Tag Archive 622

Facts don’t care where you live!

Back in March of 2016, two of the four delegations referenced a report from the ACPed that called the ‘trans’ movement abuse of children. Trustee Forbes asked, “Have you looked into what Canadian Pediatricians are saying.” I responded with admittedly a weak answer, that “Canadian politics are very different.”
I was surprised by the question, because it implied that ethnicity or country of origin had some sort of affect on the science. That unless ‘your people’ agreed, than there is no truth to the facts. What I was saying in my very confusing reply was that Canadian politics (and now law and policy) is influencing what pediatricians can and can not state. As you can see from the article below, politics in “Psychology Today” is trying to suppress the truth, even in the US. So I guess I should have said, country of origin makes no difference on the facts.

ACPeds Responds to Libelous Attack in Psychology Today

Tags, ,

I Want [to be] A Hippopotamus For Christmas

Trans-hippo

Yes, it is a thing. You can add it to the list I posted here[link fixed]. I will not put you through the suffering I had to endure while reading this supposed ‘peer reviewed’ paper. Suffice to say the author refers to the tumbler.com community of self-identified trans-species users as a serious source for their argument. Referring to the online community’s idea of ‘identity’ as transcending “human understandings of gender.” A couple of times referring to the “(magical) power of the hippo self.” Heavily relying on the “His Dark Materials” book series for insight. A series described by author Philip Pullman as being “about killing god.” I would even call the paper a hoax, if it were not for the fact that the author has as yet, not done so.

So what does this have to do with the educational, social, and physical concerns that parents of SD76 have? For one, it shows just how far the bar has fallen with regards to academic standards. Is one really supposed to take seriously the opining of a trans-hippo that relies on tumbler and a fictional novel for support? Where is the scientific analysis, and the observable, repeatable, and testable outcomes?

Secondly, most of the hysteria that came about in the spring of 2016 was as the result of a Study from the University of British Columbia, that itself fails in academic standards. A study conducted by a lobby group that openly admits that they are “a team of researchers dedicated to finding evidence-based strategies that will reduce stigma and improve resilience among vulnerable youth populations.” Dedicated to finding evidence to support their hypothesis, rather than testing it’s validity.

The aforementioned UBC study had 923 participants, (more than twice that signed our petition,) out of 35,939,927+ (~population of Canada at the time).  75% (~692) of which were 18 or older. 8% of which were not transgender(~74). The numbers alone would give any credible academic pause as to the significance of the results.

I’m not saying that the perceived results for that 1 study are wrong. I am suggesting that further evaluation and study needs to be conducted before one rewrites the very fabric of society, and overhauls the entire education system. Enshrining one study as the holy grail of data for tolerance and acceptance. All because 923 survey participants ‘may’ have ‘felt’ bullied. Let’s get a bit more actual science involved so that when this train derails, a whole generation of kids don’t get hurt.

Where does this all lead? Well, we have seen it leads to insane ‘papers’ that prop ‘identity’ as transcending human understanding, the magical wisdom of a hippo lady-man, (that is not an insult, that is how they identify.) It has given us policy 621 which expands authority of the district to dictate and monitor what children do outside school. It has given us a procedure for 622 that makes it an offense for teachers to suggest that maybe what the child identifies as is not right. (See here) It has given us a rejection of biology and science. It has stripped away the protection of our daughters (and our sons) from predators by taking away the protections based upon thousands of years of known human biology and behaviour. Simply so that 923 people out of 35 million can maybe not be made fun of for believing a delusion. (Only 2% of which are even still in school.) Let’s not kid ourselves into thinking 2017 was the year ‘xerkind’ evolved beyond human understanding into something godlike. Knowing gender as something existential.

During this years Alberta School Board Trustee elections, encourage grounded, rational, logical candidates to step forward. If you are not going to run, find out where the candidates stand on parental authority, school authority, social studies, and political ideologies. If you believe that political, religious, or social beliefs have no affect on how School Boards govern education, than you need to start paying attention. The sexology pushed into k-12 in the last two years is not because of a sudden realization of error in how kids have been educated. It is a push by every level of government to sexualize children, and expand dictatorial control to the exclusion of parents in EVERY way.

Unless sanity, logic, and reason are restored in our schools ,(and their governance,) you could soon find this song having entirely different connotations.

Tags, , , , ,

Trans Gate Keeping!

