Elected school boards in Canada’s provincial school systems are gradually becoming “corporate boards.” Today many elected Canadian boards are almost indistinguishable from senior administration and increasingly coming to think, act, and react like corporate entities inclined toward protecting their interests and defending their ‘little empires’. Slowly, over the past three decades, elected school boards have been transformed, adopting strict “policy governance” models, succumbing to provincial centralization, and, in some cases, shrinking away from responsible, democratic trusteeship.
Nova Scotia Education Minister Ramona Jennex, Chair of the Council of Ministers of Education (CMEC) is now leading the movement chipping away at what’s left of local democratic decision-making in public education. Her innocuous looking little Education Act amendment , NS Bill 131, the “School Board Members Duties Clarification Act,” introduced November 15, 2012, directs elected members to “respect” the superintendent, legislates that they represent “the school board,” and promises to deepen the democratic deficit in public education.
School board members were once known as “school trustees” and expected to represent us, meaning local parents and taxpayers. Today, the Education Department and province’s eight school boards are gradually implementing a new corporate governance model turning elected boards into “rubber stamp” operations, rendering individual school trustees little more than ‘cheerleaders’ for the status quo, and promoting, in the words of Bill 131, “the achievement of all students.”
Nova Scotia may well be an extreme case. Firing three elected boards in six years, placing them under one-person receivership, treating elected representatives like unruly class members, introducing sanctions for periodic misbehaviour, and now legislating a further reduction in duties, has done incalculable damage to the political legitimacy of elected boards. It also reflects a complete misreading of the dire threat to local education democracy.
Elected school boards are now suffering from an advanced stage of “acclamation disease.” In the October 2012 Nova Scotia municipal elections, only three of the province’s eight school boards remained democratically healthy, and two of them were cleansed through previous firings. In the Annapolis Valley Board, school board candidates were acclaimed in 12 of the 14 districts and one seat remains unfilled. Across the province, two-thirds of the seats were uncontested and only 155 candidates surfaced to contest 94 school board positions.
Strict policy governance rules, introduced in stages since 2010, are eating away at responsible, accountable school trusteeship. They also stand in sharp contrast to the Nova Scotia Municipal Act giving “broad authority” to Councils and granting Councillors much broader powers defined “not narrowly and with undue strictness.”
The Canadian School Board Association and its president, Sandi Urban-Hall, are both aware of the imminent dangers, having commissioned a Memorial University research team to conduct a study of the impact of recent school board firings on school board governance and the effectiveness of such elected bodies.
The new Corporate Governance Model, popping-up in Canadian school boards, is completely out-of-step with current thinking in effective board governance. “Shared decision-making” and “generative policy-making” advocated by Harvard University’s Richard Chait are now best governance practice in the public and non-profit sector. They not only produce better decisions, but serve to attract higher calibre board members with something significant to contribute to the organization.
Seven years ago, Ontario Education Minister Gerard Kennedy faced a similar set of school board governance issues. Instead of clamping down on elected school board members, he issued a remarkable March 2006 policy paper entitled “Respect for Ontario School Trustees.”
Alarmed by record numbers of school board acclamations (54% in the 2003 election) and responding to legitimate Ontario Public School Boards Association concerns, the Education Partnership Roundtable recommended a completely different approach than the one chosen by Minister Jennex and her Deputy Minister Carole Olsen.
“The trustee role is widely under-appreciated and misunderstood,” the Ontario policy paper stated, before it “affirmed the standing” of school board trustees as “key decision-makers” exercising “five elements of educational oversight: effectiveness, efficiency, community engagement, ethics, and representation.” The resulting 2009 Ontario reforms spelled out the roles of individual trustees, board chairs and directors of education and boards were mandated to produce multi-year plans for improving student outcomes.
Individual school trustees were fully recognized, in Ontario law, as distinct from administration. Instead of limiting the role, the Ministry of Education reaffirmed the mission-critical role of elected trustees in securing and sustaining “an essential trust agreement with parents and communities around the education and care of children.”
Today Ontario’s elected school board members are recognized for playing a key role in community engagement. Rather than being discouraged or obstructed in trying to work with School Advisory Councils, elected board members are supported in their efforts to work with, and through, school-based parent groups.
Instead of being channeled through the superintendents, the 2006 Ontario Roundtable expressed confidence in elected trustees, urging that they be guaranteed “openness and transparency,” wide access to all “readily accessible information,” and far more more autonomy to “ask questions” and actively engage in local policy-making.
Ontario’s Bill 177, passed into law as the Student Achievement and School Board Governance Act 2009, is certainly not perfect, but at least it defines the roles of individual board members ( 218.1) , board chair (218.4), and directors or superintendents of education (283.1). With a shared leadership model in place and mutual respect re-established, then it is good governance practice to mandate board members “to entrust the day-to-day management of the board to its staff through the superintendent of education.”
Public confidence is already badly shaken, but it is not too late to change direction. It’s time to remove the muzzle and to learn from best governance practice. Putting the “trust” back into the “school trustee” role and giving them back the right to speak up for parents and school communities is a far better way to restore vitality to the whole system.
Why do Elected School Boards actually exist, if not to represent parents, students and the public? What has happened to erode the hard-won tradition of local education democracy? Is it already too late to restore responsible, accountable school trusteeship? If not, where do we begin?
I think you are right Paul for me a line was crossed at the TDSB and generally speaking in Ontario when minority trustees were told they could not speak out against majority decisions
The local control of schools is a very old idea from a very different time.
It still exists in much of the US where school districts are very small, but even in Ontario, the communities are so diverse that some local autonomy is useful.
How much and in what forms and to what limits, I do not know.
A monolithic all-powerful provincial or national system (unlikely in my lifetime or that of my students) in Canada likely be more trouble than it is worth.
The Nova Scotia Public School Boards Association (NSSBA) provided an Official Response to the Hon. Ramona Jennex, Minister of Education, prior to the introduction of the Nova Scotia amendment, restricting School Board Members Duties, and that “wishy washy” letter makes for fascinating reading:
“Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments to the education act.
We want to speak to the amendments to provide greater clarity to the role of Boards versus the role of the senior administration .
While we agree that the amendment proposed is consistent with the recommended practice we hold the view that this is well understood by Boards ,unfortunately with any elected body there are individuals who will challenge the accepted practice and placing wording in the act will not resolve the issue fully .Also the governance model in practice has shades of grey between the elected board and administration which in many instances is best served by a sharing of advice ,information and a joint agreement on the direction.
We recommend a more comprehensive examination of the role of boards versus the senior management and including a review of the roles and relationship between the elected boards and the Minister /Doe . While it is not unique to Nova Scotia there has been significant change in the landscape of school boards role ,authority and relationship between the provincial education authorities and locally elected boards. There has been significant amalgamation to reduce the number of boards and a greater demand by parents ,public on accountability for student achievement .Suffice to say many of the changes has and continues to undermine the role and legitimacy of the elected school board model . The system is moving in a direction of tighter controls and more standardization and yet the evidence points to a system that needs to respond to diversity and customization for individual students rather than the cookie cutter approach .
To conclude we suggest that we jointly review the issue to ensure that the interests of the students are best served by the model /system .
We ask that you consider approaching the issue on a positive front by outlining the purpose role and function of elected school boards as part of the educational system .
As an example we suggest that the act delineate the larger purposes for elected school boards to be Leadership, Advocacy, Oversight and Accountability with the core focus to improve student engagement and achievement”
(Excerpt from NSSBA Letter)
The corporate governance model in the public education system? It stinks for the bottom feeders – the students and the parents and by extension the communities. Nothing inherently wrong with the corporate governance model, when it comes to models with shareholders. Shareholders have power, but not the students, the parents and the communities that the school board serves. Serves? Hah! It is more like sending out edicts -either adapt or be force to assimilate.
It is ironic that Doug gets all puffy and out of sorts when minority trustees are told not to speak out. Isn’t that what the collaborative process is all about, that union literature among the other stakeholders are always pushing, for parent councils – the collaborative process that sure does an effective number on having agreement for one and all, in order to present a united front against the opposition that inevitably will come from decisions. Minority opinion is one causality of the corporate governance model of the public education model.
Paul mentions in his blog posting, the “Ontario’s Bill 177, passed into law as the Student Achievement and School Board Governance Act 2009, is certainly not perfect, but at least it defines the roles of individual board members ( 218.1) , board chair (218.4), and directors or superintendents of education (283.1). With a shared leadership model in place and mutual respect re-established, then it is good governance practice to mandate board members “to entrust the day-to-day management of the board to its staff through the superintendent of education.”
What Bill 177 said in a number of pages, the Nova Scotia education ministry, stated with brevity and to the point. “NS Bill 131, the “School Board Members Duties Clarification Act,” introduced November 15, 2012, directs elected members to “respect” the superintendent, legislates that they represent “the school board,” The latter is to the point, and unlike Ontario’s Bill 177 which says exactly the same thing using dense language as its cover. The new corporate governance model has started a profitable side industry occurring in NA education systems, on school boards, its professional development and training of school trustees. Below is Ontario’s version, of quiet resplendence, that more or less tell school board trustees to mind their Ps and Qs, and complied to work with the goals of the CEO of the school board, or its equivalent.
