I read with eager anticipation the transcript of the major interview on CBC given by the newly elected President of QESBA, David D’Aoust, and the newly elected vice-President, Frank Verillo. Fresh from their campaigns and electoral victory, I expected the new leaders of English Education in Quebec would be brimming with new ideas, enthusiastically promoting their priority issues and rebutting vigorously the slanders and misinterpretations of the critics. Sadly, as I read all the way to the end I was unable to identify a single fresh idea, much less a forceful declaration of purpose and benefits that demonstrate beyond any doubt the value of publicly elected school boards and their vital contribution to education. Despite a valiant effort they fell into the same trap that has mired our thinking for too long. The critical error was to accept the opposition’s premise that elected school commissions are the same thing as the administrative level called school boards Why defend the whole school board when what matters is the elected school commissioners
The value of school boards does not reside in their equitable distribution of scarce resources, or their efficient handling of such mundane necessities as recruiting, evaluating and mentoring personnel, dealing with parent complaints or balancing budgets. Any reasonably competent bureaucracy can perform all of those functions. In fact, permanent board-level staff performs the administration of school boards and the board bureaucracy achieves the often-cited efficiencies. The value of publicly elected school commissioners is not even overseeing the performance of personnel or centralizing certain administrative functions, although that might justify maintaining this level of administrative organization without elected councils.
Our arguments need to become far more focused and less defensive. Make each school independent? What folly! Imagine how it would surely develop if these misguided reformers were granted their wish. How long would it take for the principals, already complaining of overwork, to discover they need in each school a human resources director, responsible for recruiting teachers and support staff, evaluating their performance, organizing training and negotiating local agreements for working conditions. How long before the principal would demand a director of finance to manage budgets, allocate scarce resources and monitor expenses? How long before even the smallest school would require an assistant principal to manage all the administrative functions and other administrators while the principal attends meetings with ministry personnel, meets with other principals to discuss programs and performs his local duties as the public face of education. At that stage more employees would be necessary to provide pedagogical leadership, negotiate for professional services and so on. We haven’t even touched on the complexities of school bus transportation that would be fragmented.
It goes without saying that each new position at school would rapidly become a department, with secretaries, deputies and coordinators. Clearly there would soon be far more bureaucracy and administrative cost in the schools than now exists in school boards, while the ministry, faced with dealing with thousands of separate and distinct entities, would find the need to increase its personnel with a corresponding ballooning of its budget. And none of this would provide a single iota of benefit to the students. Consequently school boards are essential levels of administration simply to avoid incurring higher costs. Why aren’t our leaders treating such fatuous ideas as school independence with the mockery and ridicule they so richly deserve even if those ideas have nothing to do with the real function and purpose of elected commissioners?
Moreover I thought Julian Feldman raised the most telling argument against independent schools when he pointed out how ineffective governing boards actually are, and how little they can do to reflect parent priorities. A handful (or fewer) of parents devoting two or three hours per month can hardly be expected to oversee a full-time principal who has the luxury of conferring in advance with school council to agree on orientations and policy. It is simply a formula for unfettered independence by principals to build their own empires. Private schools can manage because parents who pay thousands of dollars (in addition to the government funding) have far more incentive to pay attention to how budgets are spent. Let’s stop sounding defensive over the status quo and start dismantling the silly proposals for reform.
Locally elected school commissions are change agents and sources of innovation, or at least they should be. Educators, by their very purpose of transmitting to future generations the values and knowledge of earlier generations are traditionalists. Most take comfort from routine, managing classes as they have long been managed, teaching literacy, mathematics, history and science while inculcating social values, behavioral norms and life skills. As a profession they perceive change as occurring slowly, evolving gradually as society moves along a smooth path toward the future. It is well established that in education it requires a generation to accomplish significant change. Just look at education faculties in the universities, the places where young committed individuals are prepared for careers in education by professors and instructors who are of an earlier generation, often never having worked outside education, attached to their habits and reinforced in traditional values by those twin obstacles to change: tenure and academic independence. Left to educators, schools would still be places where students go to watch teachers perform. All forms of electronic communications would be banned from classrooms, homework could never be submitted digitally via the Internet, and editing would be done on paper where each change is evident and visible. Some would still insist on teaching calligraphy so that personal letters and business communications could be attractive as well as functional.
Nor are bureaucrats often agents of change. Their world is circumscribed by rules, regulations, laws and the ministers who may change roles without warning and who are subject to replacement at every general election. Bureaucrats apply rules, but seldom innovate or depart from well-beaten paths.
That leaves elected school commissions, composed of individuals interested enough to commit years of their lives to the benefit of others, often subjected to criticism from all sides and misunderstood by both parents and professional educators alike. They are the main hope for innovation and modernization of schools and of education. Commissioners come from outside education; often bringing understanding of how rapidly and radically society is changing, exposed to the frustrations of their own children or grandchildren, adopting new technology. Even as adults they have little choice about living with rapid intrusive and uncomfortable transformations, whether using debit cards and automated teller machines in their personal lives or to remain productive in a changing workplace. They see the younger generations reflexively turn to Wikipedia or the internet for answers to any and all questions, playing interactive games with competitors around the world, living in a social milieu defined by Facebook and Twitter. They can understand how inadequate traditional approaches to education have become as this social and technological revolution sweeps ahead. They can advocate for introduction of new approaches, allocate budgets to encourage localized innovation, foster educational skills by recognizing and celebrating outstanding educators. It is their strength that they are not from education. It is the key to their objective, critical but sympathetic assessment of the need for change, and their independence makes it possible for them to promote and lead change. Good professional educators will respond to effective leadership and well-designed, well-managed innovation. They too are there for the students.
Elected school commissioners need forceful representation and imaginative leadership from our public spokespeople. We need to promote the real functions of publicly elected school boards both to the public at large and to our political masters. Commissioners need to be seen to take charge of their boards and drive innovation and development. They need to demand information and shine bright lights into dark corners to ensure the best possible services to students. They need to demand accountability for the quality and improvement of those services. The ministers of education and their advisors while seeking change cannot make it happen. They are too remote and their solutions tend to be parametric. Elected school commissioners, close to schools yet outside education can and must be flexible, imaginative, daring and supportive of local initiatives while insisting on sharing best practices. We are essential if Quebec is to continue to rank among the top five education systems in the world. Let’s stop pussyfooting around!
