Susan Semonick Says Goodbye To LFP Readers & Susan Is Not Running For Langley School Board

With great sadness this LFP Editor says goodbye and thank you to Susan Semonick for her excellent LFP coverage of School Board issues since 2006. Her contributions will remain in LFP archives for all to refer to. If anyone in the Langleys would wish to become the Langley School Board/Education LFP critic or anything else, email the LFP EDITOR or even contact Susan herself for info. Again, Susan thank you so very much, it's been indeed a pleasure! Following is Susan's final LFP submission. We welcome LFP reader comments, far below, wishing to thank Susan for her demonstrated passion for education excellence in the Langleys. - LFP EDITOR

Well readers, it is my time to say adieu to you. After the last Board meeting, I left so disappointed that despite the urgings of many people, I have decided not to run in the next election. It would be great if LFP is able to find someone to replace me as a contributor. I have enjoyed trying to give the public insight into the Board and advising you of issues.

Now, the antics at the Board table have become more of a gong show than ever expected. All I can say to whoever wins at the polls is start fresh - hold respect for the community who elected you and take the steps to correct past errors in changes to policy #1204.

I hope the discussion and debates will actually focus on reporting on real issues and developing constructive ideas on how to improve conditions within the school district. Please put aside your egos, grudges, hurt feelings, etc. and concentrate on what is important - delivering a high quality public education to each and every one of our students in this district. Dissolve the SDBC; and stop contributing money that can be used directly in the classroom to outside (at arm length) interest groups namely the School District Foundation. Let the Foundation stand on its own feet.

Request that the Ministry of Education amalgamate the electoral ballot for the Board of Education in School District 35 for the next election so that true voter parity and democracy can be served. Good luck to the students; I wish them all a well-balanced, high-quality education.

I leave you with a suggestion to improve the Board’s communication and behavior toward the public - that is, to lobby the Board to record into the Board meeting minutes all questions asked during question period along with the responses provided. This will give a snap shot for reference in the future. I believe this would also be a small step toward repairing what damage has been done and begin to restore the trust of the public in the Board of Education.

Thought of the day: Providing choice does have a cost. What must be determined is, is it really worth it?

So long, Adieu, Auf Wiedersehen

Susan Semonick...

Susan Semonick On Schools - How Sad - Summer Election Thoughts - June 29, 2008

AHHH !!! Election Madness.

I cannot believe that Alison McVeigh would not stand and run in the City to remain accountable to her electorate for her decisions. Instead, she has chosen to run where she is not known. Her excuse that she got flack the last time for running in the City is just that, an excuse. If she believed it to be right to do the last time, then none of the facts have changed, so why the switch?

She put a motion forth at the last board meeting to change school boundaries in Walnut Grove that really didn’t need to be changed. All the students wishing to go to West Langley Elementary were already attending the school because of the available space due to low enrolment there. It will not affect the enrolment at either school. Was this an action taken to get votes, in the hope that people in the north area would vote for her because she did what a few asked of her at a consultation meeting? Will she be able to make the hard decisions for the north area if there are any? Would she run back to the City in three years if the Township voters are not happy with her, hoping they have forgotten how she voted on the HD Stafford Secondary issue, especially since it does require substantially fewer votes to get elected?

There were a large number of voters asking her to vote differently than she did during this past year, at the very least to alter the process to a more respectful one, and it appears to some that she ignored their request. According to her announcement, she has no intentions of changing her ways. She is proud of what she has done Trustee Hogeterp is proud of what has been done this year also and will stand steadfast to ensure nothing changes. Were their decisions the best for the students? Time will tell, but till then public officials are to represent the wishes of the electorate.

The question to ask is - have the four involved in the major changes to the district done what the majority of the community wished? Or, have they voted with limited direction and personal opinion? If you are of the latter opinion, then don’t vote for them. It is time for change and there are an increasing number of people showing interest in replacing the current board. Whether they follow through is yet to be seen.

If McVeigh had stood her ground and faced the music, many more would respect her. I wonder if her advisors should take a hard second look at whether running from the music is a good move or not.

This type of thing only makes my suggestion of amalgamation of the electoral ballot even more important for the people to attain voter parity. The public officials who do not wish to remain accountable for their decisions would not have an easy out. You would have public officials accountable for their decisions on the district as a whole, (as it should be) instead of being able to slither into an alternate political office seat.

Voters - sign up at http://members.shaw.ca.amalgamateschoolboard/. This is where you can officially sign up to support this initiative to attain accountability and voter parity for the election of Board of Education trustee seats in School District #35. Let’s be the leaders in ending this lack of voter parity in government.

Respectfully
Susan Semonick

...

Susan Semonick On Schools - Trustees Board of Education Meeting Report of June 17, 2008

Another school board meeting under my belt. If you go to the school district web site and look at the strategic plan, the achievement plan and the district review report, you will have most of the info presented. If it’s not posted request it to be.

District Achievement Contract
One thing that struck me was the fact that it was stated that up to 200-grade eight students fail in numeracy each year because of the transition from elementary to high school. They are hoping that the middle school will reduce that number. Individual secondary school failure rates were not given.

Strategic Plan
Comments were made by one trustee about how well the district is doing and how all the documents are aligning to better improve student achievement. Interesting that unlike the District Achievement Plan which seems to be improving, the Strategic Plan document is going the other way. Why is the strategic plan a one-year plan? It used to be a document with a five-year scope – long term planning. Even the new District Achievement Plan is written to cover three years.

Why is the “development of a comprehensive plan of policy review administered by the Board” a ‘next step’ for 2008-2009 when it is already included in policy as one of the Secretary-Treasurer’s annual tasks? In fact, if I remember correctly, it was Trustee Hogeterp who was supposed to review policies during her past stint as trustee. Yes, it should have been done and still needs to be done - but isn’t it a given?

District Review Report
Dr. Keven Elder, superintendent of the Saanich School District presented his report.
http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/review/035-2008.pdf Again, a lot of back patting on the part of trustees.


Recommendations from the North Langley Consultations
There were boundary changes for West Langley and James Kennedy effective September 2009. What was stated was that it will only affect about 83 students so it is supposedly not a big deal. In my humble opinion any time anything affects students it should be considered a thing of importance. One trustee stated that she had not heard from anyone about this. There might be very good reason - they may have not known it was going to happen. Although, I do know that the PACs of the affected schools were given information beforehand that these recommendations would be going before the Board. Looking at what was done, I believe only the 40 or less now in the James Kennedy French Immersion courses will be unhappy if their child is not able to continue there. Since it is a district program, there is little chance of that though. West Langley is down in enrollment so this change may help or may not considering that the students that wish to go to WLE from this area already are.

Other Observations
There was a bit of barb throwing between Bech and Burton but other than that it was very uneventful.

Trustee Hogeterp is in full election mode, saying the same things numerous times. Considering the again jam-packed agenda with all the presentations slated, you would have thought that this trustee would have made her statements only once to allow an unhurried question period. When you become so repetitive people stop listening anyway.

Trustee McVeigh seems to be getting into election mode also with putting forward two motions dealing with energy management.

We heard from Trustee Ross more than usual also, to our disdain. He does get an ‘A’ for effort but an ‘I’ for content.

