Fall elections

The nomination period for school board trustees is just around the corner, and I'm thinking of throwing my hat into the ring again.  When I was a School District 57 trustee from 2011-2014, we faced different challenges than schools face now, but also many that are the same. School board trustees have an important job to promote public education, advocate for all of the stakeholders in education especially the ones that have a hard time being heard, and ensure that the school system is serving the needs of students effectively and responsibly.  I believe that one of the roles of a trustee was to ask good questions about that. This was something I was good at, and if I give this another try it will be something I do again.

Freedom of Expression

As a departing school trustee in November 2015, I asked the SD57 board of education to consider this motion:

Motion: that the Board of Education create a Freedom of Speech and Whistle Blower Policy to accompany the existing and future policies related to technology and communication such as 6179 Acceptable Use of Networks

Process: The policy would follow the traditional cycle of being drafted at Policy and Governance, seek input form partner groups, undergo revisions at Policy and Governance and be presented to the Board for approval. The policy could stand alone from a revised 6179 Acceptable Use of Networks

Rationale: Other districts have a full set of complimentary policies that outline rights and responsibilities of employees related to technology and communication. We have the responsibilities part but not the rights. This is important as the Board subcommittee on technology is currently studying use of mobile technology and will likely have motions or policy recommendations arising from this work. Having clear statements protecting freedom of speech, including respect for those who share concerns, is a characteristic of a healthy school district that is not afraid to change and move forward.

To my knowledge, this hasn't gone anywhere yet. Why does the School District need a policy like this? Here are some points I brought up (plus a few more) at the March Board meeting as I encouraged the new trustees to dust off this motion and think about what they could do next.

• Back in 2008 a case was heard in BC... kinzie/bcpsea
• Just like students, many adults live life in both the real world and digital world. It is seamless now, and conversations that start face to face often move online and vice versa. 
• School districts should encourage global dialogue instead of restricitng staff to local ‘water cooler’ conversations 
• If there is a worry about what more freedom of expression would look like? Ex. teachers strike - massive effort by teachers and others across the province to engage the public. The school district did not suffer from this outpouring of strong views and in fact parents are better informed about the issues now 
• As a trustee I had many conversations regarding this, many messages sent to me by teachers, CUPE staff, PEA staff, and principals who wanted to express concerns, question decisions, even just throw out ideas but were afraid of reprisals. They know they are monitored and some get talked to, but they have to guess about which topics are ok and which are going to get them in trouble. 
• A policy is needed that makes it clear that easy, respectful, and challenging freedom of expression is something valued by the employer. 
• Rather than a culture of hushed conversations, forbidden topics, and fear, I would encourage you to create a policy that shows you embrace open and honest dialogue. 
• This would be a policy that would compliment partner groups, and take the pressure off of them to have to monitor and defend their own members

Courage

To new trustees of SD#57:

I read the latest post on the superintendent's blog http://blog.sd57.bc.ca/?p=405. First of all, thanks to the superintendent for posting again on his blog. Some of us were concerned about the two year break from social media.

The piece "Courage" contained many positive statements and acknowledged that trustees have tough decisions to make, but also included information on the 2010 Sustainability process that I found a bit troubling. Some of it borders on re-writing history. I don't think there was ever a choice between doing something or nothing. No board would have ignored the need for a balanced budget and obviously cuts had to be made. At the end of the year in 2010 the district would have had a balanced budget one way or the other. The blog piece made it sound like the school district would fold and close up shop without the board carrying out the big plan. I'm also reminded that the big plan was not written by trustees but was dropped on them apparently with the idea that they couldn't change it or explain it to the public in any details until the very last day when they had to decide on the whole package. As a parent I found that one of the most troubling parts of 2010. I really liked what Kamloops did in the same year. They put a cost-cutting plan together and when they got lots of feedback about it (which they collected and put on their website) they actually changed the plan and found out that it had much better acceptance.

An example of my concern from the superintendent's blog post: 

"That focus was learning and the learner. Every decision had to be about learning. If it wasn't about learning it shouldn’t be part of the discussion." 

Contradicting this, there are many examples one could use. Technology stands out for me, this is something that many teachers have talked to me about. When it came to questions about changes to technology that came from the 2010 Sustainability process, the superintendent has said on more than one occasion that it was a financial decision not an educational decision. In other words the decisions were about following a business model, and that education was a secondary thought. These decisions led to many years of decline for technology and an impact on education.