In Module one – ” The components of ethical leadership
The multiple facets of their role as leaders
Key concepts of school board governance”
and the outcomes – ” Clarity on the moral purpose of education : student achievement and well-being
Stronger understanding of governance as a collective leadership act
Stronger understanding of one’s role as a trustee who represents a constituency and who is a member of the school board
Stronger understanding of the responsibilities and dynamics of governance within a context of multiple and competing demands
Stronger understanding of the capacity of a school board to be a force for promotion of public education”
http://modules.ontarioschooltrustees.org/en/read/authentic-governance-through-ethical-leadership
Paul writes in 2010, “Today the bureaucratic education state is omnipresent. When parents with concerns are rebuffed by local principals, they have virtually nowhere to turn. Local democratic control has eroded to the point where many now call for the complete abolition of the current school trustee system. We have been drifting in the wrong direction. It’s time to rejuvenate local education democracy and to rethink our malign neglect of school board governance.”
http://www.themarknews.com/articles/1963-school-boards-under-fire/#.ULJSJuQ8CSo
The newer versions of corporate governance models have morphed into the same type of controls, but with an additional emphasis, that parents and communities must follow the protocols created and set by the school board trustees and staff, to control minority expressions of opposition. The parent council speaks for the parents and the school trustee chair now speaks for the public. Minority opinion is suppressed from the get-go. The other feature is a big one for parents, where most parent issues are redirected to the school board staff. The trustees are not there to represent the parents or the students, but exists to provide support for the school board staff, and by extension the educators at the school.
The biggest issue and comes up all the time – “A governance expert is advising the public school board to clamp down on public input.
In a draft report, Susan Hallett recommends the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board revise its procedures for public delegations, including slashing speaking time in half to five minutes and ceasing to provide delegates with a rationale when their requests to speak are denied.
The independent consultant also proposes limiting the scope of topics delegates can address to those listed on agendas, which are typically made public three days prior to Monday meetings.”
http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/837809–cut-public-input-draft-school-board-report-says
Parental engagement? Not on the agenda, unless its the kind that have parents nodding their heads in unison like bobbleheads. Teachers unions look at it this way, ” Even Ontario’s high school teachers criticized the bill, warning it threatens local school board autonomy and places too much emphasis on provincial test scores instead of quality education.
Ministry officials say amendments to the Education Act clarify what is expected from school boards, trustees, board chairs and education directors to support improved student achievement.
Ensuring sound governance and financial management are also at the heart of the changes, the government has insisted.”
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/405099–keep-legislatin-keep-pretendin
I can see the unions’ point, and that is unions will have a more difficult time to engage parents on education concerns when parents have overly, complicated protocols to follow to state their case to school trustees. Personally, I know the trustees don’t give a hoot for students’ individual outcomes. All they care about is compliance and overall outcomes of the collective. What none of the stakeholders in the education system, want to hear expressed, is the fallout of education policies that impact students negatively and their futures. Take for example on a Toronto school board trustee dealing with Bill 115. “By far the most important element in making a school a great place – both for students and teachers – is the strength of the relationships between school staff, students, and parents. The anger about Bill 115 has damaged these relationships, something that it is bad for everyone involved.
As you will note in my updates below, I have been asking parents to think of creative ways that they can start to rebuild the frayed relationships in their schools. I’d like to hear from you about what you are doing personally, or as part of a group, to repair the damage.”
http://www.tdsb.on.ca/_site/ViewItem.asp?siteid=175&menuid=175&pageid=175
This trustee is asking parents to repair the damage of lost of trust, who don’t have the power to change things in the first place. What can anyone do, when the adults within the public education system don’t behave as adults, and urges solutions that downloads the responsibility unto the parents to pick up the slack. Another tactic used more often since the advent of the corporate governance model is what is outlined in this article, “Public board trustees want to boost democracy
In September 2011, I brought forward a request for the policy and bylaw committee to review the delegation procedures of the Waterloo Region District School Board. At that time, the request did not raise any concerns at the board table. Last month, the committee finally did discuss the current procedures and the resulting minutes of the meeting, which did not include any recommendations to change the procedures, were presented to the board of trustees.
These committee minutes have generated a huge amount of negative feedback, largely because they have been taken out of context. I would like to provide that context.”
http://www.therecord.com/opinion/columns/article/706794–public-board-trustees-want-to-boost-democracy
At the end, to justified narrowly defined processes for parental engagement at the school board level – “Something else that has generated a lot of vitriol is not a change at all — it is merely extending the list of examples of what is deemed unacceptable visual forms of support or opposition. (People who get worked up over this probably don’t understand the difference between “e.g.,” which means “for example,” and “i.e.,” which means “that is to say.”) There is nothing undemocratic in trying to provide a safe space for people to present their ideas and nothing undemocratic in trying to clarify what is thought to hinder that.
However, I fear for future committee discussions. Will policy and bylaw committee members feel safe in discussing ideas that might improve processes and procedures or will they fear accusations of undemocratic thoughts, thus limiting the possibility of positive change? I hope my trustee colleagues are willing to risk these accusations on behalf of all students and families in the Waterloo Region District School Board.”
http://www.therecord.com/opinion/columns/article/706794–public-board-trustees-want-to-boost-democracy.”
Note what is in brackets – ” (People who get worked up over this probably don’t understand the difference between “e.g.,” which means “for example,” and “i.e.,” which means “that is to say.”) There is nothing undemocratic in trying to provide a safe space for people to present their ideas and nothing undemocratic in trying to clarify what is thought to hinder that.”
Another version, that the common person do not have the understanding nor the brain cells to arrived at their own conclusions. Now watch for this to be used as the reason for controlled parental engagement at the school board meetins. It is a security risk, to allow parents to state their case.
In BC, teachers and some trustees are a few steps ahead of their counterparts across Canada. “A New Westminster school trustee is proposing a parents’ bill of rights in a bid to repair the often adversarial relationship the district has with individual parents and parental groups.”
http://www.newwestnewsleader.com/news/152088195.html
It be on the day when hell freezes over, that an Ontario or Nova Scotia school trustee would suggest a parents’ bill of rights. Here is another good example from BC, “The district’s policy on public participation states that public participation is provided solely as a means for ensuring residents have an opportunity to obtain clarification or make a statement concerning the board meeting proceedings.
McKay said Jarvis’ comments were not merely a statement, but an insult to the board chair’s integrity.
“She comes to a public meeting and accuses incorrectly the board chair of violating the school act, someone needs to respond to that,” said McKay. “Everyone is just wandering around with kid gloves on and is afraid to deal with stuff like this. If someone attacks the board publicly, and if the officers of the board are not prepared to defend the board chair, I’m going to.”
McKay said maybe next time he would handle it differently by suggesting the chair rule the comments out of order.
Jarvis refused to elaborate on why she made the comment at the public meeting stating it was not newsworthy. She also declined reacting to McKay’s tweet.
However, District Parents’ Advisory Council president Gord Byers was none impressed with McKay’s public “bashing” of a parent.
“The bottom line here, any parent should be able to speak up, whether right or wrong, about anything,” said Byers. “And trustees should not be turning around on Twitter or Facebook or any other public space and bashing a parent.”
http://www.theprogress.com/news/147785175.html
What I do know, are the articles and papers written on rights of parents, students and the communities. What the school officials fear, and this new corporate governance model is a way to keep the lid on, to prevent power sharing with parents. The Moore decision has direct implications, that a lot of the activities of the school board trustees and staff, could be considered discriminatory practices that prevents students from accessing the ramp to education. In other words, the students have been kicked off the ramp, by the education officials who are acting as traffic cops. It should be an interesting year for 2013, and the governance model that mimics corporate boards and shareholders, but not the power and decision making that is found with shareholders and a corporation.
” With public schools as targets, parental rights legislation raises the specter of endless confrontations and lawsuits, diverting us from the need to engage in reasoned debate over the common good.
The term parental rights has taken on a new and potentially disruptive meaning in the lexicon of public school change and improvement these days. For a long time, parents exercised their rights around the collective good of the public school as well as the needs of individuals. When tension existed between public pursuit and individual wants, many communities employed the democratic process to reconcile differences, using such means as PTAs, school-site councils, school board advisory committees, and civic organizations such as the League of Women Voters and the Rotary Club. The public believed that parents and schools, working together at the local level closest to the needs of the child, made the best decisions for all of the children and that public institutions existed to support parents in their primary role as caregivers, educators, health providers, nurturers, disciplinarians, and character builders.”
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/nov97/vol55/num03/Parental-Rights@-Yes!-Parental-Rights-Legislation@-No!.aspx
It is not all dark and gloom. But if the school boards do not take a different approach other than the current direction of edicts hailing from the above, the school boards will be facing multiple civil suits from groups or parents and on the individual basis.
Parent bashing can only go so far, when parents collectively get fed up. “Sotiropoulos heeded the latter’s words and refused to apologize for his comments. “When the student in question was confronted about their behaviour, the torrent of taunts, profanity and abuse that was their response is something no TDSB employee, student or parent should be asked to disregard or ignore,” he told CTV.
The school board’s vice-chair, Shaun Chen, said Sotiropoulos could face sanctions and claimed his actions were “not appropriate.”
Even if Sotiropoulos’s tweet was offensive or inappropriate, it could help shape a broader conversation about the struggles teachers and principals face in classrooms and corridors.”
http://www.dailydot.com/news/school-board-trustee-twitter-students-twerps/
I bet that series of discussions will be kept under wraps from the prying eyes of parents, and nor would they want to hear from parents on the actions of principals and teachers in the schools.
Two videos – rare find for Canadian parents speaking out.
The first one are the common concerns of parents on closure of school, and their questions are never answered by the school trustees.
The second video, are issues that school trustees never want to talk about, or even allowed to be addressed at the school board meeting.
“Parents Against Wi-Fi Gagged by School Board”
The title could be easily change, Parents are gagged by the school board, to bring up reading instruction practices, or the horrible math curriculum, or bus transportation, or the issues of dress code.