I am still working on the Indemnity review so it may be ready for September.

Hope the coming year proves to be a benefit for the children.

Respectfully Submitted
Susan Semonick...

Susan Semonick On Schools - Trustees Board of Education Meeting Report of May 20, 2008

Commentary on the Board of Education meeting of May 20, 2008.

Well, I have to admit that when I first saw the agenda I thought there would be nothing really to report here. However, once I received the meeting package, it was an interesting read.

The Board is now in the ‘pat everyone on the back’ mode. Whether it is ‘near the end of the school year’ syndrome or the election-year commentary starting, I am not sure. I always find it atrocious that they jam the Teacher Long-service recognition for over eighty teachers into a 30-minute time slot once a year. It happened again last month, and it was less than impressive considering it was to acknowledge considerable employee dedication to the district. The Board also sees it as appropriate to cut off anyone who takes more than 10 minutes for their presentation and yet, for themselves there is no timer. During the last few board meetings, trustees have spent a fair amount of their comment time patting themselves and colleagues on the back – taking approximately half of each meeting to have the public hear their opinions or commentary. Yet, delegations are ruthlessly limited to the allotted 10 minutes. It is sad that these elected officials are more interested in what they have to say rather than making time for their constituents.

During question period last night, the 6 or 7 people standing there with questions were limited to not more than 15 minutes in total, even though it was just past 9 pm. I believe they adjourned at 9:30 pm. There was no reason to rush to adjournment since meetings can go to 11pm. If a trustee needed to leave, they could have. Consideration of staff or trustee time should not supersede consideration of the public’s expectation to be able to satisfactorily address the Board at a public meeting. Staff and the board are remunerated; the public is not. I saw the adjournment as another act of the arrogance - that they didn’t have the time to hear anyone else’s questions asked of them. The Board chair should not allow this at all in my opinion. Yes, it is the Board’s meeting and there are rules. The Board can also choose to ignore or override those rules for the sake of building relationships, or simply because they choose to take the high road and reject petty shenanigans in favour of respectful behaviour, as we expect our students to do. Leaders should lead by example.

One trustee questioned the number of board meetings for next year - maybe hoping that there would be fewer? Is this maybe overconfidence that they will be re-elected so would need to worry about it?

Trustees do get another raise in December of this year, automatically, as do other districts. I am in the process of doing a review of the districts across the province about this. I must say it is very interesting. I may post results later this summer. It will be more thorough than what the public may have seen in the past.

CODE OF CONDUCT

The agenda item that is worth mentioning is the District Code of Conduct that the district staff presented to the board for information. It seems that this document had little to no consultation with interested partner groups or parents before last night. When questioned, district staff stated that the DPAC president was consulted. However, I was told that the Vice-presidents of DPAC, both in attendance at the board meeting, were not aware that the President of DPAC was consulted. So, I would say it was a very limited consultation. The partner groups said they were not consulted either. Several parents also stated that nothing was discussed at their DPAC meetings in regards to the District’s Code of Conduct. I wonder how many trustees even cared enough to ask about parent input.

It appears that the district thinks that little consultation is required when they are setting rules and codes for our children to follow. The district does plan to advise principals to review school rules and discipline practices with PACs and students on an annual basis. The problem is that the template or umbrella document they wish the schools to follow had no proper consultation to this point. From what I was advised by people at the meeting, it seems that there was essentially NONE.

I understand that all districts had plenty of notice to fulfill this Ministry requirement. Langley schools reviewed their respective codes of conduct last year. Principals met with district staff to work on the district document which presumably reflected what was already in schools’ codes of conduct and focused on common beliefs, principle goals, and general acceptable remediation strategies. For all the lip service from the district about valuing consultation, it is evident that this practice is still not an embedded part of the district’s culture. Consultation with partner groups, especially parents, should have also happened and been ensured BEFORE the document, which affects all students, was presented to the Board. The public was informed that it is a living document that will be discussed at Table 35, a round-table for students. I hope that those representatives at that table will properly consult with their respective memberships. People take note; you should request a copy so that input can be given.

Development of clearly articulated, open processes for consultation and adherence to them is important. Perhaps it would be helpful for the district to work on this over the summer. Expedience is not an acceptable excuse to not consult. Respectful discussion and consideration builds relationships.

A couple of years ago, during my time as DPAC president, we floated the idea of providing key district staff with magnets, note paper, or the like imprinted with the phrase “Have you consulted with parents?” or something similar. The intent was to provide them with a gentle, yet constant reminder of this key practice. I don’t remember why it never was done. In hindsight, it might have proven to be helpful, regardless of the cost or initial resistance. Perhaps, it is an idea that is still useful. I would think that there would be enough in the professional development budget or even the superintendent’s department budget to cover this. Money well spent if it changes practice and improves relationships.

As for the document itself, certain terminology in this guiding document should be discussed. For example, there seems to be an implied expectation for parents to support the school no questions asked. The district Code of Conduct includes the following expectation for students.

Ethical and Respectful Citizens - What this looks like…
“Making a Big Deal” with the purpose of accessing help for those in need (e.g. helping a classmate access counseling support)”

Of course, the Board showed what they thought of people “making a Big Deal” about the Special Ed Inquiry. They totally ignored them until the Minister stepped in and encouraged them to communicate. Good example people. Another case of “do as I say, not as I do”. Then on the next page it goes on to…

Ethical and Respectful Citizens - What this doesn’t look like …
Promoting hatred or discrimination (e.g. encouraging isolation of someone because of their ethnicity)

This district has selective courses that, if you are not of particular ethnic background, you are not allowed to participate. I had thought the purpose of a publicly paid education was to make available all curricula to all students registered. This is not the only district that practices this type of discrimination. The document goes on to say…

Democratic Participants - Would not …
Discriminate on the basis of gender, race, sexual orientation, culture, etc

Yet, don’t we offer courses that do just that? They then go on to say…

Self-directed Individual and Skilled and Knowledgeable Learners - What this looks like…
- Performing at an acceptable level in core subject areas

Who determines what this acceptable level is and what consequences are expected? If the district has listened to parents, they would know that expectation of staff differ from those of parents. Parents of special needs students in particular often comment on the low expectations of staff for their students. To have to sit at this meeting and listen to Board Members state how perfect and wonderful the code is makes me wonder if they even read it.
They go on to define what a Quality Contributors is.
To me, this section as a whole directs the student to be compliant, not to believe in Freedom of Speech and individual creativity. Students with learning differences may not be accepted here. Next, there is the following….

Consequences for Unacceptable Conduct: Advocacy…
Whenever possible or appropriate, an advocate or mentor (e.g. Parent, Special education case manager, aboriginal representative, etc) will be present with the youth during the discipline process.

Who determines when this is required? Has anyone checked to ensure this document does not contravene other policies currently in existence?

Remarks about the definitions list would lengthen this commentary by 3 more pages, so I will stop here. This document is not ready for schools to use as a template. It is a starting draft document not ready for adoption. Whether you agree or disagree, send your input to Mr. Lenarduzzi, Assistant Superintendent at: glenarduzzi@sd35.bc.ca. I believe he is the person in charge of this.

