Exit Speech

Here is the text of my farewell speech for the SD57 Board of Education of which I have been a trustee for 3 years. Additionally, I introduced a motion that the Board of Education create a Freedom of Speech and Whistle Blower Policy to accompany other policies about employee rights and responsibilities.

The new board has some important work ahead in the next four years. Recently I asked our current Board to compile and review our work and pass it on to the new board. Although a majority of us agree this was necessary, it did not happen so I will take some time now to publicly offer my perspective on work that still needs to be done. I’m sure you’ll hear from others about all the good things going on so that gives me some space to talk about items of concern. 

For Partner Groups

Regarding Partner Groups and contributions to committees:

I have heard on several occasions that participation at a committee is irrelevant to that partner group if the topic is not of their interest. I would argue this. I would say that when partner groups are attending a committee they represent the whole district with a specialized opinion and not just their part of the district. Please send committee members who are willing to participate with that lens.

Regarding Partner Groups and Local vs Provincial: I often hear you speak to provincial work, issues, and initiatives. Please work harder to bring forward more local issues and recognize that the board has most of its power directed at making improvements to local working and learning conditions, and local organization and leadership.

Thank you for continuing to bring issues to the board. Keep pushing the board to meet with you often and stay on them about following up on issues. I am reminded of the standalone LGBTQ policy that received strong input from partner groups. At the beginning I was shocked to be the only trustee in favour of this, but after steady attention on this issue eventually the whole board supported it. This shows that advocacy works.

To all teachers and support staff: Thank you for all of your work to educate children in an ever changing world. Education has become complex and each of you regularly take on the role of social worker, counselor, teacher, and caregiver, even when it is not in your job description.

For Senior Administration:

The amount of times I have had emails or motions misunderstood has been astounding and it would appear that all we have done for three years is play games around agendas. Our board could have got a lot more done without those games being played. Please aim for improvements in these areas:

1. Standards of writing and statistics - we still see too many leading statements in documents such as the District Achievement Contract and Superintendents Report on Achievement. Statistics are used to meet minimum compliance standards for the Ministry, but do not make it clear what’s actually happening or justify spending priorities. In the District Achievement Contract  it says that we are a data driven district and yet there is little evidence of data beyond what the Ministry requires us to collect. Release and publish this data to that you are using to track spending and meet goals. No initiative should be released without parameters set for original data goals and timelines. Start collecting data on real cohorts of students and publish 8-10 years of data rather than 3-5 years in order to make more accurate assessments from that data.

2. Partner group engagement - speak to partners and collaborate before making key decisions. For example, instead of consulting end users about a new Student Information System a decision was made behind closed doors about where the district would go. I managed to catch this before it was a done deal, and the board actually created a brief window to collaborate about this. Sadly I think it turned into another game about how to get to the predetermined goal instead of true transparency and collaboration.

3. District wide initiatives - The Sea to Sky school district did it right, they held a district wide cafe and collaborated about the direction the SD would go to implement the BCED Plan. In our district we rebranded existing programs, called it the Essential 8, and then took $20 per student out of schools without the board being asked. In fact we were told at the start that the Essential 8 would not involve new money.

4. Communication - In regular conversation with principals, teachers, other staff, and I hear that communication from the board office can sometime be condescending and misleading. I really hope the new board will pursue higher and more transparent standards when communicating with staff. None of our employees should feel intimidated or handled by the district.

For the New Board, some areas to consider

1. Leadership - In my opinion, this Board acted largely as an extended arm of Management. The new board needs to start being its own entity and leading with Senior Administration treated as a partner group and not the 8th trustee.

2. Accountability - This is an important area of governance for the new Board. It needs to improve the way it review’s itself, does staff performance reviews, reviews HR practice, explains new spending and new initiatives, and communicates with different levels of staff, and the public especially its partner groups.

3. Tracking work - intended actions, motions, and commitments have been lost or forgotten multiple times during this Boards 3 yrs and that needs to be corrected with some form of tracking. I put forward a motion with the Board 2 yrs ago about this but it did not pass. I could not convince the Board that it is a problem when motions are dropped, correspondence is not printed, requests for information are misdirected, emails are not followed up on, etc.

4. Technology - this is a huge issue and a widening gap for this school district and the rest of the province. For example, it took two years longer than stated to update our district website and it still only meets standards from a decade ago. We are making technology decisions based on highly questionable financial arguments and not because they support the teaching and learning that our staff would actually like to do. While we wait on this, a whole generation of students is not getting the opportunity to learn with and about technology that students in other districts get.