There were other cuts made in 2010 that were done just to save money. If the argument is made that saved dollars can be re-invested in education it kind of makes the argument redundant. Anything and everything can then be said to be about learning.

I agree that the last board had hard decisions and long hours put into that process, but there were many parts of that process that did not go well and should be studied carefully during Strategic Planning to avoid mistakes of the past. I have detailed notes about what went well and what went wrong in 2010 as do others, individuals and partner groups.

I mentioned some unfinished business in my exit speech (and put in a request for a freedom of speech policy) and I would also remind trustees about two issues that we did not deal with:

1. Concerns about the new student information system and how it will be implemented. Please recall the excellent letter from retired teacher John Vogt outlining the issues. He has given permission for this to be shared if any of you need to see it again.

2. June 26, 2012 motion: that the Policy and Governance committee examine practices and consider updating or drafting a new policy for hiring, review, evaluation and support of administration. Carried 4:3.

I am done with this now so I will let others worry about past and future issues. In addition to working together, celebrating success, really listening to input from the educational community, and collaborating on the issues, please continue to keep each other and the superintendent accountable to high expectations. No one would question that our superintendent works hard, but I have also found that he works best when he is under a bit of pressure :)

Exit Speech

Here is the text of my farewell speech for the SD57 Board of Education of which I have been a trustee for 3 years. Additionally, I introduced a motion that the Board of Education create a Freedom of Speech and Whistle Blower Policy to accompany other policies about employee rights and responsibilities.

The new board has some important work ahead in the next four years. Recently I asked our current Board to compile and review our work and pass it on to the new board. Although a majority of us agree this was necessary, it did not happen so I will take some time now to publicly offer my perspective on work that still needs to be done. I’m sure you’ll hear from others about all the good things going on so that gives me some space to talk about items of concern. 

For Partner Groups

Regarding Partner Groups and contributions to committees:

I have heard on several occasions that participation at a committee is irrelevant to that partner group if the topic is not of their interest. I would argue this. I would say that when partner groups are attending a committee they represent the whole district with a specialized opinion and not just their part of the district. Please send committee members who are willing to participate with that lens.

Regarding Partner Groups and Local vs Provincial: I often hear you speak to provincial work, issues, and initiatives. Please work harder to bring forward more local issues and recognize that the board has most of its power directed at making improvements to local working and learning conditions, and local organization and leadership.

Thank you for continuing to bring issues to the board. Keep pushing the board to meet with you often and stay on them about following up on issues. I am reminded of the standalone LGBTQ policy that received strong input from partner groups. At the beginning I was shocked to be the only trustee in favour of this, but after steady attention on this issue eventually the whole board supported it. This shows that advocacy works.

To all teachers and support staff: Thank you for all of your work to educate children in an ever changing world. Education has become complex and each of you regularly take on the role of social worker, counselor, teacher, and caregiver, even when it is not in your job description.

For Senior Administration:

The amount of times I have had emails or motions misunderstood has been astounding and it would appear that all we have done for three years is play games around agendas. Our board could have got a lot more done without those games being played. Please aim for improvements in these areas:

1. Standards of writing and statistics - we still see too many leading statements in documents such as the District Achievement Contract and Superintendents Report on Achievement. Statistics are used to meet minimum compliance standards for the Ministry, but do not make it clear what’s actually happening or justify spending priorities. In the District Achievement Contract  it says that we are a data driven district and yet there is little evidence of data beyond what the Ministry requires us to collect. Release and publish this data to that you are using to track spending and meet goals. No initiative should be released without parameters set for original data goals and timelines. Start collecting data on real cohorts of students and publish 8-10 years of data rather than 3-5 years in order to make more accurate assessments from that data.

2. Partner group engagement - speak to partners and collaborate before making key decisions. For example, instead of consulting end users about a new Student Information System a decision was made behind closed doors about where the district would go. I managed to catch this before it was a done deal, and the board actually created a brief window to collaborate about this. Sadly I think it turned into another game about how to get to the predetermined goal instead of true transparency and collaboration.

3. District wide initiatives - The Sea to Sky school district did it right, they held a district wide cafe and collaborated about the direction the SD would go to implement the BCED Plan. In our district we rebranded existing programs, called it the Essential 8, and then took $20 per student out of schools without the board being asked. In fact we were told at the start that the Essential 8 would not involve new money.