I hope this will help parents and the district make student policy and code (rules) that are non-discriminatory and something that does not contradict itself in beliefs.

It is important to note that the Graduate Profile upon which much of the document is based is currently under review.

As an aside, I wonder how many DPAC executives, and PAC representatives will query the performance of the DPAC president in the consultation process, and the lack of information provided to parents about the District Code of Conduct? I am told that there will be a change in DPAC leadership next year. A comparable change in the make-up of the Board of Education this coming election might be doubly welcome by many people judging by what I read in the local media.

UPDATE ON PROGRESS OF PETITION
I have received word in regards to the petition - that I have met criteria according to the MoE’s governance department and they have passed on the petition to the Minister for consideration. To anyone wishing to encourage the Minister to take action - this would be the time to contact her, especially all those people who are interested in regional boards, capping salaries and expenses, and amalgamation of ballots. Let her know that there are many, many more people who wish to see change in this area.

I thank all the people who have supported my initiative and thank them all for their time and efforts. I thank all the people who emailed and asked questions, and sent updates. I am glad that the information supplied to you has been helpful. Have a great summer people.

Afterthought…
What about the thunder on Tuesday? It reminded me of Saskatchewan. What an alarm clock! Everything shook - the kids thought it was an earthquake. Are you PREPARED?

Respectfully submitted

Susan Semonick...

Susan Semonick On Schools - Trustees Board of Education Meeting Report of April 15, 2008

The School Board meeting overview is available to view at the school board’s website and the Langley Times comments on the board meeting are viewable in their recent articles on-line and in print.

It seems that some recent Board meeting comments has pushed at least one trustee to the edge. A Trustee leaving the Board office after adjournment of the meeting was still overheard commenting on some of the statements made at the board meeting.

Some trustees may be comfortable in claiming that the remarks made were simply as a statement of what has happened in the past. But in the view of many of the people in the gallery, many comments were not considered to be constructive or helpful at all. People are told to move on, but then in turn patronizing comments are made that stir emotions up.

Any after the fact comments essentially characterizing poorly on the conduct and attitude of those parents who have been speaking out with concerns about what this board has decided to do with HD Stafford Secondary and the surrounding elementary schools is not high road in my opinion.

The question I have to ask is: Is the ability of taking the high road missing from this School Board’s leadership toolbox?

On other matters,

Concerned citizens still have not received the answers to their questions. In response to questions asked during Question Period, they were told that the answers could be found at the Budget Open House on Tuesday, April 22, 6:30 pm to 8pm at the school board office. I hope that Mr. Greenwood will be able to direct people to the proper part of the binders that will be available for viewing as per Chair Burton’s statement that it would be available to the public.

Just after the budget presentation, Mr. Burton made the following statements (taken from recorded transcripts). My general observations about his comments follow each statement.

Burton: "Would we like more money from the Provincial Government? Yes, we would.”

Susan: They need it for the automatic raises they will get again in December to top up the 34% raise and another 9.5% raise they have had since 2006.

Burton: “Was it easy to close five elementary schools and reconfigure Stafford? No. It would have been easier to do nothing, like some of the other districts and to cater to a vocal minority and let other students quietly go without added resources. "

Susan: Like when they made their decision to expand the fundamental program too soon.

Burton: “We could have left students in a split 5/6/7 class. We could have left some high schools to deteriorate so that they were not sustainable.”

Susan: Now they are likely to be split 3/4/5 classes. What is the difference? High schools - as they have done with Aldergrove Secondary? Will it be the next school closing or will it be another elementary? I suppose he meant sustaining DWP, as it was never included in the review.

Burton: “We have again this year decided to spend a large portion of the surplus on more services for special needs students.”

Susan: Why do they bother consulting anyone further about budget? Sounds like they have already made up their minds.

Burton: “We must however be careful of a trend in society and our community where special interest groups lobby only for their narrow focus.”

Susan: Special Interest Groups - isn’t that what environmentalists, anti-smoking campaign, parents of children with autism, anaphylaxis, etc. were called once? Isn’t that democracy in action? Haven’t society’s priorities changed for the better because of some of the SIGs? Aren’t they sometimes the conscience of society? What is he telling students?

Burton: “We as a board must continue to focus on all our students’ needs. That’s why I am proud of this budget and our long term planning as we are focused on the entire district."

Susan: Until they cap their indemnities when closing schools, I do not believe this is true of their focus no matter how proud the chair is.

Board Chair Burton also made some comments about the budgets of the City and Township in comparison to the budget of the Board of Education. Does he perhaps wish to see a similar reduction on those councils if the Board of Education was to be reduced by two trustees, considering the size of the budgets each deals with? That may be a thought, or better yet make the Board of Education regional. This move would save us millions in tax dollars that could be put into classrooms and health care. Would that be the best move for our students and community? That is left to be seen. It appears many of the politicians in this community are afraid to even discuss these items in a public forum.

The Board does spend a major amount of our tax dollars. That is why it is important that you have a board that listens to its public, not criticize them every chance they have. Not one of the trustees has yet publicly stated an individual objection to the amalgamation of the electoral ballot though. Perhaps this is the one issue upon which there is consensus on the Board? Wouldn’t that be ironic?

The Board seems to believe that it can shoot off letters to universities to tell them what to teach our teachers, but when it comes to advising the Minister of Education about what would best serve their public, the Board states that this is not within their mandate. Strange isn’t it, that when the rubber hits the road, how flat this board has become. It is time for a tire change people. Remember, even if you reside in the City you can run in the Township for a trustee seat and vice-versa. Many people are saying ‘enough is enough.’ Let’s do something about it. Get the public out to the polls. Make sure everyone l8 yrs old and over gets their voices heard. Better yet, go to http://members.shaw.ca/amalgamateschoolboard/ and sign the petition. Or, let us know where you stand with amalgamation, yes or no -- reduction of two trustee seats, yes or no - via e-mail at amalgamateschoolboard@shaw.ca.

The changes this board makes determines the future of our children. Voters should realize the impact the Board of Education can have and make the changes necessary at the ballot box to get a board that actually represents its people.Thanks to this board, a growing number of the public are becoming even more critical of trustee actions than ever in the past. It is looking like it is only their personal opinion that trustees are interested in addressing. One trustee felt it necessary to cover their face in an act to show total frustration when some members of the public asked questions. That trustee should reconsider their decision to re-run. It seems the four who made the difficult decision on reconfiguration are done. Are they perhaps burnt out and should they take a long-deserved break and let others make the decisions for our youth? It seems that the long speeches they are making now in an attempt to substantiate their recent decisions only serve to infuriate the public who do not want to waste time on politicking during time allotted for district business.

Update from last report
I received the information I had requested in regards to the March 28th meeting. Apparently, the particular trustee’s e-mail was not working at the time although other board members did receive the email request. I thank Mr. Greenwood for his expediency in sending the pertinent information during a time when he is swamped with the budget.

Building for the Future report for North Langley
Mr. McAvoy’s report can be read here.
I will wait to comment until after the June 17th board meeting when the district staff reports back to the board with their recommendations. There was mention of middle schools, new schools, and expansion of REMSS. Now we wait to see what Senior Management comes up with out of this report. James Kennedy Elementary parents might want to be on the watch for a boundary change on the east side of its catchment area.