5. Special needs - One of my biggest advocacy issues was with our vulnerable learners. Having been a vulnerable learner myself I understand what it’s like to sit in a classroom and not know how to read when the rest of the classroom can. We need to make sure that designated dollars are not leaving these children. I think the SD should follow a model that allows schools to buy additional PEA time that they require to allow children to be assessed. At the very least this SD needs to double the permanent staff in the PEA dep’t and stop bringing in consultants to cover the gaps.

6. Lifting gag orders - I have had some serious conversations that this SD has unofficial gag orders for principals and other staff. When you as trustees go out and visit schools and seek to understand how there school operates, you want to know that the principal will not be interviewed afterwards about what was said. You do not want to hear that they are afraid to talk to trustees or put forward unusual initiatives. You do not want to hear that that the SD culture is about fear, and not innovation or collaboration.

7. Communication - This past term has been frustrating since we were often told to accept board decisions, keep our opinions to ourselves, and leave all media interviews to the Board chair or Superintendent. I would advise this new board to speak out and let people know that there are real conversations going on including dissenting voices. This Board also needs to upload Board info and communicate better on the website such as it is. The Sunshine Coast is a good example of a district with a well working website.

8. Finance - The Board has seriously missed the boat on this one. I have repeatedly asked for action items to be attached to recommendations and this has not happened. Here are some examples.

a) Set parameters set around any new initiatives. The $20 per student Essential 8 plan as well as the new $130,000 Trades position should have had openly shown what was to be accomplished and by when, so that it can be seen where public money is going and how targets will be met.

b) Recommendations - don’t just make recommendations and expect that to turn into actions. That has been asked of senior staff without results, such as with the ECOW recommendations last year.

c) More care around surplus spending - if surplus is spent I would suggest not using it to grow the size of the school board office size, but put the money back in schools and support the growth of the PEA dept staff. Some of the money spent in this way comes back the district in the form of new student designations.

d) Publish results of learning team grants or district initiatives - this would allow for qualitative collaboration, data gathered can back where professional development could be increased and allow for better spending and tracking of dollars spent for these initiatives.

Last and Least, a message for the Minister of Education and the government: Your actions over many years have strained public education to a breaking point, some would say on purpose to promote corporate investment and private schooling. You need to start taxing fairly so that our children get a better quality public education and are more able to take care of you when you are old.

So, the new board has its work cut out. I wish you all the best and encourage you to set your expectations high and do it early.

Board Vision exercise from 2012

I came across this today, it was a plan I made for a School District 57 Board Vision discussion that we had in March 2012. We ended up having this meeting but did not get all the way through the questions. I would like to pick some of these up again, maybe as part of the Strategic Planning process.

Here is how the plan went:

Check In:

Lessons learned: Learn personalities, have confidence, ask questions that get into areas that are difficult to talk about, recognize red-hearings in a debate, how to properly prepare for meetings, how to turn an idea that makes sense in my head into words, questions, and actions that others can understand

Questions:

1. When are detailed questions and discussion by email acceptable when getting together as a group may be difficult or may not happen in time for an issue to be addressed? 
2. Board decision vs. individual opinion, both are important - what kind of trust is needed for board members to know that individual responses to issues are professional and help resolve problems? 
3. What interest is there in having the board meet a few times as a group of seven to build our own relationship with each other and the issues facing the district and public education? (board discussion can take place like this, but of course any formal decisions need to be attended by a member of senior admin... School Act) 
4. What is our strategy for receiving frank partner group input in addition to public board meetings, and what duty do we have to respond? For example, when can we sit down for a rational discussion with PGDTA on their Bill 22 concerns? 
5. Can we write a bio and personal vision next to our SD trustee picture? In general, can we improve the way trustees use digital tools to communicate with the public? 
6. What interest is there in a board-hosted district and partners round table to help us share, focus and adapt our achievement goals and also our plans for sustainability?

Brainstorming: Focus for next 3 yrs. (can add my questions to these)

1. Safe Schools - action on drug users, dealers, bullies - are we giving too many second chances 
2. Parent concerns - how will we involve them on mandatory programs or aspects of 21st learning that might be pushed on students, loss of elective programs, where special needs funding goes 
3. Improving communication with trustees - more interaction, less passive listening, Q&A sessions, role we can play in building bridges between management and teachers more blunt honesty in documents 
4. Support for rural schools - why it’s important (community stability, equality or at least fairness in education, importance of rural regions for food security and resource stability, and what we can do, what’s the strategy for delivering education 
5. Board office communication - more open talk and blunt honesty in documents, better proof-reading of publications (e.g. internal VP application), less politics and message-management, consistent message on technology - the district is saying and doing two different things when it comes to technology 
6. Long-term planning - school plans and district plans are not taken seriously, need more editing or review from partner groups, no tech plan exists, no on-going sustainability plan, not enough input on plans (Sunshine Coast example) 
7. Sustainability - green schools, plant new trees, reduce/recover carbon taxes

Response to DPAC questions

School District 57 Parent Advisory Council (http://sd57dpac.ca/) asked trustee candidates seven questions. Here are my responses:

1. What do you think is important to parents in the district?
There are three basic things that all parents want: they want to know that their kids are safe, loved (or at least cared for), and learning something useful. Additionally, I think parents want to know that their kids receive adequate support, that problems (like bullying) will be dealt with quickly and fairly, that their role as parents will be respected, and that their kids will get a solid foundation in reading, writing, math, and opportunities to grow in the arts, phys-ed, citizenship, and practical skills.

