BCTF Will Continue To Call the Shots in BC Education 

(This essay was published Dec 10 in the Vancouver Sun's blog, "The Report Card")

The Avison Report clearly illustrates how the current BC College of Teachers is dysfunctional to the fulfillment of its mandate.

Even if the BC Teachers’ Federation would agree to any concessions, or even if it is unwillingly dragged in to a different future relationship with the BCCT, the teachers’ union will likely remain unchastened and unbowed.  The BCTF’s political and union agendas will continue.

The attitude that the BCTF sees itself as THE boss in BC education has been borne out by several recent statements from BCTF Headquarters — as IF the BCTF is the parent to whom children must come.  This is an attitude of grandiose self-appointed superiority!

In a CBC interview President Lambert said that in a forthcoming meeting with the Minister of Education she will ask why the BCTF was not contacted about these three cases as revealed in the Report.  My inference here is that the BCTF feels this was a negotiable issue between the Ministry and the BCTF.  

The BCTF just doesn’t get it, does it?  After a certain point, some things are just NOT negotiable!

Avison made this point in the Report.  After some rather blatant delay and waffling in a child pornography case, Avison wrote about this inappropriate behavior: “With respect, this response acknowledges that the member who didn't get it right the first time wouldn't get it right the second time either.

"Why this was considered an acceptable response is, at best, puzzling,"

A regular reader to this blog, DLM, also picked up on this haughty attitude: “… why does the president of the BCTF believe that the minister of education should contact the BCTF regarding the specific cases rather than the college who are the regulatory body responsible for certification?  I would like an explanation on Ms Lambert's comments as to why she believes that the BCTF should have been contacted on this issue.”

A further instance of arrogance came up in a recent interview with News 11:30: "We are left kind of perplexed as to what the intention of the report is and why it's been released without any consultation with us."  http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/154786–report-bc-teachers-college-is-dysfunctional

I’ve written in other essays that the BCTF has, by stealth and intimidation, acquired the role of “parallel government” in BC education.  How has this happened?  

From a research article we see that the newly formed socialist government in 1972 seems to have given away the keys to the schoolhouse to the BCTF leadership. 

Please read Thomas Fleming’s article: “Decline and Fall of the BC Ministry of Education 1972-1996”, especially the section, Teacher Power.  “Through the help of the Teachers Political Action Committee (TPAC) the NDP for the first time in BC swept into power in 1972 …The BCTF executive was by now firmly in the hands of militants, notably supporters of the ‘radical Marxist’ Jim MacFarlan, to use historian F.Henry Johnson’s description.”

http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/edu_hse-rhe/article/view/454/611

Don’t forget, we are entering into a collective bargaining period between the BCTF and government representatives. Is this ever a peaceful time?

Are Current Models of Education Delivery Dysfunctional?

(by Tunya Audain 100315, comment to blog Food For Thought (SQE) on topic: The Dance of the Lemons 100314 re: Newsweek cover story – Why We Must Fire Bad Teachers (Mar 15/10)

Many of the comments in this Newsweek story say the very model has become unwieldy. Yes, a lemon!

In BC, in our blogs, we talk about the need for a Royal Commission to start exploring more practical, efficient and effective models. The government is not responding to such calls. The last one we had was over 20 years ago.

On the discussion of better models I just brought forward the New Zealand model. See below:

New Zealand’s Self-Governance Education System

Considering different models in education, New Zealand immediately comes to mind.

What really sticks out is that in the early days it had a system like ours with large school districts handling many schools.

But this changed rather quickly when the government did an audit and saw that two-thirds of funding gathered for children’s education never reached the classroom.

School districts were abolished in 1989 and each school now has its own board of directors. A standard board of trustees’ membership includes:

- between three and seven parent elected trustees

- the principal of the school

- one staff elected trustee

- one student elected trustee (in schools with students above Year 9)

There are 2460 such boards in NZ.

