Letter to Premier McGuinty: How To Save Millions $ in Education

26 March 2012.

Dear Premier McGuinty:

I appreciate the efforts being made by your government to examine the finances of this province, and your readiness to make the difficult decisions necessary to rein in Ontario’s debt.

It is my opinion based on experience that certain changes to education spending could save millions of dollars without a negative impact on education.

The Ministry of Education has offered school boards the opportunity of new funding for the construction of new schools to accommodate students from consolidated and/or closed schools. The intent of the policy was good but it is in my opinion, being abused by school boards across the province. Unfortunately, the Education Act gives school boards the power to close a school with no appeal on the decision, and no process to appeal the decision to an independent third-party. Consequently, schools across Ontario in rural communities and small communities are being closed and students shipped to new schools outside of their home communities. Many of these closings are being disputed but to no avail. Reports from across Ontario confirm that no amount of common sense, verified data and studies or appeals have changed the decisions to close schools.

Disputed school closures and consolidations will have several negative financial impacts on the provincial debt, including:
1)   New construction costs more than repairs to existing building: School boards are misrepresenting the estimated long-term ReCAPP costs of repair and maintenance of existing schools. These schools can be repaired for far less than is being reported to the Ministry and at much less than the cost of building a new facility.
2)   Increased busing takes money from education: The majority of the cost of shipping students comes from the Ministry of Education budget, not the school board budgets. That is, money that should be spend on education is being spent on transportation instead. For consideration, the cost of teachers driving to several smaller community schools is far less than the cost of shipping all the students in a commuity.
3)   Wasted money on EQAO: In many communities, even elementary students will spend 1 to 2 hours each day being shipped to and from school. Studies show these conditions result in lower academic achievements, thus wasting the time, money and resources being spent on improving EQAO scores.
4)   Increased future health costs: The physical health of students who are shipped out of their communities versus those that walk and bike to school and have time to participate in after school sports will decline requiring an increase in future health care expenditures.

I respectfully suggest that when developing the new budget, consideration be given to a moratorium on the building of new schools and busing of students out of their communities when that closure and/or consolidation is disputed by the community. I believe this would save millions of dollars without compromising the level of education delivery in Ontario.

Yours truly,
Bernadette Secco

Hon. Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario        dmcguinty.mpp@liberal.ola.org
Hon. Dwight Duncan, Minister of Finance        dduncan.mpp@liberal.ola.org
Hon. Laurel C. Broten, Minister of Education    lbroten.mpp@liberal.ola.org
Hon. Deborah Matthews, Minister of Health    dmatthews.mpp@liberal.ola.org

NOT ALL PROCEDURAL REVIEWS ARE THE SAME

Not All Procedural Reviews Are The Same …

… or are they?

If you are disputing the closing of your school following the ARC process (Ontario) somebody may suggest you file a request with the Ministry of Education for a Facilitator to conduct a Procedural Review of the process.

Here’s the fine print:

1. Applications for a procedural review are not automatically granted.

2. The Facilitator will only consider errors in the process, that is, procedural errors that may have had an impact on the school board’s ability to make an informed decision as to whether or not to close the school.

3. IF the Facilitator agrees there were procedural errors, it is the severity of the errors and their impact on the decision-making that will then be decided.

4. IF the Facilitator concludes the school board’s decision-making was compromised by procedural errors, and IF the Facilitator recommends the school board review their decision, the recommendation is not binding on the school board.

5. The Facilitator does not have the power to order a school board to change their decision.

***

IF the Ministry agrees to send in an Facilitator, a meeting will be called for a public discussion of the procedural errors.

The following is a short list of issues that are not “Procedural Errors”:
1.  Opinion (whether from a real estate agent/broker or otherwise) on the negative impact the school closure will have on real estate value.

2.  The municipality’s concerns that its ability to fulfill the province’s Places To Grow and other provincial requirements will be foiled.

3.  A charming child talking about how special the school is, and how all her friends go there, and that she likes her teachers and that she wants to walk to school and not take a bus.

4.  The challenges to local businesses without young people to work after school because they’re on the bus being shipped back and forth to another town.

