School Board Legacies: Symbol or Substance?

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

Newly elected school boards have the opportunity to consider their legacies, but determining a board’s legacy is no easy task.

The motivations of individual candidates and the values that underpin them are what distinguishes one candidate from another. Forging a common legacy often means subordinating one’s individual values to the values of the collective. Some trustees believe that, if they subordinate their values, they will betray the voters who elected them. However, on a board whose members have disparate values, some subordination is necessary or nothing of value will be accomplished.

It is also challenging for a board to decide what specific difference it wants to make in addition to its responsibilities under the school or education act and accompanying regulations that are the board’s primary obligations. Such responsibilities typically include improving student achievement, well-being, and outcomes, and making decisions in the best interest of the district.

Three school trustees in San Francisco were removed from office by the electorate in part, though it is difficult to tell exactly, because they had focused on changing the names of schools when the district was trying to figure out how to reopen schools safely during COVID. Some of the citizenry saw the focus on school name change - instead of far more urgent matters - as an attempt to establish the virtuousness of the trustees by calling attention to the flawed behaviour of those after whom the schools were named.

It is difficult to make a judgment from this vantage point. There was certainly a symbolic dimension to the issue, but, as I have written in another blog, there is potentially an educational dimension to changing school names as well. While the distinction between symbol and substance can sometimes be murky, it seemed to most of the recall voters that the priorities of the trustees removed from office were misplaced or mistimed given the challenge of getting students back in school.

School boards sometimes neglect to ask whether they have the authority to do what they propose. A board in Canada accepted and passed a motion “to support lowering the voting age.” School boards do not have the authority to make decisions about requirements of that kind. Considered more broadly, that motion was a form of advocacy, though not one that was very effective. Because the motion was not accompanied by any advocacy plan, I would put that motion in the symbolic category. The lack of plan and follow up persuades me that the purpose of the motion was to signal the trustees’ virtue to their constituents.

I don’t think virtue signaling is sufficient for most constituents. They want those whom they support to produce substantive accomplishments, tangible improvements in student achievement and well-being, prudent stewardship of the district’s resources, etc. While it is difficult to reach agreement about what a board’s legacy might be, it is worth the effort because it helps to prioritize what – among the many things a board might do - what the board should do. 

Forging a common legacy is easiest when trustees can see beyond their own interests to the interests of the institution for which they are stewards.

Open enrolment is bait and switch

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]  

Open enrolment treats education as a consumer good and students and their parents as customers rather than as a public good established for the benefit of society. But, even in the context of consumerism, open enrollment lures parents to believe that their offspring are getting a better education when, in fact, that’s uncertain.    

Parents whose children attend schools outside of the district in which they are resident are disfranchised. They lose the right to vote for the governors of the district in which they reside. Out-of-district choice is a trade off in which parents exchange their political capital for the placement of their children in schools beyond the boundary of the community in which they reside.  

Open enrolment policies are often touted as mechanisms to improve education. According to this point-of-view, low-performing schools will seek improvement to prevent parents from transferring their children to other schools. Parents will “vote with their feet.”  

The evidence on this point is thin. Charter schools, “schools of choice,” perform about as well as the schools from which their clientele are recruited despite their less than universal acceptance of students. This is not surprising considering their selectivity and the complexity of influences on student achievement.  

There are many factors that affect student achievement, including ones associated with the characteristics of the school as well as ones associated with the students. Researchers use sophisticated statistical analyses to identify the impact that different combinations of factors produce for students at different knowledge levels. When parents choose schools, they are doing so on – I want to be generous here – on inadequate information.  

Open enrollment is to my mind primarily symbolic for the individual parent, satisfying the parent’s consumer preference. The substantive impact on learning of choosing an out of boundary school or district would be difficult for anyone to discern in advance. A school’s past performance would be a poor indicator of the school’s impact on children given variations in performance over time.    

Open enrolment is a way of shifting the responsibility of producing better outcomes from schools and school boards to the individual parent. Open enrolment creates the illusion of having autonomy and, having chosen, relies on the tendency to bring our perceptions into line with our beliefs or behaviour.  

Because open enrolment treats education as a consumer good, the logic of the marketplace applies. When I purchase a car whose performance does not meet my expectations, I have made a bad choice. If the school a parent has chosen does not meet the parent’s expectations, the parent has made a poor choice.  

Open enrolment disfranchises parents and reduces the obligation of local schools and school districts to be accountable to produce better outcomes.  

Building affordable housing to address teacher shortages

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]  

Canadian provinces and territories report persistent teacher shortages in certain areas of specialization, including French first language, French immersion, special education, and technology studies. Shortages in some specializations are more prevalent in rural and remote areas. Urban school districts say that housing costs are a deterrent to recruiting teachers.  

Jefferson Union High School District is in Daly City, California, a community adjacent to San Francisco. Housing costs in San Francisco and adjacent Bay area communities are high and a deterrent to teacher recruitment. Jefferson Union High School District responded by building affordable housing for 122 of its teachers.  