2. Why are you running for trustee?
I am running for re-election because I have high expectations. For the last three years I have tried to raise the game for everyone involved in student success. I have worked for healthy caring schools and good relationships between all partner groups. I talk regularly with stakeholders and partner groups, especially when I know there are outstanding issues and dysfunction in our district. I have fought for transparent governance, asked tough questions of management and others, and refused to simply rubber stamp motions. Although I respect my fellow trustees, this usually puts me in the minority, often 1 out of 7.

3. What have you done to prepare yourself for the role of trustee?
To prepare for being a trustee I do three things:
a) I talk to people involved like teachers, principals, parents, and support staff to find out what's going on
b) I read the material prepared by senior staff and ask tough questions about it
c) I make motions to actually deal with the issues that come up, either on my own or with other trustees

4. How will you ensure that the schools in this district are safe and caring places for all students?
I will ensure safe and caring schools by continuing to find out what is behind the issues that come up and by holding senior management accountable for dealing with them. I will continue to be persistent. In 2012 I was the only trustee to support a stand-alone policy on LGBTQ bullying. Eventually the others came around. I also started out alone in pushing for class composition reports and better information release on school registration data and future projections. I keep in close contact with a network of parents, teachers, administration, and support staff.

5. How do you see your role as trustee in relation to the superintendent and staff?
I see my role with district staff as being an important part of providing transparency and accountability. I have prepared detailed responses to each of the superintendent's reports and district achievement contracts, and have asked tough questions at every in-camera and public board meeting. I insist on better data for decisions, e.g. the new student information system, and set high expectations for board office communication and reporting, e.g. I've kept the pressure up for a better and more useful district website. One of my favourite roles was being the DPAC liaison for two years.

6. How will you demonstrate and communicate the accountability and transparency of the school board to parents and to the community?
I will demonstrate accountability and transparency by asking for a restoration budget to by developed alongside the balanced budget. This shows partner groups and the government what a fully funded schools would look like, and would be developed with inputs from all partner groups. In fact our partner groups made very good suggestions during the "Extended Committee" process over the last two years but we failed to implement those changes in part due to insufficient funds. I also believe we need less closed-door meetings and would push for more inclusion and a redesign of our meetings. Lastly, we have a strategic planning process coming this year and I would like to ensure that it is not a "done deal" process but one that actually listens to and uses the input of partner groups and the community.

7. Is there anything else you'd like to add?
There are different strengths and weaknesses on every board. By my own admission I am not a politician. I am in fact an introvert who works very hard because I am trying to make a change. My work may not always be in the spotlight, but it is important because many of the other trustees are not comfortable doing it, like bringing issues into the light and asking difficult or awkward questions on behalf of parents, students, and employees.

Answers to Questions

About two weeks ago I posted some questions that I thought voters should ask of trustee candidates. Here are some of my thoughts about how to answer these questions.

1. Why bother voting in local elections? What difference does it make?

Both the City of PG and School District 57 work with budgets of more than $120 million.  Because local government is accessible, citizens can have more influence over how these tax dollars are spent than they can over provincial and federal funds. The local school board makes a difference to local schools, not just whether they stay open but about how they are managed and what programs get developed to improve success for students.

2. Why is BC behind other provinces when it comes to funding? What has our school board done to show the need for stable funding from the province besides write some letters?

BC Education is underfunded for many reasons. One of them is that education was not a big issue during the last election. Another is that our government has an agenda to reduce costs and allow more privatization of our school system. Our board has politely raised funding concerns whenever it has met with provincial representatives, and of course it has written many letters, but I think we need to be more aggressive.

3. Why are our playgrounds so sparse? What would it take to get more trees planted or more variety in the landscaping and playspaces?

When the school grounds were cleared of dead pine trees a few years ago, almost no trees were re-planted. My understanding is that senior management or maintenance department sees a cost savings in groundskeeping when it is just grass and not trees or gardens. It is always complicated to add more money to budgets when they have been recently reduced, but where there is a will there is a way. Trees and children go together, this should be a right and not a privilege.  It is also an inexpensive way to make old shabby schools look a little bit better.

