic 1. Apprenticeships funding, work placements roadblocks, program stability

Note: thanks to SD57 career programs coordinators (B. Northrup, D. Borden, A. Saar) for their contributions from the meeting Apr. 12th, 2012. The government has often highlighted the need for more skilled trades workers and I was hoping to address a few roadblocks in our district that perhaps our minister could help us with.

1st issue: Our district aids in placing students with employers for work experience. Part of the apprenticeship process is that students advance through their tickets to a higher pay category. This is good for the student but creates a disincentive for the employer. If the government could help subsidize this wage difference then more students would be hired.

Questions: Can the provincial government provide wage subsidies to encourage employers to take on on apprentices? Programs like this existed in the past, perhaps they can be revived?

2nd issue: The CTC is a top-ranked dual credit trades program in our province, a partnership between local high schools and the College of New Caledonia. It provides an excellent training program for students who are bright but often lack engagement in high school. The CTC has a great track record of keeping students in school and transitioning them to employment after graduation. The program’s status is threatened, however, due to a funding shortage related to the difference between secondary and post-secondary schedules. Our high school students have 10 weeks in session at CTC after each College semester is finished. In the past, CNC covered the cost of instructors for this unfunded learning time, but with the College facing cutbacks, they will no longer subsidize these 10 weeks. Without funding for these 10 weeks each semester, the program faces reduced hours and students with 10 weeks to fill. We risk students leaving the program and possibly leaving school before getting their Dogwoods.

Question: Can the government provide transition funding so that our Career Technical Centre can maintain its high operation standards, bridge the scheduling conflict, and keep kids in school for full semesters?

3rd issue: Our apprenticeship programs have been affected by the government’s new regulations that all apprenticeship employers must be certified. Our numbers are at least half of what they have been in the past due to this. It is hard living in the north and finding those employers, especially in our rural centres like Mackenzie and McBride, where we have none that meet the criteria. This problem affects all of our apprenticeship programs from the College to the individual schools. Our students need work experiences to learn if they want to pursue a specific career. Statistically, students who complete work programs are more likely to continue on in that field and complete additional related post-secondary education.

Questions: Can the Ministry advocate permission for placement opportunities in situations where no certified employers are present, especially in rural areas? Can the Ministry take another look at its existing policy about certification?

Topic 2. Funding formula and rural schools

Issue: Per-block funding creates some inequities in our district, for example with inner city schools and rural schools. It does not take into consideration some fixed costs for schools or recognize that many programs need to remain consistent and funded through boom and bust cycles in resource-based communities. While we are able to shift some resources to assist inner city schools, our rural schools are still struggling to offer full programs to smaller groups of students. Our Distance Education system is not at the place where it can pick up the slack, so we can’t count on “21st Century Learning” to solve these problems in the short term. Additionally, per-block funding locks us into the 1 teacher - 30 student model that does not always provide the flexibility for creative learning environments such as those suggested by the BCED plan.

Questions: What kind of feedback has the Ministry received about per-block funding issues and what does it plan to do with this feedback? What suggestions do you have for addressing inequities and program stability that are affected by per-block funding?

Topic 3. BCED plan

Issue #1: We've heard quite a bit this year about how the teacher contract should evolve so it can respond to changes in the education system, but we've heard less about how other stakeholders need to respond.

Questions: What messages do you have for boards, administration, parents, and students about what they can do differently?

Issue #2: Some of our teachers have been working at what you would call 21st Century Learning for many years but feel their efforts are not recognized or supported by school and district administration. They speak of a slow deterioration in support for teacher-initiated change, a shut-out of teachers from technology decisions, leadership and committee work, and a rejection of their mobile learning and blended learning pilot projects. This dysfunctional relationship goes back a few years. It really came to the fore in 2010 during school closures and cutbacks when most committees ceased and was made worse by the labour dispute this year. Ideally we can start to repair some bridges and create the trust necessary for teachers to work alongside administration and the board, but we have a long way to go.

Questions: What message would you give to teachers who feel left out of local and provincial processes and worry that the BCED plan will arrive as another top-down program from the Ministry? How can we ensure that we have leadership competencies in place that would help our whole system be more accountable for change?

private vs public business

It has been interesting to sort out the role of a trustee during my first couple of months.  We have had plenty of meetings, and yet it still feels like we are playing catch up on the many issues that come up in a school district and the opportunities we have to learn.  One of the things I'm still trying to make sense of is the public versus private aspects of board business.  We have casual meetings, formal meetings, committee meetings, public meetings, in-camera meetings, meetings that include partner groups, etc.  They overlap, too, so that some are not confidential, some are strictly confidential, and some are technically confidential but I'm not sure why.  Thus we are often being cautioned as to what we should say (or when), and our "public education" business often seems like a big secret, when it is mostly about stuff that principals, teachers, parents, even students seem to already know about.  I said "interesting" because to me that is a blend of exciting and frustrating.  I'm learning but I'm also anxious to jump into the work that needs to be done.

My trustee platform was for more open conversations between trustees and administration and all associated stakeholder groups.  I realize that not everything in our school district needs to be public but a large portion of it is safe to be public and therefore fairly examined by as many people possible before implementation.  I think when all parties have chance to weight in, compare notes, offer suggestions, criticisms, solutions, then the final product is much stronger.  Trustees benefit from this, too, because their vote can be made more confident when due diligence has occurred.  I just don't think we have the time as trustees to do all the homework necessary to have this confidence unless the due diligence involves more public input and partner group collaboration.

