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 :)

Public education rally Sep 4

I would like to attend this rally but our board of trustees has an important meeting today that was planned in advance with required staff flying in to attend. This is the kind of work as SD#57 Trustees we should not miss.

I wish the Prince George District Teachers and BC Federation of Labour all the best with the rally. The government is playing games with education and students right now, and I think this is in part to do with money and part to do with avoiding the consequences of the Supreme Court case. 

As an individual trustee I will continue advocating for sustainable funding for education and better support for complex class composition. Although I usually find myself in a minority on local school district issues and decisions, in general I think our board does a good job advocating at the provincial level. Unfortunately we have little influence over the government, provincial funding or even the BC School Trustees Association. At this point the BCSTA seems to be playing it neutral or even pro-government. 

I believe our board of trustees has tried to put forward a more progressive stance that the one generally taken by the BCSTA, including opposition to the $40-a-day scheme and taking strike money out of the education system. Contact board chair Sharel Warrington (swarrington@sd57.bc.ca) for a complete list of the positions we have taken and letters sent. 

I believe all partners including trustees, parents, principals, and senior administration should be speaking out about the underfunding in education and impact on schools caused by the bad faith bargaining from the government. Teachers should not be the only ones taking the heat for the state of education, we all share the responsibility to make it better. Being married to a teacher and having children in public elementary school I am directly impacted by the strike. I have also seen this situation from a trustee perspective, knowing and seeing that our schools and staff struggle to meet the needs of students, having to take from one pot to fill another. Special needs students suffer as a result, as do all students in regular classrooms that have to become bigger and more complex to offset services to special needs students because the money is not there for both. Having a band-aid LIF fund to top up school services each year is not a solution and results in quick hires and no training. Principals and teachers need to know from year to year that they have the funding in place to design a whole school program that meets the needs of students.

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?

Issue #5 The Student Experience

Problem: 

Schools have a hard job balancing academic achievement, fine arts, respect for diversity, support for struggling or challenged learners; they generally do well but areas of concern remain.  One of them is ensuring that special needs support is not diverted due to budget constraints. Funds generated specifically for special needs students often get spread across other school programs (and without a requirement to notify parents). While support in unfunded areas is needed and appreciated (like providing TAs in other classes for struggling students that do not have special designations), this shouldn’t come at a cost to the special needs students whose presence in a school generated those funds to begin with.

Another concern is the loss to elective programs. Fine arts and applied skills are seen as “bonus” programs at elementary schools (most have them, but no guarantees), and at secondary schools have been pushed off of student’s timetables in return for core classes such as math. A controversial pilot started last year adds a mandatory term of math for every Grade 8 student, regardless of ability, and a cost to electives. This was done to address deficits in early math education that eventually show up on the Math 10 provincial exam.

Solutions:

Principals should publish for their staffs and public how their special education funding is allocated, and invite discussion and feedback on how best to support all learners with limited funds. When it becomes clear that funding shortfalls exist, this need to be passed on by trustees to the Ministry of Education.

The emphasis should be on supporting math teaching and learning in the elementary level, not taking away the well-rounded set of course that students look forward to in high school. Students with problems in math should get targeted help, rather than simply throwing more time in math class at every student.  We have great math teachers, but there is only so much time for students to experience a variety of subjects and find their passion. Missing out on electives in Grade 8 will means that electives programs in later grades may not attract the students needed for the program to thrive. It is the electives that often give students a chance to excel and connect to something they will pursue for the rest of their life.

Issue #2 Improving Say for Parents

Problems:

The government, as part of its 21st Learning Agenda, wants more distance education courses pushed on secondary students. While the plans are still fuzzy, the only detailed report published by the government on the topic up until last week shows a gradual shift from near-total class-based learning in Kindergarten up to near-total self-directed or blended learning by Grade 12, which relies on distance/distributed learning. There is now a new government report, but the Agenda is still vague and open to interpretation. Having a choice is great, but forcing the choice by restricting access to real school with real teachers is not productive and should alarm parents. While there are some interesting distributed learning models in our province at the secondary and post-secondary levels, our local distance education system is not up to the task of delivering the same quality of education as our “brick-and-mortar” schools. The distance education school has the lowest pass rate in our district and is designed to provide education at the edges: rural students, homebound, remedial, accelerated coursework. Students may be born learners, curious and creative, but very few possess the self-motivation and independent learning skills to succeed outside of an environment that has an active teacher, mentor, or parent. The government has made many statements about learning outside regular schools - looks great on paper but parents and teachers are worried that this is designed to reduce the number of schools and privatize educational services. The internet is wonderful, but is not a replacement for a committed teacher.

Solutions: 

Give parents a choice about distance learning, do not force the choice by removing options. As a trustee, I will pursue policy that states this.

Pilot “blended learning” programs at many schools, not just the distance education school.  This combines classroom based instruction with some independent, accountable community-based or online learning.  This has good potential for our small and rural schools, but should be an option at every high school. Give parents simple and effective tools for seeing how well these models work.

Listen to parents: use PACs and School Planning Councils to gather input on plans and programs as they are being designed instead of simply approving them after they have been made. Develop more face-to-face and digital opportunities for parents to be involved in the evolution of the school system.

Listen to educators: local professor Andrew Kitchenham has just published two guides to blended learning. A district-sponsored teacher focus group (“Quality Learning Globally”) met for a year and in 2004 reported a series of recommendations on how distributed learning could best be used in the district.  Engage these professionals and follow up or respond to their recommendations, which were ignored at the time.