4. Are all of our partner groups (teachers, principals, support staff, etc.) free to advocate for their schools, students, and public education or do they have restrictions placed on them? How has the school board engaged these partners? Will the new Strategic Plan address this?

Aside from good news stories or mandatory reports, we hear quite a bit from PGDTA, CUPE, and parents. We rarely hear from PGPVPA (administration). From my conversations it seems that many of them feel there is a gag order to in place and don't get involved. Our board has not done anything that I know of to correct this situation. I will try to make open, blunt, and honest feedback a part of the Strategic Plan, but one person can only do so much. Other trustees have to be willing to see the problem and also act on it. I would love to work with the board to make this happen.

5. Why are so many busses so empty? What are some creative ideas for rethinking how to meet student transportation needs?

We reserve bus seats for everyone that says they want to use it, but many do not. This is one reason why we spend about $500,000 more than we are funded for on transportation.  One idea is to have gathering stations where parents are expected to drop off their kids. From there, fewer buses could pick up more kids. These stations would have to be safe and perhaps supervised by a district employee that could call in with any problems. We could also charge based on usage, although this is not usually a popular idea. Another idea that has been floated is to offer a transportation subsidy for remote parents instead of offering bussing. We have tried this before and it resulted in savings.

6. When is a school too big? How are we planning for the future? Should any of our closed schools re-open?

Some of our schools are crowded. I am also concerned that some school properties could be sold off. If Prince George expands, we will need these school properties back to rebuild or renovate schools. Mackenzie has one elementary school (Morfee) and many parents have asked to re-open a second (Mackenzie Elementary). I would like to see a more detailed study one whether this is reasonable (money, demographics, learning conditions). They are also interested in French Immersion. So far, arguments on both sides have lacked solid evidence that convinces me of what should happen next.

7. Why are iPads a banned purchase by schools for use with staff and students? How are we actually supporting site-based management and innovation?

My understanding is that Pads were banned along with other tablet purchases (other than one pilot project) because of the potential cost. This was a decision by senior administration and not schools or the board. Perhaps they are worried that if one or two schools can use iPads in their classes then the whole district will want them, so to solve this problem they've banned them all. There is no actual policy about this, just practice. I have heard plenty from teachers and principals that they would like to make their own technology decisions and use their own technology budgets in a way that will benefit students and teachers the most. It is possible that tablet technology will come and go before our district sorts out what to do with this issue. This is too bad because many innovative teachers and principals have just given up using technology with students when it is not supported by the district. I'm quite sure we even lost a principal to another district because of this. It is wishful thinking that "bringing your own device" will solve this problem. We need to remove restrictions on technology that everyone in the educational world is already using.

8. How come new programs come and go without any data being collected about how they work and whether they are worth it? Do we have accountable spending?

I think is easier to come up with a creative idea than it is to see it through with a real plan that has parameters in place. Examples from the past include some of the 2010 school closures, the attempt to wipe out dual-track French Immersion, the rushed creation of a Northern Learning Centre choice program (which did not last two years), the choice of Student Information Systems, the AMS pilot (a new assessment system), the Essential 8 (tied to our achievement contract), and the upcoming Strategic Plan. Each one has its own issues but they all relate to data and accountability. Of course there are lots of programs that work great but the ones that  have serious problems show us the areas we should focus on to do a better job. Not trying to be a party-pooper, but trustees should spend less time being cheerleaders for the district and more time focusing on problems that won't go away. When we solve those problems then we have something to cheer about. Actually we should cheer more for basic work of staff and students, and show more of it on our websites.

9. What has been done to give rural schools the same learning opportunities as urban schools? How are we engaging their parents, students, staff, communities and the regional district?

Rural schools would benefit from more site-based management, more control over budget and direction. There has been a "conversation on rural education" going on 10 years, what we need is more action. For example, are we putting the creativity and resources into better distributed learning? Have we looked into better use of itinerant teachers or alternative schedules? I would like to know that rural communities (not just schools) are developing long-term site plans and that our school district is supporting them. I would like to know that when the regional district wants to meet with the board that it doesn't take months to make it happen.

10. What are we doing to speed up diagnosis of special needs students and the added funding that comes with it? Do we have enough support staff such as occupational therapists, psychologists, and speech pathologists to deal with the needs in our schools?

This was an important issue for me because we don't have enough support staff. I tried unsuccessfully to put aside surplus funds for more of these positions (psychologists, occupational therapists, speech language pathologists). Although most of the partner groups agreed, and this was part of the "ECOW" (extended budget committee) recommendations, it did not happen. Again I found myself alone in this request. I think this should be a much bigger priority for our board and district because we are talking about our most vulnerable students.