Providing affordable housing to teachers is not a new phenomenon. Affordable housing is difficult to find in many small, remote communities. In response, school districts provide housing (called “teacherages” in British Columbia). For example, the Vancouver Island West School District 84 in Gold River, BC provides teacherages in two communities Zeballos and Kyuquot on Vancouver Island. Universities often provide housing for faculty and students, often at below-market rents, and financial assistance with home ownership than is otherwise available in the marketplace.  

Housing and rental prices in urban areas are unaffordable to many because of the value of the land. There are numerous instances in Vancouver of families selling their homes for $3.5 million or, even $5 million to buyers who tear down the home to build a new one.  

Urban school districts are among the larger landholders in many urban areas. If they, like Jefferson Union High School District, used some of their land to build affordable teacher housing, they might better address teacher and staff shortages.  

I know your thinking, “where will the Board get the money to build the housing?” The answer will vary from district to district. Some districts have under-used schools where the cost-per-student exceeds the cost in schools with larger student populations. Many – dare I say most – school districts have programs of choice they have not evaluated for their merit. The same is true for more costly programs in core areas; could the outcomes they produce be achieved with a less costly alternative?  

Cost of construction in Canada’s urban areas ranges from $200-$400 per square foot. Imagine an urban district that would find $5million in savings. At – let’s take the higher cost - $400 per square foot, the district could build 12,500 square feet of housing. Assuming a three-bedroom unit size of 1000 square feet, the district could build 12 units. If the saving came from closing under used schools, the savings would be recurring, meaning that the district could build 12 units each year for as many years as the savings continue to occur.[1]  

In the communities in and around where I live, the starting salary of a beginning teacher is around $60 thousand. Vancouver two-bedroom rents are around $3000/month. If the school district were to provide housing at the rent-geared-to-income percentage of 30%, the teacher earning $60,000 would be paying about $1700 per month. The school district would recoup $240,000/year in rental income for its 12 units.  

Some school trustees are probably saying, “Oh, we couldn’t close small, under-used schools, eliminate programs of choice or programs no longer producing the outcomes for which they were designed, or substitute lower cost programming for more expensive programming.” My response to them is that making difficult policy decisions is precisely why we have school boards. Selecting among competing policy alternatives the one or ones in the best interest of the district is the Board’s responsibility.  

Providing affordable housing for teachers will not solve the teacher shortage, but it would be an inducement for teachers with specializations that are desperately needed. 

---

[1] Of course, there are other potential uses for any savings and alternative ways of using the savings to finance construction if the Board pursues that alternative.

School Board Governance

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

No board member at Ford Motor Co. would call the production or sales manager. So, why do school trustees persist in calling the district principal for special education, the manager of human resources, or the assistant superintendent for learning services? They should know better, but they do it anyway.  

Like most corporations, Ford operates in terms of governance principles expressed in writing. Consider this statement from Ford:

The Board is elected by and responsible to the shareholders. Ford's business is conducted by its employees, managers, and officers, under the direction of the chief executive officer (the “CEO”) and the oversight of the Board, to enhance the long-term value of the Company for its shareholders.

Substituting citizens for shareholders, the school board for Ford or the company, and superintendent for the chief executive officer, the statement would read like this:

The Board is elected by and responsible to the citizens. The school board’s business is conducted by its employees, managers, and officers, under the direction of the superintendent and the oversight of the Board, to enhance the long-term value of the school board for its citizens.

Notice that the business of the organization is conducted by its employees under the direction of the superintendent with oversight provided by the Board. Consider what are included among the overall responsibilities of the Ford Board of Directors:

• reviewing, monitoring, and approving fundamental financial and business strategies and major actions.
• reviewing and discussing reports from management on the performance. 
• assessing major risks and reviewing and approving strategies for addressing such risks.
• ensure processes are in place for maintaining the integrity and reputation 

By the time they get to this point, some blog readers will say, “school boards are different; they aren’t corporations. So, the principles of governance that apply to Ford do not apply to school boards.” At the risk of alienating some of them, those readers are wrong.  

According to the legislation governing them, school boards are corporations. The school act in British Columbia is typical of what the legislation says about the matter. Section 65 reads:

The trustees elected or appointed under this Act for each school district and their successors in office constitute a board of education for the district and are continued as a corporation under the name of "The Board of Education of School District No. 5 (Southeast Kootenay)", or as the case may be.

Some readers will respond, “but school districts don’t produce cars like Ford.” That is true, of course. School boards are responsible for producing something much more complex and certainly more important than automobiles: citizens. Moreover, the raw material with which schools must work (developing human beings) is much more variable than the material used to manufacture an automobile, and the developing human beings are subject to many powerful influences.  

I often wonder whether trustees disregard legislation, protocols, and ethics because trustees do not appreciate the complexity of the work and believe they can interpose their ideas for the judgment of the professionals.  

There are no specific qualifications for holding office as school trustee apart from age, citizenship, and residency requirements. The assumption is that any reasonable person will possess the ability to carry out the fundamental legal obligations of being a school trustee. Exercising diligence in making decisions about goals and policy and in overseeing the work of the superintendent (duty of care) are two. Another is making decisions in the best interest of the school district without regard to one’s personal interests (duty of loyalty).  

When school trustees persist in calling the district principal for special education, the manager of human resources, or the assistant superintendent for learning services it is an almost certain sign that they do not understand their responsibilities as trustees or as members of the governing board of the school district.