I have always said, give them curriculum, negotiations, and human resources power or abolish them, one or the other. Otherwise they are just insulation for unpopular provincial decisions. The best idea I saw in UK. All of the property and property management went to the city. The program was run by a quasi independent body like the TTC or police board in Toronto of bureaucrats and city council members but only city council members vote.
Sadly we have the catholic system to complicate matters but it would work in NS and other provinces.
“While we agree that the amendment proposed is consistent with the recommended practice we hold the view that this is well understood by Boards ,unfortunately with any elected body there are individuals who will challenge the accepted practice and placing wording in the act will not resolve the issue fully”
Unfortunately?…. Really.
Accepted practice? ….Says who?
Challenging accepted practice by democratically elected board members seems to be a big issue, not only with this provincial government, but also with the NSSBA. What exactly is a statement like this teaching our students about school board democracy, let alone achievement?
A few Elected School Boards show a little democratic spunk. One of them is the Upper Canada District School Board in Brockville, Ontario. Board Chair Greg Pietersma took a stand against Queens Park and recently launched “Who is in Charge of the School House?”
Here’s the key message:
“Since 2003, there has been a considerable consolidation of power in the area of financial management, labour relations, and legislation. This has happened with little or no public debate, or any rationale on how this will improve student achievement.
It’s time to ask the question, “Who is in charge of the school house?” Citizens of Ontario need to debate whether schools will continue to be run locally or from Queen’s Park.”
http://www.whoisinchargeoftheschoolhouse.com/
Take a closer look and you will discover a little “fire in the belly” of School Trustees in Eastern Ontario!
So, now we see where the Education Act ammendment was taking us; school closures. Make that neat and tidy, no parental uproar and interference school closures.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/196618-empty-classrooms-wasted-tax-dollars#.ULSpdgcF1Hs.facebook This is from today’s Herald. My question is: If the classrooms are empty, why do we need to hire 2,082 new teachers and why do we need to build new buildings? How is that saving tax dollars?
Right you are Peggy. This is why the SSRSB was disbanded and replaced by a government appointee, and Deloitte presented new recommendations limiting school board responsibilities.The board wanted to seek solutions to avoiding unnecessary school closures. The administration didn’t. As far as new buildings go, perhaps the Minister of Infrastructure and Renewal might have an opinion on that. I’d love to hear one.
The former Toronto Board taxed its citizens more and provided higher level services. It was re-elected time after time. Neighbouring boards refused to tax more but told the Ontario government “you must control Toronto because our citizens are demanding the same services.” Thus amalgamation.
When elected boards do something idelogically incongruent with the provincial view, daddy province finds a way to close them down.
The School Board Grew & Grew — Psychoanalysis Of An Organization
The public school board system of education delivery has grown beyond dysfunctional. Some say it is counter-productive to its intended mission. As with most empire-building it’s now under the power of “producer capture” — self-serving.
Parents as intended clients are treated as “non-persons”. I spoke with a trustee once about this, saying, “Trustees are supposed to serve the parents.” He replied, “No, trustees are supposed to protect the system FROM the parents!” In typical fashion this politician successfully used trusteeship as a stepping-stone to high provincial and federal politics.
The problem with the parent cause in education is that — in contrast to all the other players who have vast resources with which to cultivate and promote their self-interest — parents are fractured. There is no build-up of institutional knowledge or sustaining organization to maintain and advance their consumer/client/customer/child advocatcy role. It’s a Yo-Yo situation.
The schools boards of today are an obstacle in the parent cause. This is what I submitted to my local newspaper today:
Dear Editor
Sorting through old clippings from North Shore News I came across some of my old letters to the editor. Most of my complaints were about the dysfunctional school system. I called for abolishing public school boards way back. I quoted from an OECD Report of Educational Policy in Canada, 1976, which found boards dealing with “fringe” matters rather than the substance of education. It said, “Parents complain that the school boards are remote and take no notice of them.”
Fast forward to 2012. Things should be much evolved and improved.
Checking provincially I find:
– projected $2.2 million deficit (New Westminster)
– $32,000 for iPads for trustees (Langley)
– $25,000 (estimate) for training trustees ‘How to get along” (Chillliwack)
Closer to home the North Vancouver School Board was embroiled in two instances of thorny judgment:
One was the Robin Tomlin case. Mr Tomlin sought an apology for an old insult — the word “Fag” beside his name — in the yearbook of 42 years ago. But, he was asked to sign a release for any rectification. In a CBC interview he said: “ . . . they wanted me to sign a letter that I wouldn’t take them to court, wouldn’t take them to human rights, wouldn’t sue them, wouldn’t make it public. That was as humiliating as the first bullying they did to me long ago.”
He didn’t sign and still got a public apology.
The other was the Moore case, which — after 15 years — finally reached the Supreme Court of Canada. It found the NVSB discriminated against a special needs student whose parents had to find appropriate education for their son in specialist private schools. The Board’s prepared statement was that serious provincial underfunding compromised their services — despite retaining an outdoor school facility.
In both these cases the clients persisted —as free agents — with their just causes. Meanwhile the state institution — with their expensive contingents of lawyers and PR experts disclaimed institutional responsibility with the stance: That was long ago. We have now come a long way.
All these cases — and many more in this last year in BC — strongly show that the machinery of public school boards is an outdated dinosaur in this 21st Century. The proper education of our youth deserves much better.
I think regional public school boards should be abolished. Each school should have its own board made up of parents and staff at each school, which is accountable for the tax dollars collected for education.
Your anarchist system will never work Tunya. It is a throwback to before Ryerson. Painfully naive.
Part of the lack of parent power is based on the fact that being the parents of school age children is temporary. Being the union, the admin, etc is permanent.
The abolition of school boards tends to move power up to the ministry and the state, not down to the schools although there is an interesting experiment happening in Boston. Families of schools under one SO report directly to the Head Superintendent (Director in Canada).
Doug, anarchist system? Really, when Tunya was simply describing the power and authority of school boards, relating to the absence of power and authority at the parent level. It is not a coincidence, that the first legislated law found in the school acts, is that schooling is compulsory for all children between the ages of 6 to 16 or 18 now in Ontario. Since than, it has been downhill since than, a steady erosion of power and authority from parents, and in turned the individual schools and in turned the school boards.
Nova Scotia is a case to point at.
As school systems increase centralization, and slowly move authority, power and decision making capacity to fewer central points, at the upper levels, school boards are devolving down to mere management stations, to ensure compliance, and as such, it results in school boards spending their energy on trivial matters, and not on the meat of education substance.
Tunya points out expenditures. No need to point out the expenditures of the Toronto school board, and the Star investigation series on $3000 electical plug installation or the $165 pencil sharpener installation;.
Nor how minutes of school board meetings, are stripped to their bare bones, and parents are reminded often to follow the protocols to present at the board meetings, or trustee committees and are given a time frame to do so. Of late reducing it from 10 minutes to 5 minutes. Parent consultation is a series of what can only be say, a restrictive process of surveys, and to control who and who will be allow to present. “Our delegation procedure helps us manage this process and ensure a fair and equal forum. In addition to verbal presentations, written submissions will also be accepted and distributed to Board members.”
http://www.tdsb.on.ca/_site/ViewItem.asp?siteid=88&menuid=310&pageid=239
What is left up to school boards? Just to manage. Become the lackeys for the school board staff, and the school board staff becomes the lackeys for the education ministry. The politics pulls it all together, until it all comes crashing down, when the little guys, the parents acts as free agents, and brings civil suit, or when the individual players within the school board and schools, become bad actors that shines a negative light unto the school board.
Reminds so much, of old USSR. The old USSR does not exist for a reason. It was no longer providing for the needs of their citizens. Likewise, school boards are at peril to self-destruct, when school boards are no longer being an effective mechanism for parents and the students’ education.
Note on the Moore case. Odd, the school trustee boards minutes, does not have one peep about the Moore case. It can only indicate that the conversations are taking place at level of the ministry of education. Checking across Canada, randomly, it seems odd that the Moore case is not being discussed at the trustee meetings. Just surfing through, crossing Canada, the main agenda item, is the closure of schools and related topics.
Sure looks like school boards have become mere managers, posing as local education democratic entities.
Who says the parents should have the power? Taxpayers and citizens pay for the schools. Parents are a 24% subset of taxpayers. Employers and the state have a significant interest in educational outcomes for the betterment of innovation and growth. The state has an interest for the general upift of the nation.
Parents are no more than one of the interests in education and they have no coherent positions on issues unlike the other interests.
There are conservative, liberal and social-democratic parents, green parents, labour parents and business parents, poor parents and rich parents.
There is no such thing as “the parents’ perspective, or position.”
“Parents” should be consulted, nothing more. They can express themselves like everybody else at election time but par for the course, they are as divided as all citizens.
Many reformers like to ascribe to themselves “the parent’s position”. There is no such thing.
The idea that ‘parents’ through some institutional form should have control of the schools is a non-starter. You can dream, you can yell, you can demand, you can cajole….. not going to happen.
There is implied a contract between the citizen (in this case the parent) and the state (in this case the provincial, local, and school level folks- in some countries the community board or the national government) if we entrusted our children to pair of these groups in return for their schooling we should get the best of what they have to offer. For starters, we could begin with an item from the Hippocratic oath- do no harm. Beyond that societies need to work out the rules.
There is an implication in the Global Education Reform Movement (GERM) that governments ought to do what parents want. First of all parents are all over the map on what they want and secondly, they are not the only estate to be considered.