11. The new teacher contract has an Education Fund to hire more specialist teachers, will this meet the needs of students? How will we find out if we need more counsellors, learning assistance teachers, teacher-librarians and so on?

Specialist teachers on their own won't meet all of our student's needs, but having more rather than less is definitely going to make a difference. I think the critical part is whether each school has access to basic supports. For example if the formula determines that an elementary school is too small for a teacher-librarian position, that school has lost opportunities compared with other schools.  I think that senior staff, principals, teacher reps, other partner group reps, and specialist teachers should sit down together to come up with our own targets and ratios separate from the provincial bargaining table. Maybe even two sets, what we can afford by using the Education Fund, and what we think we'd need to meet all the "specialist" needs of our students. I'd like to see this backed by evidence (data from our schools now) and not just past contract language or wishlists.

12. Does our school district website do enough to celebrate the good work that happens in our school district especially with the focus of the Canada Winter Games coming to Prince George?

No, our website does not yet do this. This was another point I tried to drive home over the last three years. There is no place to showcase board office staff, to celebrate cool student projects or teacher work or principal pride in their schools. Some of the school websites do this, some do not. The school website has new colours and design, but the content is still about the same. We should see some of the amazing things being done by our staff and students. All of Canada will be turning their attention to Prince George in a few months and one of the places they'll look is at our school district and our website (our schools will be used by the Games). We need better maps, stories, pictures, videos, and simpler navigation, following the three-click rule.

Rocky Mountain Goat News

The Rocky Mountain Goat Newspaper asked trustee candidates to respond to four questions. I thought I'd publish my responses here as well as to the paper.

Here are their questions:

1. What makes you a good candidate?
2. What are the big issues facing the school board and Robson Valley?
3. What is your vision for rural schools?
4. Anything else you want to add?

Here are my responses:

1. I have high expectations. For the last three years I have tried to raise the game for everyone involved in student success. I have worked for healthy caring schools and good relationships between all partner groups. I talk regularly with teachers, principals, other staff, and parents about what it going on in the district, especially where there is dysfunction. I have fought for transparent governance, asked tough questions of management and others, and refused to simply rubber stamp motions. Although I respect my fellow trustees, this usually puts me in the minority, often 1 out of 7.
2. Main issues: A) inclusive decision making - a Strategic Plan is coming up, I would like to see this be an open-ended consultation about the future, not a confirmation of what has already been decided. B) high expectation for leadership - the board needs to assert its right to set more directions in the district: budgets, programs, and hiring of management. Both the board and senior administration need to do more to follow-up on problems and opportunities. C) infrastructure improvements - many of our schools are in need of big repairs, environmental upgrades, and playground renewal. We should invest in geothermal heating, solar power panels, and planting more trees. Technology infrastructure needs attention, too, including the many restrictions that schools face on purchasing.
3. For rural schools, I would prioritize site-based management. Too many aspects of budgets and program direction are controlled centrally, with the result that rural school needs are sometimes put on the back burner and the "conversation on rural education" takes forever. My impression is that we use temporary measures to equalize opportunities for rural vs urban students. What we need is for rural communities to develop a more long-term site plans including better distributed learning and for the school district to support them.
4. Trustees are expected to be advocates. I am in favour of a more aggressive yet still respectful stance towards the government, more than just strongly worded letters. We should be building a restoration budget to be submitted along with our balanced budget to show the province what sustainable funding looks like. Our district and region is an awesome place to live and go to school. School boards need high expectations, strong voices, good listeners, blunt honesty, and caring leadership to ensure that we meet student needs in the future. That's what I offer.

Questions staff, parents, and students should ask trustees

We are coming up to a School Board election on November 15th.  Here are some questions that I've thought of and some that have been suggested to me. Feel free to contact me if you have some more.

1. Why bother voting in local elections? What difference does it make?
2. Why is BC behind other provinces when it comes to funding? What has our school board done to show the need for stable funding from the province besides write some letters?
3. Why are our playgrounds so sparse? What would it take to get more trees planted or more variety in the landscaping and playspaces?
4. Are all of our partner groups (teachers, principals, support staff, etc.) free to advocate for their schools, students, and public education or do they have restrictions placed on them? How has the school board engaged these partners? Will the new Strategic Plan address this?
5. Why are so many busses so empty? What are some creative ideas for rethinking how to meet student transportation needs?
6. When is a school too big? How are we planning for the future? Should any of our closed schools re-open?
7. Why are iPads a banned purchase by schools for use with staff and students? How are we actually supporting site-based management and innovation?
8. How come new programs come and go without any data being collected about how they work and whether they are worth it? Do we have accountable spending?
9. What has been done to give rural schools the same learning opportunities as urban schools? How are we engaging their parents, students, staff, communities and the regional district?
10. What are we doing to speed up diagnosis of special needs students and the added funding that comes with it? Do we have enough support staff such as occupational therapists, psychologists, and speech pathologists to deal with the needs in our schools?
11. The new teacher contract has an Education Fund to hire more specialist teachers, will this meet the needs of students? How will we find out if we need more counsellors, learning assistance teachers, teacher-librarians and so on?
12. Does our school district website do enough to celebrate the good work that happens in our school district especially with the focus of the Canada Winter Games coming to Prince George?

