The next item was the report, policies and procedures for Work Experience including Co-operative Education, Ontario Youth Apprenticeship Program and short-term job training. When policies come to the board they have been through an arduous journey spanning many months and in this case, even years. This policy had been reviewed many times with James Ellsworth and Elaine MacAskill in the Brant Board and Diane Morgan and James in the Grand Erie Board. We now had policies and procedures close to being in place in the new board. As follow-up to the presentation earlier in the meeting, then James and I reported on progress in the implementation of the action plans for the EQAO test results. 10
As I articulated to the trustees, this was part of our intent to be accountable to our community.
Later in the meeting Executive Council also shared with the trustees the difficult position we were in with regard to a two and a half million dollar over-expenditure in the draft budget in the teacher and secretary lines because of the costs of small schools. The next meeting would include a list of possible areas for budget-cutting in which they would have to make some difficult choices. The trustees are really struggling with the loss of discretionary power to deal with local needs because of the funding formula which does not allow them to make decisions according to what they value. This is a dramatic change that their dialogue clearly articulates. 11
At 10:00 p.m., after the board meeting, I phoned the principals and vice-principals whose appointments had been confirmed by the board in camera. I drove home feeling very pleased to have submitted concrete evidence of the progress that I had made in enhancing the capacity of the system to improve the quality of student learning through inquiry and reflection and absolutely euphoric from the image of the teachers voicing their learning and knowledge. I arrived at home at 11:00 p.m. to e-mail Jack (my journal), check my planner and prepare my clothes for the next day.
How do I make that switch from outrage and anger in the afternoon meeting to the pure joy from the board meeting? Part of the answer lies in seeing progress towards a vision of a better school system with improved student learning and part in the enjoyment I get from the quality of the relationships. No matter what I'm doing I have that vision and where blocks occur, I analyze what they are and how they can be overcome. In the case of the PQP, after many setbacks in accomplishing the vision, I had come to the conclusion that the group of four was a block that I had to remove in order to proceed. Since that was not in my direct power, I have simply eradicated them from my image of the future and expect Michael to solve it in the next three months. Otherwise, I will go to 'Plan B' which is another partner that I have held in abeyance hoping for change in this group dynamic. I always have a Plan B and frequently C and D. Seeing no signs of intent to act by Brock staff, I bring Plan B to life in a partnership with the Ontario Principals' Council to bring the PQP to Brantford in July, 2001.
In addition to a capacity to nurture and care for people, like Gilligan's (1982), "visions of maturity", I feel strongly the responsibility I have to make things better. I do have that ruthless side that I find necessary to use quite infrequently. However, I am prepared to make those hard decisions in order to get to a better future. I think that capacity to switch is one of the capacities that has sustained my commitment and enjoyment over these six years so that despite the frustrations, setbacks and crises, I never lose sight of the greater good and my responsibility to create a better future.
Tuesday, June 13, 2000
I start Tuesday morning in the Education Centre (Head Office) in Brantford at 8:15 a.m. responding to e-mails and phone calls, checking on items for the Family of Schools' meeting agenda on Friday, requesting that Sue, my administrative assistant, set up a spreadsheet of the Magnet programs and finalizing the proposal for the $100,000 from the Educational Change Fund. When I arrive at Peter Moffatt's office with a file of some of the reports on leadership programs and the minutes from the Magnet programs, he is talking to a parent from one of my schools. I have been encouraging the principal and vice-principal of this school to work with the parent. The issue is one of bullying but it is much more complex than that and Peter gives me his notes and asks me where I think the problem lies. I tell him that it is a combination of an anxious parent who works long hours out of town, historical distrust of the principal, poor social skills on the part of the child and some miscommunication on both sides. He asks me to follow up with a meeting, if necessary.
From 9:15 a.m. to 1:15 p.m. we review my performance over the year going through my goal package and the additions in January because of superintendent retirement. I share with him the results of the evaluation from my family of schools and from James Ellsworth and Maria Birkett. The evaluation from the family of schools is a remarkable improvement from last year. I remember how upset I was last year at the negative comments about my performance and Peter's comment that this was not the one to worry about. He said that if the next one, after two years, was negative then I would have something to worry about. He was right. We reflect on the trials and accomplishments and begin the planning for the next year. While he is clearly pleased with my performance, he says that one of the superintendents feels that I dismiss him. I agree that I have moved on from my earlier anger and arrived at the rationalization that I feel that he is not pulling his weight and is undermining the formation of an effective team. Peter reminds me that that is his problem. I agree. We chuckle together that the last goal that has been on my goal package for all five years, to find the meaning of balance (Delong, 1995-2001), has still not been attained.