One of the concerns that parents in SD76 have is that Policy 622 does not establish just what constitutes a “Frivolous and Vexatious” case. The guidelines to best practices as put forward and endorsed by education Minister David Eggen is that a child can self identify as whatever gender they feel at whatever time. Even changing from day to day.

One of the topics that was discussed at length during the informal meeting in March of 2016 was what was the process that would be implemented to identify a frivolous case, and how a true case would be managed. Parents were ASSURED that a process would be worked out and that the details on that process would come out when procedures were written.

To this day, no “gate keeping” procedure or process has been written. (Or at least been publicly made available.) In fact 3 procedures have been written that actively inhibit a gate keeping process.

622 P 001 Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

  • j. work collaboratively with school staff and build capacity to identify and implement evidence-based supports for students;
  • k. ensure staff will not refer students to programs or services that attempt to change or repair a student’s sexual orientation or gender identity; and
  • l. ensure all staff recognize the confidentiality of the sexual orientation and gender identity of all students and protect them from unwanted disclosure of such information.

(Policy 622 for reference)

Procedures (j) and (k) are contradictory and dangerously so. Evidenced based (j) support will show that there are those (such as Carey Callahan) who have regretted becoming trans and de-transed, but that would be a violation of (k).

Procedure (l) puts children at risk because it does not allow for professionals to evaluate if the child is suffering from some other condition, (gate keep.) If a teacher can not divulge the information concerning a student’s health and mental state, than it could progress further and lead to increased risk of self harm. Procedure (l) is also a violation of the Family Law Act as stated here.

The situation as it stands now leaves parents out of the loop, and allows individuals without professional medical or psychological training, to make life altering determinations for minors, that if misdiagnosed could lead to serious harm. The concerns parents have with 621 and 622 are not over with.

 

Tags, , ,

Court Costs, 622, and where we are going…

Well, it has been a long road. I’ve been to 14 board meetings now. Last night’s meeting was no different. Each one being pretty much the same. Crowd sizes varying. Feb, 2016 – 20+, March Regular – 40+, March Special – 90+, April 0 – as no one knew where to go, May Public 120+. Obviously parents had and have concerns over Policies 621 and 622. So how DID the board respond? Well, I’ve posted here a short list of why the parents of SD76 were not satisfied with the process, and why I was forced to go to court on behalf of the parents. Yet, as was the case in several other board meetings, the parents got a ‘lecturing’ by a Trustee about how ‘open’ and attentive they were to parental concerns, without actually addressing a single concern that was brought up, or issue with the process. And there were issues. I wrote about them here.

So, where did that leave us? Well, we were told by Trustee Riley last Tuesday that we were wasting the administrations time by continuing to press the issue, when it is “done”. Mr. Riley even going so far as to say that they would not be looking at this issue again unless legislation is changed. Stating that the parents were operating out of fear of change. Even quoting F.D.R.’s famous statement on fear.

“Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself” – Franklin D. Roosevelt

I guess what parents are supposed to take away from that is, being afraid for the safety of children, is irrational. I guess we all should just accept that our child’s well being is up to the board. Just ignore the fact that gender politics have been banned in parts of Australia (NSW) because of the proven risk it poses to the well being of children. Just ignore the fact that predators have already used gender politics to victimize children. Just ignore the fact the GSA’s are being used to promote high-risk homosexual life style, and teaching such wonderful things as “Anal Phisting”, and “Golden Showers.” Just ignore that the district have set no standards as to age appropriateness. (So you know, 4 of the 5 trustees have told me that there are 6 & 7 year old children in the district who are trans. As if a 7 year old’s mind is even developed enough to understand the concept.)

It is reckless and irresponsible to refuse to look at a policy unless and only if a change in legislation is made. (Not to mention that is a direct contradiction of the amendment that was just past to 622. Which stated that any further amendments to the policy shall be in accordance with the existing procedures on policy amendment.) It is clear that the board does not have an accurate understanding of the legislation, and as such, the policies need to be adjusted. Mr. Riley stated that children have a right to privacy when sharing information with teachers. Citing Bill 10, the Alberta Bill of Rights, and the Canadian Charter of rights as his bases for this believe. In fact the word privacy does not exist in any of the sources cited. In fact, Bill 10 states the following:

Alberta Bill 10 Notice to parent
58.1
(1) A board shall provide notice to a parent of a student where courses, programs of study or instructional materials, or instruction or exercises, include subject-matter that deals primarily and explicitly with religion or human sexuality.
(2) Where a teacher or other person providing instruction,teaching a course or program of study or using the instructional materials referred to in subsection (1) receives a written request signed by a parent of a student that the student be excluded from the instruction, course or program of study or use of
instructional materials, the teacher or other person shall, in accordance with the request of the parent, permit the student, without academic penalty,
(a) to leave the classroom orplace where the instruction,course or program of study is taking place or the instructional materials are being used for the duration ofthe part of the instruction, course or program of study, or the use of the instructional materials, that includes the subject-matter referred to in subsection (1), or (b) to remain in the classroom or place without taking part in the instruction, course or program of study or using the instructional materials.
Alberta Bill of Rights States:
Recognition and declaration of rights and freedoms
1 It is hereby recognized and declared that in Alberta there exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity or gender expression, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms,
namely:
  • (a) the right of the individual to liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
  • (b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;
  • (c) freedom of religion;
  • (d) freedom of speech;
  • (e) freedom of assembly and association;
  • (f) freedom of the press;
  • (g) the right of parents to make informed decisions respecting the education of their children.

I could find no reference in the Canadian charter that refers to student child confidentiality or privacy. Perhaps Mr. Riley was referring to the Privacy Act, but that act is in reference to the retention of private data by government bodies.

Alberta Family Law Act:

(6)Except where otherwise limited by law, including a parenting order, each guardian may exercise the following powers:

  1. (a) to make day-to-day decisions affecting the child, including having the day-to-day care and control of the child and supervising the child’s daily activities;
  2. (b) to decide the child’s place of residence and to change the child’s place of residence;
  3. (c) to make decisions about the child’s education, including the nature, extent and place of education and any participation in extracurricular school activities;
  4. (d) to make decisions regarding the child’s cultural, linguistic,religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage;
  5. (e) to decide with whom the child is to live and with whom the child is to associate;
  6. (f) to decide whether the child should work and, if so, the nature and extent of the work, for whom the work is to be done and related matters;
  7. (g) to consent to medical, dental and other health-related treatment for the child;
  8. (h) to grant or refuse consent where consent of a parent or guardian is required by law in any application, approval, action, proceeding or other matter;
  9. (i) to receive and respond to any notice that a parent or guardian is entitled or required by law to receive;
  10. (j) subject to the Minors’ Property Act and the Public Trustee Act, to commence, defend, compromise or settle any legal proceedings relating to the child and to compromise or settle any proceedings taken against the child;
  11. (k) to appoint a person to act on behalf of the guardian in an emergency situation or where the guardian is temporarily absent because of illness or any other reason;
  12. (l) to receive from third par ties health, education or other information that may significantly affect the child;
  13. (m) to exercise any other powers reasonably necessary to carry out the responsibilities of guardianship.

Mr. Riley quite correctly states that the Trustees swore an Oath to follow the lawful commands of the Education Minister. However, Minister David Eggen’s command to keep secret from parents information to which they are legally entitled is an UNLAWFUL command, and by their oath, they should refuse to follow it.

“I believe fear is leading this issue, but it is not an irrational fear of change. No, it is a culture of fear…”

I believe fear is leading this issue, but it is not an irrational fear of change. No, it is a culture of fear perpetuated by Alberta Education (ATA,PSBA,ASBA, etc…), the NDP government, and their front groups like “Progress Alberta” and “iSMSS.” Driven by the aggressive behaviour of the LGBT… groups that threaten, harass, and bully.

This culture of fear is even embedded deep within SD76. From notices passed around by the ATA, to taking teachers aside and reprimanding them for being witness to a petition. This is a culture of cover up, silence, and oppression. I’ve never even gone into the questionable ‘hearings’ policies. That is a whole other mess entirely. There is a reason our little website has had over 53,000 visits in a month. Those parents, staff, and electorate who have been abused and maligned by the system know they can come to me, and others on this site, and share their stories without being exposed to the attacks and social media witch hunt that would surely follow.

Now, I have been accused of being aggressive as well, but there is a difference. The things I have said are true. They are predominately first hand quotes, and are experiences I have personally been privy to. Yes, not everything I have said is flattering to those individuals, but those who are directing the education of our children must be held accountable for their words and actions. They are the examples to our children, and they exert great influence over them.