Teachers should embrace the teachable moment

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

The York Region District School Board (YRSDB) in Ontario apparently advised administrators to tell staff to avoid initiating discussions about the Queen’s death because doing so may engender strong, negative emotional reactions. In today’s parlance, such a discussion could be “triggering.” Strong emotional reactions are real. But the fact that students may have such a reaction should not be a deterrent to addressing issues that might engender those reactions if the classroom is an emotionally supportive environment and the topic is treated in an intellectually honest way.  

I am willing to give the YRDSB credit for recognizing the potential sensitivity of the issue, but I think it is discrediting to teacher professionalism to think the board needs to alert educators to the fact that some students might need support when the issue arose. In my experience, teachers are typically alert to students’ needs for emotional support.  

The Queen’s death is what educators call a teachable moment, an opportunity to get students to think deeply about an issue that has gained prominence for one reason or another. As a former social studies teacher, I would use the Queen’s death to have students consider whether, in 2022, there is a role for the monarchy OR whether the death of a relatively popular Queen and the elevation of her son as King would accelerate the efforts of those countries seeking to shed the monarchy OR whether (and how) the monarchy has changed over the centuries. If I were teaching world history, I would ask the students how China’s Belt and Road Initiative is like or different from colonialism as practiced by European nations.  

There are many issues to which students might have a negative emotional reaction. If teachers were to avoid mention of any topic or issue to which students might react negatively, teachers could not discuss slavery, genocide, climate change, nuclear power, genetically modified foods, cloning, guaranteed annual income, Canadian foreign policy, the novels of Gabrielle Roy or Margaret Atwood, the poetry of Earl Birney or F.R. Scott . . . . or pretty much anything else of value.  

If the classroom is an emotionally supportive environment (and it must be), teachers must be free to explore topics and issues in an intellectually honest manner. Avoiding or ignoring teachable moments deprives students of the opportunity to question, weigh evidence, critically analyze media, understand differing historical perspectives, and examine and defend positions they hold.

Could teacher losses in the US be a gain for Canada?

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

School shootings, curriculum restrictions, book bans during a pandemic have teachers in the United States stressed. American Federation of Teachers’ (AFT) President Randi Weingarten is quoted in an AFT press release as saying, “Whether it was mask wars, culture wars, the war on truth, or the devastation in Uvalde, members sacrificed and struggled and carried their schools and their students through the most difficult days of their lives.” According to a study by Hart Research Associates for the AFT, 15% of the PK-12 teachers surveyed in June 2022 said they will definitely leave teaching in the next year or two, and another 23% said they probably would leave.  

The Hart Study, “Under Siege: The Outlook of AFT Members,” found that about 90% of the survey respondents believe that “schools have become too politicized, following a year of political attacks on teachers waged by politicians stoking culture wars and banning books for personal gain.”  Politicization of education comes on top of dissatisfaction with other working conditions and compensation.  

I know it sounds predatory, but could Canada benefit from recruiting alienated teachers from the United States?  

Most Canadian provinces and territories suffer persistent shortages of teachers in specialty areas: mathematics, physics, special education, French immersion, French first language, etc. The shortages are especially acute in rural and remote communities.  

Shortages are often filled by people working on a temporary letter of permission, a time-limited permit issued to persons who do not fully meet the requirements for certification. Some shortages are filled by certificated teachers whose preparation is not a complete match with the requirement of the position.  

Individuals who have the educational background and experience to fill labour market needs can immigrate to Canada through the Provincial Nominee Program (PNP). Would-be applicants should check each province or territory of interest to determine whether their occupational specialization is eligible. Applicants must select and apply to the province or territory to which they would like to immigrate. If deemed eligible, the jurisdiction must nominate qualified applicants who seek to reside in the province or territory. If approved, the applicant must apply for permanent residence.  

There is no doubt some hurdles will need to be crossed before teachers in speciality areas would be added to the list of nominee-eligible candidates, including credential assessments and criminal background checks. Data from the 2018 TALIS study, indicate that, if anything, the level of educational attainment of teachers in the United States exceeds the attainment of Canadian (Alberta)[1] teachers. Among teachers in Alberta, 84% hold a bachelor’s degree and 14% hold master’s degrees. In the United States 43% hold bachelor’s degrees and 53% hold master’s degrees.  

It would be a win-win if Canada could attract qualified persons to teach in areas of persistent shortage who wished to escape the negative conditions that are making teaching stressful in the United States.

---

[1] In 2018, Alberta was the only Canadian jurisdiction to take part in the TALIS - The OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey.

What should school board candidates know?

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]  

About mid-July, a journalist called to seek guidance for an article about what candidates should understand about the responsibilities of school boards. Based upon my 40+ years working in education, I said that most candidates simply don’t understand Board responsibilities.  

That lack of understanding includes such matters as the fact that school boards are legal corporations of which trustees are directors (no stock options). While there are important differences between school boards and private sector corporations, there are common responsibilities fundamental to being a director (trustee).  

Like private sector corporations, school trustees must comply with the legislation and regulations that apply to them and to act in the best interest of the corporation. Trustees fulfill their duty of loyalty to the school district by acting honestly and faithfully in its best interest.  This means putting the interest of the corporation ahead of the trustees’ own interests or the interests of the trustees’ constituents.  