From 1:45-3:20 p.m. I attend the Magnet Program Plan meeting at Pauline Johnson Collegiate Vocational School (PJ). I have a feeling of real comfort in PJ because of my initial teaching experience there and also because of my first three years as superintendent in that family of schools. Ross chairs the meeting and we continue the work on the definition and assumptions. I feel that we are making real progress through the smaller groups, a commitment through involvement and some excellent suggestions for implementation when the report is done. One more meeting to go and then report to Executive Council on June 28.
The final meeting of the day at 3:30 p.m. is a tough one. A teacher, not in my current family of schools but whom I know from my former PJ family, has been reported to be cheating on the grade three Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO) provincial test by a parent. I have reported the incident to the director at EQAO and she has asked that I (as superintendent responsible for the provincial testing) discipline the teacher and they will pull the school booklets for review. I also discussed possible discipline with the superintendent of human resources and indicated that I would hear the teacher's story before deciding on the course of action.
The teacher, the federation president, the new principal and vice-principal attend the meeting and I begin by reviewing why I am there and then I ask the teacher to tell me what happened. She tells me that she did help the children with the test but that it was minor help and she felt that it was O.K. because of the attitude to the test of the staff, the area consultant and former principal. In the course of the conversation with my questioning she confessed that what she did was wrong and that she had not covered the curriculum to prepare the children for the test. I reminded her that we did not have a choice about whether we liked the test or not and if the test violated her values, she would have to live with that for five half days a year or find another line of work. Further I said that she had a problem with her teaching skills in mathematics and asked her about what she intended to do about it. She committed to bringing me a plan for the next year to improve her pedagogy and promised not to repeat her behaviour on the test administration again. I said that I had still to decide what discipline would follow. She thanked me for my understanding and my handling of the situation. Evidence here of my valuing the other even in difficult circumstances.
After she and the federation president left, I talked with the principal and vice-principal about the larger problem of staff attitude to the test and teaching the curriculum. The principal asked me if I would talk to the staff about expectations with regard to the test and the curriculum and I said I would if the superintendent of the family agreed. As follow up the next day I consulted with the family of schools superintendent about the meeting with the staff, the human resources superintendent about the discipline and the curriculum superintendent about the deviation from the curriculum and the role of the consultant.
Wednesday, June 14, 2000
Again I arrive early and try to get some phone calls and e-mails done before 8:30 a.m. when Executive Council 12
starts. It is a full agenda which includes a review of the board meeting agenda, new policies and procedures, new principal and vice-principal appointments with recommendations from School Councils, reports from several initiatives including Volunteer Development, one of my areas, an update on technology infusion and the creation of a list of discretionary areas for cutting from the budget for trustee decisions. I return to my office to confirm my meeting with the staff where the EQAO test problems occurred, add two more items to the family of schools meeting and follow up on items from the Executive Council meeting.
I drive thirty-five minutes to the Simcoe Office for an interview at 2:30 p.m. to select a new consultant for the field office. The team consists of the principal-leader, a principal from the area and me. We amended the proposed questions, reviewed the process to ensure consistency and interviewed five candidates. The first four interviews were rather uninteresting and I began to worry about finding the right person. The decision was obvious with the last candidate, Lynn Abbey. 13
It was one of those occasions when you feel everything is right with the world. All three of us felt the energy, the commitment to children and learning and the passion for making a difference that just flowed from her. Not only did she know the content answers, she drew you into her world of relationships and the sheer joy of learning. No checklist from the College of Teachers could capture the "life-affirming energy" (Whitehead, 1999; Bataille, 1962) that Lynn brings to her world. I felt simply euphoric when I left the centre and it stayed with me for several days. This is an area of my influence (as well as power and privilege in society (Noffke, 1997) in my ability to hire people who share that passion and commitment to improving student learning and making a better school system. However, my enjoyment of this decision is tempered by the fact that the decision is not complete because we have collective agreement restrictions as to whether the person is an elementary or secondary teacher. The appointment is on hold pending another interview process. With a little massaging of the politics, Lynn was hired and has been "addressing social issues" (Noffke, 1997).
That evening I went to visit a friend who has cancer and who is living through chemotherapy treatments. We have been friends for at least 20 years but she has been living out of province and just returned a year ago. Our children are close to the same age and when they were younger we would visit as families. She is very intelligent and creative and fun to be with. Even with the trauma of her life she is very good company and we laugh a lot and plan for the future.
When I arrived home, I called the parent (referred from Peter Moffatt) who was upset but he was not home.