4. Communication - In regular conversation with principals, teachers, other staff, and I hear that communication from the board office can sometime be condescending and misleading. I really hope the new board will pursue higher and more transparent standards when communicating with staff. None of our employees should feel intimidated or handled by the district.

For the New Board, some areas to consider

1. Leadership - In my opinion, this Board acted largely as an extended arm of Management. The new board needs to start being its own entity and leading with Senior Administration treated as a partner group and not the 8th trustee.

2. Accountability - This is an important area of governance for the new Board. It needs to improve the way it review’s itself, does staff performance reviews, reviews HR practice, explains new spending and new initiatives, and communicates with different levels of staff, and the public especially its partner groups.

3. Tracking work - intended actions, motions, and commitments have been lost or forgotten multiple times during this Boards 3 yrs and that needs to be corrected with some form of tracking. I put forward a motion with the Board 2 yrs ago about this but it did not pass. I could not convince the Board that it is a problem when motions are dropped, correspondence is not printed, requests for information are misdirected, emails are not followed up on, etc.

4. Technology - this is a huge issue and a widening gap for this school district and the rest of the province. For example, it took two years longer than stated to update our district website and it still only meets standards from a decade ago. We are making technology decisions based on highly questionable financial arguments and not because they support the teaching and learning that our staff would actually like to do. While we wait on this, a whole generation of students is not getting the opportunity to learn with and about technology that students in other districts get.

5. Special needs - One of my biggest advocacy issues was with our vulnerable learners. Having been a vulnerable learner myself I understand what it’s like to sit in a classroom and not know how to read when the rest of the classroom can. We need to make sure that designated dollars are not leaving these children. I think the SD should follow a model that allows schools to buy additional PEA time that they require to allow children to be assessed. At the very least this SD needs to double the permanent staff in the PEA dep’t and stop bringing in consultants to cover the gaps.

6. Lifting gag orders - I have had some serious conversations that this SD has unofficial gag orders for principals and other staff. When you as trustees go out and visit schools and seek to understand how there school operates, you want to know that the principal will not be interviewed afterwards about what was said. You do not want to hear that they are afraid to talk to trustees or put forward unusual initiatives. You do not want to hear that that the SD culture is about fear, and not innovation or collaboration.

7. Communication - This past term has been frustrating since we were often told to accept board decisions, keep our opinions to ourselves, and leave all media interviews to the Board chair or Superintendent. I would advise this new board to speak out and let people know that there are real conversations going on including dissenting voices. This Board also needs to upload Board info and communicate better on the website such as it is. The Sunshine Coast is a good example of a district with a well working website.

8. Finance - The Board has seriously missed the boat on this one. I have repeatedly asked for action items to be attached to recommendations and this has not happened. Here are some examples.

a) Set parameters set around any new initiatives. The $20 per student Essential 8 plan as well as the new $130,000 Trades position should have had openly shown what was to be accomplished and by when, so that it can be seen where public money is going and how targets will be met.

b) Recommendations - don’t just make recommendations and expect that to turn into actions. That has been asked of senior staff without results, such as with the ECOW recommendations last year.

c) More care around surplus spending - if surplus is spent I would suggest not using it to grow the size of the school board office size, but put the money back in schools and support the growth of the PEA dept staff. Some of the money spent in this way comes back the district in the form of new student designations.

d) Publish results of learning team grants or district initiatives - this would allow for qualitative collaboration, data gathered can back where professional development could be increased and allow for better spending and tracking of dollars spent for these initiatives.

Last and Least, a message for the Minister of Education and the government: Your actions over many years have strained public education to a breaking point, some would say on purpose to promote corporate investment and private schooling. You need to start taxing fairly so that our children get a better quality public education and are more able to take care of you when you are old.

So, the new board has its work cut out. I wish you all the best and encourage you to set your expectations high and do it early.

My Record

This post shows the work via motions that I have put forward in the last three years. These are only motions that I made in public, not in camera.

I have great expectations of this school district. Many of the motions have increased transparency and advocate for more collaboration with partner groups when decisions are made. When I have voted no I ask to have my ‘No’ vote recorded so that I am accountable for how I vote.

