Question 1 to Candidates – Appointing the new OCDSB director
Update: Since the time that this question was posed to candidates for trustee, the OCDSB has appointed Camille Williams-Taylor to be the new director.
For reference, here is Boyden’s executive profile for the position of OCDSB director. It is considered to be an excellent guide.
Candidates on both sides of this question recognize that the appointing of a new director is “a vital and crucial decision,” to use the words of a current trustee. It is the biggest decision trustees can make, and so everything must be done to ensure the most suitable applicant is chosen for the position.
Uniting for Children and Youth is working to overcome the attitude that school board trustees don’t matter. They matter immensely. The consequences of their decisions determine in large part what kinds of citizens we are cultivating and what kinds of communities we are creating. We hope that you as a candidate will work with us to inform people of your views and what you have to offer.
The first question is:
Will you act to postpone the appointment of a new OCDSB director? If no, what are your reasons? If yes, what are your reasons and how will you act?
The following gives background from what has already arisen from discussions on the issue. Because the people in favour of postponing have brought the issue forward and have probably done more thinking about it than those opposed, there could be a perceived bias. We plan to dispel any such perceptions by posting, in their own words, the candidates responses to the question. It is our intention that when the exercise of this question has been completed by August 30th, that the public will be well informed on the issue and where each candidate stands.
Rights and Responsibilities
A couple of the current trustees have expressed that they are well within their rights to appoint the new director, and this is not being disputed. It is a question of their responsibility to be as well positioned as possible to make the best decisions for us. The view being expressed is that the new board will be better positioned to fulfil the responsibility of appointing a new director than is the current one.
A view expressed by one of the current trustees who is running for re-election is that “Having a bunch of rookie Trustees pick a new Director would not be prudent.” Eight incumbents are running for re-election. This suggests that there will be a good measure of experience on the new board. If these people are not able to get re-elected, then it is an indication that the public doesn’t want them to be making such important decisions. With four zones not being contested by incumbents there is the prospect of some fresh thinking being brought to the decision.
The comment about “rooky trustees” supports the view that such an important decision should not be made during an election period. The trustee running for re-election who made it can be accused of using the matter to discredit others running in the zone. It’s subtle, but it’s there, and it creates the wrong optics, and it makes one wonder what other political manoeuvrings may be in play. To keep the appointment as above board as possible, political undercurrents can be eliminated by postponing the appointment until after the elections.
The Vision We Need
We are living in a changing world and people such as Ken Robinson are calling for a change of educational paradigms. The view is that the industrial model of education has outlived its usefulness and that we must evolve to a model that better addresses the needs of today. The current board gives lip service to what Ken and like-minded people are saying, but there is little sign that they know what to do with it. The board recently concluded a five-year review of its secondary school program, and the only tangible thing coming out of it is the pursuit of another IB program in Ottawa’s west side. Signs of imagination, innovation and an entrepreneurial spirit seen in the NextSchool development in Quebec are difficult to find in what has come from that resource consuming review.
The closing of Rideau High School also raises concern that the current board has little vision of how to provide a vibrant learning environment other than with formally scheduled days. Larry Rosenstock, a founder of the successful network of charter schools in California has said that the formally scheduled school day is the single greatest impediment to educational innovation, yet our board is not even actively pursuing research that could shed light on how to manage students when formal scheduling has been eliminated. It appears to ignore that universities and colleges are stating a preference for formally unscheduled students who are unschooled and who come from democratic schools, as opposed to those who receive traditional schooling. Liberated Learners, Modern Learners and the Canadian Coalition of Self-Directed Learners all speak to what makes the difference but it is next to impossible to get a serious discussion about it at the higher levels of the board. Nor is there evidence of the kind of systemic thinking required to implement fundamental change despite broad agreement that the industrial model of education is too confining.
Adding to this is the expanding body of literature on the focus of control. It’s about mental and physical health. Research is finding that a lack of control over ones life is a major contributor to the high levels of stress that lead to physical and mental ill-health, yet there is little sign that the board is looking at how to give students more control over their learning environments. We see examples where innovative teachers, like Rebecca Chambers at John McCrae, are doing wonderful things, but those things are not initiated from the top, and they general hang by the thread of a savvy, supportive principal. We do not see signs of the board proactively pursuing visions of the new paradigm they create. Instead, the board appears to be reactive, status quo oriented and overly concerned about test scores.
We also do not see concerted efforts to address concerns about student inactivity and lack of access to the outdoors. HALO along with other Canadian Institutions has issued a position statement about the importance of play, and it has founded with others Outdoor Play Canada to promote giving children more outdoor play time and experiences in nature. The board is not without its outdoor centers and visits to Forest Schools, but there is little indication that it is seriously addressing the issue, and it is speculated that it simply cannot get its head around how to do school differently than how they see it as having always been done.
