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.

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 #6 Effective Technology

Problem:

The province and district are pushing “21st Century Education” which includes better use of technology and yet many of our district’s teachers and students are denied access to wireless networks, mobile devices, and projects that fit the goals. They express frustration with computers not working as expected, or having their laptops locked down to the extent they can’t access teaching tools. The mac users are disheartened as they see their computers thrown out to supposedly save costs. A board office presentation last year to all interested staff suggested that schools would be outfitted with only the most basic of technology and that students and teachers could buy their own teaching & learning tools if they wanted to innovate. It stops being “public” education when the users, especially our students without means, are expected to supply the learning resources. The collaboration that used to take place between teachers and district staff is also gone, and is far enough gone that many of the most experienced teachers who use a lot of technology have given up on trying to get the board office to listen to their concerns. The “Chilly Climate for 21st Century Learning” report issued by a group of teachers in September listed a number of support structures for collaboration on technology that used to exist in the district but are gone now over the last 3 years: “Key Tech Contacts, Tech Coaches, Tech Innovation Grants, Tech Education Coordinator (teacher and/or district principal), and teacher input in virtually every area related to philosophy, planning, decisions, directions, budget, practice, standards, and assessment.”  In addition, 4 secondary and 3 elementary projects designed to bring 21st century mobile learning ideas into classrooms were turned down by the board office last year. How many other potential projects were discouraged by this? This is the kind of work the ministry of education is trying to encourage - innovative, personalized use of technology. The district superintendent’s blog mentions innovation, disruption, and 21st century learning as ideals for the school system, so trustees need to be aware of where these ideals are being blocked in our schools and give teachers and students better chances to experiment alongside traditional paths of innovation (it doesn’t require a computer to challenge thinking, collaborate, or be creative).

Solutions

The most basic and obvious response is to say yes to teachers and students when they are passionate about pursuing innovative learning projects, technology-related or otherwise. Almost every successful program or project starts with engaged teachers who have a vision for what can be done for students. There must be cost limits and tech support to consider, but technology must be given a chance to be tested and flourish in classrooms before teachers give up.

It will be a big help for the board office to send consistent messages to teachers. If it can’t afford to support new technology, it should say so instead of talking about 21st century education but then blocking it when teachers volunteer to try it. The board office can start by allowing some of the proposed mobile learning projects to proceed or allowing teachers who are gifted with technology the access they need to use technology for powerful learning. The momentum of earlier teacher-district supports and the graduates of SFU's TLITE (tech ed diploma program) is all but lost in the disconnect of the last few years.

Pretty much every innovative use of technology in the past got its start in the district either through teacher initiative or by a partnership between teachers and a supportive board office : video editing, websites, blogs, podcasts, smartboards, interactive media, class-to-class connect, digital learning platforms, etc. Part of this is the teachers and students with ideas for how to use existing technology. The other part is the teachers and district staff sitting down together to figure out how to support it. We need a return to some level of teacher involvement in decisions, training, leadership, and coordination. It is time to end the shutout. The board office should find relief in this as they realize they can’t lead if nobody is following - get your teachers back onboard.

Issue #3 Communication

Problems

Trustee Communication: Our trustees typically gather information from the public and respond at a later date. This is true of board meetings, and also of the entire Sustainability process in 2010. Individual trustees are often great listeners, and get things done for parents and schools, but their input and consultation procedures make this harder.

Website Communication: The district website has lots of information, and has improved since 2010, but is also confusing to navigate and does little to celebrate student success.  Many links are dead ends, catchment maps have not worked for two years, and the design does not have the professional appearance that might be expected of a district with a $125 million budget. Many of the school sites have the same issues. Teachers report that the site controls are too difficult to use and as a result are no longer involved in website contributions. Our biggest high school (PGSS) has given up on the district-provided website system and has their own dynamic website embedded within the dysfunctional one.

Parents Communication: parents get conflicting information when they ask for reasons behind decisions and data about their schools. In 2010, parents were shown three conflicting lists of school capacities and projections, and were made to wait for freedom-of-information requests for information that should be publicly available.

Solutions

As a parent recently requested at a board meeting, the trustees should be willing to respond to questions and presentations from the public, either immediately after the input, or publicly (if appropriate) on the district website. Parents and others who give input are rarely offering private concerns, they are bravely representing the concerns of many, and those many wish to hear what the school board has to say, even if it is bad news. Some kind of regular interaction and input on plans is needed, not just “thanks, we’ll get back to you later.” Revising the official consultation process is a tall order but must be addressed if improvements are desired.


I'm not the only trustee candidate to suggest this (Don Sabo has clear ideas about this), but I think as many trustee meetings as possible should be public.  Keep personnel matters private, but almost everything else can be dealt with out in the open as a public institution. This should also extend to the so-called "senior learning team" that has set out some excellent topics for their consideration. See p. 5 of the District Plan for Student Success. There work will be so much more powerful if their discussions, at the developmental stage, are not confined to the board office but are open to others. They can't succeed if the people who have to live with their plans (like parents and teachers) have been excluded from the planning process. More about this in Issue #8.

Add interactive functions to the school district website, fix the dead ends, and remove content that is.  It has come along way, but we can learn from other districts that have attractive, functional, dynamic websites like Kamloops-Thompson, Gulf Islands, Columbia-Kootenay, etc. The access to reports, plans, organizational charts, info for parents and educators, etc. on these sites is excellent. Let teachers and students have access to websites again, so that school websites can easily reflect the character and spirit of each school.

The board office, as part of its planning cycle and ongoing attention to sustainability, should publish a yearly synopsis of school data, accomplishments, issues that were dealt with by the board, issues on the horizon (financial, educational, community issues). We should partner with the DPAC on this, as they have already filled the gap in recent years with the excellent resources and data on their website.

Issue #2 Improving Say for Parents

Problems:

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

Solutions: 

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

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

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

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

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