School board reform: Revision time
The problem with governance reform in Nova Scotia, if it happens at all, is that it’s piecemeal.
Take the regulator-approved downsizing of the South Shore regional school board to eight members from 12. While this decision strikes a sensible blow on behalf of the overgoverned — smaller boards are less costly and tend to be more manageable — a bird’s-eye view of the Bluenose school-board map reveals a realm without rhyme or reason.
Come October, the South Shore board will be Nova Scotia’s leanest, followed by its Halifax counterpart, which is down to 10 members. The latter oversees 44 per cent of the province’s students and yet it’s considerably smaller than many rural boards which range in size from a dozen to 17 members. (Get this: After municipal elections this fall, the Chignecto school board will be as large as the slimmed-down HRM council.)
These absurdities exist because a grand plan of governance reform does not. The reason the South Shore board was chopped is because Education Minister Ramona Jennex fired it en masse last fall for misconduct. Its one-woman replacement, appointed by Ms. Jennex, initiated the move to reduce the number of seats, which was approved by the independent Utility and Review Board. The previous, dysfunctional Halifax board was also downsized four years ago in the wake of a mass firing.
But crisis management is a haphazard catalyst for administrative reform. For the sake of efficiency, the province needs to take a look at the big picture and figure out the optimal number of school boards and their optimal size.
Traditionally, provincial intervention has only happened as a result of a board’s request for help. But two pieces of legislation recently passed under Ms. Jennex’s watch suggest a more proactive approach is in the works. The first allows the minister to launch an unsolicited review of any board. The second reduces the minimum size of a board to five, from eight.
Now that Ms. Jennex has the leeway, will she put a coherent vision of school board reform up on the chalkboard?
Where the money goes
Submitted by Alan on July 18, 2012 - 7:38am.
Hard to argue against streamlining governance, but the fact that nine senior positions can be cut at an organization like HRM Fire Department (What the heck does Assistant Deputy Chief mean, anyway?)
without serious repercussions better indicates where we need to look for efficiency and cost savings. (And thanks, Chief Trussler. How refreshing! You get my vote for CAO.)
Elected positions are scrutinized much more closely than general government works, but if you think about it, you must conclude we are losing far more money paying for redundant positions in civil service (and appointed Boards) than we possibly could on the salaries and benefits of our relatively small number of elected politicians.
Ramona Jennex's "Proactive Approach"
Submitted by dennis.cato on July 18, 2012 - 8:40am.
"But two pieces of legislation recently passed under Ms. Jennex's watch suggest a more proactive approach is in the works. The first allows the minister to launch an unsolicited review of any board. The second reduces the minimum size of any board from eight to five."
The main argument for the preservation of distinct English school boards in Montreal (where I am now reading this) - there are two of them - is that they are the only officially elected body by their English-speaking residents. While the continued existence of all school boards - French and English - will be an issue in the upcoming election because of poor voter turnout and the question of the purposes they actually serve, the Ministry of Education has no direct power over them and for (the retiring) Michelle Courchene to adopt any such "proactive approach" like Ramona Jennex's in Nova Scotia would be unthinkable.
That being so, the justification for the continued existence of school boards in Nova Scotia where language is not an issue is even less obvious. If Ramona Jennex's "proactive approach" effectively gives the Department of Education a free hand in the administration of the school boards, why not extend that approach and eliminate them?
I enjoy your posts, but you
Submitted by electron_red on July 18, 2012 - 2:32pm.
I enjoy your posts, but you could have written this in far fewer words. Brevity Is the soul of wit.
Board members not the problem
Submitted by smullan on July 18, 2012 - 9:59am.
The problem with school boards is the bloated administration that protects and promotes its' favorite and newest "make students learn better" programs that only serve to multiply the administration positions with no consultation from the front line teachers.
The classroom teachers have no say since their union is run by administrators and they have been brainwashed into believeing that administrators should be in the same union as them. I wonder if all the classroom teachers know that one of the main highlights of the current NSTU negotiations ask with the province is to create more administration positions within schools at the vice principal level. This is not a problem created by the School Boards but the broken model of school governance whereby administrators and teachers are in the same union. Remember the last contract where adminsitrators were given an additional $1800 on top of what the classroom teacher received. What exactly did that do for student learning.
Additionally the province has set the stipend for School Board members so low that only people that are desperate for a few dollars, looking to launch a long term political career or supplement a government pension are interested running for the job.
School baord administrators are at the job full time and it is in their best interest to sell their garbage to the part time board members with whatever spin works. When I was a school board member 20 years ago I was amazed at how often senior staff would colour the truth or outright lie to sway board members to vote a particular way. There were not enough hours in the day to keep up with their schemes so I elected not to reoffer. It was obvious to me then that every position from principal up should not have been part of the same bargaining unit as classroom teachers.
If board members could only hear from classroom teachers openly without them having fear or reprisal the system would improve immediately. School Board members have no chance under the current governance model to institute effective change. In fact most of them end up being so cosy with senior staff that they can't see the forest for the trees when making complex choices on educational issues.
Coupled with that is a provincial government that won't support board members that try to oppose senior staff's foolishness and attempt to make change. Must be the Department of Education, which is full double dipping former administrators, is pretty happy with the status quo. Perhaps the Herald could do some investigative journalism to determine just how many "retired teachers" are collecting pay cheques at the respective school boards, DOE and Universities.
Good comment
Submitted by Alan on July 18, 2012 - 7:38pm.
The elected part of the Boards is not the major issue in the areas of either cost or performance. Put all those Boards' staff together, and the administrative costs have to be way out of proportion to the number of kids in school.
I experienced the same when I
Submitted by mbrownstraitboard on July 19, 2012 - 9:34am.
I experienced the same when I was a member. Outright lies, lies by omission and cozy relationships between senior staff and certain members. The Strait board was fired en mass to save the superintendents job. By a Minister who was a former educator.
Axe the schoolboards.
Submitted by shawnino on July 18, 2012 - 10:16am.
Education should be standardized across the province anyway--schoolboards only promote disparity while wasting millions of dollars. Gone are the days where each individual board really controlled students' curricula, teacher pay rates, and capital expenditures. These wasteful boards should be gone too.
GOOD for RAMONA JENNEX
Submitted by bearpaw on July 18, 2012 - 12:32pm.
School Board EMPIRES exist, so many can keep their jobs. Why do we need more than 2 school boards? One for HRM and one for the rest. Does it matter that you teach in Sydney or Yarmouth? Aren't the subjects the same? 2+2=4, in either end of the province. Good grammer is good grammer, no matter where you are. Have you seen the school board MANSION in Bridgewater? Have you counted the cars in the parking lot? How many persons work there? What is the payroll? We don't need them, nor can we afford them. Probably the same in 8 other places in NS. How do they help the student from Blue Rocks or the one from Simpsons Corner? What would be wrong with teachers, principals, superintendants and then the Board of Education? Why do we need more? Come on RAMONA, cut all the flab.
I completely agree.
Submitted by Bone Peeler on July 18, 2012 - 3:14pm.
Hear hear! They serve little purpose other than to pander to parents versus getting real things done.
If the schools reported into a centralized part of the education department we'd get more standardized education, and any forthcoming reforms would likely be a lot faster moving forward.