irwinloy.com Vancouver – Blog – From the NPA nomination meeting: A breath of fresh air?

. . . the NPA’s school board slate for now looks like it will be short of the nine trustee slots available. Incumbents Ken Denike, Clarence Hansen, Carol Gibson and newcomer Sophia Woo are already nominated. Running today are former parks board commish Heather Holden and Dr. Lakhbir Singh, who provided the morning’s most intriguing statement: “I went to an east side school … and I did not turn into a drug dealer running marijuana down to California.” Hmm.

Sorting out the Vision candidates

By Frances Bula

I didn’t go to the presentations this week by the Vision candidates for the three slates, but I read and heard a fair bit about them.

It was a relief to have people talking about the issues, I sensed, instead of the jostling for votes and slate inclusion that has dominated for the past while. But one thing I noticed that in people’s comments about the three evenings was that, even though the sessions were about issues, the number of candidates is so overwhelming that the focus ended up being less on specific policy suggestions than how the candidates came across: knowledgeable, nervous, relaxed, funny, trying too hard, and so on.

In addition to the commentary from Charles Menzies about the school candidates that I posted previously, the only other coverage was from The Tyee.

Some further reflections on the Vision School Board Candidates’ Meeting and in response to Shelly Sullivan’s comments on my account of the Vision School Board debate and my comments regarding the teachers’ questions. Had I had the chance to answer the Bill 33/ Class Size and Composition question I would have said something like this:

Legislation with teeth will provide a clear structure and set of boundaries within which local level collective bargaining can address specific concerns. The Provincial Liberal Party’s legislation, which was the ‘fulfillment of a promise to teachers to have them end the 2005 strike, was a poor excuse at a collective agreement. To be effective it would have required the consent of, if not the teacher, then a school-based representative council of teachers. The legislation should have included real penalties for districts and administrators if they violated the rules. And, it would have required a ‘real’ process of justifying classes over the limits. The issue isn’t that legislation can’t work, it’s that this legislation doesn’t work (keep in mind I was in a minority of parents speaking for Bill 33 -along with the BCTF as I recall) when it was passed. You will find a radio interview that I gave somewhere on my blog in which I talk to these very issues. (Read what I said at the time Bill 33 was introduced click here. Here’s a radio interview I did at the time. click here.

In terms of learning something about the candidates with the questions that were asked consider the following: The first group, who were asked about Bill 33 included two PAC/DPAC parents who entered parent politics through the vantage point of Special Ed and Learning Disabilities (I also count myself in that group), a young man currently a trustee in a smaller district, and a long time aboriginal community worker. The second group of four (who were asked a different question) included a current COPE elected trustee, two retired teachers, and a businessman.

What did we learn? I learned that Patti Bacchus and Helesia Like, who experience the implications and impact of Bill 33 as the parents of children directed affected by the legislation and who were involved in debates around the implementation of the law have fairly considerate and collaborative perspectives. They seem open to the possibility that legislation might work, but also see the problems with the legislation. They also understand the issues of how it affects the lives of their children. The see a role for negotiation. I learned, what one might have already suspected, that Stepan Vdovine was aware of the legal implications given his role as a trustee in a district in which he would have had to deal with this legislation for some time as an elected official. I learned, that Ken Clement didn’t really know much about the legislation but that, not unsurprisingly, he sees the way teachers, administrators, and trustees have failed aboriginal students to be a pressing concern that needs to be addressed now.

The second group was asked a question that focused on facilities issues. Here I learned that one candidate believes the west side is the problem. I learned that Sharon and Mike think comprehensive community schools are great. I learned from Anastassia that she feels that parents like me (that’s how it felt as a district parent who has in fact been lobbying and arguing for equitable access to resources and facilities) don’t do enough for poor parents and that all we do is write cheques to solve problems -if only that were really true).

Here are some of the types of questions that I would have liked to see asked:

• What have you done as a parent, community activist, a teacher, to ensure that the learning needs of all children can be met?
• What have you done in your community that has made real , positive, and progressive change for people?
• Do you have the time in your day to do this job that is poorly paid, poorly understood, and rarely appreciated?
• For the parents, how have you worked with teachers -have you been happy with each circumstance that you children have been in? How did you work to solve that problem? For teachers, how have you worked with parents -have you been happy with each circumstance? In the face of a conflict how did you work to solve it? For the non-parent/non-teacher cohort -a similar question linked to their actual actions.