5.  The negative environmental impact of shipping students out of their community.

6.  The minutes of the ARC meetings did not include all the information presented to staff for consideration.

7.  That the ARC Recommendations have not been included in the school board’s senior staff’s recommendations to the Trustees.  That is, that the school board’s staff recommendations are nothing like the ARC Recommendations.

8.  Failure to comply with the ministry guidelines is not a procedural error.   The school board was required to base its decision on its own ARC policy and not the guidelines.

***

This may help you keep your application and presentations focused on procedural errors.  Here’s a link to a powerpoint made of procedural errors by the Crowland Central Public School parents.  http://app4.websitetonight.com/projects2/5/7/3/3/1663375/uploads/FINALCrowland_Central_Schoolappeal.pdf

NOTE:  The school did not meet the school board’s 60% capacity requirement – Crowland only needed 5 (five) new students.  Some of the procedural errors include:

• The school didn’t have a website to inform parents of the ARC.  The board said it didn’t have staff to maintain such a site.
• The catchment area covered parts of two different cities, but the school board only advertised the ARC in one town.
• The students brought home notices about the ARC leaving the rest of the community members in the dark.

According to the Facilitator’s Report, none of the above were considered to have hindered the decision-making.

***

Facilitator Reports appear to be very similar in their ‘Conclusions’. You might find the Facilitator has written something that:

a)  the community was engaged, passionate, and should be congratulated for all their hard work,
b)  there were several procedural errors, or, the school board might consider incorporating certain changes into their next ARC/ARC policy to improve the process (this is non-binding),
c)  the procedurals errors did not interfere in the school board’s ability to make an informed decision.

***

Should you file a request to have a former Ministry employee conduct a non-binding review of a process by a board where there is no mechanism to appeal the decision and no independent third-party oversight? 

To assist you in making an informed decision, here are the links to most if not all, of the Ministry of Education’s PDF documents of the facilitator reports, some back to 2004 which pre-date the present ministry guidelines/ARC policies came into being in 2006-07.

As far as we have been able to research, it appears that not a single closure decision was reversed as a result of a Facilitator’s Report.

KENORA

Click to access KenoraReview.pdf

SUDBURY SOUTH

Click to access SudburySouth.pdf

CROWLAND/WELLAND

Click to access DSBWelland.pdf

WELLS STREET

Click to access wellsStreet.pdf

SIMCOE

Click to access SimcoeCDSB09.pdf

AVON MAITLAND

Click to access avonMaitland2009.pdf

TIMOTHY EATON

Click to access TimothyEatonReport.pdf

THAMES VALLEY

Click to access ThamesValley2009.pdf

ST JAMES

Click to access DPStJames.pdf

MOTHER MARY WARD

Click to access MotherMaryWard.pdf

THAMES VALLEY

Click to access ThamesValleyDSB.pdf

NIAGARA DISTRICT SECONDARY (Niagara-on-the-Lake)http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/nr/09.02/DSBNiagara.pdf

ST. JOHN SCHOOL, Thunder Bay Catholic District

Click to access TBCDSBreview.pdf

SOUTH CRAMAHE PUBLIC, Kawartha Pine Ridge District

Click to access PRDSBreport.pdf

HALTON  http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/nr/08.12/HaltonDSB.pdf

UPPER CANADA

Click to access upperCanada.pdf

KING EDWARD PUBLIC (Barrie)

Click to access facilitators0913.pdf

LARDER LAKE PUBLIC

Click to access facilitator0817.pdf

DR. L. B. POWERS ELEMENTARY (Port Hope)

Click to access facilitator0811.pdf

RENFREW

Click to access renfrewReport.pdf

OTTAWA

Click to access ottawadsb.pdf

LAKEHEAD

Click to access lakeheaddsb.pdf

Respectfully,

Bernadette Secco

On Behalf of Reform Education 2011

CRACKS in CAMPAIGN PROMISES??

An Open Letter To All Voters:

Is your candidate’s party serious about education or just about being elected?

Are there signs now that point to the future of education reform in Ontario?

It takes a majority of votes, not party promises to support the level of change we believe is important.

See below …

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/news/provincial_scene/2011/09/26/883.html

A meeting where attendance should have been mandatory was the recent Toronto District School Board’s Education Day debates. Toronto Community News confirmed with the TDSB that no PC candidates attended any of the 20 education debates held across the city Tuesday night. All 20 Liberal candidates attended, as did all but one NDP candidate. Four Green candidates did not participate.

