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

Public education rally Sep 4

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

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

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

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

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

2014-15 Budget Thoughts

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

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

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

Motion:

• That the budget increase to C&I of $248,000 for the implementation of the “Essential Eight” be reduced to $124,000 in order to mitigate cuts to other departments and allow the hiring of a Speech Language Pathologist. 

Rationale:

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

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.