Every parents group I have ever seen wants smaller classes and ECE yet these are rejected by the GERM giving away their ideological underpinnings as, Tea Party types, religious funding seekers and corporate sharks looking to cash in all masquerading as “the Parents”. Yes some are parents but Annie Kidder types represent 10X the number of parents.
GERM has no popular base to speak of.
However amusing, are the stakeholders within the education system – so do objected of placing the power in the hands of the parents. Of repeating the narratives that consists of talking points of the stakeholders, that consists entirely of voiding the power option to parents, because parents are all over the map, or some other similar reasons.
Do no harm, as John has expressed should be the motto for all of the stakeholders if they are so unwilling to let go of their authority and power over education matters. Quite frankly, I have never heard of any parent chatting over coffee, sitting at pool side, or at the Christmas dinner, wanting smaller classes, and early childhood education. Nor the new version of ECE, day care and the wrapped around early childhood education services. I once sent a video on a Canadian daycare to a parent, and asked her if this was her experience. She wrote, please no more. She was in the process of looking for a new daycare that was not into experimenting with children, and using them as lab rats for the next trend in early childhood theories. The video was on how to teach a child early independence, by teaching the small tot to change their own diaper. It starts as soon as they are walking. As I was watching it, I thought of my own children. Strong-willed personalities, who probably would be kicked out of the daycare for non-compliance. Like other stories that are dime a dozen on the web, and the difficulties parents have dealing with public daycare operations attached to schools.
Whatever has happened to the nursery school? As most parents moan, and complained bitterly over the costs of daycare.
Never heard a parent over 35 years wanting small classes, as their guiding light, but what I have heard is lots on administration rules, curriculum and instruction. Crazy rules such as barring parents from walking their children to their classroom, to banning parents altogether unless they phone ahead. The common one that has been consistent over the 35 years, parents soon learned that it is best to have the kids take the morning off, when you know you will not make it to the school before first bell. The righteous lectures are too overbearing to endure and always accompanied with the threat of phoning the child protection services, if it occurs again.
How the powers of the stakeholders, dismissed the voices of the parents and tell them to go through the proper channels. Toilet paper? Go through the proper channels. The protocols, and by the way parents, a piece of advice. The protocols gives the administration a heads up early enough, to be able to send the parent scurrying back to the rock she crawled under. I soon learned to used legal language, that give them no clue as to what was on my agenda.
School trustees, are just another layer of bureaucracy to protect the stakeholders.within the education system. The trustees are willing partners sooner than later, because if they tried to upset the apple cart, they too are dismissed or they quit in frustration. Can’t have any of them talking about the curriculum and outcomes of students. That is not the trustees job. It is to manage the money flow, and give their approvals to the overall budget and goals, and not to discussed the low achievement in math of the primary students. Trustees do hear about it from parents, but according to the overall manuals, the trustees are there to listen, and direct parents to the right departments. Meaning, all parent concerns are redirected back to the school, and the parent is back to square one again.
” A Toronto School Board Trustee is unapologetic after calling students at one local school “ill-bred twerps” on Twitter.”
Read more: http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/school-trustee-unrepentant-after-calling-students-twerps-on-twitter-1.990652#ixzz2Dl4iOwFr.
Praise for speaking his mind or condemned for speaking his mind. A mix bag. Now if it was a parent, that voiced the words – repercussions and more than likely being banned from the school or speaking at the trustees meetings. It is why the protocols are in placed, where the trustees, along with the director of the school board, gets to play boss man, who will and who will not speak. And the public will never know, who asked to speak nor who was tossed out into the garbage bin. Nor the topics of what the presenters that were tossed out. .
One of the Toronto trustees, on her web site, had announcement of a certain educator with an education PHD behind her name will be speaking at one of the committees. Another one without the math qualifications but a darling in Ontario at the moment, expert in mathematics. Wouldn’t it be nice, if someone was presenting right after her, telling the trustees why the current math curriculum and instruction are doing more harm, and is causing a great deal of damage to the students’ futures and the future economic health of the country? Or a parent, telling the trustees, an outline of what happened to her child, how she grew to hate school, and what she had to do without the support of the school, to get her kid up to standards and become a high achiever in mathematics and the sciences.
Parents’ stories are riveting, emotional and details the negative outcomes of education policies that in the end displays the disregard for students and by extension the parents, that the stakeholders have for them. Parents really only want a decent education for their children, that will open the future doors for their children. School trustees does themselves a disservice, when they too jumped on the bandwagon, to silence parents by their protocols, and spend realms of monies on parental engagement to have parents complied to their authority and power first, before engagement can happen.
There is no zero nada demonstrated desire on behalf of parents to “control” education. The GERM movement does not speak for parents.
Government & Non-Government Schools
I have in front of me a reproduction of the famous painting “A Meeting of the School Trustees” (1885) by Robert Harris. I didn’t know there was a video but this is delightful! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnhM0uDIcxA
The point I want to make regarding this picture is that here is the source — the origin — of what a school board was in “the olden days”. A board of parents with a direct relation to the teacher and curriculum.
125 years later and look at what we have!
Some parents do prefer that direct relationship and they are satisfied when they can choose a private school where their voice and support are respected. Thankfully in Canada — because of history, BNA Act and Charter — parental choice is still a governing principle. It’s just much harder now because so much conspires against free choice for parents: the pressures, the unions, the conditioning of dependency on government, the lure of handy neighborhood schools, etc., etc.
There are TWO DISTINCT approaches by which to obtain an education for the young — the government route or the non-government route. There are political and practical arguments for both. I did not say “versus” in my title. These two forms should not be seen as in competition but they can definitely be compared and contrasted.
The Government Route (GR), right off the bat, smacks of indoctrination, or at least has the opportunity for this to happen. Those who argue for GR, of course, wish for a monopoly, for a place where equity can be fine-tuned, and for the occasion to inculcate state’s values. Being against parental choice is a given.
This is amply articulated by a former BC (NDP) Education Deputy Minister of Education, a teacher of teachers at UBC, Dr. Charles Ungerleider, who in January in National Post said: ““Parents are the primary educators of their kids and the primary communicators of values. But the reason that we send children to public school is, in fact, to develop and inculcate the values we all share and to overcome any limitations a parent may have in exposing kids to alternative points of view.”
The Non-Government Route (NGR) is what the original meaning of “free schools” conveyed. That is, schools would be free of an imposed state religion. Like, “free thought”! Those who — policy-wise — support a wide range of school offerings argue that, economically, in the aggregate, a whole lot of different approaches can lead to as good literacy and citizenship as a uniform one-size-fits-all state system.
This NGR position is supported by the latest CARDUS research report “A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats”. http://www.cardus.ca/research/education/
The survey showed non-government schools and home education performing as well as government schools in international rankings.
Concerning the “public good” — healthy citizens, democratic participation, pluralism, tolerance, and cohesion — this is what they conclude:
“Overall, graduates of non-government schools are at least as likely to be involved in society and culture working toward ‘the common good’ as their public school counterparts. In other words, this study shows that the claim that religious and other independent schools do not prepare their students to contribute positively to Canada’s multicultural society is unfounded.” (pg7)
NOW, if full parental choice was expedited via vouchers or tuition-tax-credits or other means to overcome the steep costs — money-wise and having both parents needing to work — then a “post-public” education scheme would be possible. The whole expensive and self-interested public school board system could be dismantled. For those concerned with child welfare in their communities, the municipal authorities could very well provide this oversight or as is done by mayoral control of education in some US jurisdictions.
Who said anything about controlling education? What parents want is a voice that is heard. And not this pseudo-farce that is called consultation and parent protocols. Parents are already facing the stakeholders who are easily manipulating parents into actions that are against their children’s best interests and their futures. The built-in processes and mechanisms have long ago been institutionalized to replicated consistent systemic discrimination influences that acts as a control to prevent parents from speaking out, on topics that matter to them.
Don’t worried – the constant denial of the public education system and the stakeholders that denied there is no built-in systemic discrimination, part of it has been proven in the Supreme Court of Canada, concerning the Moore case. The next court case will be about the systemic discrimination in a class-action suit. Parents from coast to coast, describing the same stories in different provinces and in different school boards will provide the proof. And I dare say, tell the story of how a public education system that was set up for the exclusive playground of educators, and little to do with the education of students, quality of education and the students’ best interests.
The tables are swinging around, where taxpayers will be entering the legal arena, under the rights umbrella, at the public institutes of the public sector. The public education will received the brunt of it, since they do so persist on dictating to parents, insulting parents, and tell the taxpayers to pony up for more increases in taxes to pay for the increases of salaries in the education system, without being held accountable to the outcomes of the students. Come to think of it, there is a growing set of parents, apparently reported to be approximately 60 percent, paying for private tutor lessons for the fundamentals and basics in math, writing and reading. It is what some parents called, the poor man’s option. Trustees should be hearing out parents, and not acting as the controls to prevent the narratives of parents from being heard. They soon realized, that they have a lot in common with parents and start to make the connections of the 19th century education model, pretending to be acting as a 21st century education model, minus the values – the rights – of parents, students and the public that no longer serves the public.
Once again you speak for parents. I don’t think so. Who appointed you spokesperson for “parents”?
My Last Post Got Kidnapped By WordPress!
Please see “Government & Non-Government Schools” a couple of entries up. It got delayed, then did not get an entry into our emails.
I think you’ll love the little video I link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnhM0uDIcxA
And, I end my spiel with a call for a “post-public” era of education.
There is literature on this theme — why there should NOT be government interference in education.
This little booklet is gaining considerable renewed interest and can be ordered from Amazon or AbeBooks — “Reasons Against Government Interference in Education — Showing the Dangerous consequences of entrusting a central government with the education of its subjects (1843)”. Most everything predicted has now come to pass.