Other trustee candidates, such as Don Sabo, have suggested that the board use less in-camera meetings and privatge commitee meetings to conduct business.  I think this is a great idea - public institution, should be public processes. Obviously certain personnel matters can be kept in-camera, and the trustees do need some time to talk with each other and the district adminsitration when they aren't performing for the public, but more public meetings would allow more transparency and access for parents.

The Learning Agenda

On a facebook forum for rural schools solutions (CORES), one of the trustee candidates brought up the BC government's plans to transform education and our school district's endorsement. 21st century learning, personalized, flexible, empowered by technology, better teachers & standards, allows parents to choose what, where, how, and when their kids learn. In response, I'd have to say that the "Learning Agenda" needs to be seen in more detail. "21st Century Learning" means too many things to be at the centre of a plan. For some, it means critical thinking and problem-solving, or collaboration and creativity, for others it means more distance education and use of technology. Some of those things belong in any century, and are already "normal" in our schools. The where/when part speaks to the goal for more distance education, phased in as students approach Grade 12. As a parent, I am not interested in having my child learn about math or social studies by staying home and looking up helpful websites on a cell phone. This would be a difficult option for working parents. I want my kids to learn, websites or not, in the presence of a teacher who can guide & instruct and other students with whom they interact. There are some successful "blended" models for delivering distance education, but we're not there yet in SD57, our correspondence courses have very low success rates. Making improvements there is very much needed if distance education can be used to support rural communities. Our schools and teachers are not always perfect but squeezing out the students for distance courses as they approach graduation will not make them better. More parental involvement sounds good but the reality is that most working parents are quite content to send their kids to school and trust that they are learning. Do many parents (outside of home-schooling) actually want to design their kid's educational experience? Choosing a school or program (like Montesorri) yes, but curriculum and learning activities? Our teachers are already very good at this. I am absolutely committed and deeply involved in my kids' education, but I have more than enough opportunity to interact with their teachers and affect how and when they learn. I think the "Learning Agenda" is not so much flexibility as it is privatizing education. It seems to be a recipe for downgrading public school until we end up with a two-tiered education system. There are some really good things that can come from changes to the system, but our own district has a big problem in that many of the "21st Century Learning" ideas that teachers want to pursue are stopped by board office policy. The disconnect between the teachers and the board office has deepened over the last few years and is quite obvious during the current job action. Sorting out and bringing in the "Learning Agenda" will not succeed unless this disconnect can be addressed. This will be a hard task for trustees, but it needs to be on the agenda. I look forward to the challenge.

Rural Schools

Rural schools have traditionally been at or near the beating heart of small town Canada.  Along with churches, community spirit, and rural jobs, these schools have helped sustain agricultural and resource towns through boom and bust cycles. While some rural communities seem too small to support a school, the PG district includes towns and non-urban areas that are still vital and help remind us that we can't exist simply on service industries and urban jobs... we need food from farms, and sustainably managed resources. If we abandon rural schools, we are losing our ability to provide for ourselves and we become dependent on foreign producers to feed and equip us. In other words, rural schools are not just a part of our past, they need to be part of our future. The average age of rural Canadians has grown, as has urban migration, resulting in fewer rural residents with higher living and transportation costs. Statscan's Rural Analysis and the Office of Consumer Affairs (see sec. 3.4) have good data on this. If we ever want to take ideas like the 100-mile diet or resources sustainability seriously, we can't simply be an urban society that sees the hinterland as a place to extract raw resources.  School districts have an incredible responsibility to be one of the pillars of community stability, and this must include rural communities. Our decisions about rural schools affect transportation and living costs, and the carrying capacity in our region (the ability of cities to be sustained by their local area). People live in "the country" for a reason: air quality, jobs, lifestyle, etc.... and their schools makes it possible over many generations. Our District 57 has a mixed track record in its support for rural education. Efforts to engage the Regional District came slow and only after pressure. The creative and passionate effort of the Dunster community to save their school was met by resistance and unnecessary conflict. Giscome/Willow parents have had a long struggle to be heard and understood. We've heard years of talk about how 21st century learning and technology could help in rural settings but the board office is very slow to act or experiment. Hixon was spared, but Salmon Valley, Shady Valley, Mackenzie and others did not fare so well. Still, some creative solutions came from the process... like the land/school deal in Dunster and the modular units proposed by the Giscome PAC and finally taken seriously by the trustees. Send me an email or leave a comment about what we should do for our rural schools. How do we provide meaningful learning for small multi-age groups? Can we use project-based learning, itinerant teachers, blended learning (mix of technology, face-to-face, and distance education), or shared-use buildings? What do we experiment with first? Check out the CORES group (Coalition of Rural Educational Sustainability), they are also working on this... I've found their facebook page and I'm looking forward to seeing more of the discussion and their work.

Here we go!

Filling in the nomination forms tonight for school board trustee in School District 57 Prince George. It's quite the stack of papers to read through! The prospect of a campaign and the public office makes me a bit nervous but also excited to take on the challenge. I'm looking forward to listening, advocating for students and schools, and keeping the school district accountable for high standards in education... programs, services, decisions, relationships. I think I'll bring a unique perspective to the board -- I've attended school in three countries and six provinces..... some of these were amazing and some were a disaster, but I've emerged with a very strong sense of how students perceive the schools, teachers, and systems in which they find themselves.