October 27th Board of Trustees Meeting
Update on Board of Trustees Meeting
ATTENDANCE:
About 50 parents were there, most from Churchill but at least three from Grant and another three from Lady Evelyn. Filled the gallery pretty much. Most were wearing orange and Churchill had some stickers that said "A Choice of Education for All Children"; and then is smaller letters "Support Alternative Education".
John Omura was there with one of his Algonquin students, who is making a documentary about the review. The student interviewed Richard Deadman and possibly others, and video-taped the beginning of the board meeting.
THE QUESTION:
David Fortier asked the question at the beginning of the meeting about how the combined tenets would be assessed together, and what criteria would be used. The chair, Trustee Lynn Scott, passed it over to the Director, who passed it to Superintendent Jeudy-Hugo. She answered that the Steering Committee was looking into the combined tenets and that Superintendent Jennifer Adams (absent) would provide an answer back to the group in the next few days.
After the question was answered, most of the audience left. Approximately 7 people remained in the audience for the bulk of the meeting, and 3 of these people remained until the meeting was adjourned. The meeting adjourned at
POST-MEETING CONVERSATIONS:
A number of conversations with various trustees and other interested parties took place in the lobby after the meeting was adjourned.
MIKE CARSON (Superintendent)
Mike Carson approached Richard Deadman and Shelly Rivard in the lobby, and asked them why they were there.
It was mentioned that a presentation to the November Education Committee meeting was being planned, despite the fact the review was not on the table until December. He commented that it was a good meeting to come to, since the agenda was light and it would give the board members a time to start to digest our message. He said he often doesn't pay as much attention to issues that are still a meeting down the road.
Conversation turned to talk about the program, the problem with transportation, and people attending for the reasons unrelated to choosing alternative. He did seem knowledgeable about this and related a story about Riverview getting an influx of students after a busing distance change that cut
PETER GIULIANI – OCETF [union] President
Introduced himself in the lobby. He asked where we were at with the review. Before any previous mention of her name, he asked if Jennifer Adams was leading it. He said that all the reviews that he has seen come through here have seemed to have an agenda behind them.
Although the union is primarily interested in teacher issues, they are interested in teachers being passionate about their work and would work to support those who really want to teach in the Alternative program. Personally, he seemed interested in the program and would recommend it to parents.
He gave us the contact number for Janet Fraser (613-596-3932). She is responsible for this area and covered the Intermediate Review last year. She also used to teach at Summit/Fisher Park.
ROB CAMPBELL – Trustee (Zone 9)
Apologized for being late.
Asked if he could get a copy of the question. It was noted that David had handed it in (is this correct) but that if he couldn't get it from the board to send Richard Deadman a note.
Said that it was great to see some parents out.
JOHN SHEA – Trustee (Zone 8)
Just passed by. Richard said "hi" and he stopped and apologized for missing the ASAC meeting.
DAVID MOEN – Trustee (Zone 12)
Very interesting conversation.
Was worried that the review was biased and had concern about a "predetermined outcome". He stressed that we need to be "vigilant".
Noted that the question talked about how the combination of tenets bring value. Indicated that trustees would be very interested in what value the unique characteristics brought to education. "You need to be specific on valued benefits that can’t be accomplished without the Alternative program"
Agreed that you need to know how you got to where we are, and believes that any current issues are probably a combination of other programs catching up, parent apathy and board lack of support. (Probably provincial restrictions as well, but that wasn't explicitly stated). Spoke about trustees thinking that the Alternative program has lost its character.
Noted that not all schools are as Alternative as others. Thought is was wrong that the review did not include school identification information as we had asked at the Steering Committee. Richard Deadman said that Jennifer Adams response was that we are not judging schools. He said that it was important information trustees are going to want to know.
He said he had a lot of problems with the survey. He said he was impressed by a particular letter that outlined the methodology issues.
MARK FISHER – Trustee (Zone 3)
He approached a group of us, initiating friendly conversation. He admitted that he was as new non-elected trustee (as of June 2009) he knew very little about the alternative program. He mentioned the volume of letters he and other trustees had received. He also said that it was the personal stories in these letters that initially steered his attention to the issue.
However, he mused that the board would perhaps want a more quantifiable evidence of the uniqueness and relevance of the program. Quote: “Do we still need this program (alternative)…does it make sense for it to grow?” He mentioned an interest in the Youville center, showing an interest in innovative educational approaches. He appreciated that the alternative program is an important option for kids with learning needs that are not met in other programs.
He talked about the “metrics on how boards develop their board improvement plans”. Folio 72 (Bill 177- ss16: Amendment to Education Act ss169.1 Board Responsibilites) was mentioned by him, in the context of student outcomes and how outcome data must encompass far more than EQAO test scores, in particular the current mandate of the Ministry of Education that board improvement plans must contain four elements: literacy, numeracy, pathways, and community-culture-caring.
He spoke at length in business terms such as the importance of us building a “business case”, and cost-benefit analysis. He seemed very interested in being convinced with these approaches.
He spoke a great deal about balancing the need for diversity with the added costs “not uniformity.”
The loyalty of families in the alternative program is not to the board, but rather to the program. He concurred that our "kid's bums" are in OCDSB seats because they offer an alternative program. If the alternative program was closed, and another board offered it, our "kid's bums" would be in OCDSB seats. He mentioned that each child brought in to the board resulted in $9,000 of new funding. He encouraged us to look at this issue of attraction, retention, and loss in terms of money. (Say 40% of children in the alternative program leave if the program is no longer offered, we're looking at a loss of $360,000 (approximately) to the board. Even if 10% of families switch or leave, the impact would be over $100,000.)
Interested in comparisons from other school boards (e.g. TDSB). Particularly interested in potential loss of funding ($9500 per student) to other boards (and home-schooling, private schools, etc.) that could occur with the cancellation of the alternative program, as well as the potential growth opportunities for the board in offering attractive program options, including alternative, to students currently outside the OCDSB.
In the context of the ARC taking place in his own zone, he was open to the expansion of programs including the alternative program into underutilized OCDSB space. He mention as example of this, the possibility of providing an alternative program “stream” within a school already offering other programs.
He was extremely interesting in visiting alternative schools and encouraged further communication and contact with him.
LYNN SCOTT - (Board Chair & Zone 1 Trustee)
Stopped in foyer, said hello, and that it was nice to see a good turnout.
Friendly.