“It is impossible to conceive a system more hostile to freedom than this is. In fact, it is thraldom of the worst kind, too — intellectual thraldom. “ (pg 42 “thraldom” defined means bondage, slavery, servitude.)
In the book “Worlds Apart” which chronicles our toxic 40 years of government/teacher union rivalry in BC, Dr. Thomas Fleming closes his book with this paragraph:
“And, will government and the teachers’ federation finally find ways to behave in a civilized manner, or will the discord of recent decades finally weaken support for old organizational relationships to the point that a new “post-public” universe of schooling will emerge?” (pg 134)
I have seen this same term — “post-public” education — also used in Forbes magazine. I think our searches for more discussion of this topic would yield some rich material. I hope so. All this self-interest and vested interest that is served by our current system is just sinking us deeper and deeper into bondage and making us very “unfree” people.
A.bacwards looking POV. Tunya. There are few institutions more popular than public.educatiin. Only public health care is as poplar.
This morning, I ran into an article – a legal paper written by an professor of the Osgood Law School – “The litigation surrounding Bill 160 illustrates
the anti-worker architecture of the law and the mandate of the courts in depoliticizing capital-labour disputes. The author concludes that Ontario
teachers—and labour generally—must avoid the courts if they seek transformative change.”
Click to access 37_4_glasbeek.pdf
After reading the paper, and although I do not appreciated all the legal nuances, I did make a connection to what Paul had alluded to in an earlier post, regarding trustees. “A few Elected School Boards show a little democratic spunk. One of them is the Upper Canada District School Board in Brockville, Ontario. Board Chair Greg Pietersma took a stand against Queens Park and recently launched “Who is in Charge of the School House?”
Here’s the key message:
“Since 2003, there has been a considerable consolidation of power in the area of financial management, labour relations, and legislation. This has happened with little or no public debate, or any rationale on how this will improve student achievement.
It’s time to ask the question, “Who is in charge of the school house?” Citizens of Ontario need to debate whether schools will continue to be run locally or from Queen’s Park.”
http://www.whoisinchargeoftheschoolhouse.com/
The connection that I have made, has direct legal implications in the courts. That is the Ontario Bill 115, or the new changes made by the Nova Scotia’s by the Ministry of Education regarding Bill 131, The School Board Members’ Duties Clarification Act. Paul, like others have said both bills, chipping away at local democratic decision-making in public education. But is it?
Are both bills really chipping away at the political and power relationships between the stakeholders of the education system? I would say yes without hesitation, because local democratic decision-making was only used by the school board, its trustees, the unions and the individual teachers as the means to gain political capital to advance the best interests of the players within. The student, parents and communities has become the causalities of the local decision making based on policies that are based within the political parameters, and not on what is based on the best interests of students’ education. Both bills are examples of removing the mechanisms that increases and keeps politicization in place, and as well prevents the students, parents and the communities from participating in meaningful ways in local decision-making at the school and at the individual level. Power and authority is exclusively held within the operations and administration of a school system, and each employee, including the elected trustees have work as a singular goal to withhold the power from the students, parents and the communities. At the same time, they claimed the local policies and decisions are in the best interests of the students and achievement.
School boards and unions are against such bills being enacted by government for one reason only. It erodes their political capital and forces them to share their political capital with the other stakeholders, but more importantly, it forces the access gates open for students, parents and communities to participate in their children’s education, and more importantly, the right to be heard and listen to. However, the government bills that have made their appearance since the early 1990s, the school board, the trustees and the other stakeholders within have put guards at the access gates for parents, students, and the communities on how, when, where they can participate, and types of content that can be vocalized. Not very inclusive, and smacks of discriminatory tactics to prevent parents, students and the communities from participating and complied to the directives of the stakeholders within.
What got me going this morning, was an item in the news – referring to rights, and the usual political angle, that it is okay for some groups to have lesser rights than other groups, and than the reasons are based on ideology or dogma. It was on my mind, when I read this article on an education item: ” At their Nov. 27 meeting, Rainbow board trustees voted in favour of passing a resolution to send a letter to Broten, requesting that Bill 115 be repealed.
Robert Kirwan was the only trustee to vote against sending the letter, although three other trustees declared a conflict of interest because their spouses either work for the Rainbow board or are retired employees.
He said it’s inappropriate to send such a letter, as the ministry is the group the school board answers to. “I don’t think it’s in position to argue against this,” Kirwan said.
Trustee Judy Hunda, however, said the position is accepted by the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association, and many other school boards have sent similar letters.
“I personally am going to support it, because we as well need to show a stand, and because we’re stronger together.”
Trustee Larry Killens said he supports the idea of sending the letter because it’s a way to advocate on behalf of those he represents. “This legislation is obviously doing damage to the education of our children and to our staff.”
http://www.northernlife.ca/news/localNews/2012/11/29-ETFO-strike-sudbury.aspx
Keeping in mind of the first link, the legal paper where it concludes, ” The author concludes that Ontario teachers—and labour generally—must avoid the courts if they seek transformative change.” . The next article, fleshes out what is behind the actions of school boards, the unions versus the government bills dealing with education. “Johnstone’s motion calls on the province to review or repeal the bill, saying it undermines labour law and democracy.
“This was a bill that really infringed upon our human rights and our labour rights,” she said.
The Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board wouldn’t be the first board to put its objections on paper. The Thames Valley District School Board, for example, passed a “formal and urgent request” to rescind the legislation. The Ontario Public School Boards Association has taken a similar stance.”
http://www.cbc.ca/hamilton/news/story/2012/11/21/hamilton-board-motion.html
The threat to the stakeholders of the education system, and Bill 115, is all about maintaining their political capital and authority and retaining the ability to look after their best interests first and foremost, and students, parents, and the communities are secondary to the rights, the power and authority of the employees and elected trustees needs.
In a petition in Ontario – “The Putting Students First Act enacts regulations that have unintended consequences on the quality of education, overstates savings, and hurts our children.”
On one side of the chart – “Seniority hiring excludes performance and attitude from hiring decisions
Only the 5 most senior teachers applying for a permanent position are interviewed.
Reg 274 – 7. (3)
Only the 5 senior teachers applying for a long-term position are interviewed.
Reg 274 – 6. (3)
Diagnostic testing control moved to teachers.
Memorandum Of Understanding – Section K”
On the other side of the chart – “Extraordinary measures suspend Canadian Charter guarantees
Courts can’t question any conditions made by the Education Minister under this Act.
Bill 115 – 15. (1)
Labour Relations Board can’t check if orders conflict with the Human Rights Code.
Bill 115 – 14. (1)
Contract terms mandated and strikes illegal.”
http://www.puttingstudentsfirst.org/
As the legal paper from Osgood Hall has stated, they will loose in the legal courts, just like the BC education heavy weights lost in the Supreme Court of Canada, with all 9 Supreme Court Justices that the BC school board and their policies led to discrimination and prevented the Moore boy access to the education ramp, like other students.
Legally speaking, both Bills are mechanisms to moved the unions, trustees and school boards to moved beyond what Tunya has stated, “Parents are the primary educators of their kids and the primary communicators of values. But the reason that we send children to public school is, in fact, to develop and inculcate the values we all share and to overcome any limitations a parent may have in exposing kids to alternative points of view.”
To one of what Tunya has describes as free education – “That is, schools would be free of an imposed state religion. Like, “free thought”! Those who — policy-wise — support a wide range of school offerings argue that, economically, in the aggregate, a whole lot of different approaches can lead to as good literacy and citizenship as a uniform one-size-fits-all state system.”
School trustees, the unions and the school boards need to move beyond having full control, the power and the authority over all operations and administration of delivering education, to one, that the control, power and authority are shared fairly among all the stakeholders within and the students, the parents and the communities. To minimizes the risks of violations of rights, by allowing the parents, students and the communities to insert their rights to act for the best interests of their children, their schools and the communities, without being impeded by stakeholders as it has been in the past, and continues to this day, who hold final authority and decisions in their hands, without being held accountable for the final outcomes of students.
The attitudes within the education system, and school trustees have become tainted with them, are practices that are discriminatory in nature when power, authority and final decisions are held in smaller and smaller set of hands. Tunya, in her last post – “And, will government and the teachers’ federation finally find ways to behave in a civilized manner, or will the discord of recent decades finally weaken support for old organizational relationships to the point that a new “post-public” universe of schooling will emerge?” (pg 134)” Will they acknowledge that the stakeholders within the education system, have not been been operating for the best interests of students, let alone society, when their actions, behaviours and stances ensures their rights over rides one and all.
I only mentioned rights, because the school trustees, the school boards and the unions are screaming out human rights violations, regarding the two bills. Likewise for other previous bills, that provincial governments have passed into legislation. Other bills, such as the passing of legislation regarding parent councils, they screamed blue bloody murder, and used their political capital to ensure the parent councils are only advisory councils. I could go on and on, what the trustees, the unions and school boards will fight for and what they will be against. What they will be against and always will be, is any power, authority and political capital handed to parents, students and the communities.
After all, the one card that is always pulled out by them, that smacks of discrimination is to belittle the other side. Put them in their place and dictate the terms. If you don’t like it, there is the door. The Moore father was faced with this, like many and many parents, students and the communities have faced it dealing with the employees and stakeholders of the education system. Doug writes in one post – “…you have zero academic or professional qualifications. Autodidactic methods take you so far, no farther.” and in this one he writes – “Once again you speak for parents. I don’t think so. Who appointed you spokesperson for “parents”?”