Special Needs Follow-up
There was a lot of talk about what the district is doing to meet the needs of the identified special needs students. Needless to say, the various partner groups have differing opinions on this. The report can be found here.

Proposed budget
An interesting note - apparently I failed to realize that we must add to the cost of a trustee, Canadian Pension Plan contributions to the tune of $7,279, which comes out to 1,039.86 per trustee. I think that amounts I stated regarding the saving from reducing the number of trustees is closer to the reality of $50,000 for two trustees.

Other News
Student Appeals Process
It appears that there could be a motion to delay consideration of the Student Appeals motion until the June meeting in order for partner groups to have adequate time for input. Good idea and parents should take note. Much like policy 1204 which not many took notice of until too late, this policy could affect many families and needs to be scrutinized to ensure student and parent rights and obligations are made plain and simple. The parameters should be clearly defined in understandable language. A preliminary look at the draft policy suggests that further work needs to be done to achieve this.

Respectfully Submitted.
Susan Semonick

Susan Semonick Presents Efficiency Savings Proposal to Langley School Board

At yesterday's Langley School board meeting Susan Semonick, vocal school board critic, LFP columnist and former DPAC (Langley school District Parents Advisory Council) President formally presented her case for obtaining effiencies in reducing the quantity of school board trustees on the Langley School Board. She will report on yesterday evening's school board meeting herself very shortly on LFP. Stay tuned for Susan. Just above is a partial picture slideshow of part of the evening. To view Susan Semonick's actual documents, mouseclick Susan's slide presentation and also it's accompanying Susan's slide presentation transcript. Langley Times Reporter Natasha Jones has excellent coverage on Susan's presentation in today's Times too. If you agree with Susan go see her petition site and sign up.

Photos courtesy of Bob Richter

Susan Semonick On Schools - April 2, 2008 - Trustees Board of Education Meeting Report (March 27, 2008)

For the Board’s synopsis of the meeting please go to this link at SD 35:

Here is what is not included in the district’s Board News (in no particular order)….

TRUSTEE CANDIDACY

Hattie Hogeterp announced she would be running in the next election. I understand that she no longer works for the Community School Programs at Shortreed and ACSS. At least there will not be a question of conflict of interest on that point this coming election. There is a BCCPAC resolution being discussed with the Ministry dealing with situations such as this and a request to expand the definition of employee.

DID A TRUSTEE REALLY ADMIT LACK OF AWARENESS?

A trustee openly admitted during Trustee Comments that she was obviously not aware of what she voted on to approve at least at one of the Board meetings. After listening to my presentation on the 2008/09-budget proposal, in which I suggested the elimination of a trustee allocation for computer equipment, she openly stated she was not aware that she could be reimbursed for a computer she had just purchased. Clearly, the board minutes of June 20, 2006 record Trustee McVeigh’s motion regarding the automatic trustee raises in December of each year as well as the technology allocation. Scary, is it not, that someone would approve something that they have no complete idea of the content or ramifications that such approval would have on the budget? Sound familiar folks? In my opinion, it appears that one could extrapolate that perhaps some trustees make decisions without knowing what the cost of raising their hand will be. This is what was approved at the June, 20 2006 board meeting ………….

1. The indemnity rate effective July st, 2006 be increase to
Trustee $13,000..As of December 1st 2007 Trustee Indemnity was increased to $16,886
Vice-Chair $14,000...........................................$17,886
Chair $15,000....................................................$18,886
One-third of indemnity rate is non-taxable expense allowance as per the Income Tax Act.

2. (a) The Trustee indemnity rate be adjusted every December 1st to be the average of eight lower mainland School Districts, including: Abbotsford, Delta, Richmond, Burnaby, New Westminister, Maple Ridge, North Vancouver and Langley.

(b) Every three (3) years the trustee indemnity rate be reviewed to ensure the current value is comparable with school districts of comparable size.

3. As required, trustees be provided with technology resources deemed necessary by the Board. Any technology equipment provided by the District would be returned to the District, upon termination of their role as Trustee. There was a claim of at least $1500.00 according to Mr. Greenwood. I wonder if the Board Member is not re-elected how quickly items will be returned?

4. (a) Starting at the beginning of the next term for elected trustees, access to School District Health Plans be available to trustees with individual trustees assuming full cost of the premiums.

(b) The current trustee cost-sharing of Health Plan premiums ( 25% Trustee, 75% School District) be phased-out over the balance of the term:

June, 2007 50%Trustee/50% School District . At the budget open house last year it
appeared that the reduction was still not applied it was stated it would be corrected.Wonder how they process that refund back to the district?

June, 2008 75% Trustee/25% School District.

Is this perhaps another thing that voters might want to consider before marking their ballots come November?

This board also believes that this has no relation to the current policy #1400 in existence it apparently is unrelated. How that can be when it is about Indemnity has me questioning their ability to conduct simple business.

It states: “ The annual trustee indemnity may be reviewed each year at a public meeting in June.
The indemnity shall normally be paid on a bi-weekly basis with two-thirds (2/3) considered indemnity and one-third (1/3) considered as expense.
A Trustee who resigns prior to completing his term of office, shall refund on a pro-rated basis any indemnity received for his unexpired term of office to the Board.”

If this is related to the same topic, has this Board acquired raises by side stepping change of policy procedures to attain major raises before their end of term? All this while they are closing schools to create revenue.

REDUCTION OF TWO TRUSTEE SEATS

One trustee wanted to get to the “truth of the matter” about my proposal to reduce two trustee seats on the board. This of course is my favorite subject and I have spent obviously more time analyzing this than any person challenging my numbers although they are the ones making decisions - how sad.

To the surprise of few people used to dealing with the school district, there is a difference between how they calculate cost and how “regular folks” determine cost. They just spew out the figures for the trustee indemnity and budgeted trustee expenses. Like most other people, I include all expenses reasonably attributable to having an extra trustee, regardless of which budget line item it is included in – after all, there is only ‘one envelope’ as the Board is so fond of saying.

Here goes my version of what is fact. The base indemnity is currently $16,886 of which one-third is tax-free. Trustees also have a $1,800.00 expense allowance for which they must supply receipts. One trustee overspent her allowance by three times in 2006. There seems to be an individual allocation but it appears that if you don’t spend it another trustee can spend it for you – a communal pot so to speak - nice. Therefore, the basic cost of one trustee is approximately $18,686.00 using simple math and information easily accessible. For two trustees the basic cost would be about $37,372.00, or as the Secretary-Treasurer stated about $35,000. Funny how it seems when the District gives costs they round down instead of up.

Then you have the other costs, which the district does not seem to recognize as costs of having a trustee, perhaps because they are included in other budget departments. These are:

Conferences $350.00 x 3 per year on average for each
Photocopying/ Office $100.00 / Trustee / year
Courier $500.00 / Trustee/ year
Meals during meetings $100.00 / Trustee/ year covers about 5 meetings per year
Retirement dinner $30.00 per plate
Staff time paper work (cheques) instruction, research estimated cost --- 2,500.00

They also have Mileage coverage of .50/km Average distance traveled 14 km per meeting one way.

