Why school boards fail to comply with their own policies

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

On November 27, 2019 The Ontario Minister of Education appointed a review team to investigate anti-Black racism and discrimination; lack of cooperation among trustees and between them and the Director of Education; board performance; hiring and promotion policies and practices; workplace equity; the handling of grievances and complaints; and a suite of governance issues in the Peel District School Board. In February 2020, the Minister received the Review of the Peel District School Board. Notwithstanding the formality of the language used in such reports, it was scathing. In March 2020, the Minister issued 27 directions to the Board and on April 28th appointed an investigator to determine whether the Peel board was carrying them out.

The problems that prompted the review of the Peel Board go well beyond their failure to govern effectively, but its failure to govern is among the key problems the board faces. Among the 27 directions, the Minister ordered the Board to engage the services of an external governance expert to “establish procedures and practices for effective, respectful, and transparent governance” and create a permanent position “to provide professional governance advisory services and support to the Board.”

School board trustees usually have no training in governance prior to their election to school boards. However, not long after they take office, the boards to which they have been elected and the provincial professional associations of school boards typically offer governance training. The Ontario Public School Boards Association, for example, offers a suite of 21 modules devoted to various aspects of governance. But the report of the team that reviewed the Peel Board noted:

All trustees acknowledged that they received inadequate training in bylaws, Code of Conduct and key PDSB policies and procedures, and they continue to struggle with the distinction between governance and Board operations. The ability of the Board of Trustees to effectively govern has been limited by the failure of the PDSB to provide a comprehensive orientation for newly elected trustees, as well ongoing professional development and governance advice and support (p. 23-24).

Inadequate preparation and professional development are just two of the reasons that school boards fail to comply with their own policies. Policies are central to effective governance. Students and staff suffer when trustees fail to govern in accordance with their policies, and the public loses confidence in the school system.

Preparation alone is not the only reason why boards fail to govern according to their policies. School trustees too often do not know their own policies and, therefore, do not monitor the impact of those policies. A school board that fails to enforce its own policies in effect has no policies. As the review report makes clear, knowledge of governance is essential for effective governance. Trustee orientations and professional development are essential. Most school board associations do offer new-trustee-orientations and a suite of professional learning opportunities for trustees. 

Even trustees who are knowledgeable about the policies by which they are supposed to govern often fail because they do not monitor compliance with policy or cannot distinguish compliance from non-compliance. Case studies are useful in exploring the intricacies of compliance and non-compliance. However, they are only helpful to trustees in school boards that monitor policy implementation and impact by using metrics and measurement wisely.

There are, of course, trustees who can distinguish compliance from non-compliance but choose not to identify non-compliance in the hope that it will not recur.  “If I overlook what is happening, maybe it won’t happen again.” The head-in-the-sand approach usually does not work. Policy non-compliance has impact. Breach of fiduciary responsibility, discrimination, employment standards violations are just a few of many consequences of looking the other way.

Some school boards have ignored policy non-compliances because they fear that identifying the problems will undermine the public’s confidence in the Board. If anyone is inclined to think that is a successful strategy, they should read the Peel report.

Some trustees rely on the Board Chair to identify non-compliance in the mistaken belief or understanding that the identification of non-compliance is the Chair’s responsibility. It is not. Identification of non-compliance is a responsibility of the Board (not just the Chair) and must be a Board decision.

Non-compliance sometimes arises because a trustee fails to adhere to the Board’s trustee code of conduct. When that kind of non-compliance occurs, and the board members fail to uphold the Chair when the Chair identifies non-compliance, it undermines the authority and integrity of the entire board. Board members must realize that, in such circumstances, the chair is acting on behalf of the Board (not as an individual board member). Failing to uphold the chair’s ruling that a code of conduct violation has occurred threatens the integrity of the entire board.

Judgments about policy compliance and non-compliance, whether about codes-of-conduct or other board policies, should not be made for partisan advantage. It is unfortunate that they sometimes are. That, too, impeaches the integrity of the Board and undermines the public’s confidence in the school district.

The current investigation is just another plot-point in the drama unfolding in Peel. In the meantime, Peel students and parents are being victimized by the drama. Good governance is no mystery, but its absence will cause serious damage for students, parents, the wider community, the morale of employees, and the public’s confidence in the educational system.

E-Learning & Student Success

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus of Education, The University of British Columbia
[permission granted to reproduce if authorship acknowledged]

No longer a novelty, e-learning is almost routine for most us. When contemplating a new recipe, trying to learn a complex photo editing program, and refreshing my memory of the syntax for a spreadsheet formula, my go-to solution is instructional videos found on the internet. I am often successful. My cooking is edible, I removed wrinkles from scanned copies of old family photos and created a spreadsheet of our household expenses.

I’ve had some challenges along the way. I struggled with the photo-editing program and the related videos. When I mentioned my difficulty with the photo-editing program to my grandson, he said, “yeah, getting all of those layers to work is the key, but it is hard.”

The video on electrical wiring did not mention removing or adding (I have forgotten which) a metallic bridge between the upper and lower outlets in the kitchen. My lack of knowledge blew the circuit in our unit and all the other units in our building. On Labour Day weekend. Luckily, that catastrophe was resolved by a call to a helpful electrician who told me what to do over the phone.

What brought e-learning to mind was the announcement by the Government of Ontario that, beginning in the 2020-2021 school year, students will be required to take four of the 30 credits required for graduation through e-learning. The e-learning notice was one of many changes the government will make under the banner of “modernizing education.”