Standard fare coming from the employees and stakeholders within, but the provincial governments nor the federal government find it too amusing, dealing with the civil law suits emanating from the education and health systems. Where the stakeholders from the public sector, are arguing on the right to discriminate and deny services to the people that they served. Often the origins of the law suits begins with the line, ‘you are not qualified to speak on such manners’, and then it begins and more so in the education system, to have the parent complied and accept a lower quality tier of education for their children. School trustees have much to complained about, since they have parked their horses with the other education stakeholders a long time ago to maintained and be complicit in their actions and education decisions to maintain the status-quo, of limited participation of parents, students and their communities.
The trustees made a choice, and that choice has now come back to bite them, through government legislation. Unbeknownst, the rights movements was coming down the pipeline, giving voice to the public who has been silenced by the power, the authority and the education policies of the education stakeholders within. who was no longer serving the best interests of the public, the students they served and ultimately the communities.
In the Globe and Mail today – “The Supreme Court ruling is part of a larger cultural shift toward accommodating difference, in classrooms and in the workplace. It comes at a time when our understanding of learning issues has grown, thanks to child-development and brain research, and the social stigma that once kept families silent has lessened.
What it makes clear: When a province promises equal education for all students, school boards must deliver – not just an equality of opportunity but a real striving for equally positive outcomes for all, at least within each person’s limits.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/parenting/what-does-equal-education-look-like-after-the-landmark-court-ruling/article5864255/
Further down in the link – “But in principle, Ms. Eberts says, it establishes a higher bar for school boards: “You can’t just set up 10 students at the starting line, eight of them in wheelchairs and two of them not, and say, ‘Oh well, everyone has a fair shot.’ ”
In the comment section – “There is gap between teachers (who care and are resourced constrained), and the physiologist who are transient in our children s welfare and the trustee that does nothing other than refer you into the system. Thankfully we had teachers who where honest with us about the support they could provide and supported our move to a private school.”
The trustee that does nothing other than refer you into the system.
The trustees have the opportunity to get off the pot, and truly stand and advocate for the best interests of the students and their education. By staying on the side of equal education for all and not to the lesser standards of equality of opportunity. Or face the near future, seeing the school trustees’ role being dismantled and reconfigured that takes into account the rights of students when deciding on the delivered of education policies. Elected trustees would be replaced with an appointed board of individuals that have the skills and knowledge base to managed the rights and delivering of education to the students, based on equal education for all students.
If not, the civil and human rights movements will indeed force change, and one of the outcomes might be – no more elected school trustees. And as the parent has described, trustees that does nothing other then to referred parents to other parts of the education system. If the trustees got off the pot, they could rescue what appears to be dying, into a healthy locally democratic school system, where decisions are based on the best interests of students and not in conflicted with the students, teachers and other rights.
Letter to School Board Members across Nova Scotia
1 December 2012
Good afternoon Board Chair and School Board Members,
Your role as a School Board Member has now been “clarified” in law and it might be worth taking a few minutes to see how it may impact upon your effectiveness as elected representatives.
The Minister of Education, Hon. Ramona Jennex, and the NDP majority in the House of Assembly have passed Bill 131, the School Board Members Duties Clarification Act, into law. Three public briefs and two letters of concern were summarily dismissed and public comments expressed in the House by the Progressive Conservative Party critic were simply brushed aside by the Minister.
You will find the Final Debate here: http://nslegislature.ca/index.php/proceedings/hansard/C89/house_12nov27/#HPage4401
The Nova Scotia School Board’s Association took no public position. Three School Board Chairs, Gin Yee (HRSB), Mary Jess Macdonald (SRSB), and Lorne Green (CBVRSB) were either quoted or cited as being in favour of the bill. It is not clear whether they were speaking for themselves or their respective boards.
What does Bill 131 put into law? It gives sanction to corporate governance guidelines legislating that elected School Board Members are expected to “respect the superintendent” and to represent “the school board” in their dealings with parents, students, and the public. Nowhere in the Education Act or this amendment are you, as an individual School Board Member, recognized as a representative of parents, students, or the public (supporters of the board) https://educhatter.wordpress.com/2012/11/25/the-corporate-school-board-what-can-be-done-to-restore-responsible-trusteeship/
If you sought a school board position simply to support the status quo or to promote increased funding, then I suppose it makes little diffference to you. Indeed, having the superintendents rule the roost may make take some of the risks out of being an elected municipal official.
If, on the other hand, you sought election to actually make a difference then you will find your scope of action limited and constrained by a strict “corporate governance model” significantly limiting your autonomy. You were elected to represent your constituents, not the school board, so that will take some explaining at local school meetings. If you are tempted to propose an initiative outside the box or thinking about opposing a school closure recommendation, you may be not only confused, but also conflicted. Hearing colleagues openly discussing the risks of crossing the authorities and getting fired, might even cause you to trim your sails.
Under Bill 131, it’s definitely going to be much harder to make the case that we even need elected School Boards. Few Municipal Councillors will be sympathetic because they would never tolerate such strictures. If all you do is vote on staff recommendations, then most will say why not leave education entirely to the professionals.
What would make a difference for you? Take a close look at this 2006 Ontario policy paper in support of elected School Board Members: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/partnership/trustees.pdf
So here’s the challenge: Start asking those insightful, probing questions, speak-up for your school communities, bring forward a few independent Trustee motions, and send the odd staff report back to the drawing board. Then. and only then, will you really know whether Bill 131 (sanctioning Corporate Governance) makes any difference to you or those of us championing democratic, responsible, accountable school trusteeship.
With best wishes in the coming term
Paul
Dr. Paul W. Bennett
Director, Schoolhouse Consulting
Halifax, NS
B – The “RAMP” Is Missing In This Moore Story
(This is my published comment in the Globe & Mail article – Tunya)
The Moore case is monumental in its implications for needed cultural shifts.
1 It adds to the field called “education malpractice” — a field up to now thin in significant successes for the customer side of the public education equation.
2 The key sentence in the judgment is missing from the G&M story. Note the second sentence in this quote: “Adequate special education, therefore, is not a dispensable luxury. For those with severe learning disabilities, it is the ramp that provides access to the statutory commitment to education made to all children in British Columbia.” http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12680/index.do
The G&M story does say — “Until Grade 3, students ‘learn to read’; once they reach Grade 4, they are ‘reading to learn’. This has been described as the “Matthew Effect” — “For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.” (Gospel of Matthew)
An education expert reviewing the movie “Won’t Back Down”, Annie Murphy Paul, elaborates on why the mother in the film was so disturbed about her child’s inability to read in Grade 3 — “ But the Matthew effect has an important upside: well-timed interventions can reverse its direction, turning a vicious cycle into a virtuous one.” http://ideas.time.com/2012/09/26/why-third-grade-is-so-important-the-matthew-effect/
That is why the mother fought for her child to attend a good school in Grade 4.
That is why the Moores enrolled their son into a private specialized school in Grade 4.
That is why the 9 Justices agreed that Jeff Moore had to have his feet firmly planted on the ramp for him to even begin to take advantage of the education being provided by government schools.
It’s probably a “blessing in disguise” that Jeff did get the help he needed in private settings with special ed credentialed teachers in comprehensive full time programs dedicated to education of the whole child.
3 The G&M story is right about the two-tier status of parents in schools — “savvy, advantaged parents” and parents who “are not effective advocates”.
This is a long-standing sickness in our public school system in Canada. School boards just don’t want parents to be effective advocates. There are no written rights that parents can consult. The few parents who can pursue their children’s best interests either belong to lobby groups or generally are high middle class, used to asserting their “consumer rights” in any venue they find themselves.
4 This case will definitely effect cultural change for a long time to come. The role of the state in education. The role of school boards. The demand for vouchers and premiums for special needs. The use of the courts to gain education justice. The shift to parent-driven schools versus establishment convenience. The research into prison populations and illiteracy. Etc., etc.
Our good friend Canadian realist painter Steven Rhude has provided a truly unique artist’s interpretation of the trend toward corporate school board governance:
.
http://srhude.blogspot.ca/2012/12/the-painters-view-school-boards-new.html
In images and words, Steven provides us with his truly unique insights.
The Public School Board — “Corporation”, “Business”, “Industry”, “Syndicate” . . . ? ? ? ?
Have you seen a public school board meeting lately? At the appointed hour, after the visitors have gathered in the gallery, the trustees file in, from another room, from their pre-meeting. All is programmed ahead. It’s a mockery of democracy. I’ve run for school board, not winning. I’ve seen the most caring persons turned into automatons, rubber stampers. We may complain about our kids going through some meat-grinder process in schools. What’s this training new trustees undergo to be turned into such corporate honchos?
Our moderator, Paul, links us to a very interesting analysis and insight by an artist. Please read every word, especially about Alberta, where strange rumblings are happening — http://srhude.blogspot.ca/2012/12/the-painters-view-school-boards-new.html
The artist, Steven Rhude, does us a great service to connect the two art pictures — “A Meeting of School Trustees” (1885) and “The Syndics of the Cloth Guild” (1662). The circumstances are similar— these are middlemen who mediate between their own interests and the publics’.
“Syndicalism” is a further extension of this concept and I do see it as the prevailing model in most of our school boards. I do see that the labor unions, particularly teacher unions, through direct action such as elections, strikes and sabotage, have captured our public school boards. The public is still left out in the cold and wanting.
What ominous painting can some current artist render of our new reality?
Or is the centralized system disintegrating before our very eyes in view of the centrifugal forces now accruing — home education, online learning, the Moore Case challenge and dedicated specialty private schools, the New Zealand model of one board for each school, etc.?