Meal allowances while on district business of Breakfast $10.00 Lunch $12.00 Dinner $20.00 Full Day $50.00 Overnight allowances or miscellaneous incidental expenses $8.00/ night.

Hotel costs covered when they attend conferences.

The above are estimated and included in other budget line items like Pro-D, office expenses, superintendent’s budget allocation, etc. but I believe my estimates are reasonable and generously low, based upon the figures provided in the proposed budgets that I have seen and comments from trustees who explain that trustees attend an average of three conferences a year. Trustee packages are photocopied and couriered to them each Friday. Periodically throughout the year, meals are brought in for trustee meetings.

Then there is the possible raise they will receive in December 2008 that I estimate reasonably to be about 4.5% considering that their last automatic increase this past December 2007 was close to 9.5%. This would be approximately $760.00 at 4.5% and about $1604 at 9.5%.

Then you would have to add the cost of any technology equipment that I would estimate could be about $1,400 for a computer and software. Although, as noted above, if trustees do not know what they voted for, perhaps the district could save some money.

There are likely other incidentals embedded in other departmental budgets that I have not gotten around to figuring out yet. So, my $50,000 estimate Calculated in September 2006 isn’t that far off is it? Had they reduced the number of trustees before the refurbishment of the Boardroom, the district could have also saved the cost of two extra microphones and two new comfortable executive chairs.

Regardless of what the final figure may be, let us see that potential annual savings going to the students. I, for one, will admit a mistake (error) if one has been made, unlike others.

Numbers about the size of boards of educations, student enrolment, and geographic area in other districts, were thrown about by one trustee. I will have a more comprehensive report about this at a later date. Suffice it to say at this time that the district and I do not share the same analysis of the data available.

There you have it. I don’t even receive an indemnity and have figured this one out. Maybe if the focus were on giving the facts and not trying to discredit someone, it would make more sense.

Now back to what matters. This is truly, one way in which any district could direct more money into the classrooms. This is not debatable - it is a fact. At any given time I would rather see fewer politicians if it meant better education for a student. Overseeing a school district is a complicated business and requires more than the simple math some trustees seem to be doing. This does not make for good decision-making. Electing fewer, better educated trustees is more palatable option than having a greater number of trustees with less than stellar accounting skills and common sense – quality over quantity, as is being demonstrated in other school districts.

BUDGET OPEN HOUSE

The Budget Open House will be held on April 22 from 6:30 to 8 PM at the School Board Offices (see calender at the bottom of this blog for map & details). Please attend this event so you can see for yourself what the base cost of a trustee to date is....

Susan Semonick On Schools - March 19, 2008 - Langley Board Correcting Mistake

Finally, it appears that Langley Board of Education is admitting to a mistake and is taking action to correct it, even if it is after the Minister of Education had to make them see reason. The Board has extended an invitation to meet with members of the Special Needs Steering Committee. The meeting is to take place, some would say fittingly, on April 1, 2008.

Now, if only other actions could be corrected before major cost is incurred and/or damage is done. We currently have a Board of Education that, during its term, has purchased an old school, spent considerable funds to refurbish and upgrade it, and are now closing other schools that I have been told are newer. This Board has also approved a non-comprehensive curriculum to be offered at Langley Fundamental Middle Secondary School. Does that meet their mandate to improve student achievement? How does this simple streamlining of course offerings and limiting choice benefit these students, when in all of the arguments to date for other areas in the school district, the mantra has been to create more choice?

With respect to the Building for the Future Consultations that school communities have endured, we have Board members making public comparisons between various groups of constituents and deeming two completely different scenarios as the same situation when in fact one geographic area was treated completely differently than the other. You would think it would be appropriate for Board members to admit that maybe one area consultation was handled to meet the needs of a community and the process given adequate time while the other was not. Or, has the community in compliance with (or submission to) the majority of the Board's wishes for their area, been promised things that will not happen? Time will tell and I hope that these decisions are not detrimental to the students involved.

Many have suggested to me that in all likelihood those currently sitting on the Board will not be re-elected. Everyone should be gravely concerned in regards to the ability of those board members should they have the nerve to stand for re-election. Was making these comparisons truly appropriate behaviour by an elected official? Have they breached their Code of Conduct? Is this an example of how they make decisions that are life altering to the students? If your own answers to any of these questions are disconcerting to you as parents and/or as taxpayers, I hope you make your voice heard when elections roll around in November. Perhaps you will have the opportunity to vote for new candidates who will have open minds.

I have previously requested that the Langley Board of Education have a public forum to openly discuss the possibility of amalgamation of electoral areas so that every voter in the school district can vote for all of the Board members (trustees). Let us also discuss the reduction of two seats so that the savings of an estimated $50,000 per annum can be placed back into the classroom.

Supporting our Students
Susan.Semonick
SoS

...

Susan Semonick On Schools - Feb 28, 2008 - Victoria Ministry Of Education Trip (feb 25)

Monday, 5am. I am up and on my way to catch the car pool going to the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal. Here is part of the group who were there (mouse click picture to enlarge it).

Once in Victoria, we met with others who were all excited that finally someone in government is taking the time to listen. The reason for the trip was to bring to the government's attention issues in special education that are not helping to ensure that students with learning differences are provided adequate services.

We sat in the gallery of the legislature while the Opposition Critic for Education, David Cubberley, put forward questions asking why the Ministry of Education is not addressing the Special Needs Inquiry's recommendations wholeheartedly.

Transcript of Mr. Cubberley's query during question period can be viewed here online .

A small group of teachers and parents were also able to meet briefly with the Minster of Education, Shirley Bond. I was not part of the group, but from speaking afterwards with parents who were there, they were shocked to learn that the Minister was under the opinion that the Langley Board of Education had agreed to speak with the Special Education Steering Committee. It seems there was a significant discrepancy between what the Minister understood to be the case and what the teachers and parents knew to have taken place at the last Board meeting. Apparently, the Minister took immediate action to clear up the matter and I applaud her for that. I am not aware of the result of her attempt to get clarification, but I expect that the LTA and the Board will hear about it soon enough. It was interesting to observe that the Ministry has similar communication difficulties with this Board as parents have had.

One person suggested the new motto for the board is "YES, we are for communication but we don't have to listen or do. We would rather let others make those decisions." I ask, if this is true, they have no purpose so why not get rid of them? Boards of Education have to stand up and be counted. They have been elected to ensure that all students within their district become educated citizens. Any trustee who says that the needs of all students are being met should not be re-elected or elected for that matter. Where are the elected voices for our students?

We arrived home at 10 pm. It was a long day - the weather was nice and the ferry trip gave me time to speak with parents and teachers who actually have to use the system that is in place. It gave me a fairly good picture of where the rubber hits the road.

We, the community as a whole, must recognize that the education system is failing special needs children in the public education system. These children are a growing population of our future. If we do not meet their needs, they will be incapable of meeting ours in the future. The Minister of Education needs to look at the Special Needs Inquiry report and address more than the issue of excessive paper work requirements.