Re-election Press Release

I have great expectations for our school district. I want more transparency and accountability from senior management. I want more follow-through and boldness from trustees. I want more celebration and voice for the work of teachers. I want more awareness of what our support staff do to improve schools and learning. I want more engagement of parents and students as stakeholders in public education. I want the provincial government to acknowledge that we have unmet needs in our students due to underfunding, understaffing, and aging infrastructure that needs investment. I do not believe that these expectations are out of reach for the Board of Education. I do believe these are goals that we can achieve if we work together.

My record:

• Asked for a Restoration Budget to be submitted along with our balanced budget in order to show the provincial government and the public what a fully-funded education system looks like.
• Supported a stand-alone LGBTQ anti-bullying policy from the start of my term. While initially alone, thankfully other trustees came around to this position when it came up last year.
• Challenged each and every budget and district report when it did not meet high standards for inclusion of partner group input, unanswered questions about money or direction, slippery statistics, or clearness of expression.
• Successfully won the release of information from our district that should be public such as enrollment and demographic data, class composition reports, and school transfer information.
• Pushed for more of our committee meetings to lift partner group gag orders and for stakeholders to be part of budget consultations.
• Advocated for less restrictions on technology and innovation, and for paying attention to the impact that new technology has on the time and work of staff, like new student information systems.

What I am not:
A politician, polished public speaker, or someone who only speaks up when the wind is blowing in that direction. I do not vote with the majority just because I am expected to, I treat each motion on its own and vote to represent all stakeholders, not just management recommendation.

What I am: 
Someone who will ask tough questions, follow through on issues, and advocate for well-funded, caring, and effective schools for our staff and students.  I will listen to what all parties say and ensure their voices do not get lost in procedures and closed-door meetings.

What to expect from me next:

I do not ride the fence on issues (I'm sorry to say this has been a bog issue for our current board), and I am not shy about controversy although I am a shy person.  I am hoping that our new board deals with sustainable funding, support for rural education, reducing cost of bussing, condition of school grounds, improvements for special needs students, and more site-based management.

More about me: 

I'm a mother of two kids in SD57 elementary schools, married to teacher, and an employee at Northern Health. I do pottery in my spare time. I was born in Nova Scotia, raised in Saskatchewan and other places (military family), and have lived in Prince George since 1998. I have served one term as a trustee in SD57 from 2011-2014. 

Feel free to contact me by text/phone (7783499119) or email (trusteecooke@gmail.com) if you want more information, would like to share your thoughts about public education, or have concerns that need to be brought forward. 

I would like my next post to be about questions that staff, parents, and students would like answered. Please contact me if you have some good questions.

Running again

It wasn't until late last night that I decided whether or not I should run again for school board trustee in School District 57. I had to work through some serious pros and cons, talk to some friends, and figure out what I valued about being a trustee. The case for saying yes became clearer over the course of the evening. I have big expectations for our school system and believe I can make a difference in my own way.

I am not your typical trustee. I do not want to be a politician, and I don't enjoy being in the spotlight. I struggle with public speaking and even writing in a clear fashion, although this has improved a lot over the last three years. I have a problem with truth, meaning that I stick to it and will not lie or bend the facts when it is convenient. I will always say what is on my mind and do not have the ability to bullshit people. This means I can be very blunt in what I say in both closed and public meetings. I often believe in underdogs and pay attention to what people on the edge of conversations are doing or saying. 

Over the last three years, this means I have asked tough questions at every single meeting I have been at, even to the point of being cut off or "handled." I have pushed for accountability and transparency in our district, especially from senior management, and pushed for the input of partner groups to be taken seriously. We have a secretive district and many issues brought up by staff, so I felt that this was job number one for a trustee.  I started out trying to represent teachers, parents, principals, support staff, PEA (like psychologists), and students first, and did not start out simply accepting that senior management has all the answers. 