As I have stated in the past, I am no stranger to bullying. I have been on the receiving end of a ‘hazing,’ and been mocked for the hobbies I enjoy. I can identify the difference between criticism and bullying. Many of the things I’ve said or accusations I have made were submitted in my affidavit during the appeal, and I swore before God that they were true, under penalty of law. The appeal process even gave the district’s lawyer the chance to cross examine (question my statements), and they did not do so.

“…and I swore before God that they were true, under penalty of law.”

That brings us to the petition. Why DID I feel compelled to appeal this particular petition, the first case of it’s kind in Canadian history? If you believe the ill-researched articles in the media, it was because we wanted to waste everyone’s time, and we are on the hunt to ‘out’ all the LGBT…. If you believe the board, it was because we were afraid of change, and would not accept that the issue was ‘done’ before it had ever even begun.

So, why not ask the man that appealed to the court? Why not ASK him why he felt obligated to appeal? Surely the man who filed the petition, and it’s appeal could tell you why he appealed. Surely the source would be the best place to get the information as to motivations? Well, I have stated here before why I felt obligated to appeal, (via the main contentions argued in court) but I suppose a reiteration of those reasons is necessary.

  1. The 25% condition of section 269(1)(a) of the School Act was not evaluated for the petition.

  2. That 259 signatures that only had postal codes were not considered valid.

  3. That when asked for details on the 110 rejected out of district signatures, the Secretary refused to provide them.

  4. A possible privacy violation of a witness to the petition.

There were in fact two more reasons that the petition was appealed, but more time was spent in the filings, that addressed those two issues, than was spent during arguments in the appeal. The two additional reasons were:

  1.  The actions of the board before the petition was submitted appeared to show prejudice against a fair evaluation of the petition.

  2. The Secretary had informed Dr. Prince and I that we could not have the petition back and implied that no amendment to the petition could be made. Thus 100s of hours of work would have to be repeated in order to re-submit.

As the individual who submitted the petition, it was my responsibility to make sure a fair and just evaluation was conducted. If you subtracted the 110 signatures that they said were out of district, that left 1924 tax payers in the lurch. After a petition is rejected, the School Act specifies that an appeal to the Court of Queens Bench is the only option left available. Although some would have you believe that it was a fruitless endeavor, Paragraph 18 of the Justice Tilleman’s judgment proves otherwise. In it, he recounts how the district stated that we could in fact amend our petition for re-evaluation. This was, as I’ve said, contrary to what they had said before the appeal.

Finally, what about the cost? Well, there were several opportunities before the petition to have genuine, bidirectional dialogue between parents and the board, but parents only met with resistance. At one point, parents were even told that it was up to the courts to figure this all out. But when parents went to court, they were being “Frivolous and Vexatious.” The fact of the matter is, the justice had 3 opportunities to declare our case frivolous. During the speak to date, where the merits of our appeal were evaluated, during the proceeding of the appeal, and during the rendering of the judgement. The districts lawyer ALSO had opportunity to argue to the justice that we were being vexatious. In neither the appeal proceedings, or the rendering of the judgement, were costs brought up.

[UPDATE: There is apparently no way to get the clarification I was seeking. A response of agreement to the costs as levied by SD76 has been sent to their lawyer.]

As was stated in the Medicine Hat News, we will be paying the $2300 bill as was received. I am in the process of attempting to get clarification from Justice Tilleman as to whether it was his intent in his judgement for us to pay costs. I am currently awaiting a call back from resolution services. The Board has given me a deadline of May 26th to respond to their request. This gives me a few days to get that clarification. I want to make it very clear, I am not paying this bill because I believe I was in the wrong in taking it to court. If I had to, I would do it all over again. It is silly to suggest that ‘not pursuing costs’ would set precedence forcing the district to forgive costs on any other potential case. Each case is unique, and the decision could be made at that time.

On the matter of ‘wasted money,’ I want to leave you with a few facts:

  • During the previous 2 years, SD76 paid $46,600 a year in membership fees to the unelected Alberta School Board Association (ASBA).
  • Beyond that, the ASBA charges ~$250 per hour for legal services.
  • Trustee Riley gave a report last Tuesday on the ASBA Zone 6 meeting, in which he stated that the ASBA was planning on increasing those membership fees, and increasing the legal services fees to ~$350 per hour.
  • What exactly does membership fees buy, if they don’t include legal services? A pool of potential candidates for positions? Is that worth the cost?
  • The Trustees had a 13.7% increase in ‘benefits’ on the 2017/18 budget. That means a $16,000 increase. From $10,500 to $26,500. Non-union staff only saw a 3% increase and that was spread across wages & benefits.
  • The NDP are FORCING a reduction in school fees, while expecting the districts to maintain the same level of services.

