Vancouver School Boards concern with missing children seems to ignore one possibility – maybe the projections were wrong. In other areas of predictive ‘science’ we have seen similar problems with estimates and projections. The case of the 1 million missing sockeye salmon in the early 1990s is a good example of when the ‘scientists’ just got it wrong. In 1992, 1994 and again in 2004 salmon turned up ‘missing’ on the Fraser. After the fact reviews of the situation found that the ‘real’ number of missing salmon was significant less that what had originally hit the headlines. More to our point here is the fact that the underlying cause of the ‘missing’ salmon was not the fact there where missing, but the that the models had predicted that they would be there and then didn’t turn up. The problem, to put it bluntly, was an imagined problem and was ultimately used as fodder in an anti-aboriginal rights political movement.

Students aren’t salmon, but I would suggest there are important parallels. The most important being that these aren’t really ‘real’ students’ that have suddenly disappeared. What are missing are ‘predicted’ enrolments. That is quite different than a misplaced child . . . While it is always dangerous to make predications, I am willing to suggest that after clearer minds review the available information we will find that what we have is a combination of predication errors, economic factors (i.e. out migration) and demographic changes.

For additional information read the Vancouver Sun story on the ‘missing students’ here.
To read previous post on subject click here.

Did they sign away the power? Will we enter a new age of depoliticized teachers? Hard to say. What can be said is that of the 25,000 teachers who made it to union voting stations nearly 95% of them voted to accepted the government’s five year plan for teachers.

Nearly 85% of 32,000 teachers who voted voted to strike last September.
About 30,000 teachers voted 77% in favour of going back to work on October 23rd, 2005. And while nearly 95% of those who voted last Friday voted to accepted, the actual number of teachers voting declined to 25,000 of the more than 40,000 eligible teachers.

While many will sigh with relief, the declining numbers of teachers who actually voted suggests (though it doesn’t prove) that there is a large number of teachers who are not particularly happy with the way things turned out.

Event: Committee 1 of the VSB
Date: Tuesday, May,23, 2006
Time: 5:30 pm
Place: Room 110, VSB,

Tuesday, May 23 at 5:30 pm in Room 110 of the VSB, the Board of Trustees of the Vancouver School Board will debate a motion on renewed advocacy on behalf of the city’s 50,000 kids. Former VSB Trusttee, Noel Herron, explains why this meeting is of critical importance to the health of public education in Vancouver schools.

In the most complex and diverse school system in this province (indeed in any school district in BC) advocacy is a key and crucial leadership component. The VSB, as a district has literally more of everything –inner city, gifted ,ESL, special education, special needs, urban Aboriginal students, alternative programs at the secondary level, and a host of other programs and services at both elementary and secondary levels.

Over the past four decades the VSB has pioneered programs and services(under boards of varying political persuasions ) that have had a very positive, province-wide, impact. The following are only two examples: lobbying in cooperation with parents’ groups for seismic upgrading of all schools over a10 year period, and; the introduction of inner city programs for disadvantaged kids in 1992. Year after year, the inexorable erosion of many of these programs and services due to financial shortfalls by successive provincial governments.

Currently, the board is faced with the renewal of an activist, ongoing ,and vital advocacy program, started by the previous board, in order to obtain both recognition and funding for its numerous and diverse services. This will be debated May 23 at the first meeting of Committee 1 of the VSB–the only time this premier, coordinating, committee has met in the 7 months since the board’s election last November– and it will determine the direction and strategies that the current board will use and take in the two and a half years of its remaining mandate.

School trustees, in my book, are elected to speak out on behalf of their constituencies and to maintain unrelenting pressure on any government in Victoria, no matter what its political persuasion, in order to obtain the support and resources needed.

Let me be very blunt, any trustee that is willing to throw up his or her hands, with a what-can-we-do-attitude, and accept a supplicant funding role when faced with constant downloading by Victoria is not honouring the wishes of the students or parents they have been elected to represent. Letters of protest are fine, and should be used, but they form only a part of a broadly-based public positions and effective advocacy strategies of a comprehensive advocacy program. Leadership and advocacy should be made of sterner stuff especially when the educational futures of thousands of kids are at stake. That’s why Tuesday evening’s meeting of the VSB is important in the evolution of the city’s public education system.

by Noel Herron

One late resolution for the BCCPAC highlights the topic of rights. It’s actually a mechanism designed to limit the capacity of students and their parents to ensure that children received an equitable and effective education.

By framing the resolution in the context of human rights the authors of this resolution have cleverly shifted attention from the collective right of students in general to have access to adequate educational services and the right of workers to have a modicum of control over the conditions of their work to one of individual rights. Paradoxically this particular assertion of individual rights runs counter to the individual rights of other students. It further attempts to challenge the notion of ‘labels’ as in someway denying and undermining individuality.

Given the high cultural value placed on individuals in our society this should perhaps not be surprising. And, that one individual’s rights may run against the grain of someone else is part of the problem of a society based solely upon the rights of individuals.

What is needed are compromises that recognize the impossibility of unbridled individual rights. As a parent of children with special learning needs I can honestly say that I don’t want more than one or two of them in the same class. First, I want my child to be able to learn to the best of his abilities. If he is one of 2, 3,4, or more such students in a class of 25-30 I know that he won’t learn and that others in the class will lose out as well.

I can appreciate that some parents have a hard time accepting that their child might have a learning disability, for example, and want to reject any type of label or designation. Other parents want their child forced into what ever class they want, when they want, devil take the hindmost, let the class size go up and the composition unbalance. But if we really want to place the learning needs of all children front and center then we will have to recognize that some limitations are required -especially if our government is unwilling to fully fund the real cost of public education.

The resolution should really read: “No rights for learning. Let us pile as many kids as we can into every class. Let us wait until conflict erupts between parents and let them fight it out to determine who will get to stay in the class.”

Read on to see the resolution in question. New BCCPAC Late Resolution

#20 – Ensuring the Rights of all Students.

Many believe that classrooms are experiencing difficulty due to the wide variety of student learning styles and needs. This is a training and resource issue, not a reflection of the quality or value of our children.