This also means I have usually been on the losing end of votes. In 2011, I was 1 out 7 in wanting a stand alone LGBTQ policy for our district. Eventually the other trustees agreed this was necessary. I have twice been 1 out of 7 in looking for a restoration budget. This is a needs-based budget that would be submitted along with the balanced budget in order to show the provincial government what full funding would look like in our school district. The request did not even make it to the board table. I have been 1 out of 7 in challenging the District Achievement Contract and related reports because they did not meet high standards and contained invalid interpretation of statistics. I have been in the minority in voting against three annual budgets because they did not do enough to incorporate partner group input and one of them spent money we were told would not be spent. I was the only one at first to ask for class composition data to be included in the superintendent's report, eventually this passed. I pushed for a closer look at student information systems when it seemed our district was ready to just jump in on the Ministry of Education's suggested choice. I pushed for less restrictions on technology and innovation in our district in response to year of complaints that these areas were being ignored. There were also editing suggestions for letters to the government, many of which were too strong to make it into the final version, and multiple motions related to transparent release of information, some of which passed.

This list could go on for a while, it is part of the hard work that I did and will continue to do if elected. My work is not very flashy and may not seem that exciting to the average voter in an election, but it is important work. Without this kind of work being done by one or more trustees, a board can quickly becomes a rubber stamp and we lose accountability and transparency.

The last three years wasn't all an uphill battle. Our board has done some good work and there has been great discussions and laughter along the way. Generally the debate has been respectful, although many issues have come and gone without actually dealing with them. The good discussion doesn't always translate into good votes on issues. I am encouraged by the feeling that partner groups have had an increased voice, but we have a long way to go.

I really hope our board can learn from the last three years, and that some new trustees can bring energy to make some needed changes. My goal for the next term is seek high expectations for the board, for senior management, and for partner groups in School District 57.

I guess that can be my campaign slogan: Great Expectations

Website Motion

Here is a motion that I plan to bring forward at the January 14th, 2014 Board Meeting. Sometimes my motions don't make it into the board book, so I want to share this on my blog in case partner groups have any feedback to offer. It is no secret that our district website needs some help, so hopefully the focus of the Winter Games will provide an incentive to make it better.

SD57 website: http://www.sd57.bc.ca/
2015 Winter Games website: http://www.canadagames2015.ca/

Motion

That district staff make improvements to the design, function, and usefulness of the district website in keeping with other dynamic district websites in BC and in time for the 2015 Winter Games.

Rationale

We want a website we can be proud of.

Employees, partner groups, and fellow trustees have let the board know that the district website is in need of changes. The website will see increased traffic at the beginning of 2015 as our city and region comes under national focus. At the same time many of our facilities will be used by the Games and effective web communication is essential.

Many website improvements have been discussed over the last two years but not realized; placing a one-year deadline encourages staff to set goals for implementing proposed changes. Improvements have been mentioned in past budget planning, so there should not be any new costs associated with this motion.

A new committee working on school projects tied to the 2015 Winter Games needs a place to showcase their work. This is one of many opportunities an improved district website could address.

Other school district websites in BC have achieved high standards for appearance, interactivity, and purposefulness. They include examples of student learning and artwork, staff biographies, district and related community events, links to a variety of staff blogs, up-to-date news and media items, feedback forums, integration of professional development, video clips from leaders, twitter feeds, tutorials, interactive maps, clear communication about strategic planning, positive messages about the community, and so on.

Senior Staff can work out the details on the timeline, who should be consulted, what elements are needed, whether or not new software is needed, etc. Some of this planning work has already been done.

Two additional suggestions:

1. District staff or senior administration should report back to the board by April 2014 with a plan for the website and by September 2014 with progress-to-date. If work has already begun, this could happen sooner.

2. Please seek partner group input on what is needed in a district website. An employee survey is a good way to get this input.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Issue #10 Real Sustainability

Problems:

Schools support communities and neighbourhoods, and have a duty to be responsible community players. Over the last 10 years we’ve seen our school grounds increasingly chained up, gated, and made less welcome for neighbours. Friendly users are given the message to keep out, leaving the schools alone to the vandals. These are public lands, and should be open to the public.

Sustaining communities also means being stewards of our resources. Useful surplus equipment (e.g. from closed schools) should not be thrown out, but recycled or donated. It is still not known what has happened to surplus sewing machines, stoves, fridges, pottery and shop equipment from schools closed in 2010.  Either they have been thrown out or their whereabouts have not been properly reported.  The disposal was done quietly and kept out of the press.  Outrageous - this wasn’t junk - these were valuable assets in good repair according to staff from John McInnis and Lakewood. What is known is that hundreds of computers have been thrown out over the last two years, aging but still of use if the district didn't block donations. The issue of a principal throwing out school supplies was in the media this year, but that appears to be an isolated event rather than a pattern.

