School Board elections are in the air in Ontario and Quebec –and ordinary citizens are being exhorted to get out and vote in the Fall of 2014 for the school trustee of their choice. In Ontario, the school boards’ associations are going all out to whip up enthusiasm with a snazzy “It’s All in Your Hands” public awareness campaign. It comes with a rather upbeat video and a promotional piece entitled, “What Do Trustees Do?” One of Ontario’s biggest political junkies, Steve Paikin, host of TVO’s The Agenda has gotten into the act, posting a rousing commentary, “Overlook Your Trustee at Your Peril,” intended to boost voter participation.
The public appeal attempts to convince municipal voters that elected school boards still matter and that school trustees can be “your voice” in the local educational decision-making process. The Ontario provincial education budget tops $21 billion per year, so someone has to make a few key decisions at the provincial and local board levels. Much of that spending is transferred from the province to the 72 boards and 10 School Authorities and a surprising amount of that spending remains controlled by democratically-elected school boards.
Publicly-elected trustees, in theory, do have a role in deciding how the dollars will be spent at the district and school level. Since the mid-1990s, however, that role has been significantly eroded, first through the loss of tax levying powers, and now through changes in school governance that limit the autonomy of individual trustees. Today, elected trustees, known as “School Board Members,” are widely viewed as representatives of the board to the community rather than the voice of citizens at the board table. Centralization of public education has also promoted more bureaucratic modes of operation, further constraining both trustee and parent input into local decision-making processes. In addition, elected trustees are mostly part-timers who are only paid the most modest stipends, ranging from $9,000 to $25,000 a year.
Democratically-elected school boards have been in a shambles in Quebec for most of the past decade. Elections for Quebec school trustees known as school commissioners hit a new low in the November 2007 election, held — as usual–independent of the province’s regular cycle of municipal elections. The voter participation rate was only 7.9 per cent overall ( and 16.7 per cent in the English boards), leading to the suspension of the whole electoral process for seven years. Now, school board elections are back, on November 2, 2014, with a major change and a “last chance” challenge from the Quebec Minister of Education. School Board Chairs will, for the first time, be elected by the whole district, in an attempt to generate more capable, committed board leadership.
Elected trustees are schooled to believe that theirs is “a complicated job” where they have to mediate between the school administration and local citizens. With the recent erosion of trustee powers, it’s actually an exasperating and mostly thankless one. No wonder municipal school board election turnouts range from 20 per cent to 30 per cent across Ontario. On October 27, 2014, a small number of votes can make a difference between returning a burned-out “rubber stamp” trustee or injecting some fresh talent. Low turnout and an under-informed electorate can really threaten the legitimacy of the whole system and especially the democratic accountability of public education.
Every once in a while, a ‘creative disruption’ arises that attracts notice and threatens to disturb the comfortable status quo. The Rainbow District School Board in Sudbury is now experiencing just that kind of disturbance. It was triggered by a wave of school closures from 2010 to 2012. Banning citizens from the Board Office and squashing a move to lift a “no-trespass” order against opposing school board candidates is so rare that it has now attracted headlines and editorial criticism. For the first time in years, the local press and a band of citizens are openly questioning the Board Chair Doreen Dewar’s leadership and the RDSB’s inclination to go into hiding to avoid a public scrutiny that’s growing in intensity.
The most exciting Ontario School Board election development is the emergence of “The first 100 Days” coalition fielding seven candidates in the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board elections. Sparked by the closure of Parkview School and inspired by activist Joanne St. Jacques, they have banded together under a broad school reform platform that includes putting a five-year moratorium on school closures. It comes at a time when the board will see a big turnover in trustees, and after a tumultuous term of school closings and demolitions, including a controversial decision to shift the school board headquarters out of the downtown.
Strict policy governance rules, introduced in stages since the mid-1990s, are eating away at responsible, accountable school trusteeship. They also stand in sharp contrast to the Ontario Municipal Act giving “broad authority” to Councils and granting Councillors much broader powers defined “not narrowly and with undue strictness.” The prevailing “corporate governance” model is completely out-of-step with current thinking on effective board governance. “Shared decision-making” and “generative policy-making” advocated by Harvard University’s Richard Chait are now widely recognized as best governance practice in the North American public and non-profit sector, almost everywhere except inside school boards.
Open, shared and generative leadership is exactly what Canadian school boards need to restore proper accountability and repair public trust. That approach not only produces better decisions, but serves to attract higher calibre board members with something significant to contribute to public service. One can only hope that the coming elections in Ontario and Quebec will advance that process.
What do School Trustees do under the current ‘Corporate Governance’ model? Whatever happened to the spirit and tradition of independently-minded, responsible school trusteeship? Why do School Boards lapse into protective, insular modes of thinking and operations, effectively shutting out concerned parents and taxpayers? Will the coming cycle of school board elections really change anything?
When I first became a trustee I was persuaded that trustees had 3 enormous powers. The first was the power to tax. The second was curriculum power, the power to decide between vague provincial guidelines, what should be taught and how it would be taught. The third power was the power to be a model employer. To set a standard for other employers, public and private.
We also knew that the trustee, as curator of a great deal of information and a bully pulpit, could act as a parent organizer – an agent of change, a provocateur if you will.
Mike Harris did the heavy lifting to destroy this model. He uploaded the tax-spend power and downloaded other things to the cities.