I'm hoping our board can examine the issue of in-camera meetings more closely in the coming weeks.  We've had a few issues come and go that really deserved more attention and discussion, but we didn't have have the time for it.  Most of us work outside of trusteeship, and I'm not sure how I'd find more time than the 15-20 hours a week or so I seem to be putting into it.  It will probably slow down once our orientation sessions have wrapped up, but the best way to steal more time is to share the work with partner groups who have already indicated they are interested in being more a part of the conversations.  DPAC comes to mind as a proactive group that has offered help in the way of reports and sustainability suggestions.  If we give them a more open platform to be a complete "partner" we will reap the benefits.

Another reason I'd like to see our meetings become more open and less confidential is so that better research can be done.  Right now here is how one of our regular in-camera meetings works:
1. Get the agenda but can't share or ask questions in public about the topics.
2. Must guess about what might be good questions to ask at the meeting.
3. Spend two hours total hashing through the issues and items, which means a few minutes per item, which puts some pressure on what we can discuss.  If we throw a presentation or two in from district staff (which is often necessary), the time goes fast.
4. When we leave we are bound by confidentiality and we can't really discuss the items or gather further research or seek out opinions from people who may be affected.  I have to limit my research from what I can find online or what I can deduce from the brief section of the committee meeting.
5. When the partner groups leave they are bound by confidentiality so they can't really seek input from their folks.  Open discussion is verboten unless an item of interest appears on a public board meeting agenda with enough time to gather input.
6. The committee meeting minutes aren't public before the board meeting (or maybe ever?) so the public doesn't necessarily know what's coming up or how to prepare input.  They might guess that an issue is coming, or see some motions in the agenda, but they can't prepare expert work without knowing about specific motions, rationale, etc.
7. For me, the shakiest part is the actual public board meeting, so I have to do all the discussing that I hoped would happen beforehand in one go.  At this point, minds are mostly made up and I'm really left with making statements rather than actually engaging in a real discussion that might change the outcome.  Maybe I'll get better at this with time, but the point is, discussion, input, and openness up front means the board meeting can really be about the best decisions being made on the best evidence.

Here's our Bylaw 1 that deals with meetings:
http://www.sd57.bc.ca/fileadmin/cao.sd57.bc.ca/Policy_Manual/Policies/Bylaw_No._1.pdf

I have no idea how so many boards survived with the existing rules about committee meetings.  I know other districts have opened up their committee meetings, I hope to learn more about how and why.  I wish the "opening up" could have come before the 2010 sustainability process, there might have been more up front discussion and less of a need to make so many decisions all at once.  I used to wonder why the last board sat there at all those closure meetings taking punishment from the public without responding or making adjustments along the way (like they did in the Kamloops district).  I realize now they probably felt bound by their own rules and were locked in by the process they had started.  I hope I don't end up in a process like that, but if I do I hope we have the ability to go back and forth with our stakeholders at key open meetings, so that the creative solutions and encouragement to think big can come early from partner groups, in time to make a difference. I suppose it is possible to make quick decisions based on limited input, but my brain doesn't work that way.  I need things slowed down, many opinions and approaches, and time to process and work.  It's the same way I do pottery!

first appointments

I'd like to share my committee and school liaison appointments, and highlight some of the issues that are coming up for school trustees and the district.  Please note that the appointments are not yet official until they are announced at the Jan 24th, 2012 meeting.  I'm still trying to sort out the difference between "timed announcements" and material that should truly be confidential or "in-camera."  If it were up to me, almost all of our trustee business, with the exception of personnel issues and such, would be public and published in advanced.  In addition to the appointments, I think we should also be notifying the public that we have completed criminal record checks. Trustee candidate Shawn Peters was right in his campaign to encourage the board to pursue this.  Every other volunteer organization requires a criminal record check to be around children.  Perhaps this is something the Policy and Governance Committee will be able to rectify.

I am very happy with my appointments. I have a great mix of schools and am looking forward to learning from some strong teachers and administrators that I have great respect for.  I look forward to the committees I will be on.  There are some big issues & opportunities coming up and I hope I do them justice by asking the right questions.  Saying that, I do hope that those who voted me in, and those who will work with me during my appointments, will help me learn all I need to know to ask the right questions; I do not want to do this alone without the public's help.  Sadly I feel the timelines for some up-and-coming issues are pressing and Educations Services and Policy and Governance committee meetings have been cancelled for the month of January.  Some of my issues are plans for bussing, the discussion around reopening of MAC1 in Mackenzie, concerns with the Northern Learning Centre, and Public access and input at meetings.  Some of these will come up at the Trustee/Sr. Administration meeting on Jan 10th, 2012, although I'm not sure if these are on the agenda for our information or if we have some room to discuss and raise issues.  Feel free to email me or leave comments with your suggestions and feedback.

My appointments are as follows:

Committees

1.  Education Programs and Planning Committee

2.  Education Services Committee

3.  Environmental Sustainability Committee

Liaison

1.  District Parent Advisory Council

Schools

1.  Duchess Park

2.  Edgewood

3.  Harwin

4.  Spruceland

5.  Lac Des Bois