“Well before American charter schools, New Zealand went much further in granting power to individual schools by abolishing all regional school boards and making each public school independent, with local parent and teacher involvement in decision making. Although not called charter schools, each school does have a charter under which it operates with a board of trustees and has a high degree of autonomy.” (Wikipedia)

The belief is that those closest to where education takes place are best placed to create the optimum environments for their students and teachers. The dictionary term is subsidiarity — the principle of devolving decisions to the lowest practical level; central high-level government should only be involved in handling things that cannot be dealt with effectively on a more local level.

Each of New Zealand’s public schools has a board of trustees. It is a Crown entity responsible for the governance and the control of the management of the school. The board is the employer of all staff in the school, is responsible for setting the school’s strategic direction in consultation with parents, staff and students, and ensuring that its school provides a safe environment and quality education for all its students. Boards are also responsible for overseeing the management of personnel, curriculum, property, finance and administration.

The orientation and training of trustees is a massive endeavor with frequent workshops, conferences and certified trainers. “Our training is practical, relevant and empowering”, says the school trustees’ association, NZSTA. Their credo: Effective governance: no excuses, no exceptions, high expectations.

The benefits to schools, community, and country cannot be overstated. Parent knowledge is a huge positive result of these responsibilities, a transferable skill to others, especially the young. School-based management works.

On the 2006 OECD ranking of countries on Science both Canada and New Zealand scored in the top seven of 57 countries assessed.

Issues the school boards deal with are similar to ours, but handled at a local level: bullying, funding, special needs, student discipline, assessment.

Opposition to standards-based assessments are similar to our anti-FSA issues and from the same sources. A newsrelease says: “School trustees say that scaremongering over league tables should not be allowed to overshadow parents’ right to know how their children are doing at school.”

New Zealand’s model is but one that can be considered in seeking fundamental and radical solutions to our current dysfunctional, frustrating and extremely wasteful education apparatus. It cannot be called a “system”!

1. Choice

2. Information

3. Be Heard & Consulted

4. Special Assistance

5. Involvement

6. Safeguards

7. Appeal

• For a Printable PDF of this Article Click Here
  

“Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948)

1. to obtain sufficient details about schools to enable them to make informed choices about schools
2. to receive specific, understandable information about their child’s progress; strengths and weaknesses
3. to see all student records and files on their child, to expect that the information therein is confidential and respects the privacy of parents and student, and to request that inaccuracies and damaging information be removed
4. to obtain information about any program in which their child is engaged, the rationale for the program, the evaluation methods used, and the credentials and job description of those implementing the program
5. to visit and observe any programs involving their child
6. to easy access to those working with their child (teachers, principal, specialists)
7. to receive information about school services — including alternatives in the system, procedures, rules, and to be informed about changes
8. to see that the public school board is operated as an open public business, that is, that the public has a right to see all policies, budgets, minutes, and official reports, and to see that decisions are made at public meetings.

1. to understand the principles, aims and programs of formal education so that they can support, enrich and provide home follow-through to school programs. At times, parents have also found it necessary to have this basic understanding in order to provide external remediation or tutoring.
2. to have their child excused from programs or prescribed reading which offends the values of the home, when specifically requested
3. to consultation before fundamental changes are made which affect the parents, the child, or the total school climate
4. to participate in evaluation procedures affecting their child’s programs, and in formulation of policy, goals and shape of education
5. to be involved in the event their child is to be suspended from school. The student has the right to “due process” and parents and student are part of the affected parties to be heard before judgment or action is taken and before the student is suspended for just cause.

1. to expect safeguards which protect their children from physical, intellectual and emotional negligence or abuse;
2. to receive assurance that their school does not allow unauthorized invasions of their child’s privacy or property (e.g., questionnaires which pry into family life, searches of lockers)
3. to expect that parental permission is required before psychological, psychiatric, or medical assessment and/or treatment of the child are undertaken;
4. to expect strict supervision over new programs, innovations and experiments, and that parents have special rights in these instances:
   • to receive a written description of the program, rationale, goals and supporting references;
   • to grant or refuse permission for their child’s attendance
   • to receive satisfaction that the program is run by qualified, well-prepared personnel
   • to be involved in the ongoing evaluation.