Tags, , , , ,

Board meeting Recap and Results of the CPoSD76 vote.

A quick recap of the board meeting. I am writing a more thorough walk through, but due to constraints on my time, I was unable to complete it tonight, so here is the tl;dr.

  1. 622 amendments were passed, and Terry Riley stated that they will not be looking at the policies again unless legislation changes.
  2. The board has chosen to continue their pursuit of court costs from me.
  3. The budget was passed.
  4. Terry Riley gave a report on the ASBA zone 6 meeting.

As for the your vote on how the CPoSD76 should proceed.

  • 39% – 1. Host a meeting & Invite the Board, then determine next step.
  • 60% – 2. Submit amendment to the petition, and proceed according to School Act
  • 1% – 3. Select four representatives to convey concerns to the board.

Given that costs were not rescinded, even more votes from 1 would be shifted to 2.

A meeting for signatories and stake holders in the petition will be held on the 27 of May. Venue TBA.

Tags, , ,

May SD76 public board meeting…

Tonight at 6pm is the monthly SD76 public board meeting.

There are a few major items on the agenda for the meeting.

  1. A letter from the A.S.B.A. (Alberta School Board Association) with info about the October Election. Couple of highlights, “Ideally there would be as few acclimations [new candidates] as possible,” “we have prepared a package of information to assist school boards in creating their own local election campaign packages.”[The A.S.B.A is the same institution that wants to eliminate school choice, and defund all other school options.]
  2. A vote on if to pass the 622 amendments. (This is pretty much a given.)
  3. The results on if they will retract the $2300 bill that they already sent me for following the school act and appealing the petition.
  4. A presentation of the School Budget. (Presumably by the Secretary.)

The Agenda, and all relevant documents can be found here.

 

A final note: Results of the vote on how to proceed will be available Wednesday.

Tags, , , ,

A choice needs to be made.

Last week I gave a report on a meeting with members of the Board of SD76.

This week, a decision needs to be made on how we should proceed post petition appeal. If option (1.) is chosen, the date of the Meeting would be Saturday, May 27th. The end of the school year is approaching, and this matter needs to be cleared up before the summer break.

Below is a very quick form that would provide us with concrete information on how parents feel we should continue. This is your opportunity. The names and e-mail of those that provide feedback will never be shared publicly. We know first hand the kind of blow back you can get from having an opinion that is not in agreement with the mainstream, and we will do our utmost to protect you from any such blow back.



I certify that I am a Public School Board Elector, who resides within Medicine Hat School District #76.


Tags, , , ,

On 622 report & other things.

tl;dr

  • The 622 report raised some concerns with parents. They are listed at the bottom.
  • The board has sent a bill for court costs, but are going to discuss rescinding it.
  • A few parents met with Trustees to discuss a solution to the current situation.
    • The CPOSD76 would like to hold a meeting for the purposes of deciding when to submit the amendments to the petition.
    • The CPoSD76 would invite the board to attend, and if the CPoSD76 are satisfied with the outcome of the discussion with the board, would hold a vote to cease action on the petition.
      • The Board would have to attend in majority, and be able to make official statements. (Understanding that not ALL statements would have to be official.)
      • The bill for court costs would have to be rescinded.
    • The Meeting would be open to any signatory to the petition, member of the CPoSD76 group, or resident of Medicine Hat, with concerns over the policy, or procedure.
    • Date of meeting TBA
  • We have 3 choices before us:
    • 1. Amend the petition, and follow the process of forming a committee in the school act.
    • 2. Have the meeting with the school board, and see if that satisfies the concerns.
    • 3. Select 3 or 4 people to represent the interests of the CPoSD76, and have them address the concerns to the board.
  • You can message an option number through facebook, or by using the contact form on the website.

It has been an interesting week. A report on the review of SD76 Policy 622 came out at the end of the last SD76 public board meeting. However, prior to that there was a invitation by a Trustee for a meeting with members of our group to discuss common ground and perhaps how we might come back from the brink on this policy. That meeting was set for Tuesday May 2nd.