When raising this concern with an incumbent trustee candidate and stating that a person running against them appeared to have more desire to pursue real innovation, the trustee responded, “Well he hasn’t been in the job.” The suggestion is that once in office a trustee doesn’t have time to pursue real change. This represents a partial abdication of a trustee’s responsibility to provide the best possible education for all students. It is also an admission to lacking knowledge or not fully understanding the current state of education and the innovative things being done to improve it. A quote by Arundhati Roy is apropos here.
“The trouble is that once you see it, you can’t unsee it. And once you’ve seen it, keeping quiet, saying nothing, becomes as political an act as speaking out. There’s no innocence. Either way, you’re accountable.”
Nobody is suggesting the current trustees are not decent people who deserve our respect for their public service. The concern is that they just don’t really get it. Yet they are accountable.
Our Democratic Principles
Our democratic institutions and way of life are under attack at this time. We need to establish a clearer vision of what makes a strong democracy and what each of us needs to contribute to it. Being an informed voter is the greatest duty, and Uniting for Children and Youth is doing all it can to help people to be as informed as possible when they go to vote for school board trustees on October 22nd. It is encouraging people to participate in a vigorous discussion about the purpose of public education by asking, “What are schools for?” It is a discussion we are urging the candidates for school board trustee to participate in as much as we are encouraging the general public to participate. It is the most genuine public consultation that can be had in a democracy. All ideas can be put on the table for all people to weigh, and in the end the people decide who can best represent them. The public must then stay involved to hold their elected officials accountable for what they have promised.
People change their views through such a discussion. The candidates for trustee may not feel the same way about certain issues once they have participated in the discussion. The discussion is actually a way for candidates to grow and become better representatives for us. To not see the opportunity here to more effectively represent the voters is highly questionable. Current trustees who have a sense that their views might alter as the result of participating in such discussions really have to work to postpone the appointing of a new director in order to best fulfil their obligations. They should keep in mind that they do not want to appoint a new director who, in two months they determine is not the best fit for the job.
The spirit of a democracy also needs to be respected at this time. The current trustees are at the end of their term. Their record and a good healthy debate about public education will determine who people want representing them. Rushing to appoint a new director before the election is regarded by at least some people as a disregard for our democratic principles. It smacks of Trump’s nominations for the Supreme Court where the concern is that he nominated only think-alikes. He exercises the attitude that he knows best and that he is quite happy to impose his views on others well into the future. There is no escaping that by appointing the new director, the current board will be imposing its views on the public well into the future when there is a pending view of what the public wants. To disregard that a public view is pending can be taken as undemocratic. It also reminds people of how the board disregarded the Government’s directive to have meaningful public consultations about school closure the day before it voted to close Rideau. It left a taste of arrogance and “we know best” that the board could help dispel by allowing the newly elected board to decide which applicant for school board trustee can best serve the wishes of the OCDSB community. It has also been said that the trustees who can probably serve us best are the ones who will take advantage of the discussion leading up to the elections to become as informed as possible when choosing the director who can best deliver what people have indicated they want.
Why the Rush to Appoint
Two responses from current trustees to the appeal to postpone.
Response A
The decision to wait for the new board to appoint a new Director is not a delay in the process until October – it would in fact delay the start of the process to January at the earliest. The newly elected board will not have decision making authorities until December 3.This means a search process would not likely begin until January 1 and an interim appointee would likely need to serve from January 1 to June 30. That is a long time for an organization to be in limbo, and would be irresponsible.
Response B
I believe that Board of Trustees who will be elected on Oct. 22 2018 and sworn in on Dec. 1 2018 should make the final decision on who will be the next Director of the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board because they will be the ones working with the new Director. As the current Trustee, I would support delaying the selection of a Director until the new Board of Trustees is sworn into office.
My preference would also be to delay the start date of the new Director and select an interim Director to serve from Jan 1st, 2019, when the current Director steps down, to the end of the 2018-19 school year. I think the delay could help attract more applicants because they would not have to leave their current positions mid-year and on short notice. It would also extend the time for seeking candidates a bit.
Another trustee noted that the OCDSB Associate Director would take over as interim director if necessary. Unless there is a lack of confidence in this person’s abilities, an interim director would be appointed with no costs – time nor money.
The idea that to postpone the appointment until after the elections would delay things for a year and require a restart needs to be questioned. The long list to be presented to the selection committee on August 30th does not have to be scrapped. As things stand, the selection committee is to create a short list and make a final decision within days. The new trustees may not have decision making power until Dec. 3rd, but from October 23 on they can become ready to make the decision on Dec 3rd.
To say that the board will be in limbo with an interim director is seen by some as throwing something out there hoping it will stick. Organizations don’t grind to a halt with interim leaders and they can even improve. Some might argue that the PC Party gained in strength under the interim leader Rona Ambrose. The OCDSB has a strong executive team and we can expect that they will not let the board flounder. Even if the board is not fully functioning for a number of months, the drawbacks to it are minuscule compared to have made a less than ideal choice for trustee.
Perhaps the strongest argument for having the new trustees appoint the new director is that they are the ones who have to work with the person. By appointing the director they also establish who is boss better than when they inherit a director.