April
17, 2002
School
Act Amendments as Hoax
How
much of Bill
34, School Amendment Act, 2002, is pure political hoax
and how much is real change?
Education
Minister Christy Clark attempted to score political points
in her introduction of the Bill by mocking the use of the
term "administrative officer". Clark said "It
changes the title of administrative officers back to the
title principals and vice-principals so that we can recognize
that principals and vice-principals are leaders in education
in their schools." Clark must count on no one actually
reading the Act so as to see through her smoke screen.
The
current
School Act defines an administrative officer as:
"administrative
officer" means a person who is employed by a board
as a director of instruction, a principal or a vice principal;
Section
1(x) of Bill 34 repeals that definition and then adds the
following amendment to put it back in without using the
words "administrative officer":
(x)
in the definition of "teacher" by striking out
"or administrative officer;" and substituting
", principal, vice principal or director of instruction;".
The
silly exercise illustrated above is repeated throughout
Bill 34. The term "administrative officer" was
nothing but shorthand used in legislative drafting. The
job titles of principal, vice principal and director of
instruction were not changed. Now thanks to Minister Clark
throughout the legislation 7 words will be used where 2
would have been adequate.
Long
standing practices that are common throughout school districts
have been incorporated into Bill 34 and promoted as if they
are some sort of New Era revolution in education.
Bill
34 has introduced a new provision for firing a school board,
but even that is just smoke and mirrors. The current School
Act provides:
172
(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may appoint an official
trustee to any school district to conduct the affairs of
the school district if, in the opinion of the Lieutenant
Governor in Council,
(a) there has been a default in a payment on the due date
of either interest or principal of a debenture guaranteed
under this Act or a failure to comply to the satisfaction
of the minister with a condition governing the guarantee,
(b) the board is in serious financial jeopardy,
(c) there is substantial non-compliance with this Act or
the regulations or any rules or orders made under this Act,
or
(d) there is substantial non-performance of the duties of
the board.
(2) On the appointment of an official trustee to conduct
the affairs of a school district, the trustees of the school
district cease to hold office.
(3) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may remove an official
trustee and order that elections be held in the school district
or may appoint trustees to hold office in the school district
until the next general local election.
Section
84 of Bill 34 says:
84
Section 172 (1) is amended by striking out "or"
at the end of paragraph (c), by adding ", or"
at the end of paragraph (d) and by adding the following
paragraph:
(e)
there is a risk to student achievement in the district and
it is in the public interest to do so.
The
current section 172(1)(c) is so broad as to already encompass
not only the amendment but virtually anything any government
could conceive. Government has the power by adopting
an Order in Council to specify a new regulation. It can
then fire any board that violates that regulation. Like
the phony business with the term "administrative officer",
the amendment with respect to firing a school board is nothing
but political fraud - an unnecessary exercise to trick the
public into thinking that something has changed.
One
change in Bill 34 allows School Boards to set up companies.
It would appear that this is an effort to give School Boards
the benefit of limited liability in some of their current
endeavors such as recruiting international students. The
Bill makes it clear that monies provided as a grant under
the School Act cannot be given or loaned to such companies.
A lot of words may be wasted on this legal liability dodge.
Minister
Clark is trying to make a big deal out of the new planning
councils but they are nothing more than glorified subcommittees
of the existing parent advisory committees, and their
role is to consult. The problem faced by most schools is
how to get parents active. Bill 34 is silent on the question
of access to confidential information and liability for
members of the planning committee. That is one area where
problems could arise.
Section
8 of the current School Act establishes parent advisory
committees:
Parents'
advisory council
8
(1) Parents of students of school age attending a school
or a Provincial school may apply to the board or to the
minister, as the case may be, to establish a parents'
advisory council for that school.
(2) On receipt of an application under subsection (1),
the board or minister must establish a parents' advisory
council for the school or the Provincial school.
(3) There must be only one parents' advisory council for
each school or Provincial school.
(4) A parents' advisory council, through its elected officers,
may advise the board and the principal and staff of
the school or the Provincial school respecting any matter
relating to the school or the Provincial school.
(5) A parents' advisory council, in consultation with
the principal, must make bylaws governing its meetings
and the business and conduct of its affairs, including
bylaws governing the dissolution of the council.
Bill
34 specifies the duties of the School Planning Council as:
Role
of a school planning council
8.2 A board must consult with a school planning council
in respect of the following:
(a) the allocation of staff and resources in the school;
(b) matters contained in the board's accountability contract
relating to the school;
(c) educational services and educational programs in the
school.
It
is splitting hairs to say that there is anything in the
new Section 8.2 that isn't already captured in Section 8
(4). Bill 34 goes on to say "a school planning
council must prepare and submit to the board a school plan
for the school in respect of improving student achievement
and other matters contained in the board's accountability
contract relating to that school" and then it provides
that the school principal must prepare the plan if the council
does not. Some might suggest that the school principal
will prepare the plan in any event.
A truly
open and transparent government would not table Bills that
are nothing but smoke and mirrors. A truly open and transparent
government would clearly state what is really new in its
changes to the School Act. Bill 34 appears to be a smoke
screen to distract attention from the terrible financial
shock that the Campbell government has inflicted on education
for children in BC. The clock is being rolled back thirty
years, not because of Bill 34, but because of a frozen budget
combined with increasing costs and broken contracts.
|
About
Me | Mail Me
| My Stuff