Trustees run into difficulty when they fail to exercise the care, diligence, and skills that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in similar circumstances. Common breaches of this duty of care include failing to prepare for the deliberations and decisions in which the Board must engage, failing to disclose conflicts of interest, and disclosing to others confidential corporate information.  

Many candidates do not know that, if elected, they will have no individual authority. Only the school board has authority exercised primarily through the decisions it makes in formal, public meetings by majority vote. Candidates who succeed electorally and become trustees will inevitably have different points of view. They may express those viewpoints during deliberations prior to a formal board decision. But, once the Board makes its decision, all trustees are obligated to support the decision of the majority – even if that was not their preferred position. Grousing about the decision after it is made besmirches the reputation of the Board which trustees have an obligation to uphold.  

Candidates who base their understanding of the responsibilities of office from observing how school boards behave will have a distorted understanding. Too many Boards spend too little time addressing the most important of their responsibilities. There are fundamentally two that are central. One is fostering successful student acquisition of learning outcomes and their well-being. The second is reporting the results that student have achieved, and evaluating educational programs, services and supports that are intended to lead to valued student outcomes.  

Everything else is derivative of the Board’s fundamental responsibilities, but not trivial. Recruiting a superintendent and entrusting to the superintendent the day-to-day management of the school district is key. Effective stewardship of resources is another. Having and abiding by a code of conduct governing the Board’s behaviour and the behaviour of individual trustees is crucial because ‘bad behaviour’ impedes addressing the Board’s core responsibilities.  

Candidates should commit to staying within the guardrails of governance if they are elected. Knowing and abiding with provincial legislation, regulation, and ministerial orders are obligatory. The same is true of the Board’s framework of policies and procedures. Trusting the professional knowledge and judgement of the Superintendent, recognizing and staying out of the superintendent’s business, and holding the Superintendent accountable through annual performance evaluations are essential. Boards must demand rigorous evaluation of student results and report those results to the public to continue to encourage public confidence in the education system they support.  

Prior to every election cycle I am optimistic that those taking office will be assiduous in carrying out these fundamental responsibilities. I hope my optimism is confirmed this year. 

Don’t promise what you can’t deliver

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

School board elections will be held in many municipalities across the country this fall. So, it is not surprising that I am beginning to receive candidate statements in my snail-mail box and my e-mail inbox.  

A theme running through some candidate statements is “revitalizing the public’s voice in school board decisions” or “supporting democracy and citizen involvement.” Those would be admirable goals given the historically low citizen turnout for school board elections. But candidates are not really seeking greater involvement of the citizenry with its schools but rather giving greater expression to the voices of interest or stakeholder groups. Some candidates are more explicit about their intentions, “. . . help make our district a place where families are heard, and educators are supported.”  

Many of the trustees seek office to do what is properly the work of the school superintendent. A school superintendent is responsible for implementing the goals articulated by the board and ensuring compliance with the school act and other applicable legislation. Many candidates want to dictate how the superintendent carries out the goals set by the board, or they imply that interest groups will be empowered to determine how goals and policies are implemented.  

Many candidates are activists – as I was when I ran for a school board. They are members of school or district parent advisory committees, organizations that advocate on behalf of students with special needs, former teachers and former school and district administrators, former members of the executives of teacher unions and other employee groups. There is nothing wrong with having been an advocate. However, when elected, the candidate who is an activist must transition to being a trustee that serves on a board responsible for all students.  

Trustees must engage with one another to determine a set of collective goals and priorities. When candidates come from different value perspectives it is doubtful that all goals and priorities of individual trustees can become board goals and priorities. That is, unless trustees say to one another, “I’ll support what you want, if you support what I want.” When that happens, boards wind up with long lists of goals and no priorities. Priorities must be established so that the superintendent can allocate scarce resources (and resources are always scarce).  

Boards with long lists of goals inevitably become dissatisfied with their superintendents because those superintendents cannot achieve the goals without knowing the board’s priorities. Trustees that have not developed a district-wide perspective continue to press for the goal or goals for which they advocate. When they perceive that those goals are not being pursued or pursued as quickly as they would like, they often try to bypass the superintendent and engage the district leader in whose domain the goal resides.  

This makes a bad situation worse. Boards work with and through their only employee, the superintendent. Boards, not individual trustees, can give the superintendent direction. Individual trustees have no authority. When they bypass the superintendent and engage staff, they are communicating lack of confidence in the superintendent and putting the staff in a very awkward position. Staff report to the superintendent and their performance is judged by the superintendent. Chaos and conflict are the inevitable outcomes of trustees who are trying to give direction to staff.  

Dysfunctional school boards are composed of trustees who cannot work together. Dysfunction places an unreasonable burden on the superintendent who is responsible for district operations. Superintendents often try to “manage the board” while they manage the school district. Managing a dysfunctional board is impossible and takes time from managing the district. District operations sometimes suffer, though I am often impressed by the efforts of superintendents whose boards are dysfunctional. If they are aware of the dysfunction, governments will often dismiss the board and appoint someone to act as the board on an interim basis.  

