UPDATE (October 30th, 2002): At the Oct 29th, 2002 Meeting of the District #42 School Board of Trustees, the original draft Local School Calendar Policy was unanimously defeated. The School Board then passed first reading of a new Local School Calendar Policy. This new draft policy is significantly different and addresses most of the concerns I outlined in my August report on this subject (below).
Please email me with questions/concerns at citizen@shaw.ca or phone me at 604-467-7198
(To review all District policies currently out in draft form please click here - note: there is an email link on the District #42 "proposed policy" page to submit feedback.)
(Submitted - and accepted - to the District #42 School Board on August 27th, 2002.)
With respect, I am submitting this report to the School Board of District #42 for consideration in advance of the final reading of policy ICA Local School Calendar. Final reading is currently scheduled for the public board meeting on October 8th, 2002.
Introduction:
I outlined some of my concerns about this proposed policy at the June 11th public meeting at first reading. Subsequently, I also expressed my questions and concerns to various members of the public, including the media.
It is my understanding of process that a trustee undertakes to support Board decisions where possible. However, there is clearly a time for open debate and discussion about the potential effects and content of policies when the draft policy is out for public feedback. To suggest otherwise, in my opinion, is to suggest the Board is not open to responding to alternative views and information provided during this period of time. I would add, a trustee also has an obligation to raise concerns about existing policy.
The roles and responsibilities of School Trustees are not well defined in the province of British Columbia. A process was undertaken several years ago to define the roles of the various public education stakeholders, but unfortunately this process was never completed. Therefore, I refer to the Trustee Handbook from Ontario (a document that is relatively generic in its context) Chapter Three, Trustees as Policy Makers (Appendix A)
“Policy decisions are not always unanimous. Trustees must use their broad range of backgrounds and viewpoints to determine a good policy that is fair and considers the interests of all students within the jurisdiction of the board. Trustees who disagree with a majority decision may enter a minority report, and they may inform their constituents of their opposition. However, once the vote has been decided, the new policy becomes the property of the whole board.”
In another section, it is explained that while trustees should be able to explain policy to the public they are still free, and it is part of their role in being accountable to constituents, to explain their individual views in a respectful manner.
Minority report is a parliamentary procedure where a dissenting minority of a committee (in this case committee of the whole) reports to the main body (The Board).
Due to the complexity of the issues raised by policy ICA – Local School Calendar, I am presenting in written form my concerns around the impact of this policy. I am not including any proposal to amend this draft policy. My belief, based on the information I have gathered/received to date, is the draft policy should be defeated. I provide further rationale in the conclusion section.
Katherine Wagner
Points for consideration:
*By my understanding the draft policy is largely a result of guidelines developed by a small committee struck in the fall of 2000 (findings received by the Board in early 2001) following the experiences at several local schools after internal proposals to move to a “Kanaka Creek” style alternate calendar. The committee looked specifically at creating guidelines for schools who were contemplating engaging in essentially one process – requesting a significant change to the school calendar. By current definition a “local school calendar” (see appendix B) can be considerably less dramatic – for instance a move to add two days to one end of the school year in order to extend a long weekend to provide an additional learning/working break during the year. Another suggestion: to add a week in the summer and extend spring break by one week. Both of these requests, under the proposed policy, would have to hurdle the same impossibly high bar.
*Previous guidelines suggested an 85% approval of returned ballots – it is interesting to note that since these guidelines have been disseminated no school has proceeded to a vote. The draft policy proposes to raise the bar even further by requiring 85% of eligible voters to approve a change. There is no consideration for the widely differing circumstances existing at each of our schools. A major factor, which could be considered, is the distance to nearby alternative schools. Examination of catchment vs. out-of-catchment enrollment data from the 2001/02 school year (Appendix C) reveals that families are currently exercising a high rate of choice – particularly in areas where a number of schools are within a reasonable distance from each other (Appendix D) and where alternative programs are offered. Approximately one-third of Maple Ridge students choose a school other than their traditional neighborhood school.