Thursday, June 15, 2000
Thursday is an unusual day because I am taking one of my holidays to work on my thesis. Superintendents have personal contracts with a specified number of days of holidays, not aligned with teacher holidays. It is a real gift to have Jack actually present and not just virtually present through the e-mail which is my normal opportunity to get response to my writing and thinking. The thesis is starting to come together and it is an exciting time to share his experience with the master's students and their progress and relate that to my own learning. I write; we talk. It works well for me. Because of my dialogic and dialectical way of learning and processing. 14
I am feeling the pressure of wanting to get my knowledge written and published and to use the time I have taken from work effectively. However, time at home is not time away from work. I talk to Sue about plans for the next day and any issues that have occurred. Since the principal is away with the students on an overnight school trip, I talk to the vice-principal at the school where the parent is upset and get an update. I make some suggestions and he follows up. I try again to get hold of the parent. Again, not at home. I respond to my e-mails and phone calls.
At 5:00 p.m., I attended the retirement social of one of the secondary principals in my family of schools even though I was on holiday. He was clearly very happy to retire early having commuted his pension.
Friday, June 16, 2000
Besides Magnet Programs, in January Peter had added Communications to my portfolio with the expectation that some other areas would go off. So far that hasn't happened. Anyway, I began Friday morning with the staff at the marketing firm that we have hired to improve the communications within the board and with external groups. Our agenda included a review of the workshop they ran with the administrators a week earlier, an update on interviews with staff, a media meeting on the board budget and the plan for a series of workshops on communications skills for trustees, senior administration, school administrators and senior managers. In the review of the previous week's workshop the evaluations indicated that there was room for improvement. Some good things happened but the session had gone overtime and as I pointed out the administrators did not feel they needed to stay to listen to their colleagues report from the sessions because the project manager had told them that the feedback would be sent out by e-mail.
With the evaluations in mind and from the information the consultant was receiving from his interviews with principals, superintendents and trustees, it appeared that everyone thought it was the other person's problem, not theirs. So the plan for the next workshops in June and the series in August was that we needed to raise their awareness of the issues surrounding communication. We needed to encourage the expectation that everyone had room to grow in communications skills and that each individual was the answer to improved relationships, not the marketing firm's quick fix. A plan evolved for the June 26 session with the superintendents and trustees and for the series of workshops on communications skills for August. I learn about communications and marketing from them and they learn about the system, the culture and giving workshops from me in these sessions. 15
It is exciting for me to learn a new field of knowledge and to start a new project. I keep asking 'How am I assessing my effectiveness to enhance the quality of student and staff learning?'
At 11:00 a.m. I headed off to pick up Jack and get to the Simcoe Office by 12:00 to meet with Keith Quigg, one of the principals in my family, to work on his performance review using his action research project on his learning about his values and board policies and procedures. In the meeting he talked about critical points in his learning:
1. Nov. 23, 1999 at Program Council when he heard me say that the Special Education Model that had been presented did not fit my image of special education,
2. The plan by Jim Grant to move computers from labs to classrooms and
3. The presentation by Peter Moffatt at the Administrative Retreat in April in which he talked about the role of policies to free people up to do creative things for students not to block or restrict creativity.
This last was a critical incident for Keith in terms of changing his perspective on the role of policy. Its importance lay not just in his becoming part of the new board but also in his own Ph.D. research. I still had concerns that he wanted simple answers to complex problems but I could see growth in his understanding of the system. He had identified his area for growth and made a commitment to it by becoming more reflective. This would be the first principal performance review in my new family using the action research process (Delong & Quigg, 2000).
At 1:00 p.m., the Family of Schools' meeting began with the secondary principals followed by the meeting with both elementary and secondary in which one of the vice-principals, Bonnie Church 16
, shared her action research project on how she had improved communication in her school using the internal e-mail (Church, 2000). I had set up the video camera for the following presentations of Jack and I and with her agreement taped her presentation and gave her a copy. Having a peer share her learning was a perfect way to move the administrators to the next step from the work I had started the month earlier. In May I had asked them to identify one area of their school plan for 2000-2001 on which to focus some research as to their effectiveness. In this session Jack worked with them to form a question for investigation. The ones that they reported were "I" or "We" questions focused on things that mattered to them in their schools. I asked them to e-mail their questions to me for sharing in the group. It was very affirming to have them engaged in the process of assessing their effectiveness. Building the culture of inquiry, reflection and scholarship is embedded in most of my work.