Other news is that after the last board meeting there seems to be avid interest in replacing the current board. I surely hope that a trustee will bring back the motion that was defeated at the last meeting so we can hear the position of all trustees. A motion defeated because of a tie vote should be revisited and a renewal of the motion is entirely appropriate. Not only is it in the best interest of students, this will also help the public to make a decision at election time. It made me make mine. The rumor mill is tuning up and it is only March - 260 days and counting.

Respectfully submitted
Susan Semonick...

Susan Semonick On Schools - Feb 24, 2008 - Board of Education Meeting (Feb 19)

There were about 100 people in attendance. Trustee Hogeterp was absent due to a death in her family. My condolences go out to her and her family.

Presentations

1. Performance by HD Stafford students entitled “Once Upon a Mattress” Tickets on sale now for the musical at HD Stafford Secondary. Go to http://www.sd35.bc.ca/hds/MattressPoster.pdf for full details.

2. There was a presentation on the Trades programs offered in the district. More info can be found at: http://www.sd35.bc.ca/Programs/career_ed/contents.htm

3. The award winning team from Lochiel U-Connect shared two of their recent successes in computer animation and robotics. These students appear to excel in this area. The Lochiel technology initiatives continue to prosper under the guidance of teacher John Harris. The students are trying to raise funds to attend Tokyo for the first Lego League Asian Open championship, April 27th to 29th. Lochiel U-Connect is a distributed learning education choice (home schooling) in our district. For more information on this school go to: http://www.sd35.bc.ca/uconnect

Delegations

1. Langley Special Education Steering Committee jointly requested that the Board meet with them in a facilitated meeting to discuss district issues and how they as a group could address the issues facing special needs children. Having read the Special Education Inquiry report, I have to admit that there are ten district-related recommendations that need to be discussed in this report by this Board and their partners.

A Board motion was made at the end of the meeting that actually deserves separate billing for what occurred is very, very important. (See motion below) It gives the fundamental reasons why the three trustees who voted the way they did to defeat Trustee Bech’s motion should not be re-elected. They do not understand the fundamental basics of their purpose. They have their heads so far in the sand their air tubes are not working.

The LTA is planning a bus trip on February 25th to Victoria to the BC legislature to see Minister Shirley Bond in regards to the Board not meeting expectations of PARENTS, LTA, DPAC and CUPE 1260.

2. Robert McFarlane gave a presentation on what he was able to determine was the financial cost for reconfiguration, since the District still has not been able to produce those figures. What is apparent is that the Board and staff are not communicating the needed information in order for the parents to be able to accept what the intent of the Board’s actions will be on the students. Not one Board member who has voted in favor of the reconfiguration in South/Central has done a good job of explaining the facts that made them vote the way they did, nor what they see as the final results and benefits for the students will be. All they have said is “there will be.” I have heard from many that the only information they have received is long boring gibberish with no content from each of them prior to them voting. They have also received a large amount of inconsistent terms, numbers, stats and opinions from the staff and Board members. Much of the frustration I see is from the inconsistency in the information being given, other than it will be a good thing, with no solid explanation that parents can understand as to how.

3. Tracie Northway did a presentation on Transitioning in School District #35. The purpose of the presentation was “ To share the predominant themes identified by some South/Central Langley families as both motivators and barriers to transitioning to the planned reconfigurations” How has this affected the families? “Families describe experiencing feelings of
- Abandonment
- Marginalization
- Motivation
To protect our children
To see fair and equitable treatment across this district”

She ended her presentation with a quote from Martin Luther King Jr. “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”

RIGHT ON Tracie. For all the meetings I have attended with Tracie Northway, I must say she is one of the parents who has always been consistent. She cares what happens to the children and strives for understanding of what is truly happening. What do you say to giving Mr. Burton a run for his seat in the next election, Tracie?

4. Rosemary Wallace started with a moment of silence. I took this as a minute of silence in remembrance of what HD Stafford was. What I understood Rosemary to be saying is that they still are worried for their children. They are still waiting for answers and she stated “We the Stafford community are stressed, confused, hurt, angry and frightened with what lies ahead. …… Left in the dark … Lack of space lack of resources… This transition will be difficult … it is challenging for everyone involved. My child is not a number, her sister is not a number her friends are not numbers … I am saddened by this change and see no need for it. … Please do what it takes to make this work. We have gone through enough… We will move forward…”
My comments: Placing a child into a large populous setting, when they are used to a small setting, will be a big change. Yes, the children may be overwhelmed for a bit. What is a reality is that LSS and HDS will now experience what Brookswood, Walnut Grove, Langley Fine Arts, R.E. Mountain and yes even the Fundamental middle have experienced and lived with. Each year the grade 8s, about one-fifth of the secondary school population, experiences a significant transition and most do fine. My concern is when you put such large numbers of children adjusting to the same thing at the same time what will be the fall-out? All the other schools had gradual growth. When will the parents actually see the benefits of what has been done? 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, or for that matter the detriment. In any case, it will be long after this current board is gone.

5. Susan Semonick (myself) - to see slide slow go to pdf found here. I asked when this Board would dissolve the Langley School District Business Company. Since one trustee has publicly stated that they run things as a business, I asked - If this is true, then when will they start making fiscally sound decisions that do not affect the classroom?

I would like to thank all the presenters and delegations that have supplied me copies of their presentations so that I can accurately quote them.

Strategic Plan, Facilities Update

· Competitive trades areas now updated and functional - at LSS, plumbing, carpentry and auto technicians and at ACSS, hairdressing. No cost mentioned.

· APEX alternative programming for secondary students - refurbishing now complete, cost not mentioned.

· Full K-12 program now offered for the fundamental program. Langley Fundamental Middle Secondary will not be a comprehensive school. They have a capacity of 780 but they are not full yet. Which leaves me with many questions, one being who exactly is on this supposed waitlist? If our readers will remember, the whole reason for the expansion of the program in the first place was to be able to clear the waitlist. I wonder if the waitlist for the fundamental program only consists of 10 year olds and younger; but then Coghlan is not full. Perhaps, most on the waitlist are under 5 years old. No one really has been told. Parents are supposed to reconfirm intent each spring, but who knows if the lists are reviewed by the district.

So now, LFMSS is going to fill the school by offering a program that will not be comprehensive and will only offer electives that involve computers (maybe). If this is a middle school as well, then why are these students not offered exploratories as in the middle school model? What happened to the middle school philosophy here? Has anyone heard anything? Is the Board’s stance that in this case it is only a housing configuration and that the 6 – 8 teachers here will not be implementing the middle school philosophy? We now have full schools. There is no cross-utilization of space available for the Fundamental program that is located so close or could there be? They do have a gym now and a science wing. The lower grades will be offered arts, drama, music, and the use of science labs. Use of gymnasium will be limited due to population.



· The new K-5 fundamental elementary has a 450-student capacity. There was no mention of whether this was full or not.

· Relocation of the Pass program, Route 32 (grades 6-8 students), and the Alternative to Suspension program to the Anderson site is now complete.

· Hannah Centre has been moved to Noel Booth.