*The draft policy does not take into account new legislation around school planning councils (Bill 34), school district accountability contracts and school calendar regulations (see appendix B) or the newly legislated right to choose any school in BC (Bill 34).
*The draft policy presupposes changes to the school calendar are only a matter of parental preference. This assumption ignores increasing evidence about the positive effects of a balanced calendar on student achievement - particularly disadvantaged students. (Please see Appendix E – Two articles written in the British Columbia context by Dr. Carolyn Shields, Dean and Professor of Educational Studies at UBC.) The policy also effectively curtails an important opportunity for the Board to ensure equity of access to choices within the district as well as the potential to use school calendar configurations as part of an overall strategy to improve student achievement.
“………choice of educational program as a value and as a goal for policy..is not based solely on a theory of democratic rights in education. For diversity is important, equally, from epistemological, pedagogical, curricular and organizational points of view. This is because educational improvement depends, as Dewey pointed out some time ago, on experiment and discovery. Educational experiment, to have realistic application, needs to occur in real life situations. “
Crump, Stephen Walker, Jim (1994). Choice, Diversity and the Role of Government in Education. http://www.aare.edu.au/94pap/crums94.332
* The draft policy is very vague about the impact of consultation with staff on the final decision to approve a local school calendar. Educators should have direct and meaningful input into the decision in their role as professionals making a professional judgment about the benefits/impacts of any school calendar change on the achievement of the particular student population they serve. Educators can also best advise the Board on possible calendar changes as part of an over-arching strategy for educational improvement within the district (reference the Year 2003 Recommendations)
* The draft policy does not address anomalies, such as half day Fridays, which are not considered a “local school calendar” under legislation. Half day Fridays are voted on via a separate process that only requires 65% of the returned votes to be approved.
*The draft policy is overwhelmingly heavily weighted in favor of a negative vote. Compare the draft policy to provincial legislation around Recall. In practice Recall is also so heavily weighted in favor of a negative vote that opponents and proponents both admit that for all practical purposes it is impossible to accomplish a Recall. I submit that for all practical purposes it is also impossible to accomplish a vote in favor of any change to a school calendar in this district under the proposed policy.
Conclusion
I feel very strongly about the priority that should be given to parental preference and choice. A strong system requires parental involvement, including participation in decision making in a fair and accountable manner.
However, I believe this draft policy oversimplifies the issue of local school calendars and while it addresses one historical concern that exists in this district around the potential to change the calendar at an existing school (and I am not making light of that concern), the draft policy is out of context with current realities.
It is difficult to convince people to vote for change. Change is an unknown and there is always a certain degree of risk involved in change – no matter how well thought out and supported with evidence. This policy virtually guarantees that no existing school in District #42 has a reasonable hope of converting to an altered calendar of any description. Effectively, the status quo in terms of school calendars will be enshrined by this draft policy, if it is adopted. I suggest that if this is in fact in the best interest of the community, as determined by the School Board in its statutory role – the policy should simply state “the Board will not entertain a request for a school calendar modification at any existing school but will consider one for a new school.” (I believe the Board is on record that it would like the opportunity to designate a new school as another “Kanaka” style modified calendar school). This is not a comment on the merits of such a policy.
I believe the draft policy has a clear unstated bias. If the majority of the Board supports the bias I strongly urge amendments that unequivocally state the intent of the policy.
I personally believe a school calendar policy is unnecessary at this time. With acknowledgment of the fact that it was developed in advance of legislative change, I urge the Board to seriously considering defeating it on final reading.
Recent changes to legislation allowing school choice, creating school planning councils, offering flexibility in setting school calendars and increasing accountability measures at all levels of the public education system require a coordinated, well thought out district policy response. This response should take into consideration input from stakeholders and seek to maximize the opportunities afforded by the changes with the goal of increasing the achievement levels of local students.
In the meantime, the School Board can continue to deal with school calendar change requests on an individual basis, taking into account the unique circumstances of each situation.
Katherine Wagner
Back to Current Issues in Public Education