In the rest of the session, we covered agenda items that included planning for next years' meetings, the formation of a committee to plan the Professional Development component of the monthly meeting, discussion around a new format for involving principals and vice-principals in superintendent portfolio advisory committees and a review of the evaluation they had done on my performance. In the videotape of the session you can see me appreciating the affirmation of a very positive evaluation from them which Keith Quigg had collated and handed out which showed improvement over the year earlier (Quigg, 2000). You can also see me dealing delicately with one vice-principal's remarks that I didn't care enough about vice-principals. I spent some time explaining that it wasn't a matter of caring but of time and of the fact that I was the supervisor of principals but the principals were their supervisors and I hoped mentors for the vice-principals. I used the example of the one school council that asked me to meet with them twice a month. It was great to know that they would like to spend that time with me but I pointed out that it was just not possible with the size of the job to be done and that they should work with their principal for the benefit of their school. After the meeting, the group went to Keith's for a year-end social.
In this week I was evaluated by the director as well as the administrators in my family while I reviewed the performance of a principal, provided direction to a teacher on her performance and wrote a letter of termination on another that I had had on review for five years. That commitment to accountability I also demonstrated for the trustees in the public presentations of the teaching and consultative staff as they ask and answer the questions to assess our effectiveness to enhance the quality of learning in the Grand Erie District School Board. I see a developing culture of inquiry and reflection and interconnections between personal identity and the claim of experiential knowledge (Noffke, 1997).
Meaningful work
Part of understanding the role as I perform it and as I have described it may be explained by Bateson (1989): "But what if we were to recognize the capacity for distraction, the divided will, as representing a higher wisdom?" (p. 166). In this world of multi-tasking and "multiple commitments" (p. 166) with days like those I have just described, I frequently come close to the point of complete exhaustion - often very much on the edge. And despite that, and perhaps even because of that, I am energized to do more, to be better at it. "No one who is passionately engaged in his or her work limits it for long to forty hours a week. Positions carrying the greatest challenge or responsibility are predicated on this assumption" (Bateson, 1989, p.167). I draw on a feeling, "a psychic 'energy' which might better be called vitality" (Bateson, 1989, p. 169), of making an important contribution to improving teaching and student learning that motivates me to keep moving ahead. In these examples, I am working with a state of mind and vitality (Tillich, 1952) that are genuinely satisfying. They are also part of recurring patterns and connections based primarily on the unifying strength of my values as a professional educator and my desire to use my influence to create a school system and society that benefits students, families, communities and educators. I see myself as part of a learning community with an openness to improvement and with much to learn.
If you know what is within you, and you bring out what is within you, what is within you will save you. If you know what is within you, and you do not bring out what is within you, what is within you will destroy you (Gnostic Gospel of St. Thomas in Clarkson, 2000).
In explaining my practice, I draw on a range of literature and theory. I do find it helpful but insufficient to explain the complexity of my practice. I am keeping in mind that "The complexity of an individual's position in society should, not even for a modest research exercise, be simplified too much" (Erben, 1998, p. 8). Because I have never felt that someone else's conceptual framework can explain my life and learning, I find some comfort working in the context of "the loss of legitimizing metanarratives" (Lather, 2000). As Lyotard (1984) writes in his book on the postmodern condition:
A postmodern artist or writer is in the position of a philosopher: the text he writes, the work he produces are not in principle governed by pre-established rules, and they cannot be judged according to a determining judgement, by applying familiar categories to the text or to the work. Those rules and categories are what the work of art itself is looking for. The artist and the writer, then, are working without rules in order to formulate the rules of what will have been done (Lyotard, p. 81).
In one sense I am such a postmodern writer. My writing, as part of my educative discourse, is one of the ways in which I give a form to my life. In this sense I see myself as an artist who is giving a form to her own life through her productive work. In forming my life, as a postmodern writer, I am working without rules in order to formulate the rule of what has already been done.
In another sense I am constrained and supported by rules. As a superintendent of schools, my 'system responsibilities' are full of rules. There are legislative rules governing everything from curriculum expectations to educational finance to health and safety in the workplace. I have a range of responsibilities set out by the Board and to which I am accountable in my annual performance appraisal with my Director. In working as a senior administrator and educational leader within a school board I accept that I work within a context governed by rules set by the Provincial Government and the democratically elected Trustees of the Grand Erie District School Board. Yet, because I view rules as guidelines, not barriers, I am also exercising my judgement and discretion in a range of contexts and in ways which enable me to see myself as a professional educator and knowledge-creator.
I want to embrace the position of a postmodern writer to explain my influence as a superintendent while at the same time coming to understand the nature of the external forces. I will draw on the traditional forms of theory but I am thinking of doing this in a way which transcends their analytic categories in the creation of my own living theory (Whitehead, 1999) of my educative influence as a superintendent of schools.
