Bill 11 - Education Amendment Act

[flamingfingers]

A rather mild and benign name. But what is Bill 11 really about?

B.C. continues its massive restructuring of public education

Does anyone care enough to stop it?

By Daphne Bramham, Vancouver Sun March 28, 2015

A blunt reading of the B.C. government’s plan for public education is this: Impoverish it, neuter critics (including teachers and elected school trustees) and centralize control.

Once control is centralized, the blueprint seems to be to move to the American model where public school funding and teachers’ pay are linked more closely to students’ test scores.

The impoverishment part is well underway and the benignly named education amendment act introduced this week is devilishly full of details to get the rest done.

For the past three years, funding was capped at less than inflation. Over the coming three, the government has already decreed $137 million more must be cut and, this year, there is no extra money for higher medicare premiums for staff or to cover BC Hydro rate increases.

Neutering the critics, so far, hasn’t been working out too well for the government that has tried to strip teachers’ right to negotiate class sizes and composition. After 13 years of litigation and no wins, the legal costs have been huge.

Apparently, it’s preferable to pay lawyers than provide the best possible learning experience for kids whose parents can’t afford to send them to private schools.

A B.C. Court of Appeal decision from an unusually large panel of five judges is expected soon. But odds are that unless the lower court rulings are overturned, the stubborn B.C. Liberal government will buy more time by spending millions more going to the Supreme Court of Canada.

As “co-managers” (as the province call them), trustees will have even less power under the new legislation. It comes just as trustees finally seem united in their belief that after a decade of cutting, this year’s mandated reductions are too much.

Earlier this month, Education Minister Peter Fassbender paid $180,000 to hire a special adviser to to tell Vancouver trustees how to cut $14.77 million.

The amendments would do away with that nicety. The minister could simply issue “administrative directives” if he “believes” the board hasn’t met its obligations; that “it is in the public interest to do so;” or, because the minister wants the board to “participate in or undertake a project in respect of the improvement of student performance or another matter specified by the minister.”

Refuse and the minister can replace those democratically elected trustees with a hand-picked administrator.
Pause and think about that for a moment.

The minister can override decisions of a democratically elected board because he “believes” it is in the public interest or because he’s got a big idea that he wants implemented.

And, by the way, there’s no oversight or appeal.

Another amendment allows the province to use information collected about students to “evaluate the effectiveness of boards, francophone education authorities and authorities governed by the Independent School Act and the programs, courses and curricula delivered by them.”

Presumably, those evaluations could be the basis of administrative directives. They could also be used by parents eager to take advantage of the government’s rules allowing them to move their children outside their neighbourhood to go to schools where test scores (a.k.a. learning outcomes) are deemed to be best.

And, if the American experience is any guide, that information coupled with the amendments related to how teachers spend their professional development time could be used as a means to link teachers’ salaries and even individual school funding to students’ test scores.

Coincidentally, the privacy section opens a Pandora’s box that two U.S. congressmen are trying to put a lid on after the world’s largest educational company, Pearson, was found to be covertly monitoring social media sites to identify American students who might have disclosed questions from its assessment tests.

Among Pearson Canada’s many products is PowerSchool, which it describes as “the fastest growing, most widely used, web-based student information system.”

As the New York Times reported, the bipartisan bill proposed this week would prohibit companies operating U.S. school services such as online homework portals, digital grade books for teachers or student email programs from collecting or using student data to create marketing profiles.

Meantime, while public schools face cuts, private schools will get more money this year. Last year, the government extended special education grants beyond public schools to include private schools, offering up to $20,000 each for students with disabilities.

And, for several years, it has not only provided annual funding for a lobby group, the Federation of Independent Schools, it has had a parliamentary secretary for independent schools at the cabinet table.

What’s underway is a massive restructuring of public education. What remains to be seen is whether anybody cares enough to stop it.

[email protected]

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Daphne ... z3ViucwLOR

[Urbane]

^^ We'll see. The columnist recites the same old rhetoric about independent schools receiving public funding (and a larger increase than public schools received) but those who oppose the subsidy do so on ideological grounds because the subsidy helps provide choice for parents and it actually saves taxpayers money. I also take the rhetoric about the "cuts" over the last decade with a grain of salt because "cuts" is not the right word. As well, we should be finding efficiencies particularly when it comes to administration.

Now, are there some concerns about Bill 11? Absolutely there are. Do we want to centralize educational decisions more in Victoria than they are now? Do we want to erode the power of school boards even more? And to what extent do we want to use test scores to evaluate schools? Before we get everyone in a panic though let's just see how this all unfolds. Yes, I have serious concerns about Bill 11. Absolutely. Time for a reasonable debate in the Legislature and elsewhere to see where we should be headed when it comes to education.

[rustled]

Our current model developed at a time when the people who paid for the education of their community's children had direct involvement in the delivery of education within their community.

They were responsible for ensuring the children of their community were educated, and they had the power to make changes they believed would improve delivery of public education.

That is so far from being the case now, small wonder the model no longer works.

The PACs haven't worked out as intended, and even they exclude the community at large. Small wonder parents who feel they would like to have more awareness and input are moving to independents.

Few people even care who gets elected as trustee. Fewer still feel they have any real opportunity to understand or influence what goes on in public education. Social activist groups have more ability to direct the course of public education than we, the people who foot the bill and reap the full consequences of money ill-spent, and most of us feel quite powerless to anything about it.

The outmoded model developed for a time long since past certainly doesn't serve the public well today.

It's well-past time for a massive overhaul.

[KGT]

Surprise, surprise. They want to take over Pro-D.

[Hurtlander]

Surprise, surprise. They want to take over Pro-D.