With education a provincial responsibility, it is surprising that some candidates would not show up to discuss an issue that, whether you have children or not, impacts everyone in Ontario through their taxes. The broad and complex topics discussed at the education debate in the riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore demonstrates how important issues such as school funding, mental health and fundraising are to so many people.

The position provided by Ontario PC press secretary Pema Lhalunga, that “candidates make their own decisions on debate attendance based on time availability and other commitments” is peculiar. It’s quite a coincidence not one candidate felt attending an education debate was good use of their time. Again, it’s their choice to use their time as they see fit.

Respectfully,

Bernadette Secco

On Behalf of Reform Education 2011

REVISE THE EDUCATION ACT: Put The Minister In Charge Of Education In Ontario and Make School Boards Accountable

Open Letter To All Candidates:

Like you, we believe in the importance of providing the best possible education for our children and that our children are the future of Ontario.

Reform Education 2011 believes there is a critical flaw in the Education Act and that this flaw can be easily remedied.  Basically, there’s a need to establish and define the ministry’s governance over school boards.

Parents and taxpayers assume that the government, the Minister of Education and the Ministry govern school boards.  That’s not true.  Parents and taxpayers also assume that school boards are accountable.  Also not true.

The present system worked well enough in the past but large cracks are showing up now.  Ontario has changed.  We need to revise the Education Act to be equitable and effective today and tomorrow.

The Education Act is a document full of ‘may’, ‘should’ and guidelines.  However, in order to govern, a ministry needs an Education Act that clearly tells school boards that they ‘will’, ‘must’ and ‘shall’ and the consequences for not complying.

Most of us assume that’s how education happens in Ontario.  We are wrong.

Right now, school boards are spending a lot of time and limited resources developing policies and procedures.  We believe school boards should focus on delivering education and that the ministry should be developing basic standardized policies and procedures for school boards to implement.

School boards are not accountable.  They receive the majority of $23Billion this school year.  But you cannot appeal a school board’s decision.  You cannot appeal a school board’s decision to allow faith practices during the school day.  You cannot appeal a school board’s decision to close a school.  You cannot appeal a school board’s decision to drop a popular course or build a new school here instead of there.  You cannot appeal a school board’s decision because there is no mechanism to do so written into the Education Act.

You can appeal to the ministry for a review of the process the board took to reach their decision to close a school, but you cannot appeal the decision.

We believe that for $23Billion, school boards should be accountable for their decisions, and that they should be reviewed by a third party or maybe even the Office of the Ombudsman for Ontario.

EQAO is an ideal example.  The government established a third party to set the standards of achievement in three subject areas.  School boards were told they had to achieve these and the consequences for not doing so.  The individual school boards decide how best to help students improve.  Then, the EQAO agency measures student achievement and holds the school boards accountable.

• Province-wide basic standardized policy
• Clearly defined roles, responsibilities and consequences
• Third party oversight

Moreover, it is working – students are doing better.

As parents, taxpayers and future employers, we have increased confidence in the education our children are receiving knowing that our children here will be at the same level as children across the province.

Reform Education 2011 believes we need more of this.  However, the ministry can’t do it without a revised Education Act.

Let’s look at the Accommodation Review Policy, or ARC.  The ministry provided guidelines for school boards to use when they developed their own policy and procedure on ARC’s.  Each school board has a different ARC policy based on what they thought was important to take from the guidelines and each has interpreted the guidelines in their own way.  One school board did not invite the public to attend the ARC meetings.  One tightened up their policy to make it more difficult to keep a school open when parents pointed out discrepancies between the policy and the process taken.  Consequently, schools across Ontario are being closed based on different criteria with no way to appeal the school board’s decisions.

We believe the Municipal Act is a proven, effective and efficient document to use as a template for a revised Education Act. 

This is not about pointing fingers and there are no bad guys.  This is about all parties working together to achieve what we all believe in: a high quality education system for all children, governed by the ministry and delivered by school boards accountable for their decisions.

Respectfully,

Bernadette Secco,

On Behalf of Reform Education 2011