Next I will examine how economic rationalist policies have affected education in Ontario, describe the background and context of being a superintendent during the period of the amalgamation of school boards, explain the work of Executive Council and the elected trustees of the school board and the policy development process.
The impact of market forces in Ontario
Economic rationalist forces (MacTaggart, 1992) have been at work in many countries in the world with the U.K. having experienced it for over seventeen years (Kushner, 2000) and other countries like New Zealand, Australia having had similar experiences. The impact in Ontario has been to demoralize educators and to reduce the powers of the teacher unions and school boards. It has also meant bringing dissenters in line for fear of reprisal and centralizing control in the Ontario Premier's office so that decisions ranging from financing of schools to monitoring the amalgamation of school boards are made by the Premier and a few of his closest advisors.
In the years 1990-1999, a number of forces converged in Ontario to create a crisis in education. Some of these forces included a public backlash against the steadily increasing strength of teacher unions, particularly The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation (OSSTF), since the 1960's and resultant wage increases. In addition to the downturn in the Canadian economy that hit Ontario particularly hard, there was a visible shift to the right in the philosophy of voters to a "survival of the fittest mentality" with concomitant cuts to spending on social programs and a market forces mentality which pushed education to become more business-like.
These factors and media pressure resulted in low teacher morale which led to the largest teacher strike ever- 140,000 teachers on 'political protest' for 2 weeks, 27 October to Friday, 7 November, 1997, to fight the new legislation (Gidney, R. 1999, p. 260). The conservative government was determined to enact the largest restructuring of education in the history of the province. It included a more rigorous curriculum, extensive testing of all students in grades 3, 6, 9, 10, mandatory membership in the new College of Teachers for all educators in publicly-funded schools, testing and re-certification of teachers, highly-prescriptive provincial funding formula, amalgamation of school boards, reduction in power and numbers of trustees and superintendents and removal of principals from unions. According to Mike Harris, premier of the province: "Too many boards, too many trustees, too many bureaucrats, too many certificated teachers" (Gidney, 1999, p. 244). In addition to continued labour unrest, there have been mass departures of teachers and administrators via early retirement incentives to reduce the size of the educator workforce with the resulting teacher and school administrator shortage (Carter, 2001, p. 37-41).
Most of these forces were not peculiar to Ontario or even to Canada. In countries all over the globe, there has been restructuring of education with a variety of agendas, predominantly a conservative agenda with shades of Thatcherism. That agenda has been given serious study and commitment in Ontario. Historically in Ontario there had been a curious mixture of local autonomy and central control. The local structure had been school boards with trustees elected at the same time as municipal politicians for a three-year term. Under the conservative rule, the structure became increasing school-level autonomy not board autonomy, represented by creating School Councils and taking local taxation for education away from school boards. The apparent increase in the proportion of funding to the classroom, a new provincial curriculum, school accountability for provincial test results, and direct communication with schools as opposed to funneling information through school boards all contributed to control being increasingly centralized in the Office of the Premier in Ontario. That central control has been achieved by a strategic reduction in the power of dissenting voices such as teacher federations, school board trustees and administrators and by a flood of major changes in quick staccato rhythm designed to keep the education community off balance, struggling to stay afloat and too weakened to fight back.
Like Geoff Whitty, "I have a particular interest in the relationship between education and social equity...and as Moe (1994) suggests, the creation of quasi-markets is likely to exacerbate existing inequalities, especially in instances in which the broader political climate and the prevailing approach to government regulation are geared to other priorities" (Whitty, 1997). In his review of research literature on parental choice and school autonomy, he looks at events in England, New Zealand and the United States. It appears that the research from these countries has informed the direction of the Conservative government in Ontario. Some movement to vouchers for parental choice emerged as of September, 2001 in a $3500.00 allowance for parents who wish to send their child to a private school, although there is still considerable debate as to implementation. This legislation is being reviewed in the midst of a party leadership debate in 2002. "Flaherty (leadership candidate) appears to be driven by ideological argument of choice. At the same time, he speaks of the importance of publicly-funded education" (Dean, 2001). Even without the vouchers, parents looking to locate in the board area demand copies of test results of particular schools so they can choose where to buy a house. This is parental choice and opportunities available only to those in a particular socio-economic position in the housing market.