Why Are Things So Quiet On The Moore Front? Part I
For 40 years we’ve been waiting for an education malpractice case to be successful. The Peter Doe case in the 70s hoped to establish the right to literacy of a student who “graduated” with a fifth-grade reading level. The case was not allowed to go forward. The Moore case took the human rights route and won. It will still be categorized in the literature as an “education malpractice” case.
Parents and advocates felt their best hope in getting school board responsiveness was to establish — legally — that students had statutory rights to education. Ironically, the main reason such malpractice cases get turned back is because “the floodgates would be opened”. That means there is pent-up demand, and — of course — pent-up frustration and resentment at being denied basic services.
In July 2012 this issue was reopened when the ACLU filed a class action suit in Michigan — stating — that local public schools have failed to teach to read. http://teacheffectively.com/
Neglecting to teach to read — it seems — is becoming both a human rights issue AND a civil liberties issue. In democratic countries at least.
The origins of the “notions” of public education, compulsory school attendance laws, and that lofty talk about the “public good” stem from the generally held belief that “man” is a free agent, endowed with “free will”. That is — the individual has choices to make. To make those choices, most people would say they should be “informed choices” — not following some herd mentality or unaware of options. Of course, the notion of “informed choice” also means a consciousness of consequences of making good or bad choices.
Now, in Canada, the Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that special education provides the “ramp”, the foothold*, by which a student can access the opportunity to an education, an entitlement in a “healthy democracy”. (*foothold — grip, traction, grasp)
Through the actions of his parents in obtaining private specialized education for him, Jeff Moore was able to choose a career path by which he has become a self-supporting citizen. In one of his press interviews Jeff said he expects to marry and have children. Expecting that his kids may be prone to a learning difference he said he hopes they would not have to go through the grief he and his family had to.
Why Are Things So Quiet On The Moore Front? Part II
Because the Moore Case presents COLOSSAL implications to the industry of public education I expect that there are, or will be, intense, confidential — no doubt private and tight-lipped — meetings to discuss strategies, tactics, economics, public relations, legal maneuvers by which to circumvent, deflect and defang an awakened public and consumer base of affected parents and students.
Apparently one class action is already in the works.
Psychological warfare by which to “win the hearts and minds” of people will be waged.
But things are rather quiet on the policy front.
What is happening is that the consumer side — aware of one victory — will increasingly become more assertive of government services, which are unevenly distributed. There may be much more movement toward parent-driven schools — vouchers and tuition tax credits to allow shopping for best services, or even “mix&match” component-shopping.
Actual School Acts will be scrutinized as to what their explicit and implicit promises are.
Meanwhile, parents bereft of any organized capacity to canvas wholesale needs, will start depending on other agencies to provide facts and figures and data gathering. Here is one report already produced by the Teachers’ Association in Campbell River http://www2.canada.com/courierislander/news/story.html?id=d414be18-0421-4f74-8b61-03211593f82a
Being quiet on the policy front? An understatement, but behind the scenes, busy keeping the status-quo, and that includes the teachers’ unions.
In the article – much like the BC union statement by the teachers’ union. Small class size and class composition. “This may take the form of learning assistance, or some students are assigned an educational assistant for part or all of their day. Students with designated special needs have disabilities of an intellectual, physical, sensory, emotional, or behavioral nature, or have a learning disability or exceptional gifts or talents. These students are assigned an Individual Educational Plan (IEP).”
Vague, without details on the numbers. Accommodations? The vast majority of identified students with IEPs, accommodations come in the way of educational assistants, without or watered-down intensive help, for areas of language, writing and reading. Numeracy – always two grades below and sometimes three grades below. Also within the population of students having IEPs, the vast majority who are passing, will received all of their help within the inclusive classroom. There will virtually be no help for the LD students who are in the inclusive classroom in areas of numeracy, writing and reading. A study guide? No. Alternative accommodation? No. If one reads the Moore case on the Supreme Court of Canada site, the identical problems exist today, as they did in the 1990s. The identified students, have already been kicked off the ramp, and have limited access to education opportunities.
However, what the article does picked up and most unions do is this –
1. ” “These are students who are recognized by staff as having significant special needs, but because they are not designated, there is no extra funding provided to the district to assist them. Some of these students were previously designated, but have had their designation removed.”
2. “These numbers (in more detail) and concerns were presented to the school trustees with the acknowledgement that teachers understand that the school board and senior administration would support any efforts to alleviate some of these problems, but that they have a finite budget, and everyone is doing the best they can in the current circumstances.”
What is omitted – Starting in grade 6, students with IEPs, school administration along with the board will start to decrease the number of students with IEPs. Quite common for the mild to moderate LD students, since the majority are passing. Trouble doesn’t start until they are in high school. Designation removed are a common feature starting in grade 6. However, for the most part the designation stays, for the extra monies that a school board receives, but the students no longer qualifies to access help beyond the inclusive classroom. By high school, there is a sharped decrease of students with IEPs and designations in the data streams. Where do they all go to? In the gray area as the teachers’ unions have suggested. Does anyone get help at the high school level? Not really. because the intentions have shifted to graduate students on paper, with either a diploma or a certificate. Any basic courses, will earned a student a certificate, and two years of upgrading at the college level, at their own expense to upgrade their certificate to a grade 12 diploma, and students who originally had an applied diploma to received an academic diploma.
In other words, students are passed through from one grade to the next according to the most positive data streams of the schools and school boards. Trustees and school board staff, along with the principals of the schools, know very well the games that are being played with students’ futures. The games of pitting one parent against another, for scarce resources, that are dangling like a carrot. “We only have room for one student” It costs too much according to the trustees, and to prove their point, they only used the data of students who are in the severe category, and what goes amiss, is the majority of students identified and not identified have issues with language, in some aspect.
Unions are dancing on this fault line for good reason. To increase teachers and funding, but what they keep quiet about, are the number of students sitting in any classroom, will low reading,writing and numeracy skills. If students actually received effective remediation, and preventative programs, it will kill the golden goose for them.
A new study from the U.S. and no doubt it is already sitting in the Ministries of education, and perhaps a few school boards,
” For the majority of children with learning disabilities who attend public schools, success in reading is shaped by how and when the school formally
diagnoses their learning differences (“identification”); what kinds of materials, content, and learning environments are available to them; how they are tested (“assessment”); what sort of technology is available to
them; and what role their families play in their education.”
http://www.tremainefoundation.org/Content/DYS.asp
Between school board trustees, individual teachers, teachers’ unions, the school board staff, including the CEO of boards, the education ministerial staff, and the politicians – they are in concert playing games with all of the students and their education futures. In the U.S., they rather fight tooth and nail in the public education system, not to have each and every child be at the grade 3 level in reading.
A new U.S. court ruling – ” . The rule requires districts or other public agencies to pay for independent evaluations when parents disagree with the public agency’s initial assessment of their child.
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/speced/2012/11/court_districts_must_repay_par.html
One can only imagine what the Canadian school boards will never do, unless they are ordered by the court, pay for an independent evaluation. I bet the U.S. court case, the student probably had a specific learning disability, of the mild to moderate kind. Parents on both sides of the border, have to fight tooth and nail, to get an assessment for their child from the school board, even when it is dead obvious that the child has learning problems in the 3 Rs. In Canada, the parents who have the means and access to private services, usually see to it that their children will have a private evaluation by grade 1. In the data streams, it is largely concentrated in the middle to upper income schools.
My point is, trustees know there is caps put on the number of students accessing SE services. What they don’t want to tell the public, nor published the data streams – why the caps are on, in an environment of increasing funding for SE, and final outcomes of students, are no different than what they were 15 years ago.
The so-called inclusive classroom is a honey trap, that redirects reams of monies away from students, and back into the hands of the trustees and school board staff to spend it on other things. Teachers see it every day, and remain silent, watching from the sidelines. .
Why This Opportunity Must No Slip Us By
(Moderated and Edited Comment — to correct Word Press “Gremlin” Activity)
(The Moore Case presents us with a real opportunity…but…)
I know my anxiety is showing. Here for the first time the “consumer” (one family at least, the Moores) gets some justice in “the system” and I fear this opportunity to make sizeable gains on behalf of special needs children will be lost unless parents have a voice at the table.
…I’m hoping the LD and all the special needs groups are able to be involved with any problem-solving this whole case and issue now presents.
….The issue of appropriate assistance needs proper monitoring. 15 minute spurts here or there with a specialist, or even one-on-one with an untrained teacher is not good enough. “Best practices” must be applied because they work.
….Money is involved. We need to make sure funds apportioned to special needs are used for that purpose. In BC annual funding can range from $341 (gifted) to $32,042 (dependent handicapped).
(And lastly),….The equation between consumer and producer is already heavily skewed in favor of the producer side, which is organized, well-resourced and powerful. Already the teacher unions are lining up to piggy-back their standard grievances on top of this issue — class size, composition, funding, etc. Without proper advocacy and monitoring on behalf of individual special needs students I fear other agendas will take precedence by default — because again parents are squeezed out.
We seem to be straying off topic, so let’s switch back to the question of “responsible, accountable trusteeship.” From here on, you can expect to be moderated if you cannot demonstrate direct relevance to restoring public accountability at the school board level.
What’s Worth Fighting For –in School Board Governance?
A Calgary school board reform group known as ARTICS has not given up the fight. Looking for inspiration? Here is their stated mission:
“The Association for Responsive Trusteeship in Calgary Schools is an organization whose mission is to encourage Calgary elected school board trustees to be transparent, responsive and accountable.