Board dysfunction begins with trustees who do not understand their roles and who are unable to see past their personal goals to fashion goals and priorities for the school district. When that happens, education suffers.  Students benefit when trustees agree on a small number of achievable goals and entrust the superintendent to work with his or her staff to accomplish them.

Celebrating School

 

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

The approach of school opening fills most parents with mixed emotions. They prize the time they have been able to connect with their children, but they welcome the return to school. We should, too.

School opening should be the cause for celebration for society because it is one of the few common, collective social experiences we have. As such, it is a counterforce to an increasingly fragmented social experience. Connections via social media are still connections though the nature and content of the interactions among people are limited. Online gaming, for example, is a social experience among people who might not otherwise see one another face-to-face, but the experience itself is constrained by technology and the content.

School closures during COVID-19 made us acutely aware of the isolation and loneliness that many experienced. COVID-19 also heightened appreciation of teachers.

Both loneliness and social isolation are linked to negative cognitive and health outcomes for individuals. School mitigates them for the individual. But schools do much more.

What one learns in school is quite different from what one learns at home. Home-schooled children may develop the capacity to read and reason. Home schooled children are often not exposed to the social, linguistic, economic, and cultural diversity characteristic of most schools. 

Schools help us to learn that our experiences are like the experiences of many others. They expose students to norms of behaviour that are necessary to regulate social interaction in groups larger than the family. In school we learn to care for, and associate with, people outside one’s kinship group.  

Schools are environments with achievement standards that are universally applied to all similarly situated students save the few whose performance is impeded by physical, emotional, or cognitive limitations not under their control. 

It is in school that students also learn the difference between the position (teacher) and the person occupying the position (Ms Singh, Mr. Frederickson, etc.).  

In a conversation with a business acquaintance about these capacities that schools develop she said, “you mean the value-added component of schooling.” I said I was reluctant to use that term because it implied that these capacities added value to the formal curriculum. From my perspective these capacities and the capacities developed by the formal curriculum are central to what schools contribute to the development of the individual. It is through the development of these capacities (and others) in the individual that what we call society is maintained.  

The dramatic increase in access to information that the internet has made possible has not diminished the importance of schools to society. It is precisely the opposite. The pervasiveness of largely unmediated content, the ability to transmit that content without critical reflection, and the fragmentation that social media and the internet make possible heightens the importance of institutions that help bind us to one another.  

Schools are, for most, a unifying force in a society that is increasingly fragmented and socially isolated. We should celebrate the contribution that they make to our society.

Don’t run against the board

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permissions to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

Little good is accomplished when candidates seeking the office of school trustee attack the board upon which they hope to sit (“running against the board”). It contributes to a loss of public confidence in the school district. If the behaviour persists after the candidate becomes a trustee, such behaviour may lead to the dismissal of the board by the province (or state) and the appointment of official trustees. Where school boards are permitted to borrow, it can lead to bond-rating agencies down-grading the board’s credit rating.

Some candidates have difficulty distinguishing between the demands of politics and the responsibilities of governance. And some who know the differences still choose to ignore them. When that happens, it calls into disrepute the boards to which they aspire.

All who hope to be elected to public office will hold two positions. One is a politician; the other is the office they will occupy if they are elected. The audiences are different. Politicians appeal to those who share the politician’s values or who can be persuaded to share the politician’s values. Office holders have a duty to all citizens. That’s why politicians in democratic countries thank their constituents and pledge to serve everyone, including those who voted for the politician’s opponent.

Many candidates seeking election to school board see themselves as politicians first and, having gained office sometimes find it difficult to make the transition from that position (politician) to one of trustee (governor). Difficult as making and maintaining that transition is, it must be made by those who take the oath of office as trustee. Failing to make the transition engenders trouble for the school districts, the interest of which they pledge to serve.

Those who continue to act primarily as politicians – appealing to and acting on behalf of their perceived constituencies – rather than as governors responsible to all citizens - often fail to consider the best interests of the districts they govern or define the ‘best interests’ of the district as synonymous with the interests of their perceived constituencies.

Serving as a school board trustee isn’t easy. Trustees are typically elected by individuals who are either unfamiliar with governance or indifferent to it, placing their own, immediate interests above those of the citizenry. Trustees are subjected to the inquiries, complaints and demands of parental constituents who are largely concerned about the welfare of their offspring and unconcerned about good governance.

Parents will ask a trustee whether s/he knows what is happening in “my school.” Trustees are reluctant to inform the inquirer that s/he is not the person to whom inquiries about a particular school should be directed for fear of alienating the inquirer. Educating constituents about the responsibilities of trustees and the fact that individual trustees have no authority (decisions are made by the board as a whole) is a related challenge that most trustees are reluctant to face head-on.

There is some irony in the reluctance of school trustees to educate citizens about school board governance and to persuade them that governing in the best interest of the district is ultimately beneficial for everyone. And there is more than a bit of selfishness when they put their own interest above the interest of the district.

This is the last blogpost for the current school year. 

I hope your summer is all you wish it to be. 

See you in September!

What happened to early health screening?