Middle School program in Aldergrove

There were three recommendations that the Board approved:

1. Receive the report on the delivery of a middle school program in Aldergrove.

2. Betty Gilbert will be a 6-8 middle school and Aldergrove Secondary will become a 9-12 school with Parkside and Shortreed Elementarys as K-5 schools starting September 2009. ( If only all our students had this luxury of time which was all that HD Stafford had started with asking for. Aldergrove area was the first area to have consultations for Building for the Future with a quick closure of Aldergrove. Then a two year transition period time to the middle. This was the recommendation from other districts that have chosen the middle school route.)

3. Establishment of a steering committee to deal with transition issues. They have been meeting with the PACS all along to develop a transition plan for the changes to the schools. It appears to be working well.

Some say that the community was only presented with the options of accepting the middle school concept or closing even more schools. The greatest concerns I had heard at the Aldergrove Consultation meetings was that parents did not want middle schools, but they wanted to know their options. They definitely did not want female Grade 6’s interacting with 16 year olds and older. Now, the Board has approved ACSS becoming a 9-12 school, with an adult education classes offered in the school for the LEC program. LEC only involves 48 students at present ranging from the age of 16 to 20 years.

The middle school at Betty Gilbert will be sharing with ACSS the space for elective instruction like woodwork, sewing, cooking etc. because the school is located just across the field. This means there will now be 11 year olds, in the same facility with students up to 20 year olds. Granted, they would not be in the class at the same time. It appears from the lack of response from parents that they must have been assured that their previous concerns have been addressed. I tried to speak to one of the PAC presidents about this, but our conversation was interrupted by a man that I believed to be the principal, who was more than willing to explain it to me. I am not convinced that what I was told was not a snow job. Unless the district is truly only housing bodies, it does little good to throw out a line of edu-babble so it sounds good, and more, and better, when in reality it will be a minus, because of younger students having more interaction with older peers than any of us would like to think. In my opinion, you cannot prevent interaction when there is familiarity.

Budget

My take on the budget is that the recommended mid-year enhancements to programs and services should include mention of the 9% raise to Trustee Indemnities.

Total budget surplus is $252,714 which staff will be recommending be carried to the 2008/09 provisional budget. Would it not be nice to add to the surplus with an additional $50,000 that could be had if they would reduce the number of trustee seats, or for that matter stop taking raises?

The changes to the Grade 10 –12 funding by the Ministry cost the district $271,706 of budget monies already committed.

According to the report, total revenue for the Feb. 2008 reporting is $151,736,020. The district will not know whether there will be additional holdback funding until probably May but have removed the originally anticipated holdback of over $510,000 from the budget. Anticipated expenses have increased by $1,111.189 from what was projected in April 2007. That amount includes the trustee indemnity increase of 9%. If I have read the report correctly, according to schedule A4.1 the budgeted amount for trustee indemnity is $111,358.00 for this year. They spent an additional of $6,658 on benefits and other costs total $106,015.00. In total, the trustees who will not even talk with partner groups when requested cost are expected to cost the district $224,031; almost the same amount that they made for closing Bradshaw. So, you could look at it as… is this current board, or any board for that matter, worth the closure of a school?

CommunityLINK grants have gone up from $1,755,000 to $1,814,625. I hope the increase in funds means a real increase in services to students.

So have I said it often enough yet? THIS BOARD SEES FIT TO GIVE ITSELF RAISES and run a Business Company that has shown losses WHILE THEY ARE CLOSING SCHOOLS.


Transportation

Two 15- passenger vans have been in use in the district. DW Poppy has a 17-year old Dodge, and Brookswood Secondary has a 6-year old GM. These two vehicles were donated; therefore, no capital costs to the district. As of January, use of 15-passenger vans is not allowed in the district until clearer directions on the safety of such vehicles is provided by the provincial government. How has the district addressed the need to maintain this service and what is the additional cost that was incurred? Perhaps the government should be subsidizing the districts this amount.

Per regulations attached to Policy #3850,

Walk limits, as determined by the District shall be:
K-7 3.2 kms
8-12 4.8 kms
To a bus stop K-12 3.2 kms

With these district limits, I wonder how many families will have one child who will be provided busing and one who has to walk to the same school, since the district now has not one but three middle schools - two 6 - 8s and one 6-12.

I am also curious as to how this walk limit of 3.2 kms to the bus stop will affect the service for students going to HDSM and those going to LSS. How will these district limits be applied to the students in the south of the district?

The other concern is the capacity of the buses. Does a 72-passenger bus carry 72 elementary students (3 to a seat) and only 48 secondary students (2 to a seat)? What about when there are elementary, middle, and secondary students together? Same question for the 36-passenger bus. I have sent these questions to the district. We will see if I get an answer before posting time.

Locally Approved Titles
Five books - Making Sentences, Uglies, Pioneer Sounds, Longman Science text, and The Wave. The last title is the only one that may have controversy due to the Nazism and Fascism content.

Trustee Bech’s Motion re Special Education Inquiry Report
Motioned by Bech Seconded by Cody

“That the Board of Education schedule at least an hour, within two weeks, to meet with representatives of the three partner groups that recently sponsored a public inquiry into the services for students with special needs in Langley.”
3 – 3 tie vote. Ross, McVeigh, and Burton in opposition. (Hogeterp absent)

The main argument from the three in opposition was that the concerns were provincial issues not within their control as trustees and that it was the Ministry’s role to be dealing with the unions on those matters. They did not want to step outside their realm of authority.

Trustee Bech’s question was – The worst that could happen would be that they might learn something.
Tr. Burton asked - on what we should cut to add more money from the budget to special needs?

Here you go, just to start. Readers, please post in comments, any suggestion and I will ensure they are delivered to the Board at the Budget Open House, which is on April 22, 2008. You can also email the district at: budget@sd35.bc.ca

Here are just three suggestions to get taxpayers going.

1. Stop all future raises on indemnity to the trustees until the students' needs are met.
2. Dissolve the School District Business Company.
3. STOP all donations of time, money, and resources to an outside public foundation, namely the Langley School District Foundation. Let it stand on its own merits.

Interesting to note that the Board News put out by the district does not include any mention of Trustee Bech’s motion which I would think was a significant part of the Board meeting and was actual business as opposed to presentations by district staff or students.

The fact that the Board as a whole has decided not to meet with the coalition does not stop the three trustees who were in favor of meeting with the group from doing so as individual trustees. This will enable them to add information to the Board discussions during budget time.


Trustee Comments

Trustee McVeigh spoke yet again about the Wine and Cheese Gala. It sounded like it was mostly district staff who attended. The event made less than $50,000 for the Summerland Program. I wonder what happened to Trustee Ross’s wish to increase business contacts. Have they maxed out Langley’s businesses? Have the number of donors decreased since the start of the Foundation? I was under the impression that we were still booming and that the Chamber of Commerce was happy with development in our area over all.

You know where I sit with this. A paid school district employee does the work for this foundation and makes about $47,000 plus expenses and benefits. So, did they make $50,000 more for the children or just redirect funds from the students in the classroom to feed specialty programs? How they spend what they “make” is determined by a small group of people who are not elected officials. There are two trustees on this directorship but they are not to hold a majority due to it being a public foundation. When did the electorate re designate those two officials Ross and McVeigh to have carte blanche with about $175,000 annually of education money with no accountability to its constituents? In reality, this is exactly what is happening. What amount of income from outside sources should warrant the cost of this staff? Most non-profit organizations make millions before they start hiring don’t they? At least the ones I have been involved with have to reach a certain income level before any reimbursement or the use of hired staff is considered. To date, I believe this employee position has not been proven to be warranted, especially if you show costs versus actual income from outside sources. The reason they wanted the person in the first place was to generate “profit”, NOT revenue, which does not mean anything if costs are too high. It appears that it probably never will be cost efficient. It is almost a parallel story to the SDBC the money that is being invested that will never see a profitable return.