Pressure to move toward site-based management is in full steam in Ontario despite the fact that it has not been shown to improve the quality of children's learning although it does appear to increase efficiency of resource management and to turn principals from curriculum leaders into business managers (Whitty, 1997, p. 23-25). Whitty (1997) says that "Atomized decision-making in a highly stratified society may appear to give everyone equal opportunities, but transferring responsibility for decision making from the public to the private sphere can actually reduce the scope for collective action to improve the quality of education for all" (p. 33). He also says that:
....the studies reported here suggest that going further in the direction of marketization would be unlikely to yield major overall improvements in the quality of education and would almost certainly have damaging equity effects. The broad conclusion of these studies seems to be that, although the rhetoric of reform often suggests that the hidden hand of the market will produce the best possible outcome, the reality suggests that this is unlikely to occur. Nor, apparently, has decentralization to schools and local communities done much to correct inequalities in the system (p. 34).
Recognizing that no system is perfect and seeing a current movement toward more conservative attitudes (Adams, 2001), still I agree with Whitty (1997) that:
Part of the challenge must be to move away from atomized decision making to the reassertion of collective responsibility without re-creating the very bureaucratic systems whose shortcomings have helped to legitimate the current tendency to treat education as a private good rather than a public responsibility (p. 37).
As I have written (Delong & Moffatt, 1996), I strongly agree with him as far as fostering parental/community involvement is concerned, "We need to ask how we can use the positive aspects of choice and autonomy to facilitate the development of new forms of community empowerment rather than exacerbating social differentiation" (Whitty, 1997, p.37).
I am reminded as I read Whitty's (1997) conclusions that one of the ways that I do the job of superintendent is to make the less-than perfect political processes work for children, families and teachers. One area of research that is clear is that when parents are involved in their child's learning, achievement rises (Ross, 1994). The system wasn't perfect before this government took office and it isn't perfect now but there are ways of massaging it that allow me, as a postmodernist, to operate according to my principles and follow the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.
Background and context of being a superintendent in 1995-2002
The political context of this period of time and the structure of the boards is significant to the reader's understanding of this story. I researched my practice from March, 1996 until February, 2002 as a superintendent in a rural, semi-urban school board in southern Ontario, Canada. The transformations that I speak of straddled the amalgamation of three school boards during the most dramatic restructuring of education in history of the province of Ontario (Gidney, 1999). From January 1, 1995 until December 31, 1997, I was superintendent in The Brant County Board of Education, a school system of 17,000 students, a school board of veteran trustees, a lean, carefully-financed system and an experienced senior administration. Those years were ones of deep learning, regular improvement and feeling valued.
The story of my time as a superintendent in the Brant Board prior to amalgamation is one of a steep trajectory of learning the job, of great excitement about the unlimited potential for improving the system and of having the educative influence to do that. There were challenging days and circumstances but I felt (and the director evaluated) that I was effective in the job and I had much to learn and to share (Moffatt, 1995-2001). I had just been one of the reviewers of the provincial curriculum, The Common Curriculum, policy document for Grades 1-9, 1994 with Linda Grant and then a writer of the new version (1995) with project manager, Ron Wideman, at the Ministry of Education. I had a supportive director in Peter Moffatt (Moffatt, 1995-2001a), a good relationship with trustees and was part of a strong executive team that challenged each other and worked well together. There was conflict to be sure but problems were solved without rancour. I felt that our Wednesday morning Executive Council meetings were the high point of the week. We worked hard but we laughed a lot.
The Progressive Conservative government elected in June 1996 came with a mandate of economic rationalist policies (MacTaggart, 1992) and a clear intention to restructure the education system in every respect. These policies, implemented in great haste, affected every aspect of our jobs as senior administrators - curriculum, staffing, system structure, funding, union membership of principals, governance. As I was reading Kushner's (2000) description of the policies of the government in Britain, I could have substituted Ontario for Britain:
The cusp years of the millennium mark a period of largely unquestioned national consensus over the nationalization of curriculum, test-based accountability, competency-based education (behavioural objectives) absolute standards of attainment, politically defined notions of excellence and outcome-driven measures of effectiveness. Educational inquiry is fiscally confined to a narrowing policy agenda and there is corresponding intensification of intolerance for independent critique. All of these things are seen as necessary and reasonable for measuring and enhancing the productive efficiency of schooling to support social reform - they will enhance the achievement of large groups of pupils. But they are counter-productive to effective personal education. We can, for example, encourage young people to pass more criterion-referenced assessments or to strive for intellectual autonomy - they cannot do both at the same time, for these demand mutually exclusive curriculum strategies and they emanate from opposing ethical positions. One demands compliance with a predetermined set of principles (in exchange for credentials); the other exposes those principles to critical scrutiny - that is, one accepts the authority of the government, the other challenges it. We might have the right methodology, but we apply it to the wrong problem. Perhaps most prejudicially, where educational leaders are concerned with educational process it is now with 'teaching and learning', that is, those elements which are most susceptible to measurement and control and where knowledge is given. We risk losing sustained enquiry into curriculum - that is, the level at which we have to confront questions of the ethics, morality, politics and validity of the educational experiences we offer to young people (p. 203-204).