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]  

When I began kindergarten more than 70 years ago, children were screened annually for impediments to their vision. I recall lining up with my classmates while each student was expected to toe a line and designate with our fingers what symbols were visible to us on the Snellen chart. We would point three fingers at the ceiling to indicate what looked like a W, to the right to indicate an E, or to the left to indicate a symbol that looked like an ꓱ facing the wrong way. Vision screening was universal and conducted annually. As we mastered the alphabet, the symbols on the chart were replaced by letters.    

The test was administered by the nurse who worked in the school and to whom we would be sent if we were injured or ill (or feigned a stomach-ache to be able to go home and watch the World Series). The nurse would attend to our wounds, make us comfortable, or arrange for us to be picked up by a caregiver… or returned to class if she detected our deception. She also ensured that our immunizations were current and, during the polio epidemic, helped administer the vaccine.  

Over time, school nurses diminished in number. Instead of a fulltime nurse in schools, nurses became itinerant, serving several schools in a week. In many – perhaps most - places, there are no longer school nurses. Some of the functions performed by the school nurse became the responsibility of school administrative assistants. Administrative assistants collect proof of immunization, care for minor wounds, arrange for caregivers to pick up children who are ill, and less subtly detect test avoidance.  

According to data from the 2016 census, approximately 13.5% of Canadian children exhibited at least one activity limitation. They had difficulty seeing (2.6%); hearing (0.9%); learning, remembering, or concentrating (7.9%); with mobility, flexibility, or dexterity (0.9%); or manifested emotional, psychological, mental health problems (4.0%); or long-term health problems (4.0%).  

Some children had multiple activity limitations. Three quarters (75.8%) of children for whom mobility, flexibility, or dexterity was difficult and 70.7% of children with emotional, psychological, or mental health conditions had multiple limitations. Fewer (40.7%) of the children who had difficulty seeing and about half (52.1%) of children who had difficulty learning, remembering, or concentrating had multiple limitations.  

It is true that many children with activity limitations will have them detected outside of school. Some children with limitations will not.  

Our recognition of limitations has evolved from ones that are primarily physical to ones that include factors or obstacles in the social and educational environment that should be overcome to ensure the full benefit of schooling. The work underway in many places to eliminate racism and discrimination in the school environment is one example. Anti-bullying strategies are another.  

Universal, annual, health screening is gone, but the need for screening remains because access to a regular family physician in Canada is declining. The decline is greatest among families most in need.  

Identifying and eliminating or mitigating activity limitations are important to ensure that students benefit from their school experience. So, too, is screening children each year for potential reading limitations - arguably the greatest obstacle to school success. Addressing limitations early in a child’s school career should reduce the burden that the limitations impose upon the child, parents, teachers, and school system.

Colonization of the mind

 

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

 I received an email about using the term settler institutions in my blogs. The writer asked how that term applied. The question indicated to me that the term and what colonization means in the context of education are not universally understood.  

In my reply I mentioned that, although they have changed since their introduction, almost all institutions that we have are the products of colonization, the name we give to the use of state power to take control of a geographic region and the people who inhabit that region.  

Prior to colonization, the Indigenous people who lived on the land we now occupy had their own languages, culture, and institutions. Those institutions were forcibly replaced by institutions that Europeans brought with them when they established dominion over the land they had forcibly occupied. The European settlers assumed the right of ownership, absolute use of the land and control of its inhabitants.  

By imposing their language, culture, and institutions upon Indigenous inhabitants, settler societies impose ways of knowing and thinking on them. The effect of such actions is a reshaping of thinking of the original inhabitants and their successors. If the process of replacing Indigenous ways of knowing and thinking with those of the settler societies occurs, it is no longer necessary to forcibly impose control; people will do that on their own.  

This is exactly what forcible removal of the original inhabitants from their land, removal of children from their parents, and institutionalizing the children and imposing settler languages and cultures sought to do. I would, were I Indigenous, think twice about sending my children or grandchildren to schools established by settlers. I would also want control of the education of my children or grandchildren to be vested in a government for and operated by my people. I would want schools in which my language and culture were taught and where my ways of knowing and thinking were the foundation of the curriculum.  

To many people public schooling appears to be a generous gift. It is not. I am not referring here to the fact that public schools are paid from tax dollars. I say that public schooling is not an open-handed gift because there is more than an exchange of tax dollars. Whether they are conscious of it or not, when someone sends their offspring to school, they are allowing the school to transform how those offspring will think and what they will know.  

Our settler society is coming to terms with the damage inflicted upon Indigenous people in the past and the present. Gradual changes are occurring to make settler institutions less hostile and more welcoming environments for Indigenous children and youth. Provision is being made for the teaching of some Indigenous languages and incorporating ways of knowing and thinking that are more common among Indigenous people.  

Those changes will gradually alter colonial institutions, making them less colonial. But they will not eliminate the fact that schools are colonial institutions. They have been created and are operated by the dominant society.  

While the colonial nature of schools in Canada is being softened, Canada continues to practice a form of colonialism elsewhere in the world. Canada is not forcibly imposing a way of life on those in other countries. The process is more subtle. Many jurisdictions in Canada operate or license the operation of schools in other countries. Those schools often adhere to Canadian curricula and employ Canadian teachers.  