The introduction of EQAO and much tighter provincial control of curriculum destroyed the second primary function. The 3rd – model employer was circumscribed by the inadequate grants from the province to the school boards.
The only power truly remaining is to be a conduit of discontent from communities pointing out who is really responsible for the terrible funding of the schools.
The ability to channel parent wrath towards the provincial party in power remains the only true remaining useful function.
Forcing individual trustees to defend corporate (majority) decisions seems the final straw.
It was interesting to attend a trustee debate last week in my own area. One of the candidates promised smaller class sizes, a reduction in the number of portables and went as far as suggesting that he would fight for washrooms in existing portables. I’m not sure if he totally understood what he was up against.
The main theme that ran through the more “realistic” contenders, however, was increased communication with the community, attendance at School Council meetings and helping constituents understand the board infrastructure.
A far cry from that of which Doug speaks. I remember the days when mill rates, resource selection and the introduction of innovative programs were all part of the monthly board meetings!
Excuse the grammatical disagreement in my second paragraph!
I was disgusted with the performance of Charles Pascal on CBC where condemned school boards for debating “every little thing”. As a former university and ministry bureaucrat he identifies with the CEO mentality in education.
He might as well tell it straight up. Democracy is messy.
Democracy IS messy. There is a place for local school districts with some power.
I must wonder if the nature of governance should change with the times.
As with other education “reforms” the Harris government caused more problems than they solved (as Doug has stated though I may disagree with some details).
Although I favour local governance, you must put the responsibility where the money and rule making resides.
If the tax power, negotiations power ( for all intents and purposes) the EQAO, the tight curriculum requirements, are all provincial then abolish the boards. The become little insulators against provincial accountability.
If you believe in local governance then ALL of these powers need to be returned to a local authority.
The worst form of accountabilty is shared accountability which leads to finger pointing and inertia.
Oh my, , a little history lesson is in order on school trustees and governance.
For the Love of Learning: Volume VI, offers a historical timeline on funding – http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/abcs/rcom/full/volume4/chapter18.pdf
For the Love of Learning: Volume I, offers more on trustees in the historical narrative – http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/abcs/rcom/full/volume1/chapter2.pdf
A report of interest, although I could not find a digital copy is the 1985 report – Report of the Commission on the Financing of Elementary and Secondary Education in Ontario. The above links refers to the 1985 report as do other reports since the Love of Learning volumes.
The 1997 report called The Road Ahead – II. Entitled, A Report On the Role of School Board and Trustees. The Road AHead series was headed by Dave Cooke, a former NDP minister. Cooke was appointed by the Harris government to chair the new Education Improvement Commission. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/reports/eic/road2/eic2.pdf
As I have observed, the major policy changes took place in other decades and not as some would like us to believe in the Harris administration. A major and dynamic change took place in 2009, that more or less now had school board trustees working as lapdogs for the CEO of school boards. Take a look at some of the personalities with some fame supporting the New School Board Governance Report – http://news.ontario.ca/edu/en/2009/04/support-for-school-board-governance-report.html
I am afraid local governance is not in the cards anytime soon. It has not been in the cards since the 1970s. So why blame the Harris government, or for that matter any government?
Time to stop romanticizing the role of trustees, and start identifying the real actors of the K to 12 establishment of special self-serving interests. Trustees no longer represents the electors, but rather represents the interests of the K to 12 establishment first and foremost. Independent thinking is not allowed for school trustees. The K to 12 establishment will not allow it to occur. The former Harris government is the least to be blame, when one considers all the reports over the decades since the 1970s. The K to 12 establishment was never happy when it came to elected trustees. The K to 12 will not be happy until a new governance system is in place that only educators are allowed to become trustees.However, by that time education choice will be firmly embedded…..
They are democratically elected which gives them 100x mote credibility than say you who has no mandate from anyone.
Doug, what mandate would that be? The only legal mandate of the school trustees board is this one – “Boards of Trustees are called ‘creatures of statute’, which means we only exist as a decision-making body because a statute, the Education Act, mandates that we should.
Our duties as a Trustee under the Education Act are described as “fiduciary” duties.
A fiduciary duty carries with it the highest possible standard of care, because the legal obligation of the fiduciary is to act in the best interest of another. ”
Could toss in the Education Acts that will outline the duties of the main actors including trustees, but essentially boards of trustees only exist in the statues, and their main legal mandate are fiduciary duties. Ergo, the board of trustees, elected or not elected do not get their mandate from the voters. Of course, that is why the vast majority of elected trustees break all their promises the moment they are sitting in a trustee chair.
On the Ontario government website – ” Trustees are members of the school board. They provide an important link between local communities and the school board, bringing the issues and concerns of their constituents to board discussions and decision making. Trustees are elected every four years during municipal elections.” http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/brochure/whosresp.html#trustees
Interesting how elected is dropped from the menu. In other words, it is not at all important for trustees to be elected. What matters if the trustees are following the laws and education statues. Over at P4E website, “Trustees are responsible for setting the school board’s overall policy direction and the board’s budget, and they represent the interests of the community, parents and students in their area.” http://www.peopleforeducation.ca/faq/what-are-the-responsibilities-of-trustees/
Funny how the fiduciary duties of school trustees trumps representing the interests of the community, parents and students, eh? The reality is the school trustee board obtains their mandate from the K to 12 and not as Doug would like us to think, the mandate of the people.