• England: It shall be the duty of the parent of every child of compulsory school age to cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable to his age, ability, and aptitude, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise. (Education Act, 1944)
• United States: The first School Laws in America (1642) underlie the system to this day: “Universal education of youth is essential to the well-being of the State. The obligation to furnish this education rests primarily upon the parents.”
• Canada: “The responsibility is placed by law upon the parents or guardian to educate their children.” (You and the Law, 1973)
• The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) supports this parental duty.

Parent Power

(By Tunya Audain 100326, comment to blog Report Card by Janet Steffenhagen Vancouver Sun Education Reporter on: “Provincial parent group not in trouble, president says” 100324)

Why do parents have to beg for recognition from their school systems?

I’ve attended parent advisory meetings which spent most of the time on fund-raising matters.  Current “advisory” councils differ little from the PTA meetings of old where the groups were the lapdogs of the teacher unions and the administration.  

Research reveals tons of evidence that “parent involvement” helps students. And such research will even point to the progress and evolution of such relationships.  From participation to involvement to engagement to consultation to advisory to collaboration to partnership and so on.  As if each degree of greater servility and fund-raising is some great advance!

It’s all a wicked deceit for the present education establishment to say it welcomes any real instrumental role for parents.

Thus, it is not any consolation that the current president of the BCCPAC says she is ramping up her campaign:  “Parent involvement is old hat – we want to be partners now.”

What will partnership give you in a dysfunctional, corrupt, counterproductive, and bureaucratic system?

Parents should not be beggars but should actually be running the schools.  As they have been doing for 21 years in New Zealand. Each school has its own site-based school board with a majority of the decision-makers being parents.

In 1989 when the NZ government did an audit and found that two-thirds of the money allocated to education never reached the classroom they abolished regional school boards.  They now have 2460 individual school boards.

Parents here are really wasting their wonderful time and energy in a system which treats them with tokenism at best and arrogance and disdain at worst. 

Just look at some of the workshop topics that New Zealand parents-as-trustees will be choosing at their 21st AGM this July.

- student achievement       – balancing the books          – national standards       – your board as the “good employer”        – valuing our children and young people          – formal disciplinary procedures          – leading change   – principal performance agreements            – the chairperson: the most rewarding role of the board     – the board and its leadership role                  – effective relationships: touchy/feely – productive or destructive?                        – self-review: a key enabler of board performance  

And get this. They will be honoring long-term trustees who have served for 10, 15 and 21 years!
 

When we are promised more parent involvement should we welcome it?  Why, when so many parents are already frustrated with what we have, should we welcome MORE of the same.  This article argues for radical changes to the education system, which if applied,  would unleash presently repressed parent energy:

- more genuine choices such as can be offered via vouchers, charters, or tuition tax credits

- published parent rights and entitlements statements

- management and education politicians (trustees) to undertake re-education so as not to perpetuate a "patronizing colonial/protectorate environment" which keeps parents in a submissive state

- governments should be limited in their reach into people’s lives and shouldn’t be the producers of education, but be restricted to funding, standards, and assessment

- anti-corruption training for parents, students, citizens so that they can be better watchdogs of the education dollar which is too frequently misspent and diverted away from student needs

Unleash the Potential of Parent Energy!

(by Tunya Audain 100211, comment to Report Card blog by Janet Steffenhagen, Vancouver Sun Education Reporter to story: “Public school changes are coming — but not just yet.’ 100209

Parents by nature (chemically, psychologically, and instinctively) are geared to look after their children.  They want to make a difference in their children’s lives – in their lifetimes and in the lifetimes of their children.

How many old-timers can testify that their natural instincts to advocate for their children were deflected or crushed?  How many saw their children’s interests become second-fiddle to the school system’s agendas?