There were few details when the announcement was made in March, making it difficult to know whether e-learning will be blended with classroom instruction, a regularly scheduled event, or something that students should pursue on their own schedule. It mentions that ‘class size’ will be limited to 35, implying that students will learn with guidance from a teacher. But it doesn’t say whether the teacher will convene sessions for groups of students or the whole class. Working out these details and many others will be crucial to student success.

To the extent that I was a successful e-learner, the success depended on a range of factors. I was highly self-motivated to acquire the knowledge I needed for cooking, photo-editing, performing repetitive calculations, and even rewiring the outlets in our kitchen (except for the circuit-blowing episode). I had plenty of time to learn and review because I had no due dates or deadlines. I was determined to complete each of the tasks. And, although some of the video tutorials were part of a larger course or package, I could focus all my attention on the part that I was pursuing.

I am long past being an adolescent, but, when I was, I possessed few of the attributes I applied to my more recent e-learning.  I acquired what discipline I possess today with support (and prodding) from my teachers.

My grandson will enter grade 10 in Toronto the year that e-learning will become a mandatory feature of Ontario's secondary education system. I'm concerned that the implementation of e-learning considers the supports students will need to succeed. My grandson is an intelligent young man who is at ease with technology. He taught himself to edit sound and video. When he needs advice, he calls his grandmother who is a film and video editor. They discuss timecode, aspect ratios, 2K vs. 4K, and other things that are unfamiliar to me.

But as intelligent and comfortable with technology as he is, my grandson possesses about as much discipline as I had when I was his age. He procrastinates. He needs encouragement even when confronted with deadlines. He can be extremely focussed and remarkably indifferent at the same time. He is like most of us when we were his age.

There are many excellent online courses for the highly motivated and disciplined learner. I hope that the folks in Ontario remember what they were like in high school and plan e-learning accordingly. My grandson’s education and the education of his peers will depend upon how well they do.

Another salvo in the math wars

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus of Education, The University of British Columbia [permission granted to reproduce if authorship acknowledged]

Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s pledge to eliminate inquiry oriented math (sometimes referred to pejoratively as “discovery math”) is one of the most recent volleys in the mathematics war. Ford’s pledge, made in the heat of an election campaign, politicized a long-simmering argument about the teaching and learning of mathematics.

In 1999 - many scientists, mathematicians, and educators in the US signed an open letter published in the Washington Post. They called into question ten mathematics programs considered exemplary by the U.S. Department of Education. The letter was written in part because parents had beseeched its author, David Klein, to help them do something about the way mathematics was being taught.

In April of the following year Klein wrote an article in the April 2000 issue of the American School Board Journal, accusing the U.S. Department of Education of promoting programs that de-­emphasized arithmetic and algebra. Klein compared mathematics to martial arts and music. “A novice cannot hope to achieve mastery in the martial arts without first learning basic katas or exercises in movement,” argued Klein. “A violinist who has not mastered elementary bowing techniques and vibrato has no hope of evoking the emotions of an audience through sonorous tones and elegant phrasing. Arguably the most hierarchical of human endeavors, mathematics also depends on sequential mastery of basic skills.”

   

Preferring evidence to emotion, my colleagues and I recently reviewed a segment of the vast literature devoted to mathematics that addressed the question “What are effective instructional practices in K-12 mathematics education?” The research we examined* indicates that direct or explicit instruction has a positive impact on mathematics performance and achievement. When teachers provide students with explicit step-by-step instructions about how to use problem solving strategies, paired with extensive practice, learning outcomes are positive across age groups and student populations.

The effectiveness of teacher-facilitated instruction and inquiry-based mathematics is less conclusive. While the effects seem to be positive, they also tend to be small. Some authors suggest that authentic problem solving and facilitated learning may be effective after students have learned foundational concepts and procedures. 

David Robitaille, the Canadian study director for the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, a collaborative effort of forty-two nations, agrees with the critics who say students need to know the basics. “You can’t be comfortable doing mathematics if you have to think about what seven times eight is. And you shouldn’t need to use a calculator to estimate the cost of several purchases at a store.” He argues that students need to develop good “number sense” and a high level of comfort with numbers and how they work. On the other hand, Robitaille says that students do not need to do worksheets of long division with multi-digit dividends and divisors.

Other practices that affect achievement include peer-assisted learning, the use of visuals and manipulatives, and the provision of feedback to teachers and students about their progress. Peer-assisted learning has a consistent positive effect on achievement and performance, but the magnitude of the impact differs across studies. Providing feedback to students also tends to improve mathematics achievement, though the magnitude of the effect also varies. Visuals and manipulatives can be effective, but their effect seems to be limited to specific types of skills (e.g., retention and problem solving) and requires carefully planned and executed instruction.

There is a range of instructional programs for teaching mathematics. The evidence seems to favour those that focus on one specific math content area rather than those that focus on multiple content areas. The instructional techniques found to be effective for students with special needs are much the same as the techniques that have been found to be successful for students without special needs. Direct instruction (explicit instruction) seems to be particularly effective with this population.

I lament the politicization of mathematics instruction or instruction in any subject because it encourages people to choose sides depending upon the personalities involved and the emotions those personalities evoke rather than considering the evidence. When the evidence is ignored it is to the detriment of everyone, but especially students and teachers.

* A list of the references that informed our judgments about effective instructional practices in mathematics is available upon request. Please send an email to On.Education.Canada@gmail.com.