On April 25th the board released their report, and immediately on the 26th a request for a statement was made by multiple media outlets. I Shared with the 557 members of our Facebook group that report, and requested their thoughts on it. I also met with numerous residents of Medicine Hat in person, to get their feedback. I began to write up a statement on behalf of the group.

On Friday April 28th I received an e-mail from the Lawyer for SD76, requesting I pay costs for the appeal. The stated reason being that, even though costs were not brought up during the appeal proceedings nor were they mentioned in Justice Tilleman’s decision, according to sd76’s lawyer, the Alberta Rules of Court states that SD76, as the ‘winning’ party, was entitled to seeks reimbursement for costs. This seemed to me counter intuitive to a reconciliation process. Thus I delayed the statement, and let the group know it would be delayed.

In the time between the April 28th and May 2nd I asked several signatories about the request for costs, (and consulted a lawyer.) The unanimous consensus from the signatories was that they too saw the request for costs counter intuitive to a reconciliation process. Some were more colorful in their answers than others. Thus, I held off on making any statements until after meeting with members of the board on May 2nd.

The May 2nd meeting saw a majority of the board in attendance. The meeting was not an official meeting of the board, and as such no official decisions were made. There were 2 other CPoSD76 representatives also present.

Overall the meeting seemed to be positive, with a positive outcome. There was some airing of grievances by both parties. A lot of clearing up of misunderstandings and mis-communications. Everyone conducted themselves in a professional and respectful manner, with everyone working towards the goal of coming to a consensus on how to move forward from this issue. Both the board members and the concerned parents understood that neither could make any decisions without first going back to their respective parties with the proposals.

A proposed process by a Trustee was that the concerned parents would arrange a meeting with the signatories/members of the public, and they would invite the board to attend that meeting, and address the issues and concerns that they had. The concerned parents in turn stated that they would be open to that idea, but they would have to bring it back to the other concerned parents, to decide if they wished to follow that process. It was also stated by the concerned parents that for that process to work, a couple of conditions would have to be met.

  1. If the board accepted an invitation and came, it would have to be a majority of the board, so that the board would be able to make official statements.
  2. The request for court costs would have to be rescinded, as that is perceived by the concerned parents to be a hindrance to moving forward.

The board members agreed to bring these requests up for discussion at their next available opportunity.

So, the proposal, to you the concerned parents is this:

We set up a town hall style meeting for the purposes of inviting the Board of SD76 to attend, and decide based on the feedback/participation of the board if/when we should file our amendment to the petition. We let you decide if you wish to move forward with the petition, or if you are satisfied with the feedback from the board, and that your concerns have been heard. Details on the date of the meeting will be forthcoming.


As for a statement on the 622 Review Report. Some of the concerns over it have been mentioned here before, some others have been shared with me since. To summarize those:

  1. Not all council’s had the relevant information available for parents when requested. (Particularly in regards to Admin procedures)
  2. Some council’s had expressed that they didn’t even need to consider it.
  3. One council shut down a parent that tried to raise a concern.
  4. At least one council did not have a Trustee present for their discussion.
  5. The process did not allow for proposed changes to go up to the board, but for feedback to be given to the board on proposed changes.
  6. The conflict of interest of council members, who are also staff, not being able to contradict the board, has not been addressed.
  7. A question on what the review process will be if the yearly review is removed, has not been answered.
  8. Some parent councils do not seem to have the details or understanding of what exactly their part in the process is.
  9. A lack of source information for the conclusions drawn in the report.

Due to the purpose of the meeting, I was not able to raise all of these issues. Over all the Trusstees did agree that communication between parent councils, parents, and the board was in need of a review, and that more readily available information was necessary. There was also mention of how best to engage parents, and the timing of parent council meetings.

 

Tags, , , ,

April 2017 Board Meeting Breakdown

Last Tuesday April 25th was the monthly public school board meeting. I know many of you have been awaiting a summary of the meeting, and have particular interest in the 622 Review Report. There will be a separate post on that matter on behalf of the group very soon. There have been some developments in the last few days in regards to the Board that warrant the report being addressed separately.

The board meeting opened with a couple of minor addendum to the agenda, which were approved. The minutes of the previous meeting were adopted, and Trustee Terry Riley was in attendance by phone. The chair quickly went over correspondence, and then recognized recent student and staff accomplishments.