Much to the delight of the various public education / BCTF haters on here who don't realize one Pro-D already belongs to admin, and one Pro-D is provincial.....

[rustled]

Surprise, surprise. They want to take over Pro-D.

Much to the delight of the various public education / BCTF haters on here who don't realize one Pro-D already belongs to admin, and one Pro-D is provincial.....

Again with the divisiveness.

These "us-versus-them" attitudes are so unhelpful, and yet they're the fallback position for too many people, too often.

When folk focus on differences of opinion and one-up-manship and who's at fault instead of looking at what we could all do to help the system work better, small surprise the changes we see happening are not the changes we'd like.

[Hurtlander]

These "us-versus-them" attitudes are so unhelpful, and yet they're the fallback position for too many people, too often.

When folk focus on differences of opinion and one-up-manship and who's at fault instead of looking at what we could all do to help the system work better, small surprise the changes we see happening are not the changes we'd like.

Get real, nobody has a worse case of "us-versus-them" attitude than you..If anyone dares defend the public school system or the teachers you're one of the first to find fault with that persons opinion.

This entire bill 11 is nothing more than Christy personal vendetta against the public teachers, it has nothing to do with improving the education system..

[KGT]

Few people fully comprehend the govt's plans for "Pro-D." Once again, I am glad I'm retiring in a year.

[Urbane]

Few people fully comprehend the govt's plans for "Pro-D." Once again, I am glad I'm retiring in a year.

See my comments on this subject in the Bickering Room. I share your concerns. However, CBC News quoted Jim Iker as saying he wasn't "too concerned" about the Pro-D announcement because the government has promised consultation on the issue over the next two years.

[rustled]

These "us-versus-them" attitudes are so unhelpful, and yet they're the fallback position for too many people, too often.

When folk focus on differences of opinion and one-up-manship and who's at fault instead of looking at what we could all do to help the system work better, small surprise the changes we see happening are not the changes we'd like.

Get real, nobody has a worse case of "us-versus-them" attitude than you..If anyone dares defend the public school system or the teachers you're one of the first to find fault with that persons opinion.

This entire bill 11 is nothing more than Christy personal vendetta against the public teachers, it has nothing to do with improving the education system..

Do you truly think so?

I've never intended to focus on finding fault with others' posts, or with teachers, or with public education. (I'd rather focus on seeking and supporting improvements and solutions.) But if that's how I come across I apologize, and I'll certainly have to reassess my posting style.

Hurtlander, is there nothing at all you can support in Bill 11?

[Urbane]

Get real, nobody has a worse case of "us-versus-them" attitude than you..If anyone dares defend the public school system or the teachers you're one of the first to find fault with that persons opinion.

This entire bill 11 is nothing more than Christy personal vendetta against the public teachers, it has nothing to do with improving the education system..

Oh the irony . . .

First of all, "Christy personal vendetta against the public teachers" (your exact words) has no basis in fact. Since the BCTF has been angry at every single government the past few decades should we conclude that all those governments and their leaders had a personal vendetta against public teachers? You know, Christy Clark as Education Minister extended the olive branch to the BCTF and allowed them to essentially take control of the College of Teachers. If she really had a vendetta she wouldn't have done that. As we all know the BCTF dropped the ball, big time, and the College had to be disbanded. Clark can and should be criticized for giving in to the BCTF on that critical issue but her decision totally proves the opposite of the vendetta theory.

Criticizing rustled is off-topic as is praising her but I'll just say that I can't think of any poster on here who is more thoughtful, more reasonable, or more eager to find common ground. You must have missed a lot of her posts. As I say, your comments are very ironic but I'll just leave it at that.

[Hurtlander]

First of all, "Christy personal vendetta against the public teachers" (your exact words) has no basis in fact.

LOL.. Sure keep right on believing that.I can show you the proof, but I obviously can't make you believe it..

Criticizing rustled is off-topic as is praising her but I'll just say that I can't think of any poster on here who is more thoughtful, more reasonable, or more eager to find common ground .

Just because you personally agree with rustled's comments isn't in any way, shape or form an indication of reasonable thoughtfulness..some of us find rustled' comments regarding the public education system as being very biased..

[Urbane]

Just because you personally agree with rustled's comments isn't in any way, shape or form an indication of reasonable thoughtfulness..some of us find rustled' comments regarding the public education system as being very biased..

I prefer rustled's approach which is looking at an issue like Bill 11 to see what's in it and discussing the contents. Just dissing the premier yet again doesn't do anything to move the discussion forward in a productive way. I've already said that I have concerns about what the government might have planned for Pro-D (I made those comments in the Bickering Room) but Jim Iker says that he's not concerned about Pro-D at this point because the government has promised consultation. Anyway, those of you who can never ever find even one thing right that the government is doing are the biased ones but you don't see that. Ironic! How about we get back on topic and you can answer rustled's question as to whether or not you like anything in Bill 11.

[Hurtlander]

^^^Changes to Pro-D in bill 11 is only a small part of the bill. Read the original post and follow the links...Any changes the government may make to Pro-D is the least of anyone needs to be concerned about regarding bill11..

[flamingfingers]

This is part of what made my blood chill:

The minister could simply issue “administrative directives” if he “believes” the board hasn’t met its obligations; that “it is in the public interest to do so;” or, because the minister wants the board to “participate in or undertake a project in respect of the improvement of student performance or another matter specified by the minister.”

Refuse and the minister can replace those democratically elected trustees with a hand-picked administrator.
Pause and think about that for a moment.

The minister can override decisions of a democratically elected board because he “believes” it is in the public interest or because he’s got a big idea that he wants implemented.

And, by the way, there’s no oversight or appeal.