The first impact across Ontario came from the amalgamation of one hundred and four boards down to sixty-six and in our region, three school boards to one school district. At the same time that these massive changes and their inherent administrative challenges were being downloaded to the school system, the number of superintendents in the new school district was reduced from seventeen to twelve in the former jurisdictions and then to seven. During the four-month transition period, September to December, 1997, we were all wondering about our own jobs and about who would be our new leader, given that there were three directors from three boards. It was a great relief when Peter Moffatt was appointed director but then my worry was whether I would have a job on his team given that I had the least experience as a superintendent amongst the group.
The transition from Brant To Grand Erie
Early in 1996-7 the new Progressive Conservative government talked of amalgamating school boards and by June of 1997 the decision was made. January, 1, 1998 gave birth to School District #23, later to be named Grand Erie District School Board, an amalgamation of the Brant, Haldimand and Norfolk Boards of Education, the latter two much smaller and mostly rural boards with a total population of 33,000 students. To my knowledge, there was no one in any one of the boards who was happy about this decision but some responded more negatively than others. Because I came from the largest board, I was attributed with the negative characteristics assigned to a larger-sized board. While I was not feeling positively about the change I accepted it as a fait accompli and saw it as my job to get on with the task of building a new board. That is not to say that I didn't bring my biases from the Brant Board. The fall of 1997 was spent in alternately resisting and managing the change process with three different senior management teams from three different cultures and three different views on how things should be done.
The board of trustees selected Peter Moffatt as the Director of District School Board #23, Gerry Townsend, former Director of the Norfolk board, became Associate Director and Frank Kelly, former Director of the Haldimand board, served as the Transition Coordinator with a severance package to retire on completion of the transition task in December, 1999. The relationship between Peter and Gerry was strained and reflected in our Wednesday meetings. Frank focused his attention on the reduction of the senior management and office staff. It was an awkward and tense time with senior administration in a state of flux.
Creating the new Grand Erie District School Board
The six-month period of January to June 1998 was the start-up and downsizing of the administration. This was a time of great strain for me because I was the lowest in seniority with the exception of the superintendent on two-year secondment (although technically since we were all on personal contracts, seniority did not exist). Without the downsizing I would be demoted. My e-mail to Jack called Black Day on April 3, 1998, said: Three superintendents to go and I'm number three. Fortunately, three accepted severance packages and I kept my job. It's important to remember that through all this chaos, the work of the schools and the school system continued with the usual demands on us to perform with care and competence.
In the fall of 1998, the new team of Peter Moffatt, two former superintendents from Haldimand, Dan Dunnigan and Gerry Kuckyt, three from Brant, Colin Armstrong, Jim Grant and I, and one from Norfolk, Wayne Thomas, started the work of creating a vision and developing policies and procedures for a new school system. In order to change the alignment from the former boards, I was assigned the schools in the former Norfolk area and Wayne went to Brantford. I thought it was a good idea albeit greatly increasing driving distances for me; Wayne did not. This was just one of many conflicts between Peter Moffatt and Wayne Thomas and Wayne and I. The differences in philosophy were tangible. This dissension was a canker sore for the team.
Peter and I both felt that we needed to realign the areas of the board away from the traditional boundaries. Norfolk was an alien, hostile and strange environment with a culture very different from what I had known. And I was the "broad from Brant", from the "takeover" board, the big board, and the big city. These were unfamiliar concepts for me but reality in perception all the same. In addition, my first task was to close small schools which the new funding formula demanded, not a task designed to make 17
I was in essence entering a new board that had not chosen me to lead them and they felt resentful.
Change continued in 1999 with an election and a new set of trustees and several turnovers in superintendents: one leaving for an Associate Director job, another returning from another board, one retiring and another being hired. Then in October of 2000, Wayne Thomas went off on sick leave. At end of March, 2001, Wayne had not been replaced but a principal, Rick Denton, was seconded as Principal-Leader to pick up his Special Education portfolio duties. There were rumours of a lawsuit based on harassment. It seemed that the team would not get settled in any permanent sense.
From January of 2001, Executive Council, which now included Peter's Executive Assistant, Wendy Hibbard, and later Rick Denton, seemed to take a turn for the better. There was a more relaxed atmosphere; agenda items were covered more fully and on time. There was more laughter. In the spring of 2001, the trustees replaced two retirees with John Bryant and Rick Denton. The Planning meetings in June and July reminded me of the pleasure of Executive Council in the former Brant Board: a cohesive, relational team focused on a new and improved school system.