  • A student was selected to attend “MLA for Day” in Edmonton
    • Special note was made of the fact the MLA Bob Wanner was somehow involved in this program.
  • A teacher had a children’s book published, “Chinook in Winter.”
  • A mention of the Wrestling Championships going on at Hat High.

After accomplishments, a report on the New York field trip was given. This report included several statements by 4 of the students that were a part of the trip. The students were asked what was the most memorable part of the field trip. They listed the UN, Ellis Island, and the Metropolitan Museum. One student mentioned the UN Universal Declaration of Humans Rights being the most translated document in the world. Just a minor nit pick, but the UN UDHR has been translated into 502 languages. The New Testament of the Bible has been translated into 1442 different languages. I was little surprised no one questioned or corrected that statement. I’m curious by what standard the UN considers a document a document.

I found it further curious that there was so much emphasis on the visit to the UN, and the UDHR, yet the current provincial government does not seem to be concerned with it contents. It is the UDHR, in article 26, paragraph 3 that we find “(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children,” and yet we have seen a concerted effort by the ATA, ASBA, and Alberta Education to violate that right, and remove school choice via shutting down of separate home school boards, and a demand that other options be defunded. Very curious indeed.

After the field trip report, a District focus update was given. This was quite lengthy, and a copy of the presentation was included in the agenda. I will not be going through this here, but suffice to say, it contained a lot of acronyms, and creative use of corporate education speak. The main acronym I was able to get from it was FAIRR – Formative, Alignment, Informing, Reflective, Reporting. The main points I picked up on were

  • It uses the Power Teacher Pro Platform
  • Outcome based
  • Something called Freshgrade and Seesaw
  • There is a new report card prototype
  • A shift to “Feelings” (ugh)
  • Current report cards are ‘antiquated’
  • Half the schools in the district are in the pilot.
  • It involves Pedagogy (Seems a bit redundant to say this)
  • Davidson said they were establishing shared terminology.
  • GLO’s will be in the language of the competencies.
  • Forbes wanted to know what has been done to revamp the arts program, and stated that BC and Ontario have a good program.

Next they approved a field trip to Chicago, and then reports from committees were given. Massini started with a report on the National School Board conference the He, Davidson, and Wilson-Fraser attended in the U.S. He spoke of the workshops he attended, including:

  • How to become a highly effective board
  • Communicating with community
    • He thinks the board can do considerably more in this area.
    • Wants to communicate with other groups.
    • Proposed to make a plan to communicate.
  • Board evaluations
    • Massini suggested the board talk about having more frequent evaluations
    • Riley thought there was no need to go into this, as the actions of the board need to be in operation for a while before they can be evaluated.
  • Meaning of sex on title 9 (Massini was unable to attend.)
    • Title 9 is an (rule) authority brought in by Obama that deals with sex and sexuality on campuses. (This is not a Canadian, or Albertan issue. Curious as to why it would have been necessary to attend.)
  • Editor of Huffington Post
    • This apparently started strong and then fizzled. (meh, not sure why the editor of a new organization was important to American school boards.)
  • Dealing with malcontents (Gee, I wonder why this was on the list?)

Davidson also mentioned attending:

  • Use of social media
  • Overcoming poverty (as a community)

The Coordinating committee minutes were adopted.

The public school board committee(?) report was mentioned.

Riley brought up the recent decision by the Saskatchewan court to prevent non-Catholic students from attending a Catholic school. Riley wants the board to discuss the effects it will have on the district. I posted about it here.

Freeman went to the District Learning Exchange, and the Council of Councils as well as the george Davidson council.

Wilson-Fraser went to council meetings, and noted how they are getting ready for year end.

Forbes went to the Learning Exchanges and the Creswood Council. Talked about the 20 or so parents at the meeting, and just how involved the parents of that school are.

Riley went to the Wilson learning center, and brought up 5 things to report

  1. Building Playgrounds
  2. Cost of outdoor Education
  3. A soggy section of the grounds that needs fixed
  4. 1st Year of grade 9 grads.
  5. They are on board with 622 (Who isn’t, after all, they HAVE to be on board with it.)

Massini attended the student presentations at Crescent Heights. One of which was on Renewable Energy. He also went to the South View Casino event and the Ken Saur School opening meeting.

The meeting concluded with Freeman giving her 622 Review Report.

This was a marathon meeting, and a lot of ground was covered. The CPoSD76 response to the 622 report will be next.

Tags,

Daily Tidbit

No quote today