Students who attend those schools do so at the behest of their parents. But make no mistake, whether they or their parents are conscious of it, the minds of those students are being colonized.

Restorative practice in education

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]  

Those who regularly read this blog will know that I am very concerned about children and youth either missing from school or chronically absent. Over-represented among the missing and absent are children and youth from groups that are marginalized.  

There are many out-of-school factors that contribute to chronic absenteeism or to school avoidance: family factors (income, housing, and food insecurity, health challenges and mental illness, etc.); student factors (lack of prior school success, poor social skills, lack of self-control, etc.). But there are factors over which schools have control that also contribute to absenteeism and school avoidance (disciplinary climate, limited challenge, or inadequate remediation, etc.).  

Schools, school boards, and provincial ministries of education are changing policies and practices that contribute to the problem. Out-of-school suspensions for students who are chronically absent or late (yes, some suspend students for being absent or late) are being eliminated. Many are rethinking penalties for tardiness because it contributes to a punishment-oriented climate. Systems that removed students from the class list because they missed many classes are rethinking that practice because it absolves the teacher and the school from responsibility for reaching out to the student and the student’s family.  

Many schools have the goal of creating a safe, welcoming, and caring school environment, and devote conscious, persistent effort to creating those conditions. It is widely recognized that when those conditions are not present it is difficult to achieve the other goals of schooling.  

Schools are increasingly adopting “restorative practices” to change the school climate to nurture healthy relationships, create learning environments that are just and equitable, reduce conflict, and repair harm.[1] The term restorative practice includes a wide range of procedures based upon the premise that schools are communities where the behaviour of one person has consequences for others in the community. What I call talking circles, meetings of students and staff that are not impeded by physical barriers such as desks, are designed to encourage trust-building and shared values through personal stories or experiences, feelings, and ideas.  

Restorative practice applies to all members of the community, administration, staff, students, and students’ families. Creating a context in which care for one another is prized and practiced is an important component of restorative practice. Social and emotional learning are others.  

Fairness is a key value in restorative practice. Members of the community must feel that they are respected and that their feelings and ideas matter. An important dimension is that the community’s rules are clear to everyone and applied in a manner that is perceived by everyone to be fair.  

Everyone benefits when schools are safe, welcoming, and caring environments – especially children and youth who come from marginalized groups. But the creation of such environments simply doesn’t happen on its own. Restorative practice takes consistent and constant whole-school effort, progress monitoring, the willingness to change practices, and the engagement of everyone, including students and parents. 

---

[1] Evans, K. and D. Vaandering (2016) The Little Book of Restorative Justice in Education: Fostering Responsibility, Healing, and Hope in Schools. Simon and Schuster.

The sky is [is not] falling

 

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]  

What people want always exceeds the available resources. That’s true in all aspects of life. There isn’t enough truth, justice, equity, or education to meet the demand – even in affluent societies. That’s why we have boards of school trustees. It is the responsibility of boards of school trustees to decide what the district can support among things that people want.  

I wrote last year about the gloomy outlook for school board budgets. The COVID fiscal recovery and an aging population make it unlikely that the school board budgets available will make it easier to provide for the many things people want from their schools. In that blog I said that school boards with sound strategic plans have an advantage in making such decisions. Strategic plans provide a framework for determining the priorities that a board has for its budget.  

The boards with strategic plans that included an assessment of risks, such as changes in funding, are in a better position than boards that have not assessed what could go wrong in pursuing their strategic plans. And in a much better place than boards without strategic plans.  

Boards that evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of their programs are in an even better position to manage and deploy the resources at their disposal. Knowing whether programs achieve the outcomes called for in the strategic plan (effectiveness) is pivotally important. It is also important to know whether effective programs are having maximum effect per dollars spent (efficiency).  

Very few boards are attentive to effectiveness and efficiency. The ones that are realize that school districts are a business with a unique mission. The concepts of effectiveness, efficiency, and economy (acquiring needed resources at the lowest cost with due regard for effectiveness) apply to school districts as they do to any business. The complexity of the educational business makes evaluation more challenging than even the most complex multi-national corporate entities, but an important – though too often overlooked – activity.  

Strategic plans and program evaluation afford advantages to boards that have and use them. They can determine the cost-per-student of effective programs of choice, schools, and different approaches to instruction. Few boards calculate such costs regularly, some calculate cost-per-student episodically, and many do not calculate them at all.   

If you have read this far, I am guessing you can figure out which school boards think the sky is falling and which boards can manage with the resources available to them.

What is the role of a school board trustee?

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

There were several interesting articles in the January 2022 issue of the Canadian Journal for Educational Administration and Policy (CJEAP) including ones devoted to racial justice, the incorporation of Indigenous content in curricula, and public school funding. But the one that prompted this blog was about public expectations of school boards.  

I was struck by an apparent contradiction between the first sentence in the article and one of the key findings of the study. The article’s abstract begins with the assertion that “School board trustees play an important role in the education of children throughout Ontario.” I take a slightly more nuanced position: school board trustees can play an important role in the education of children.  