There are annual documents that we review and vote on and I keep on trying to improve the editing and communication process regarding this. I have not voted in favour of the Superintendents Reports on Achievement or the District Achievement Contracts for a few reasons:

1. Statistics: this school district has enough data to publish more than 5yrs of stats which could define a more accurate picture of if the school district is meeting its goals and what is working. Follow cohorts would give an even greater correlation.
2. Leading statements: Many statements are leading and give no examples for the reader to understand what is being said. We are left to assume many things.
3. There are many statements referring to things improving, but again, I think the goals are unrealistic and leading when statistical significance is lacking and full explanation is not provided.
4. Input not shared with Board: Feedback was asked for the board's very own achievement contract band yet we were not allowed to see this input. My motion to release this feedback to the board was blocked. I definitely voted no for that achievement contract attached to that feedback.
5. Lack of collaboration: The "Essential 8" were placed into the document without collaboration with the district or consultation with trustees. I feel that is important that a significant district wide initiative should not be implemented without at least talking with all groups involved. I also feared approval of this would end of costing the district money, although at that meeting I was assured it was not going to happen. Ten months later it was put into the budget, costing the district approximately $450,000 and most of that money was to be taken out of the schools ($20 per student), the rest from surplus or other parts of the budget.

The budget is another area that I have consistently challenged and voted no. I have done so since in my opinion I have not seen partner group input implemented into the budget. This Board started a committee with all the partner groups to look at the budget together, and agreed on themes and items to be included in the budget, but did not see the results we hoped for.  Two other trustees voted against that budget for the same reason. Our budget votes are complicated because the budget needs to be broken down more to enable greater understanding of where the money is going instead of large amounts under headings without reference to where it is going.

Here are most of the motions I've put forward:

Oct 28 2014

Motion: That the Board of Education direct district staff to hold and not destroy any Mac computers recently removed from the network until the board has had a chance to review this decision in terms of our disposal of surplus equipment policy. Carried unanimously.

May 27 2014

BCSTA Advocation Motion: That the Board, in writing, request that the BCSTA call on the government to reconsider their Lockout tactics and actively seek a negotiated teacher contract or failing that, appointment of a mutually agreed upon mediator. Carried unanimously.

June 2014

Motion: That the Board of Trustees write a letter to the Minister of Education to express concerns that the Ministry of Education has removed written sections from English 10 and Social Studies 11 graduation program exams. This action is not in keeping with the designation of provincial exams as an essential service and compromises the valid assessment of our students. Carried Unanimously.

May 13, 2014: 2014/2015 Budget proposal

Motion: That the budget increase to C&I of $248,000 for the implementation of the “Essential Eight” be reduced to $124,000 in order to mitigate cuts to other departments and allow the hiring of a Speech Language Pathologist. (amended to put all the $248,000 back in the schools - Defeated)

Feb 17, 2014

Motion: that the Board of Education in SD57 write a joint letter with the PGDTA asking the Ministry to respect the BC Supreme Court ruling, fully fund restored services and to bargain with respectful and collaborative intentions. Carried unanimously.

Jan 28, 2014

Motion: That the OpenStudent organization be invited to make a demonstration/presentation in our district in the next two months for a similar audience as the Aspen SIS presentation in December 2013. The purpose is to allow staff to compare the two systems that will be used in BC to replace BCESIS. (amended to “at their expense”, then carried)

Nov 26 2013

Motion: That the board receive information on registration transfers between schools in the district by month from March to Sept 2013. Carried 4:2 (Against - Bella, Bekkering)

All these motions were moved to committee, Carried 5:1(Kate against). I agrued to keep the conversation at the Board table for a transparent conversation.

Motion: Moved to committee

That district staff be directed to draft a new technology vision and policy in conjunction with our partner groups to reflect our immediate and future technology needs, including strategies for meeting the BC Education Plan goal of “learning empowered by technology”. (Board believes this will be drafted in response to the strategic plan, Carried: 6:0)

Motion: Moved to commitee

That the school district conduct an anonymous employee survey every three years to understand the technology needs in our school district to help set technology goals and identify challenges. The survey questions should be formed in collaboration with partner groups and the results of the survey made public. (recommendation from committee of the whole starting 3 years after the Strategic Plan starts, Carried 4:3 Sharel, Betty, Sharon against)

