District Achievement Contract

Each year, School Boards in BC are responsible for approving a District Achievement Contract (DAC). According to the Ministry of Education (http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/schools/sdinfo/acc_contracts/):

"Achievement Contracts are the Boards of Education's public commitment to improving student achievement. They are based on thoughtful consideration of student performance information at the classroom, school, district and provincial level. 

Achievement Contracts reflect the unique characteristics, priorities and needs of each district. The Contracts are part of an accountability cycle for schools, school districts, and for the Ministry of Education. 

Reports on Student Achievement, prepared by the Superintendent, reflect progress made on the Achievement Contract, and may include updates on other important responsibilities."

This year's SD#57 DAC was prepared by senior staff (assistant superintendent and others) and includes the Superintendent's Report on Achievement from earlier in the year. For the first time the DAC was shared with the school district employees and the public for input or review purposes. As a board member, I am still not sure whether the input was intended for us, for the DAC writers, or for future considerations. I guess I'll have to wait and find out with everybody else.

You can read the SD#57 DAC here: http://www.sd57.bc.ca/fileadmin/cao.sd57.bc.ca/SD57_DAC_July_2013.pdf

You can read my review, editing suggestions, questions, and comments on the DAC here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/yamwcnv1subq9mq/2013.06.23%20DAC%20review.pdf

Three areas are important to point out:

1. The DAC mentions an Assessment Management System (AMS) that is going to move from pilot to district-wide implementation. I have concerns that there has not been adequate partner group consultation about this. Where is the implementation plan, including the costs of training and support? Will this add data-base management to the list of duties already assigned to teaching staff? I also wonder whether the services provided by AMS will be made redundant with the new database that will replace BCeSIS next year.
2. Technology goals and projects are mentioned in a few places in the DAC. Many of the statements do not paint an accurate picture of the very real technology concerns that have been brought before the district and board and also myself as a trustee from the PGDTA and individual teachers and students. I believe that our Board, Senior Staff, and partner groups need a more thorough conversation about how we support technology before we can state in a DAC that we are making progress.
3. The DAC mentions Eight Essential learning strands.  In a slightly different form these were also brought forward as surplus spending proposals by Senior Staff during "Extended Committee of the Whole" budget discussions with partner groups. Most of the partner groups (PGDTA, CUPE, PEA, DPAC) made a strong case that these proposals were valuable but should not be priorities and made counterproposals for budget priorities. The board summary of ECOW confirmed this. So I'm left wondering why the eight proposals are essentials when other priorities were not. I'm also wondering, if the Board approves the DAC are we giving approval-in-principle to budget spending on these Essential Eight?

All three areas relate to things that are important to me: openness and transparency, communication and consultation between partner groups.

Report on Achievement

At our last board meeting January 15th, the superintendent delivered his annual Report on Achievement. This document is tied to our District Achievement Contract and requires trustee approval to be accepted as an official Ministry of Education submission on behalf of School District 57. The document has a deadline set at the end of January.

I made a motion to postpone approval of the Report until the Superintendent had a chance to make edits, and (after this failed 6:1), voted against accepting the Report. A couple of people have asked me why I did this so I thought I would write a bit about that.

First, the Report had lots of optimism, which is good, but also some items that deserved a second look. I took some time to review the report on achievement and put some comments, questions, typos, and friendly suggestions together on a version of the Superintendent's Report that you can read here. I think I ended up with 57 comments. Some of my comments are similar to last year's report like the need for more than 2-5 years of data in order to see a trend, and some of them are new. I picked a few of the comments to address at the board meeting, but was only able to bring up two in the time allowed. As I shared with the other trustees beforehand, my goal is that we see a high quality and highly accurate report.

I was a bit surprised that a majority of us would not see the value in postponing a decision on the report until the next meeting on January 29th. In my mind that was why we set up two board meetings in January to begin with. I am also a bit leary about accepting a report that may or may not be altered after the fact. I can guess that the typos at least will be fixed, but I won't find out until it after it goes to the Minister, so my approval would come before seeing the final document. On the one hand the Report goes in unchanged and is not the best report it should be. On the other hand a slightly different Report goes in than the one trustees voted on. That was why I voted no.

As with every decision I've made as a trustee, I need to know that my questions have been addressed before voting in favour of a proposal. I realize that Reports like this are mostly about Ministry requirements, but they also speak on behalf of the employees and partners of our school district and reflects the work they do.

This has happened to me a few times, where I seem to be voting no with some or all of the others voting yes because we each have different criteria for what gets our vote. One example was a bussing contract. For all I know it was the best contract ever but I did not get to see it or have it summarized, so I was not comfortable rubber stamping it without knowing what was in it. That's democracy I guess, and I don't mind being a trustee that holds out on principle. I can see why being positive all the time, accepting reports and proposals as they are leads to less grief as a trustee, but that is not why I became one. Each of us has an important role to play, some are good communicators, some are good at meetings and Robert's Rules, some are good at attending school functions and celebrating what's going on, and so on. I'd like to think my role is to ask lots of questions and keep coming back to transparency and openess, high quality work at the board office, and improved communications including the reports that speak for our district.