Transparent trustees:
value clear and uncomplicated community access to information.
conduct as much of their business in public as possible.
use a wide variety of mediums to regularly share how they are personally fulfilling their responsibilities as elected trustees.
Responsive trustees:
balance the needs of students, teachers and staff, parents, and the community.
ensure that community concerns are adequately addressed by the administration.
are seeking to continually improve their governance practices.
Accountable trustees:
represent the will of their constituents.
take the initiative to solicit feedback from their communities before making decisions.
provide accessible information to their constituents about the reasoning behind their votes in board meetings.
ARTICS will not take a position on school board issues unless they pertain to the above criteria. Our goal is to encourage a better decision-making process, not to pass judgement on any decisions made by the board itself. For example, we will not take a position about whether a school or program should stay open or close, but we will examine the processes used by trustees, and by extension administration, to ensure they are open, transparent and that members of the community are engaged in a meaningful, relevant way.
The CBE recently released the results of their Parent Communications Survey conducted in the Fall of 2010 and found that, “A large majority of parents are not aware of opportunities available to them to learn more about what is happening system-wide at the CBE and provide input.” This is precisely why ARTICS was formed and what we aim to change.” (Excerpt)
The ARTICS website is called “Know Your Trustee.”
http://www.knowyourtrustee.com/
We definitely need more ARTICS to “unfreeze” school board accountability in hundreds of school districts across Canada.
Accountability needs to start with the ‘Masters’ of Education. The carrot technique is used on school board members by the ‘board staff’ and then the ‘staff at the ministry’ carries it on up the line to cabinet. Think of “Facility Envy”. Or, “my school is bigger than your school.”
A supposedly rich shadow looms over every school district as NS’s provincial election time approaches. Capital promises abound with possible community input and retaining school history with modern additions and business plans for the future.
Meanwhile, school reviews force board members to determine which is accurate and meaningful. Is a school review really a means to address upgrades to a small community school? (as postulated by the ministry when school boards are considering their pre review list ) Or, with 40 schools up for review, is it a way to justify further closure and centralization?
For the school board member in NS, this is a significant test of local democracy. Without democratic objectives built in to the education act, aiding board members to independently make the correct deductions relating to “community needs”, as well as educational fiduciary concerns, then transparency will remain elusive, and boards will eventually become redundant.
This would be a great loss to the democratic process and our community identity in Nova Scotia.
http://www.kingscountynews.ca/News/2012-12-07/article-3135718/Wolfville-School-receiving-funds-from-province/1
This is an interesting view of democracy and school boards. I am a trustee in Alberta and our board has been working with the generative governance model put forward by Chait and others. We have found it to be very effective in engaging the public in helping us to examine important issues. when School Boards work with their staff, parents, communities and yes even students to look at issues there are four steps that are really important. 1) Detecting the signals – looking for the information about the issue, how people feel, ideas that are out in the domain including on the edges and then 2) Making Sense – what does all this information mean? How does it relate to the local? Are there any ideas that really resonate with people? 3) Direction Setting – from all the sense making what options fit the best based on some criteria established by the Board with input from admin, staff, parents, and others. What will help now and into the future? 4) Decision-Making – If you have done the 1st three steps well the decision is much easier and is probably understood by many more people. People have had to hold all the dilemmas with you (this usually happens behind closed doors with trustees and admin in a policy board approach) and so they realize there are no simple answers and that the decision is the best option to reach the goals and it isn’t perfect.
See info about our Community Education Network on our web-site http://www.crps.ab.ca
The sudden resignation of Dr. Chris Spence as Chief Superintendent of the Toronto District School Board prompted The Globe and Mail’s Marcus Gee (The Globe, Jan. 12, 2013) to comment:
“Turnout for electing school trustees is low, and some of them have been around for decades. Many seem to see their job as advocating for community interest groups rather than representing the common interest. The board consistently votes against measures, such as closing underused schools or selling off vacant school lands, that might help the system pay its bills but would anger constituents.
The size and budget of the TDSB have grown by leaps since municipal amalgamation, leaving an immense, bureaucratic organization with weak leadership and entrenched, self-serving unions. The whole outfit, headquartered in its North York bunker, exudes the scent of rot. It cries out for reform and renewal.”
Comment: Sounds very familiar to those who regularly contribute to the Educhatter online discussions!
Paul’s last post, reminded me of other things concerning teachers’ union and the latest stance of the Ontario Teachers’ unions.
On the ETFO site – front page – “Early in the morning on January 11, 2013 the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) ruled that the Political Protest scheduled to take place that day was in violation of the Ontario Labour Relations Act (OLRA).”
http://www.etfo.ca/Pages/default.aspx
Political protest? Moving unto the actual decision of the OLRB – The political protest is seen in an entirely different light. “I make the following orders and declarations:
a) a declaration that ETFO has called or authorized or threatened to call or authorize an unlawful strike contrary to section 81 and 83 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995;
b) a declaration that Sam Hammond has supported or encouraged an unlawful strike or threatened an unlawful strike, which he knew or ought to have known, as a probable and reasonable consequence of his action, would cause others to engage in an unlawful strike, contrary to sections 81 and 83 of the Labour Relations Act;
c) a declaration that a refusal to work by teachers on January 11, 2013 as part of a concerted effort to disrupt delivery of education to elementary schools in Ontario would constitute an unlawful strike, contrary to section 79 of the Labour Relations Act;……”
http://www.etfo.ca/olrb/pages/default.aspx
Calling an illegal strike action as a political protest is foolish, but the audacity to sell it to the public, is the height of arrogance, being above the law. Worse yet, declaring it is a human rights issue in front of the Ontario labour board. The Agenda video – http://ww3.tvo.org/video/187056/mark-geiger-labour-board-rules-teachers
In the comment section – ” So many people are unwilling or unable to understand what Bill 115 is doing. As the guest on the Agenda stated, this bill potentially supplants the Human Rights Code and the Labour Board…never has that happened in the history of Canada. Before you make comments about lazy teachers or extra-curricular activities, people, please do your HOMEWORK. I’m sure if your human rights got trampled on you’d be pretty angry too. And, by the way, are any of you convincing me to resume 2 hr practice nightly or organizing the Science Fair on a weekend by calling me lazy?!?”
Not what I heard and interpreted in the Agenda and his guest who is a former educator now turned lawyer. About halfway through, it was clearly made speaking in theoretically instances, and highly doubtful if the teachers’ union could win on the human rights angle. However that won’t stopped the unions from trying, spending oodles of members’ fees to finance the great battle to ensure that their collective rights over rides all other economic concerns, budgets and the public purse over the individual rights of the students to an education. To help in their battle is to collection of unions, mostly composed of the public sector unions, the OFL Rights and Democracy Campaign.
http://ofl.ca/index.php/ofl-launches-democratic-economic-rights-campaign/
” Demand good jobs, public services, workers’ rights & the recall of the legislature!
The Ontario government has been shut down while worker’s rights are under threat and cuts to jobs and services are hurting every community.
It’s time to defend everyone’s democratic and economic rights.”
The officers and directors of the OFL – http://ofl.ca/index.php/about/officers-executive/
Under education – “Education
The OFL Education Department helps develop and present a workers’ viewpoint on public education. It lobbies governments, liaises with teacher federations, works with school boards, parent associations and apprenticeship and training issues. It also organizes conferences on education and training for the labour movement, runs a speakers’ bureau that provides trade union speakers to schools and publicly promotes labour’s vision of good education and training. It helps develop educational materials on public policy issues and acts as the liaison between the Federation and the arts community.”
http://ofl.ca/index.php/about/departments/
Also on the same page – a group heading under human rights. Quite the read, considering the public education system model based on the 19th century, and where there is no such thing as individual human rights. Under the union, and what they pushed are the collective rights at the expense of the individual rights. Than they have the gall to name an committee, Education is a Right committee.
http://ofl.ca/index.php/category/issues/education/
Although, OFL failed to include a news statement on the latest ruling by the Ontario Labour Board. But not the ETFO, that stated in their latest news brief – “”We respect the OLRB’s decision and will comply fully with the ruling,” said ETFO President Sam Hammond. “We did not believe this to be an illegal strike based on past political protests directed at the government. We respect the provisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Act – something we have requested the minister and the government to do for almost a year.”
“We have said all along that this government cannot be allowed to override the fundamental rights of working Ontarians. In this instance, the OLRB has provided direction and we will abide by that. However, we still have a situation where the terms and conditions of our members’ employment have been dictated through a disgraceful misuse of government power. It cannot be business as usual in the education sector.”
What is really galling, lumping the public sector teachers under the category of working Ontarians, and proceed to attack the legal authority of the government and their powers under the law, as a misuse of government power. Tell that to the parents and the students who are being used and being held hostage by the unions and the other education stakeholders to the dictates and edicts to serve the self-serving interests and agendas at the expense of the individual rights of parents, students and the taxpayers the right to an education that best served their present and future needs.
Great article! Time to restore power to local governance as much as possible AND to put in new legislation that empowers ordinary citizens to have a direct say in ‘how they are governed’ if the citizens deem it necessary to fight against their own governments!
Vic Lau
Leader of the Green Party of Saskatchewan
[…] In another paper, Gerald Galway and a Memorial University research team claim that democratic school board governance is in serious jeopardy because trustees and superintendents now operate in a politicized policy environment that is “antagonistic to local governance” (Galway et al. 2013, 27–28). Elected school boards subscribing to a corporate policy-making model have also tended to stifle trustee autonomy and to narrow the scope of local, community decision-making (Paul W. Bennett 2012). […]
[…] this corporate model, there is little hope for citizens to expect a functioning democracy. Clearly as systemic […]