New Motions

I put out some draft motions on my last post. I appreciate the feedback and support I got through emails.  Below are the motions that I submitted yesterday to be put in the board book for our November 26 meeting. The first four are for the coming meeting and the last one is a notice of motion for our December 3 meeting. Here they are.


Motion 1 School to school transfers within SD57: 

• That the board receive information on transfers from schools (old to new school) per month from March to Sept 2013. 

Rational:

• To better understand enrollment trends in the school district. For example, this will provide background for understanding policy 5119, and will be useful data to add to what is collected during the strategic planning process.

Motion 2 Technology Planning:

• 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”. 

Rationale:

• There has not been a District Technology plan since 2005 and there are many issues that could be addressed by a new plan. A new plan could be on its own or part of strategic planning.
• We live in a plugged in world and technology impacts students positively and negatively. A new plan is needed to address what has happened over the last decade and also connect with our policies about web safety and cyberbullying.
• There are gaps between tech savvy staff and students and those who are not, plus the gap between have and have-not students. A tech plan can address these issues with strategies.
• We need a balance between the business model for buying and supporting technology and the educational model for using technology for learning. A vision and tech plan made with partner groups can help define this balance.

Motion 3 Technology Planning:

• 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. 

Rational:

• Openness in planning the survey questions and sharing the results will allow this evaluation to be free from bias and help increase transparency. This is important heading into Strategic Planning. There were concerns expressed that feedback on the Boardʼs Achievement Contract was not shared with the board. Being transparent about the nature of the survey from the start ensures that the results can be shared with the board and others. Obviously, district staff can remove any personal or libelous information prior to publication of results.

Motion 4 Flexibility for Mobile Technology 

• 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 

Rational:

• Tablets requested by teachers and administrators such as iPads and Chromebooks are not dependent on platforms (they work with PCs and Microsoft operating systems) and they were not part of the equation in the 2010 single platform decision. There is no actual policy prohibiting their purchase yet orders for these items are currently denied and schools with plans to move forward on technology have their hands tied.
• Many schools have encouraged “bring your own technology” for staff and students yet there is a recognized need to supply some technology for those who can not afford it and to provide pods of technology for special purposes such as the Learning Commons. Whether it is Surfaces, iPads, or whatever, schools need to know they have options.
• The apps and educational uses available on non-Surface tablets are in demand by teachers and students. Surfaces are currently more costly, have less educational apps available, and require more technical support than other available products. Tablets such as iPads and Chromebooks do not require software imaging and thus do not threaten network security in the same way as computers or Surfaces that require installation and monitoring by technicians.
• The point is that one size does not fit all, and what is cutting edge today may not be in five years, so flexibility is needed to support innovation and control costs. For the last three years, tablets have made an impact on the education world, three years from now it might be something different.
• The current technology standards and approval process may need to be updated, but this should not impede staff from innovating and Learning Empowered by Technology.

Motion 5 Student Informations Systems:

• 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. 

Rationale:

• Putting a student information system in place is a major decision in terms of cost, employee workload, and meeting goals. The choice and implementation of BCESIS had many issues that we wish to avoid this time round. 
• AspenEsis is the Ministry-recommended choice for districts to use for student information systems, and is managed by the same company that manages BCESIS. It has not been used in BC but has been in use in other jurisdictions. 
• OpenStudent is a made-in-BC student information system with a substantially lower cost than commercial products. It is the choice of four school districts so far, and is being considered by others. It is has been designed by staff in the Saanich School District and is being piloted in 22 schools. 
• These are the two realistic choices for school districts in BC. Both are designed to directly support 21st Century Learning as well as the Ministryʼs BC Education Plan. They are both following the same approximate testing and implementation cycle. A side-by-side comparison by a working group will give our district valuable information about which system, if any, meets our needs and budget. 
• The working group represents potential users of any new student information system and will be able to offer quick analysis about pros/cons of each system. The cost of the working group would be limited to replacement time for the teachers and CUPE members to attend one day of hands-on testing and discussion of the two systems. Assuming 4-6 employees who will require replacement, the cost will be approximately $1200-$1800. This is an example, the actual comparison can be flexible, main thing is that we actually look at how these systems work. 
• The work of the group will be considered as a key set of recommendations when it comes to deciding on a system for our district.

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?