Motion: Moved to commitee

That the school district allow district schools to purchase media tablets and mobile technology of their choosing in accordance with their own technology planning process and the Acceptable Use of Networks Policy. (moved to an adhoc committee, still meeting, Carried 5:1, Bekkering against)

Motion: Moved to commitee

That senior administration bring together a working group made to examine and assess AspenEsis and OpenStudent student information systems. The working group shall be made up of two (or more) of each: administrator, tech analyst, SASO or secretary doing student data entry, counsellor, and teacher. (Sent to Education services committee and defeated by trustees in committee, Trustee’s Bella and Bekkering)

June 25, 2013

Motion to postpone accepting the District Achievement Contract in order to review the input that the senior administration asked for on trustees’ behalf. The final edits and input had not been offered to trustees prior to acceptance. Defeated - motion not seconded. (This was in reference to the District Achievement Contact).

May 14, 2013

motion: That the Senior Administration prioritize the hiring of two Occupational therapists and on Speech Language Pathologist for the 2013/2014 school year without loss to current staffing levels, using current unappropriated surplus for the first year and securing sustainable funding for subsequent years.

additional motion May 14: That this motion be postponed to the regular Board meeting following the approval of the 2013/2014 budget. Carried. 4:3

postponed motion May 28: Defeated. 5:2

April 2013

Motion: That the Superintendent or designate release the current kindergarten registration numbers to the board. Carried 5:1 (Bekkering against)

Nov 5, 2012

motion: that the Superintendent or designate report twice a year, October and March, on class size and composition in the district. After much debate and amendments, the motion was passed as “that the Superintendent or designate present a report twice a year, November and March, on class size and composition in the district to the Management and Finance committee”. Carried

June 26, 2012

motion: that the Policy and Governance committee examine practices and consider updating or drafting a new policy for hiring, review, evaluation and support of administration. Carried 4:3. (Bella, Bekkering, Bennit against).

Board Vision exercise from 2012

I came across this today, it was a plan I made for a School District 57 Board Vision discussion that we had in March 2012. We ended up having this meeting but did not get all the way through the questions. I would like to pick some of these up again, maybe as part of the Strategic Planning process.

Here is how the plan went:

Check In:

Lessons learned: Learn personalities, have confidence, ask questions that get into areas that are difficult to talk about, recognize red-hearings in a debate, how to properly prepare for meetings, how to turn an idea that makes sense in my head into words, questions, and actions that others can understand

Questions:

1. When are detailed questions and discussion by email acceptable when getting together as a group may be difficult or may not happen in time for an issue to be addressed? 
2. Board decision vs. individual opinion, both are important - what kind of trust is needed for board members to know that individual responses to issues are professional and help resolve problems? 
3. What interest is there in having the board meet a few times as a group of seven to build our own relationship with each other and the issues facing the district and public education? (board discussion can take place like this, but of course any formal decisions need to be attended by a member of senior admin... School Act) 
4. What is our strategy for receiving frank partner group input in addition to public board meetings, and what duty do we have to respond? For example, when can we sit down for a rational discussion with PGDTA on their Bill 22 concerns? 
5. Can we write a bio and personal vision next to our SD trustee picture? In general, can we improve the way trustees use digital tools to communicate with the public? 
6. What interest is there in a board-hosted district and partners round table to help us share, focus and adapt our achievement goals and also our plans for sustainability?

Brainstorming: Focus for next 3 yrs. (can add my questions to these)

1. Safe Schools - action on drug users, dealers, bullies - are we giving too many second chances 
2. Parent concerns - how will we involve them on mandatory programs or aspects of 21st learning that might be pushed on students, loss of elective programs, where special needs funding goes 
3. Improving communication with trustees - more interaction, less passive listening, Q&A sessions, role we can play in building bridges between management and teachers more blunt honesty in documents 
4. Support for rural schools - why it’s important (community stability, equality or at least fairness in education, importance of rural regions for food security and resource stability, and what we can do, what’s the strategy for delivering education 
5. Board office communication - more open talk and blunt honesty in documents, better proof-reading of publications (e.g. internal VP application), less politics and message-management, consistent message on technology - the district is saying and doing two different things when it comes to technology 
6. Long-term planning - school plans and district plans are not taken seriously, need more editing or review from partner groups, no tech plan exists, no on-going sustainability plan, not enough input on plans (Sunshine Coast example) 
7. Sustainability - green schools, plant new trees, reduce/recover carbon taxes

Response to DPAC questions

School District 57 Parent Advisory Council (http://sd57dpac.ca/) asked trustee candidates seven questions. Here are my responses:

1. What do you think is important to parents in the district?
There are three basic things that all parents want: they want to know that their kids are safe, loved (or at least cared for), and learning something useful. Additionally, I think parents want to know that their kids receive adequate support, that problems (like bullying) will be dealt with quickly and fairly, that their role as parents will be respected, and that their kids will get a solid foundation in reading, writing, math, and opportunities to grow in the arts, phys-ed, citizenship, and practical skills.