Question Period

There were 6 -7 questions permitted. They adjourned at 11:05 pm with two left standing waiting to ask questions. I am sorry but I could not discern the exact questions asked.
I know the LTA President stated it was not the LTA asking for a meeting but rather a coalition of partners asking for a meeting.

One parent asked for a meeting and was given the answer – “We do meet with parents.” Not really an answer right?

I asked where the District was in regards to their discussions with Township and City with respect to crosswalks and sidewalks in the hot spots around the district. I had not seen any mention of this in either of the Township or City’s budgets. If it was not in either of their plans, I would think it is very unlikely it would be done. Maybe Kim Richter can give us some insight into this? I was told it is still in the discussion stage - so what exactly is being discussed. I know of an overpass for the RE Mountain area, but I am talking further south than that.


As always respectfully submitted by

Susan Semonick...

Susan Semonick On Schools - Feb 24, 2008 - LSS Capacity Presentation (feb 14)

LSS Capacity - Presentation at HDS on Feb. 14th

I listened to Mr. Greenwood’s presentation on capacity at LSS. It sounds as if LSS will definitely be full next year. It will be a larger population for everyone to get use to, not only the students coming from HDS but the LSS students also. If you are looking for a school with a smaller population, that would be D W Poppy or Aldergrove Community Secondary School.

The District does not have any concerns in regards to accommodating the population that will be at LSS. They are expecting no more than 1221 students and according to Mr. Greenwood, LSS will be able to accommodate 1360 students based on their own calculations that include placing up to 30 students in most classrooms. [The MoE’s nominal capacity is calculated at 25 students per regular classroom.] The plans include using the lacrosse box as classroom space, removing the bleachers out of the large gym and placing a divider in to make two classrooms, as well as using the four portables that are on site. The media centre that was located at LSS has been moved to Simonds Elementary.

What is very frustrating for many is that it seems there is no standard of reference being used for all of the information being provided by the district. Depending on whom you talk to, you get different numbers with little to no consistency, as is reflected in recent newspaper articles. No wonder there is little to any trust in what is being said. The district’s staff have to all get on the same page because the inconsistency in information being delivered is making a poor situation even worse. GET TOGETHER PEOPLE - improve the communication. Provide accurate and correct information; know what other staff are saying. Use a cheat sheet – talking points, if you have to, in order to be able to explain why and under which circumstance there will be a maximum of 1150 students at LSS, or 1400, or 1350, or 1220, etc. Get it together people.

In their presentation they mentioned that a percentage of students are expected to drop out of school, a number of students are expected to leave the district and some to return to their own catchment areas. What is sad is that the dropout rate seems to be commonplace and accepted as the norm. When a child drops out of school before becoming an adult I believe this is where ZERO TOLERANCE should be applied and this so-called accepted dropout rate not to be considered the norm.

I have to say that the LSS parents who were present, in particular two men whom I will assume were fathers, did make the meeting a bit tense. It was very obvious that one did not like the other. One student from LSS addressed the audience with her concerns about the volume of students in the halls now, let alone what it will be next year. One parent from LSS who was present seemed to have their focus on discrediting any concerns that were expressed. Good on Tracie for addressing this person and stating that it was really inappropriate what this one particular parent was doing. Shortly after, I had to leave so I am not sure if this parent became respectful of the others in the room.

I would like to thank the parents of South/Central for ensuring that I am kept up-to-date on what is happening and inviting me to their meetings. I hope the perspective I have provided on things has been of help.

The Fundamental Middle Secondary School program will no longer have use of facilities at LSS according to LSS administration. I guess if we are to think outside of the box, LFMSS could do night school for woodworking, etc. (possibly). This means that these students definitely will have the basic of basics in education unless the district finds more money to renovate the seven million-dollar baby. LFMSS students will be left with applied skills courses mostly in the computing and business areas. With all the choices in secondary schools now, I do not think this would be a wise choice for many students. Employers, to the best of my knowledge, are looking for people who are well rounded and balanced to a certain extent in knowledge and experience. I see these students as being at a disadvantage due to parent choice not student need. You do not see many, if any, students jumping up and down to attend Fundamental but you do for Athletics, Arts, Drama, Trades & Technology, Film, Law etc…

I hope that due to the current state of this Board, voters will be able to find replacements who will better serve their public and the needs of our students. We need fresh voices, new direction and people who are not afraid to change the way this Board does business.

Respectfully submitted,

Susan Semonick...

Susan Semonick On Schools - Feb 24, 2008 - Special Education Forum February 13th

Attended the Special Education Forum February 13th

Special Ed Inquiry Update

There were 27 parents at the Special Education Inquiry Progress meeting. The Special Education Steering Committee reported that Mr. Gorman, Deputy Minister of Education, and several of his staff received their report with great interest. We were told that what appeared to be most shocking to the Deputy Minister and his staff was that the Board of Education for School District 35 and its Superintendent, Ms. Beaumont, have chosen not to participate in the opportunity to have round table discussion in this matter.

It would appear to the public that the Board is dismissing and ignoring the concerns presented by this Steering Committee and the many parents of students with differing educational needs. According to the report prepared by district staff and accepted by the Board of Education on January 22, 2008, it seems that they feel all needs are being met and they are very happy with themselves. Apparently, approximately 365 students who were previously designated as having special needs no longer have them. They have miraculously been cured and their challenges no longer exist. I wonder, of that number how many are still in school? How many are on the streets?

The Board appears to be wearing rose-colored glasses. Perhaps if there would be proper staffing in the first place we would not have to spend endless dollars on Project Resiliency and Restorative Justice. Don’t get me wrong; I think these programs do serve a need. What I am saying is if there were proper assistance happening earlier, there is a great possibility these programs would not be required as much.

We have cuts in staff time at the school level. Yet, at the district level there are always positions being posted more people at the top to govern than there are to educate if ask me.

As early as 2003, this board has taken the stance of that the students’ needs are being met; if there are problems they can be fixed by more money. It is very clear that regardless of whether you had an endless source of money coming in, if the Board continues to do things the way they are currently doing them, the needs of the students will never be met. I give this Board a failing grade when it comes to ensuring that every dollar possible goes to direct student services and NOT FOR “minor raises for board members ” (their opinion not mine), failing business ventures, and to outside public organizations.

The LTA, CUPE 1260 and parents are planning a bus trip on February 25th to Victoria to the BC legislature to see Opposition Education Critic David Cubberley, and hopefully Minister of Education Shirley Bond, to discuss the Special Education Inquiry Report's recommendations. They will no doubt be raising concerns about the Board’s excuse that the School Act prohibits trustees from meeting with them to discuss the 10 local recommendations in the Report.

Respectfully submitted;Susan Semonick...