I would also have liked the candidates to discuss their capacity to make hard decisions based upon real evidence, not the theatre of public opinion that dominates euro-Canadian community politics. Not sure how I would have asked it, but it is something that I find an inherent problem.

I would love to hear the COPE and NPA candidates answer the same questions.

Hopefuls for the Vision nod for school board lined up last night (Tuesday Sept. 9) to answer questions and meet the public. A quiet crowd of about 50 or so people piled into the aging lecture hall at Vancouver City College. A couple of council hopefuls -Catherine Evans and George Chow- were noted in the audience.The candidates were divided into two groups of four for speaking (First :Luke, Bacchs, Vdovine and Clement. Second: Gregson, Chhina, Lombardi, and MIrras) and were each given an opportunity to make an introductory remark of 2 minutes, followed by questions from the three member panel. The panel consisted of a university student and two teachers (the current Vancouver Secondary Teachers Union president and a retired teacher -as an aside it would have been nice if the third panelist had been a parent, such as former DPAC Chair, Julianne Doctor (also noted in the audience).

The Vision Education group -Luke (click for speaking notes), Bacchus, Vdovine(click for speaking notes) and Lombardi (click for speaking notes)- presented well. Vdovine’s comments seemed the most scripted and, at times, seemed to turn away from answering the questions posed. Luke and Bacchus clearly demonstrated their long term involvement in the public education system at both the grassroots and district level as active and commitment parents. Lombardi’s presentations were polished and clearly reflects his long time experience as the professional and social issues division director of the BCTF (a job which he simply referred to as an Education Leader). From my vantage point in the audience, Helesia Luke and Patti Bacchus clearly stood out with their running mates a close second.

Ken Clement, long time community advocate, highlighted the school board’s failure of aboriginal students: “It’s time that the aboriginal voice is heard on school board.” He’s right. It’s a tough message to bring though as most people -sympathetic or otherwise- typically tune out when the aboriginal people raise these issues. It’s an age old problem. To put it bluntly -how does one confront racism without alienating the racists? Ken could very well be the person to do that. His long term involvement in aboriginal issues and associations in Vancouver give him a solid base of experience and understanding to work form. People that I know refer to Ken as being diplomatic and effective at what he does.

Long time teacher, now retired, Anatasia MIrras attempted to showcase her capacity to work for aboriginal students by describing a program she designed for the RCMP. She also suggested that district-wide parents don’t do enough for poorer schools like Grandview Elementary.

Former COPE Trustee Sharron Gregson emphasized her experience as a trustee a being her leading edge by saying that she didn’t like being a trustee in her first year, didn’t really know what she was doing in her second, and finally figured out that she could do something her third (paraphrased). I’m not sure that’s the kind of experience I’m looking for in a trustee. Many parents and students living in the University Hill Schools area of the district will recall her empty words of support while seemingly fighting against the much needed schools in our part of the city.

Businessman Narinder Chhina railed against west side schools whom he accused of stealing students through cross boundary enrollments and criticized for having better facilities. Both claims are inaccurate. VSB data shows that cross boundary enrollments tend to follow district programs, like I.B., French Immersion, or Mini Schools. The better facilities argument is problematic. Especially as a parent with a son at Univ. Hill, the VSB’s most over crowded and decrepit facility. The reality is that schools across the district face problems and these problems don’t fall along any real east/west line. Despite the old left us/them ideology, it is a rare Vancouver Public school that has parents rich enough to meet all the funding deficits that exist.

I was a little disappointed in the questions that were asked of the candidates -not so much in terms of what was asked, but what wasn’t asked. The teachers asked the expected questions about class size and composition, inequities in facilities, the repurposing of school boards and the issue of private school funding. The student asked about processes for involving students in decision making at the board level and about candidates experiences with students. There were no opportunities for questions from the floor though the candidates did stay around to talk with people afterward. The entire event was over by a few minutes after 8 pm.