2. Why are you running for trustee?
I am running for re-election because I have high expectations. For the last three years I have tried to raise the game for everyone involved in student success. I have worked for healthy caring schools and good relationships between all partner groups. I talk regularly with stakeholders and partner groups, especially when I know there are outstanding issues and dysfunction in our district. I have fought for transparent governance, asked tough questions of management and others, and refused to simply rubber stamp motions. Although I respect my fellow trustees, this usually puts me in the minority, often 1 out of 7.

3. What have you done to prepare yourself for the role of trustee?
To prepare for being a trustee I do three things:
a) I talk to people involved like teachers, principals, parents, and support staff to find out what's going on
b) I read the material prepared by senior staff and ask tough questions about it
c) I make motions to actually deal with the issues that come up, either on my own or with other trustees

4. How will you ensure that the schools in this district are safe and caring places for all students?
I will ensure safe and caring schools by continuing to find out what is behind the issues that come up and by holding senior management accountable for dealing with them. I will continue to be persistent. In 2012 I was the only trustee to support a stand-alone policy on LGBTQ bullying. Eventually the others came around. I also started out alone in pushing for class composition reports and better information release on school registration data and future projections. I keep in close contact with a network of parents, teachers, administration, and support staff.

5. How do you see your role as trustee in relation to the superintendent and staff?
I see my role with district staff as being an important part of providing transparency and accountability. I have prepared detailed responses to each of the superintendent's reports and district achievement contracts, and have asked tough questions at every in-camera and public board meeting. I insist on better data for decisions, e.g. the new student information system, and set high expectations for board office communication and reporting, e.g. I've kept the pressure up for a better and more useful district website. One of my favourite roles was being the DPAC liaison for two years.

6. How will you demonstrate and communicate the accountability and transparency of the school board to parents and to the community?
I will demonstrate accountability and transparency by asking for a restoration budget to by developed alongside the balanced budget. This shows partner groups and the government what a fully funded schools would look like, and would be developed with inputs from all partner groups. In fact our partner groups made very good suggestions during the "Extended Committee" process over the last two years but we failed to implement those changes in part due to insufficient funds. I also believe we need less closed-door meetings and would push for more inclusion and a redesign of our meetings. Lastly, we have a strategic planning process coming this year and I would like to ensure that it is not a "done deal" process but one that actually listens to and uses the input of partner groups and the community.

7. Is there anything else you'd like to add?
There are different strengths and weaknesses on every board. By my own admission I am not a politician. I am in fact an introvert who works very hard because I am trying to make a change. My work may not always be in the spotlight, but it is important because many of the other trustees are not comfortable doing it, like bringing issues into the light and asking difficult or awkward questions on behalf of parents, students, and employees.

Answers to Questions

About two weeks ago I posted some questions that I thought voters should ask of trustee candidates. Here are some of my thoughts about how to answer these questions.

1. Why bother voting in local elections? What difference does it make?

Both the City of PG and School District 57 work with budgets of more than $120 million.  Because local government is accessible, citizens can have more influence over how these tax dollars are spent than they can over provincial and federal funds. The local school board makes a difference to local schools, not just whether they stay open but about how they are managed and what programs get developed to improve success for students.

2. Why is BC behind other provinces when it comes to funding? What has our school board done to show the need for stable funding from the province besides write some letters?

BC Education is underfunded for many reasons. One of them is that education was not a big issue during the last election. Another is that our government has an agenda to reduce costs and allow more privatization of our school system. Our board has politely raised funding concerns whenever it has met with provincial representatives, and of course it has written many letters, but I think we need to be more aggressive.

3. Why are our playgrounds so sparse? What would it take to get more trees planted or more variety in the landscaping and playspaces?

