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.

Vancouver Sun blogs

Save Our Schools? Or Save Our Seats?
I received two quick responses yesterday to Premier Gordon Campbell’s announcement about the Neighbourhoods of Learning pilot project. The first was a phone call from a General Gordon parent who wanted to refute suggestions that the initiative was political (because one of the participating schools, Queen Mary, is in the premier’s riding). He said the idea came from creative parents at General Gordon and gave most credit to architect Z Smith. (See his comments below.) Then I got the following from a regular poster on this site, Dawn Steele:

“This is just shameless pork-barrelling – a thinly-dressed excuse to throw $30 million in tax dollars at the well-connected parents in Campbell’s riding who complained that the facilities funding formula that was good enough for everyone else wasn’t good enough for them (e.g. Gordon parents who complained their proposed new school would be “aesthetically substandard”). How far will the $30 million go? Not much further than the extra reno costs that Gordon parents are demanding so they can have a new school that has all the extras AND is seismically safe AND preserves their gracious historical facade AND makes them feel self-righteously green.

Gregson shooting for re-election Left eye on Vancouver: A critical look at municipal politics

The 2007-08 school year is drawing to a close. Exams are almost over, lockers are cleaned out, students are looking toward the summer activities, parents are thinking about what to do, and teachers are almost done for this year.

It’s been an eventful year in Vancouver with the facilities review we have experienced. It’s been a sobering experience. We started with a shocking plan to close a school. The District Management Team and trustees said this was the only way to solve the problem we were facing. But then after a strong fight-back from QEA parents saying no combined with a slow to respond but eventually equally strong push back from U Hill parents everythign seemed to change. Now we are told that the annex doens’t have to be sold, a secret special solution is on the way, and U Hill schools will be rebuilt (though they are so far into the future that many of us felt that it’s a deal that amounts to the status quo).

It will be nice to take a break from all of this.

My best wishes for a well deserved break to all of the people on the front lines who really make a difference -to the teachers, the support staff, the administrators. Have a great summer!

In response to my question as to what he would do to make sure that all students receive fair and equitable access t proper schools, Mike Lombardi (who is running for a Vision Vancouver Nomination) had this to say:

Facebook | VSB Facilities Review: Flawed and Unconvincing

As a school trustee I would advocate for changes to the provincial funding policies. As you know, provincial funding policies were changed by the BC Liberal government, taking away the base amount for a school regardless of size. This change in policy, along with underfunding of education, has created a climate for boards of education to look to cutting costs by closing schools and consolidating into larger schools as a matter of economy of scale. These policies ignore other social and environmental costs that should be factored into sound public policy.

You know that the government has put pressure on the VSB to close schools and sell property in order to build new schools because of population shifts in the district. The minister has denied this, but the ministry policy of facilities explicitly states this.

The government has demanded 110% of capacity in secondary schools in a district before it will permit the building of a new school in a new population area. This has led to districts “reconfiguring” schools in order to produce the full schools in the district as a whole that would allow for the building of a new school.

I would work with other supportive trustees, parents, partner groups, and community organizations to lobby for changes to the existing guidelines.

Vancouver Sun blogs

Successful lobbying on Vancouver’s westside
Vancouver school trustees are crediting parents – who lobbied long and hard on behalf of their schools – with creating the conditions that will allow them to:

– Lift the threat of closure from Queen Elizabeth annex.

– Open a new elementary school for the many children now being bussed from UBC endowment lands to westside schools.

– Move the crowded University Hill secondary to a larger space on the UBC campus.

– Complete seismic upgrades for existing schools in the UBC-Dunbar area.

– Expand French immersion

Parents’ lobbying saves school from closure

New plan for west-side schools to leave Queen Elizabeth annex open
Janet Steffenhagen, Vancouver Sun
Published: Saturday, June 14, 2008

VANCOUVER – Vancouver school trustees are crediting months of intense lobbying by parents for a new plan for west-side schools that will save Queen Elizabeth annex from closure.

Details of the plan have not yet been released to the public.