We need to recover carbon. Currently, school groups that organize efforts to green their school grounds are discouraged, being told that mown grass is preferable to trees and natural vegetation. Our district pays $150,000 per year (? please confirm) in carbon taxes based on the size of its footprint. The Highglen Montessori solar panel project is good start - Dave Leman’s efforts show us an example of something our school district should be prioritizing.

Some of our school groups have attempted to green their school grounds, like install gardens or replant trees that were cut down during the Pine Beetle outbreak. They are told that it is too expensive to do groundskeeping around new plantings, and most of these projects are denied. School grounds can be a place of wonder and beauty for students, and a lot of this has to do with trees. A few trees have been successfully planted, but we should be talking about stands of trees, little forests - thinking 100 years ahead!

Solutions:

Engage neighbourhoods and make use of social capital (the power of motivated people). Imagine how productive the board and board office could be if they became less adversarial with parent groups and said yes more often. Allow municipalities to assume after-hours liability in school grounds if that is why the chains and gates have gone up, and send the message that public school grounds are common ground.

Be public, open, and honest about what happens when a school closes. Donate, repurpose, or auction all surplus equipment and do not throw out usable assets. Appoint a trustee, PAC, or DPAC member to monitor disposal of assets. Our district has gained the reputation of being wasteful and it will take some serious effort to correct this impression.

We need to be more aggressive in reducing our carbon emissions and footprint, perhaps even recovering credits by sponsoring an offset project. To register these with the Pacific Carbon Trust, they would have to be completed by a third party to qualify as schools are currently excluded. They also need to involve something new that didn’t already exist in some form. Installation of outdoor learning space that involves carbon-capturing features (like trees) would qualify. 

Encourage tree planting and garden projects at many school sites in the district. Many of these projects already have volunteer help and funding lined up, so this does not have to be a new expenditure. Look beyond just making school grounds attractive and look for connections for environmental education and outdoor learning spaces.


Offer small incentives for teachers and schools to involve students in greening projects. What a great accomplishment it would be for a student to be involved with an innovative carbon capture project or the start of a new urban forest.

Issue #9 Building Bridges

Problems:

Management and teachers are not often working towards the same goals, especially during the current job action. It has become increasingly difficult to get the trustees and board office to listen to what their teachers are telling them (& vice versa). If there is some return to local contract bargaining, this adversarial relationship needs to soften. Long ago when teachers and administrators were part of the same professional association, it was fairly easy matter for “degrees” of leadership; teachers could take board office positions for a period of time and then return to teaching. Principals taught more classes, and there was a sense of partnership on creating positive learning conditions. Talk to any retired teacher or principal and they’ll describe this era. This team approach took a long time to fade. Even recently, many opportunities for teachers and management to sit down existed. Regular district-wide professional development opportunities with both groups, leadership teams, and district committees that existed from 2000-2009 have all disappeared. To be fair, many of these connections required expensive release time and during times of constraint have been replaced with learning team grants that gives teachers some time out of the classroom for study questions and experiments about teaching and learning. The teacher - administration gap has resulted in many teachers simply doing their own thing in their classrooms and trying to ignore everything else, a classic defense mechanism. The gap is different at every school and seems most dramatic between schools and the board office, so there is a strong role for trustees to play in modeling a better relationship.

The silver lining on the current job action is that everyone in the school system is getting a break from the their regular routines. This has not been easy for all, but it gives everyone a chance to start some new patterns when the job action eventually ends. This will be the perfect opportunity for the school board trustees and board office administration to being a new relationship with their teachers. This will only happen if the board office is willing to examine some of the dysfunction in their past relationship.

Solutions:

Connect the dots between the management gap and the other issues (like #6, #7, #8). Building bridges requires providing opportunities for teachers and specialists to lead change at the district level and for principals and district staff to be involved in learning, even at the classroom level. Design meaningful opportunities for all groups to meet and work together on mutually shared goals.

Lobby both the BCTF and the BCPSEA to agree on some kind of designation that will allow employees from either groups to exchange roles periodically without compromising their professional association.

Encourage trustees and management to spend some time in classrooms to realize the differences between the board office version of what’s going on with other perspectives, including the student perspective.

Be proactive in the research and discussion phase of any future negotiations on local contract issues.  Some items in the teacher contract will undoubtedly return to local bargaining, and the trustees need to be engaged in the process from the outset, and not just reacting or waiting for other districts to set precedents. Why not be a leader?

Lift the gag order (real or perceived) on teachers and principals getting involved in defending public education and giving critique alongside praise to district decisions and policies. This will speed up the rate at which problems with draft policies come to light and make the final outcome more inclusive and powerful. Article E.28 of the PGDTA collective agreement and SD#57 Policy 1170.3 provide starting points for these discussions.

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.