An independent consultant has found the school options committee was fair and followed procedure in the Bridgewater-Park View review process.
Alphonse MacNeil concluded in his 45-page report that “the process as prescribed by the policy and the principles of administrative fairness was adhered to for the purpose of this review.”
He makes 11 recommendations to improve the policy created by the Department of Education.
School Board Chair Jennifer Naugler says the report will also be given to the Education Minister.
“This is a first year for the brand new policy. Minister Casey will be getting a copy of this and that will be with her and her department to evaluate.”
Meanwhile, Outgoing Superintendent Geoff Cainen voiced his opinion on Twitter.
Independent review of school review process finds no issue with procedural fairness. Process was followed. Now board may proceed w/ decision
— Geoff Cainen (@GeoffCainen) July 14, 2016
Thank you to Phonse MacNeil, independent reviewer of school options committee work. His report finds committee followed process properly.
— Geoff Cainen (@GeoffCainen) July 14, 2016
Best wishes to the SSRSB governing board as they move forward with school review process in September. Focus on data and facts!
— Geoff Cainen (@GeoffCainen) July 15, 2016
The 20-member SOC voted 11-7 in favour, with two people absent, to send grade 10-12 students from Bridgewater Junior Senior High School to Park View Education Centre as early as 2017-18.
However, the school board makes the final decision.
Naugler says two school board meetings will be scheduled in September to discuss information with senior staff before a final decision is made by early October.
You can read the full report here.
The 11 recommendations made by Mr. MacNeil are listed below.
Recommendations
1. That the SOC be formed by individuals not affiliated to the schools being
reviewed or the community in which the school resides. In addition to
gathering data from the school board, the independent committee would call
upon representatives of the schools and the community as well as holding open
public meetings to obtain the information required to make a recommendation.
The specific representatives of the schools and community would be designated in the school review policy.
Rational
School closures or the transfer of students take an emotional toll on the community.
Many members of this SOC were forthright with the reviewer when they admitted that
they were focused on protecting their local school as opposed to taking an unbiased look
at what was best for programming. They felt a great deal of pressure from the
community to save their school and this included members outside of the Bridgewater
family of schools. An independent committee would be able to focus on what was best
for the students and at the same time involve as many members of the community as
possible in the recommendation.
2. The size of the SOC must be reasonable in order to allow for the efficient use
of time by the members of the committee and to ensure each committee
member has an opportunity to be heard.
Rational
This SOC was made up of 20 people plus the facilitator and recording secretary. The
committee was too large to be effective.
3. The Mandate and Objectives set for the committee must be manageable in
the timeframe provided to the Committee.
Rational
The reviewer believes the five objectives provided to the SOC were too overwhelming to
be dealt with in 10 regular meetings of the committee. The first objective dealt with high
school programming and required a discussion around a school merger and another
dealt with catchment in an area where the boundaries had not changed in 30 years. This
resulted in some frustration for the committee who felt that only two of the five
objectives were dealt with.
4. It is recommended that the process of calling for a vote by an SOC when a
consensus can’t be reached on a recommendation should be discontinued.
Rational
In the case of this SOC a consensus could not be reached on the objective of high school
programming which then, as per policy, required a vote. A vote of 11-7 took place with
two members of the committee not in attendance. The requirement to vote created a
winner and a loser and polarized the committee as well as having a negative impact in
the community. The reviewer would suggest that when consensus cannot be reached
that the committee acknowledge this and provide the governing board with
documentation that lists the pros and cons articulated by the committee as opposed to a
vote. The Board makes the ultimate decision and would benefit more from this type of
information. In addition it would permit each member of the committee to have a voice
in the final document even if they are not present for the vote.
There was also one public meeting after the vote where some members of the public
questioned why there was a public meeting where their input was requested if a vote
had already been taken. If there was no vote the final public meeting would have had
more meaning and comments and concerns of the public could have been added to the
document provided to the Board.
5. The SOC should make every effort to elect one chair and only appoint a cochair
in a circumstance where the elected chair is unable to attend a meeting.
Rational
Having co-chairs may have led to the position of chair not being as strong as expected
by committee members.
6. The facilitator should not be an educator or former educator.
Rational
With impartiality being paramount, the reviewer believes the facilitator should not have
an education background. In a province the size of Nova Scotia, it would be very unlikely
that the Superintendent or staff at the school board would not know a person from this
field. With the lack of trust that is acknowledged in these processes every step must be
taken to reassure the committee and community that there is no outside influence on
the process. It must be reiterated that the information obtained by the reviewer
indicates the facilitator for this review acted in good faith and was complimented by the
majority of the committee for his hard work and facilitation skills.
7. An evaluation process should be included in the school review process and
added to the policy.
Rational
The SOC members should be provided an opportunity to come together after the process
is complete to discuss best practices and areas of concern. This is critical for the
development of the school review process and policy. Those directly involved are well
placed to comment.
8. Roles and responsibilities must be explained in significant detail at the
beginning of the SOC process and any unique challenges addressed up front.
Rational
In addition to the first meeting where roles and responsibilities were explained it is
incumbent upon the facilitator to check with the committee members at points
throughout the process to ensure they are still on track with the expectations and
ensure an understanding of their responsibilities.
The issue of the PVEC Business Case needed to be discussed at the first meeting to
ensure transparency and to provide an understanding of the expectations for the
committee in the light of this reality.
9. Elected school board members should be present during the public meetings.
Rational
There was an expectation from the public that the governing school board members
would attend the public meetings. The minutes of the public meetings are provided to
the Board to aid in their decision making process. Their presence at the meeting would
be reassuring to the public and would offer them first hand information as opposed to
reading it in minutes.
10. Public meetings must have a standard structure, clear agenda and stated
goals to assist in ensuring public confidence. Reference to any documents that
will be produced should be carefully explained to avoid confusion or
unwittingly raising expectations.
Rational
The public meetings must have a predetermined program that involves introductions of
all SOC members and in addition clearly articulates what can be expected from a
committee that will only have the opportunity to meet 10 times outside of the public
meetings. As an example, if reference will be made to “drop downs” then expectations
related to them must be explained to the people in attendance. If it is interpreted that
these will be detailed drop downs that could include financial spreadsheets and
significant supporting data then anything less will not be accepted by the public and will
lead to a lack of confidence and satisfaction in reporting. Public meetings can be
emotionally charged and having a formal structure with a clear agenda and stated goals
can assist in managing expectations and creating efficiency.
11. All documentation being released from the SOC to the public should be
subject to an approval process that involves all members of the committee.
Rational
The current policy includes an approval process for meeting minutes but does not have a
specific policy for the approval of presentations and reports by the committee. This
created concern with the committee that they did not get to sign off on presentations
made at public meetings or the final report to the Board.