When the school grounds were cleared of dead pine trees a few years ago, almost no trees were re-planted. My understanding is that senior management or maintenance department sees a cost savings in groundskeeping when it is just grass and not trees or gardens. It is always complicated to add more money to budgets when they have been recently reduced, but where there is a will there is a way. Trees and children go together, this should be a right and not a privilege.  It is also an inexpensive way to make old shabby schools look a little bit better.

4. Are all of our partner groups (teachers, principals, support staff, etc.) free to advocate for their schools, students, and public education or do they have restrictions placed on them? How has the school board engaged these partners? Will the new Strategic Plan address this?

Aside from good news stories or mandatory reports, we hear quite a bit from PGDTA, CUPE, and parents. We rarely hear from PGPVPA (administration). From my conversations it seems that many of them feel there is a gag order to in place and don't get involved. Our board has not done anything that I know of to correct this situation. I will try to make open, blunt, and honest feedback a part of the Strategic Plan, but one person can only do so much. Other trustees have to be willing to see the problem and also act on it. I would love to work with the board to make this happen.

5. Why are so many busses so empty? What are some creative ideas for rethinking how to meet student transportation needs?

We reserve bus seats for everyone that says they want to use it, but many do not. This is one reason why we spend about $500,000 more than we are funded for on transportation.  One idea is to have gathering stations where parents are expected to drop off their kids. From there, fewer buses could pick up more kids. These stations would have to be safe and perhaps supervised by a district employee that could call in with any problems. We could also charge based on usage, although this is not usually a popular idea. Another idea that has been floated is to offer a transportation subsidy for remote parents instead of offering bussing. We have tried this before and it resulted in savings.

6. When is a school too big? How are we planning for the future? Should any of our closed schools re-open?

Some of our schools are crowded. I am also concerned that some school properties could be sold off. If Prince George expands, we will need these school properties back to rebuild or renovate schools. Mackenzie has one elementary school (Morfee) and many parents have asked to re-open a second (Mackenzie Elementary). I would like to see a more detailed study one whether this is reasonable (money, demographics, learning conditions). They are also interested in French Immersion. So far, arguments on both sides have lacked solid evidence that convinces me of what should happen next.

7. Why are iPads a banned purchase by schools for use with staff and students? How are we actually supporting site-based management and innovation?

My understanding is that Pads were banned along with other tablet purchases (other than one pilot project) because of the potential cost. This was a decision by senior administration and not schools or the board. Perhaps they are worried that if one or two schools can use iPads in their classes then the whole district will want them, so to solve this problem they've banned them all. There is no actual policy about this, just practice. I have heard plenty from teachers and principals that they would like to make their own technology decisions and use their own technology budgets in a way that will benefit students and teachers the most. It is possible that tablet technology will come and go before our district sorts out what to do with this issue. This is too bad because many innovative teachers and principals have just given up using technology with students when it is not supported by the district. I'm quite sure we even lost a principal to another district because of this. It is wishful thinking that "bringing your own device" will solve this problem. We need to remove restrictions on technology that everyone in the educational world is already using.

8. How come new programs come and go without any data being collected about how they work and whether they are worth it? Do we have accountable spending?

I think is easier to come up with a creative idea than it is to see it through with a real plan that has parameters in place. Examples from the past include some of the 2010 school closures, the attempt to wipe out dual-track French Immersion, the rushed creation of a Northern Learning Centre choice program (which did not last two years), the choice of Student Information Systems, the AMS pilot (a new assessment system), the Essential 8 (tied to our achievement contract), and the upcoming Strategic Plan. Each one has its own issues but they all relate to data and accountability. Of course there are lots of programs that work great but the ones that  have serious problems show us the areas we should focus on to do a better job. Not trying to be a party-pooper, but trustees should spend less time being cheerleaders for the district and more time focusing on problems that won't go away. When we solve those problems then we have something to cheer about. Actually we should cheer more for basic work of staff and students, and show more of it on our websites.

9. What has been done to give rural schools the same learning opportunities as urban schools? How are we engaging their parents, students, staff, communities and the regional district?

Rural schools would benefit from more site-based management, more control over budget and direction. There has been a "conversation on rural education" going on 10 years, what we need is more action. For example, are we putting the creativity and resources into better distributed learning? Have we looked into better use of itinerant teachers or alternative schedules? I would like to know that rural communities (not just schools) are developing long-term site plans and that our school district is supporting them. I would like to know that when the regional district wants to meet with the board that it doesn't take months to make it happen.

