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 :)

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.

Draft motions

When I first ran for trustee I got a lot of input from my "campaign team." Basically these are all of the educators and parents that encouraged me to do it. This group includes my husband (a secondary teacher), friends and family who work for the school district, and parents and teachers that I met when we organized in 2010 to challenge the board to make changes to the Sustainability Report.

This group had a few things in common like a focus on transparency, accountability, strength of families and the need to rethink technology in our school district. I really valued their input and these became themes for me as a trustee. I have kept these values close by with almost every conversation and board discussion I have had. Our work as trustees always has the students in mind but along the way I think we have to pay more attention to how we get there and this means advocating for educators be that policy, funding, support, or technology.

Along these lines, I have a few motions to bring to the board in the next few weeks and I would love some feedback about the wording and also possible rationale. Some of these are a long time coming but I think the timing is right. I can update on a new post as I get more ideas and I will add my rationale. Please be honest this is just a draft at this point and you can leave a comment below or email me at trusteecooke@gmail.com.

Motion 1:
That the board receive information on transfers from schools (old to new school) per month from March to Sept 2013.

Motion 2:
That senior administration bring together a working group made to examine and assess AspenEsis and OpenStudent student information systems.

Motion 3:
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.

Motion 4:
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.

Motion 5:
That the school district allow district schools to purchase media tablets and mobile technology of their choosing in accordance with their own technology planning.

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.

Educational Leadership Conference

I was one of the SD#57 trustees that went to the 2012 Educational Leadership Conference in Vancouver (Nov 15, 16). The participants were educational staff from Ministry to senior administration to trustees to principals and some teachers and students (1200 Participants).

There were 4 Plenary speakers and many breakout sessions. The theme of the conference was ‘Partnerships for Personalization: Leading and Transforming together’.  Most of the presentations are posted at http://www.bcssa.org/fallconference.html.

My plan is to blog about what I have taken from the conference and bring this to the district as a trustee, hopefully influence some change.

I observed collaboration as a predominant theme. Collaboration as a small school district seemed to be more successful district-wide than in larger districts who had more school-wide and some joint-school success. School-wide change was most successful when collaboration was a true co-creation process.

Daniel Wilson was a Plenary Speaker of the conference speaking on collaboration in learning communities. Through graphs and examples obtained from his work in the field of social-psychology, he showed how collaboration between team members of a extreme sport competition were the most successful in navigating their tensions when language, behavior and leadership roles were flexible. When language (body or words) was aggressive or authoritative then those teams were always the losers. The most successful teams were those that had true collaboration with the use of questioning statements Success also came from sharing of leadership when new leaders were recognized for their skill, performance at a task, or ability to fill in the regular leader was exhausted and couldn’t maintain the leadership role.

He also stated that 70% of true collaboration happens from informal conversations with colleagues and the other 30% is formal. So, water cooler conversations or beers after work do make a difference.

I have often sat in meetings thinking that we are being unproductive because we are following rules and structure and if we all stood up in a group and dropped the pretense then perhaps true conversations would ensue. I think those statistics affirm that my intuition is right.

A breakout session that I went to was the "Village of Attachment: Developing the Whole Child." This came from SD#41 Burnaby (see their presentation here)  The vision is that every child be in a nurturing relationship with an adult. They have expanded the word family to include a network of adults that work to bring out and guide children so that they have a purpose. Through finding commonalities they engage children to begin conversations and eventually relationships. Through these relationships the adult pulls out the child's reasons for purpose in life or their ‘spark’ to quote Peter Benson. A spark is a characteristic that gives them a purpose to life or motivation to do something. Their spark does not have to be what they eventually become or do for a profession, but it is developed in them.

This process is also transfered to adult to adult relationships. Whether within schools or districts it is about recognizing what we (individually or collectively) are good at and utilizing it to help improve us. This is where collaboration can be effective in openly recognizing our strengths and weaknesses and collaborating with someone who can help us where we want to improve. David Hargreaves (plenary speaker) spoke of this form of collaboration being practiced in Britain with teachers but it failed where it was mandatory. The key was to survey and see where our educators felt they wanted to collaborate and improve. Because making yourself vulnerable is part of the process, it needs to be kept transparent to avoid implying that any individual is incompetent.

It is my perspective that the 2010 school closure process had gaps in collaboration that has resulted in leftover tension that I hope will be addressed as the board starts conversations around strategic planning and an extended management and finance committee to discuss the budget. In order to collaborate there will be social tensions, but how we navigate the language, roles, vulnerabilities and competencies will result in co-creations that will result in a new placed trust and district wide visions. A village of collaboration and attachment is my optimistic vision.

Issue #8 Long-term Planning

Problems:

The district ignored its own 2003 sustainability report in key areas, including the construction of new facilities and configuration changes that would have prevented the big deficit in 2010.  While well-documented funding shortfalls accounted for some of the money woes, the school district spent money and expanded board office staff between 2003 and 2009 as if the enrollment decline was a surprise. Paying the piper, as it was said, was held off until 2010.

The district’s own planning process is not working as intended. The current district plan for student success includes elements simply copied from previous plans that are not longer correct and report on work already underway. The district technology plan and district technology committee have been suspended (2005 and 2009 respectively), and the School Planning Council model has fallen apart without teacher involvement. We need to look positively at the next 10 years of student, teacher, school, and district growth plans.

Solutions:

Sustainability discussions need to happen regularly, perhaps on a three year cycle, and not just in response to crisis. On open model of consultation, similar to the way city plans are developed, and a public review of draft plans should be used. The process used to arrive at cuts in 2010 should not be repeated. Any committee charged with finding savings or building for the future can’t just include board office staff, it needs to include trustees, parents, teachers, administrators, and other partner groups.

The district has to decide what it wants to get out of its District Plan for Student Success. If it is to be more than just a report, there has to be a more robust feedback cycle used, and it should go for editing and review by partner groups. If the district is unwilling to build a new technology plan, it should be included in the annual achievement contract. Again, as with issues #6 and #7, listening and responding plainly to the teachers and administrators who are meant to do the work of district plans is crucial for success.

Learn from other organizations and school districts on how to use the district website for a much more involved level of interaction with educators and the public. We keep hearing about "21st Century" technology skills - to take this seriously we need this modeled at all levels in the school district.