* Currently, how many parents are frustrated in their dealings with the public school system? How would parents like to be treated? What would make a difference so that they feel more instrumental — in charge of their children’s education?  How can parent energy be used to help students?  Ask them.

So, when we are promised MORE parent involvement, let’s make sure it’s not more of the same – diversionary busywork, fundraising, endless meetings, etc. (20 other descriptions of ineffective displacement tactics could easily be listed.)

Parent involvement has come through many evolutions – participation, consultation, involvement, advisory, engagement.  The term engagement is more in vogue now, connoting something more meaningful and direct.

When I was a young parent with a concern, it wasn’t long before the strong suggestion was made that I take “Parent Effectiveness Training”.  Whatever concern I raised with the school, it was MY parenting that was the problem.  And sure enough, I wasn’t the only one.  These PET programs were legion at that time.  Off-putting!

Frankly, I think educators and administrators AND education politicians (trustees)  should take Management Effectiveness Training  (MET) with particular emphasis on dropping colonial and protectorate attitudes. Start treating parents as consumers not as subjects or making them feel inadequate. At least consider them as sharing owners in the enterprise.

* A two-pronged approach would be helpful.  Do the MET thing AND greatly boost the advocacy capacity of parents and parent groups. 

As far as parents go, they also need a strong sense of their rights in the public education system.  The parents who home-educate or obtain independent education generally take the position that the state is not a parent, guardian, nurturer or educator.

But, parents who do choose the public school system need to know their rights in this project. Regarding rights, there is a strong consumerist flavor involved.  Those who are informed of their rights, or somehow exercise them naturally, get the better results in education settings (private or public) because they are not afraid to express their expectations, are eager to shop around, and quick to complain, switch or sue as required. 

This is where the big divide exists.  Parents who are assertive and promote their individual needs and know their entitlements and rights get the satisfactory results.  Parents who are poorly equipped with these consumerist principles and attitudes, and who remain dependents in a patronizing colonial/protectorate environment, suffer, and so do their children. 

* In fact, if we were to really care for poverty-alleviation and for raising education scores in poor-performing demographics, one of the first things to do would be to equip these groupings with written guarantees of their rights and entitlements.  This resource is a far more empowering tool than the hosts of consultants, social workers, etc. that cater to the self-perpetuating industry which seems to do more for impoverishment than empowerment.

What can be more logical than parents having the following rights in a secure public education system?

- Right to full information, to be heard and consulted
- Right to special assistance for students with exceptional needs
- Right to safeguards from experimentation or intellectual abuse
- Right to appeal
See:  http://education-advisory.org/Involved/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/parent_-rights_-and_-their_-children.pdf

* Of course, the biggest right is the right to choice. It is, ultimately, the parents who are legislatively held responsible for their children’s education. The state education services are the safety net, the backup system for parents whose children become wards of the state and for those others who choose to use public services.

The fact that this state system has grown to be the default is a measure of it’s propensity for empire-building — its ability to capture a domesticated populace. Usurpation of parent rights and duties is not alien to their methods. But to hold the belief that the state should be the educator is to believe in state indoctrination!

* Government should be limited in its reach. Do the funding; do the standards enforcement; do the assessments; etc. But, DON’T impose a government, one-size-fits-all, curriculum taught by public servants on the population

However, as long as parents choose the public state education system they should be equipped with a strong sense of their rights in this captive monopolistic situation. Rights and choices will release a lot of pent-up, repressed, parent energy for real, instrumental engagement in education matters.

* Not only will such parent behaviors help their own children, but they will more closely guard the educational dollar from straying from its intended purpose.  Furthermore, it might also be timely to bring in anti-corruption training into our systems — for parents, students, and others who can watchdog our scarce tax dollars.  Far too much money is inefficiently spent and diverted away.

The time is ripe for major changes in our education system.  A charter of parent rights and more genuine education choices via vouchers, charters or tuition tax credits are good places to start.

(* denotes actions recommended)