At the core of the study was the open-ended question: “What do you see as the role of a school board trustee?” More than 2500 Ontarians over the age of 18 responded to an online survey in which parents with school age children were over-represented. The most frequent response to the question was “don’t know/unsure.” The second most frequent response was a cluster of random thoughts that the authors coded as “irrelevant.” And the third most frequent responses were a set of seemingly random comments that the authors classified as “other.” When the most frequently occurring responses were combined with those that indicated that trustees have “no role,” they accounted for more than one-third of the respondents to the survey. The remaining two-thirds focused on administrative and educational oversight, and advocacy. One of the general conclusions the authors drew was: “. . . it is clear that about a third of the respondents do not have a clear concept of what trustees do.”  

Later in the paper, the authors draw two inferences from their data that are a bit of a stretch. One is that the role of school trustee is not relevant to many Ontarians because many do not appear to understand the role. And the second is that the lack of understanding is evidence of why provincial governments have considered abolishing school boards and, thus, the position of trustee.  

I’d argue that lack of public understanding of the position of trustee (even of the magnitude revealed in this study) does not mean that trustees cannot play an important role in the education of children. Provincial governments have contemplated and even attempted to abolish school boards not because a large segment of the public lacks understanding but because school trustees and boards do not have substantial constituencies that will oppose abolition.  

Whether there is a future for school trustees and the school boards upon which they serve depends upon how well trustees adhere to their main responsibilities. The most important responsibility of school boards is the recruitment and employment of a superintendent (director of education, chief superintendent). The only employee the board itself hires and the school district’s principal educational leader, the superintendent, is responsible for ensuring that the board’s goals and objectives are met.  

The second most important responsibility is the board’s annual evaluation of the superintendent.  Because s/he is responsible for the achievement of the board’s goals and objectives, the performance of the school district is synonymous with the performance of the superintendent.  

Improving student outcomes and ensuring compliance with the board’s obligations should be the focus of the superintendent’s annual appraisal. Key to a board’s effectiveness are the metrics it develops for the assessment of student progress, well-being, and equity. Effective boards collect data regularly, often annually, and chart the trends in performance over time.  

In the absence of evidence that its one employee, the superintendent (director), is improving educational outcomes and equity, school trustees cannot claim that they play an important role in the education of children – a role they should make better known.

Under-representation of Indigenous employees in the education system

 

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

Last school year, I asked whether institutional racism might be one of the reasons that the teaching force does not reflect the demographic variety in the population? I quoted the response of an Indigenous defence lawyer and prosecutor who believes that having more Indigenous lawyers will not lead to better justice or outcomes for Indigenous offenders and victims. He wrote:

To get through that education, you have to allow yourself to be colonized. You have to become one of them. And once you become one of them, then you’re outside of your own community. If you believe in that system, then you’re put outside. You’re going to struggle to connect again.[1]

It is nonetheless the case that Indigenous individuals who have seen the subtle and not so subtle racism in the system are willing to work within that system. The teacher preparation programs in all Canadian faculties of education are open to Indigenous applicants, and many are specifically designed for Indigenous learners. Indigenous enrollment has grown, though not as much as one would have hoped.

Professional preparation is a prerequisite to employment in education, but employment is not certain. Collective agreements are among the challenges that Indigenous people face in getting hired. Most union contracts have provisions that require employers to hire the most senior qualified applicant for a position.

Few, if any, doubt that Indigenous people are underrepresented in education in all employment positions. That recognition on the part of the employer and the employees’ union is what has given rise to agreements to submit joint applications to Human Rights Tribunals for the creation of special programs designed to recruit Indigenous employees. Sometimes such agreements include provisions to provide layoff protection to Indigenous employees who, in a system of strict seniority, might be the first to be laid off.

In British Columbia, the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation has signed a memorandum of understanding with the BC Public School Employers’ Association to encourage local school boards and local teachers’ unions to enter into such agreements regarding Indigenous recruitment. Those who administer human rights codes in a particular jurisdiction will determine whether prior approval of a special program is necessary to implement such a program and avoid claims of discrimination. In BC, prior approval is not required, and formally approved programs cannot be considered discriminatory during the period the approved program is in place.

Over time about half of the 60 school boards in BC and their local unions have requested special program status from the BC Human Rights Tribunal. Some school boards (School District 23 in Vernon, for example) have obtained approval to give Indigenous applicants hiring preference for all its positions. In others, the specifications are more narrowly defined. School district 50 (Haida Gwaii) has approval to give preference to new staff of Haida or other Indigenous ancestry who have “demonstrated knowledge and experience of Haida culture.” In Richmond (School District 38), approval was granted to give preference for hiring and layoff protection to persons of Indigenous ancestry in teaching and other professional positions.

There is clearly a need for Indigenous personnel in all positions in school districts. However, in reviewing special program approvals, I notice that not all districts have sought approval and that the approvals sought are a bit of a patchwork. I am doubtful that any public school board in BC or elsewhere in Canada has proportional parity between its Indigenous staff and the composition of its student or community population.

It is encouraging that Indigenous individuals who have experienced or know about the systemic racism in education are willing to seek employment in the system. And it is also encouraging that many employers and employees recognize the underrepresentation of Indigenous people in the system and are willing to agree to do something about the situation.

---

[1] Johnson, H. (2019) Peace and Good Order: The Case for Indigenous Justice in Canada, McClelland & Stewart.