10. What are we doing to speed up diagnosis of special needs students and the added funding that comes with it? Do we have enough support staff such as occupational therapists, psychologists, and speech pathologists to deal with the needs in our schools?

This was an important issue for me because we don't have enough support staff. I tried unsuccessfully to put aside surplus funds for more of these positions (psychologists, occupational therapists, speech language pathologists). Although most of the partner groups agreed, and this was part of the "ECOW" (extended budget committee) recommendations, it did not happen. Again I found myself alone in this request. I think this should be a much bigger priority for our board and district because we are talking about our most vulnerable students.

11. The new teacher contract has an Education Fund to hire more specialist teachers, will this meet the needs of students? How will we find out if we need more counsellors, learning assistance teachers, teacher-librarians and so on?

Specialist teachers on their own won't meet all of our student's needs, but having more rather than less is definitely going to make a difference. I think the critical part is whether each school has access to basic supports. For example if the formula determines that an elementary school is too small for a teacher-librarian position, that school has lost opportunities compared with other schools.  I think that senior staff, principals, teacher reps, other partner group reps, and specialist teachers should sit down together to come up with our own targets and ratios separate from the provincial bargaining table. Maybe even two sets, what we can afford by using the Education Fund, and what we think we'd need to meet all the "specialist" needs of our students. I'd like to see this backed by evidence (data from our schools now) and not just past contract language or wishlists.

12. Does our school district website do enough to celebrate the good work that happens in our school district especially with the focus of the Canada Winter Games coming to Prince George?

No, our website does not yet do this. This was another point I tried to drive home over the last three years. There is no place to showcase board office staff, to celebrate cool student projects or teacher work or principal pride in their schools. Some of the school websites do this, some do not. The school website has new colours and design, but the content is still about the same. We should see some of the amazing things being done by our staff and students. All of Canada will be turning their attention to Prince George in a few months and one of the places they'll look is at our school district and our website (our schools will be used by the Games). We need better maps, stories, pictures, videos, and simpler navigation, following the three-click rule.

Rocky Mountain Goat News

The Rocky Mountain Goat Newspaper asked trustee candidates to respond to four questions. I thought I'd publish my responses here as well as to the paper.

Here are their questions:

1. What makes you a good candidate?
2. What are the big issues facing the school board and Robson Valley?
3. What is your vision for rural schools?
4. Anything else you want to add?

Here are my responses:

1. I have high expectations. For the last three years I have tried to raise the game for everyone involved in student success. I have worked for healthy caring schools and good relationships between all partner groups. I talk regularly with teachers, principals, other staff, and parents about what it going on in the district, especially where there is dysfunction. I have fought for transparent governance, asked tough questions of management and others, and refused to simply rubber stamp motions. Although I respect my fellow trustees, this usually puts me in the minority, often 1 out of 7.
2. Main issues: A) inclusive decision making - a Strategic Plan is coming up, I would like to see this be an open-ended consultation about the future, not a confirmation of what has already been decided. B) high expectation for leadership - the board needs to assert its right to set more directions in the district: budgets, programs, and hiring of management. Both the board and senior administration need to do more to follow-up on problems and opportunities. C) infrastructure improvements - many of our schools are in need of big repairs, environmental upgrades, and playground renewal. We should invest in geothermal heating, solar power panels, and planting more trees. Technology infrastructure needs attention, too, including the many restrictions that schools face on purchasing.
3. For rural schools, I would prioritize site-based management. Too many aspects of budgets and program direction are controlled centrally, with the result that rural school needs are sometimes put on the back burner and the "conversation on rural education" takes forever. My impression is that we use temporary measures to equalize opportunities for rural vs urban students. What we need is for rural communities to develop a more long-term site plans including better distributed learning and for the school district to support them.
4. Trustees are expected to be advocates. I am in favour of a more aggressive yet still respectful stance towards the government, more than just strongly worded letters. We should be building a restoration budget to be submitted along with our balanced budget to show the province what sustainable funding looks like. Our district and region is an awesome place to live and go to school. School boards need high expectations, strong voices, good listeners, blunt honesty, and caring leadership to ensure that we meet student needs in the future. That's what I offer.