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).

2014-15 Budget Thoughts

The school board is currently looking at the 2014-15 school district budget and will be giving it first reading on Tuesday May 13th.  As it goes with any budget that has cuts and shifts in resources, there are many differences in opinion on whether we've got it right as a school district.  I agree with almost everyone in BC Education that our system in underfunded and we seem to make perpetual cuts rather than ever make improvements.  This year our board has had to find more cuts to cover reduced enrolment, the unfunded CUPE raise, and other changes.

One of the issues I have with our current budget is that we have not yet come up with a successful way to take trustee and partner group input and turn it into budget direction.  The Extended Committee of the Whole process was supposed to do this, but after our third year of doing this it is still not clear how trustees can actually set direction for the school district in the budget other than making unpopular motions at last minute meetings. My other issue is that we are making cuts to some areas that I don't think are necessary while at the same time increasing budgets in other areas that I also do not feel are necessary.

I would like to bring a motion forward about this at an upcoming meeting.  If it turns out to be in-camera, I'll be able to report the results. If not, I guess I'll have to wait until the result of the final budget are known. We have a funny system where the trustees are often sworn to secrecy about things everyone else already knows about, but that would be another blog post. Maybe the motion won't even get a second, that's happened to me before. You definitely know you have a minority view when none of the other trustees will let the motion have a discussion. I'm not sure of the chance of success, but I think this needs to come forward as a responsible use of money for the benefit of staff and students. Here's is my idea:

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. 

Rationale:

• we should not be making cuts to services that directly impact students and teachers (e.g. school allocations, professional development support) while increasing department budgets at the same time for work that is not actually essential 
• a SLP position generates new funding for the school district in the form of 1701 designations, enough to pay for the position after the initial hiring year. This is the same logic that being used to justify hire another position
• reducing the amount by half is a compromise. It allows C&I to continue work on the Essential Eight (district initiatives and positions related to the Achievement Contract) but gives the trustees room for other decisions in a deficit year
• senior administration said last year that the Essential Eight would not require additional funding because it described or rebranded work that was already being done. This motion goes part way towards allowing them to keep their word
• in 2010, the Sustainability Report p. 41 acknowledged that part of the budget problem was that district infrastructure had continued to grow while enrolment had declined.  In other words the board office had grown too big for the size of the district.  Many positions were in fact cut, but since then they have built back up and now the board office infrastructure is as big as ever.  Adding another quarter million to infrastructure does not make sense, we should probably be going in the other direction

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.

Budget Approval

I had thought about putting together a blog post about why I voted against our School District 57's 2013-14 budget but I think the PG Citizen did a pretty good job of summarizing my reasons.

http://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/article/20130531/PRINCEGEORGE0101/305319991/-1/princegeorge/sd57-146-s-budget-vote-passed-by-narrow-margin

I agree with what Trustee Bourassa had to say:

"I don't believe that it did anything to address any of the input we received from partner groups," said Bourassa. "We went through extreme measures to gather input and had some really good ideas and suggestions and there was nothing in there to reflect that in that budget bylaw. In my opinion, we should have incorporated more of the input we had received into the budget. The two areas that were fulfilled -- the continuation of projects and leaving school-based budgets alone -- were fulfilled by doing nothing."

I was also not impressed that we couldn't at least do one thing to reflect the budget input we got from our partner groups. My motion at a previous board meeting because of a procedure problem related to faulty minutes from an in-camera meeting that we did not catch in time. My motion came up again but was not approved:

One of the requests of the expanded budget committee was to hire two occupational therapists and one speech pathologist for the 2013-14 school year using the current unappropriated surplus funding to avoid having to cut existing staff levels. That was presented as a motion at Tuesday's meeting, but was rejected.

This is the second year in a row we have had problems using the input from partner groups in our budget. Hopefully third time is the charm.

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.