The Trustees of the Board of Education
I am an employee of both the Grand Erie District School Board and the Ontario Ministry of Education. The board of trustees directly supervises one employee - the director. The superintendents report to the Director, Peter Moffatt, and our performance is evaluated and reported by Peter to the trustees. This is significant in that when trustees want information or reports, they must make a motion at the board meeting, agree to it as a majority of the group and direct the administration through Peter to bring the report. All board reports include his name as well as the superintendent responsible.
The trustees are elected by the voting members of the municipalities on a three year cycle at the same time as the municipal elections and their numbers and responsibilities are governed by regulations under the Education Act. Prior to amalgamation their responsibilities and autonomy were more extensive. Part of the chaos of amalgamation was their anger at their treatment by the government, the reduction in their numbers and the limiting of their powers. This reduced power came largely as a result of the funding of education being transferred from a combination of taxation in the local municipality and grants from the province to full funding from the province in a very prescriptive form.
The world of the trustees during amalgamation
The Grand Erie District School Board meets three times every month, except July, for three hours. The meetings have two parts: open session for most of the agenda where press and community attend and in camera for discussion of property, finance, legal and personnel items. The media attend the open sessions and remain until after the in camera to hear the report of decisions made there. My role is to present reports and policies, make presentations, and respond to questions. When I have staff or parents making presentations, I help them understand the expectations and the process of presenting to the board. When I don't have reports or presentations, I attend to the debate and often get paperwork done that does not take my full attention.
Before amalgamation, my relationship with the fourteen trustees of the Brant County Board of Education was one of respect and trust. Even prior to my appointment as superintendent, in most cases, I had worked with them on committees and there was an openness and care. Over the three years, that relationship deepened as evidenced in my performance reviews (Moffatt, 1995-2001a). When amalgamation of the boards occurred, a new smaller group of ten trustees, a combination of representatives from the three former boards led the board in the years 1998-2000 and then in December 2000, another election and another group was elected. The first group of trustees that led the Grand Erie District School Board was made up of veterans from the former boards with the addition of an appointed student trustee. They were feeling much the same emotions as the teachers in that the government was sending them the message that they were not valued. Their numbers, honoraria and power were reduced. They lost the right to raise taxes and were given a very prescriptive funding formula. It saddened me to listen to their hurt.
One of those long-serving trustees who lived through the anger and hurt of those downsizing and downloading years was Astrid Reeder. She was incredibly supportive of teachers and schools and consistently positive at board meetings and at public meetings. The staff loved her because she was frequently in schools and made them feel valued. Only after the unrelenting bashing of schools and school boards did I hear Astrid talk of negative things at the board table. She was chair of a School Accommodation (Closing) Study and felt the anger of the community directed at her as agent of the government and clearly her heart was not in the pressure to reduce excess spaces in our buildings. Yet she knew that the money was not coming from the government to pay for the unused classrooms and we were facing continuing enrolment decline.
She was very supportive of my work in action research. She came to hear Jack speak on several occasions and was impressed by the professional nature of the process to improve teaching and learning. Her involvement in coming to understand the process and the potential impact of teachers researching their practice to improve student learning was significant because trustees determine budget allocations and I needed that political support at the board table. Astrid's particular love was for the Home & School Association and for the increased involvement of parents in schools. She did not run for re-election in November, 2000. It was too hard for her to continue in such a negative environment.
The second group of trustees for the new board, elected in December, 2000, included four veterans, five newcomers and one native trustee who had served on a former board. The new trustees came with limited understanding of the complexity of school systems and some with negative experiences from school closings. The trust that had existed in the former boards was not there. There was even distrust between the veterans and the new arrivals. Part of that stemmed from the fact that the new group came in media res, mid-budget year, having to make decisions within assumptions established by the former board. The first months of the new board were challenging.
My experience with trustees has been that they are good people who want to do a good job. When they make poor decisions, it is with good intentions and sometimes it is because I haven't given them the information they need or I have not anticipated well enough. The early days of the new board were very demanding because they had not assumed the vision and values of the old board and were working through the assumptions on which they wanted to make decisions. And there were two groups: the veterans who knew what they wanted and the new trustees who were learning as fast as they could. It was hard for Executive Council to anticipate whether they wanted more or less data. Too much was overwhelming and too little was insufficient. We were learning and growing together.
In this next part, I examine the work of the Director and Superintendents as an administrative team which is critical to the understanding of my role as superintendent, the most important element being my relationship with Peter Moffatt, the Director.
Administrative Council
My relationship with the director
