Draft "Parent Engagement Policy" not going out to PIC's?

[Gord Wyse]

Thanks People for Education for posting the ministries request for responce on draft Parent Engagement Policy. What I am upset over is why the PIC chairs weren't sent this info and invited to respond. I am not sure how this helps build confidence in who's voice is being heard on Parent Engagement matters. Perhaps the Ministry should come out with a communication policy first as requests for input seem to be hit and miss.

[Annie Kidder]

Hi there,
We got the policy as members of the Provincial Education Partnership Table, but I think you have a very good point about the communication policy.
Perhaps it's something that we can discuss at our conference next Saturday.
The policy is definitely worth reading and responding to - and I'm sure eventually all the bumps will get ironed out in the communication process.

[Craig Hurst]

Come on Annie, do you really think these communication issues are a "bump". This is very deliberate on the part of the Minister. Divide and Conquer, let's treat those parents like mushrooms! There isn't a word about the proposed policy on the Ministry web site as of Friday, October 30th. And the questions are structured once again, so that they lead everyone to follow the Ministry's script. If the only way that this is pushed out is through one member of the Partnership Table, shame on the Minister.

There is no desire to hear the voice of parents at Queen's Park!

[Linda Steel]

The info doesn't even show on the Ministry of Education's website...!!!! I have (and continue to) supported P 4 Ed for many years; however, I am 'a member". The parents - all of the parents in Ontario - are NOT members - nor should they be forced to be, to have a voice! As a 'parent' I do not want to receive info from the Min of Ed that is supposed to go to all parents through a government-funded lobbying group - that does not exclusively represent parents.

Further, and beyond (how many times have the parents of Ontario done this/given input???) WHY has P 4 Ed NOT advised its membership that Bill 177 is going to eliminate their only provincial level accessible, all parents included representation/voice (17.1 of the Education Act to be removed through Bill 177)? Annnddd... that Parent Involvement Committees are not guaranteed under Bill 177 - nor is any info given about their role, composition, or responsibilties.

Any interested members may contact me directly at:


I am concerned! What offical process is in place for P 4 Ed members to collectively decide what input will be provided at the partnership table(s)?; who decides 'what' the important issues are to be pursued?; who decides "what" info will be shared with members?

P 4 Ed is an outside lobbying group/ a "watch-dog"; however, in recent months (years?) it appears to be a conduit for Kathleen Wynne's personal, political agenda. In the past - the FIRST GROUP I would have expected to 'pounce' on these inequities would have been P 4 Ed...

So - I suppose I must talk about "the elephant in the room": P4 Ed is government (Min of Ed) funded. How much should we, as members, expect from you when your existance depends on funding from the group you are supposed to be critiquing? (sp?)

I view this as a critical issue: we need P 4 Ed - which is why I support it; however, the basis of my support is becoming increasingly historic... in my opinion "we" need you to go back to who you were - a strong lobbying voice for all partners in education across the province - a watch-dog, a lobbying group, a group that challenged the various "powers that be" to be accountable & do what they promised and do a better job It has been a while since you have filled that role....

PLEASE!!! Tell your membership what Bill 177 represents and ALL of the representation they are going to lose - with no guaranteed replacement - if parents & other partners do not speak out - and provide written submissions by NOV 12. AND post where & how they can respond!

Otherwise - I can only view this as a self-serving filtering exercise.

Luv you & Jacquie - but need you to advocate.

Best Reghards,

Linda Steel
Chair, London District Catholic School Council & Parent Involvement Committee, and past member, Provincial Parent Board.

[Annie Kidder]

I guess we have some 'splaining to do. I'm not sure where to start, but I'll try. I'm sorry this is so long, but I really want to try and get it right. Because it's really important to us what you think and that we don't create big gulfs among us.

First Bill 177
We did opposed parts of Bill 177, particularly the huge powers it will give this and any government over both school boards and Parent Involvement Committees. The regulations in this Bill and Bill 78, which passed three years ago, give the province the power to "Intervene" in, or even take over school boards for many reasons, including a displeasure with a board's test scores.

On the Parent Involvement Committee regulation we said there had to be at least six months of consultations with parents - PICs, school councils, and the four provincial parent groups - who in turn talk to thousands more parents. The regulation is there making PICs mandatory, but there’s nothing yet about how and what they should do. But you're right, we didn't say anything about the provincial parent board. We couldn't, because People for Education hadn't supported the idea of a provincial parent board in the first place.

When the Parent Voice in Education Project happened (that was the province's first consultation process to get their parent involvement policy figured out), we (the members of the PVEP) were told there had to be a provincial parent body (it was Gerard Kennedy's idea), but most of the members of the Parent Voice Project didn't want it - and there was a fair amount of consultation with parents across the province. What most parents said they wanted was more information, to feel more welcome in their kids' schools, and more notice about policy and funding changes. And they wanted to have access to the Minister of Education. The PVEP members complained A LOT about how short the timelines were, how constricted we were in what we were able to recommend and about how short the consultation was. The PVEP advocated for funding to go to local and regional groups and we wanted there to be an arms-length parent body that selected the grant recipients. We got our way on the funding, but not on the arms-length committee.

Now I'll try and explain as succinctly as I can why People for Education didn't recommend a provincial board. Really it's because we don't think there is such a thing as a "representative" parent group. Parents are all different and they all have different opinions. Many parents think that parents should have way more decision-making powers in education, but many other parents don't. Many parents believe there should be an elected structure for parents that goes from the local to the provincial, but just as many parents don't want that. On the other hand, I think that most parents believe that parents' voices should be heard and that parents have a huge amount to give to the education system and to all our public policy. Figuring out how the many many different voices are heard is always the hard part.

People for Education’s funding

People for Education, which started as a tiny group of volunteers, has grown a lot over the last few years. And in some ways it’s scary – because it has become a large not-for-profit entity. But we guard our independence fiercely. We do take some money from the province, but it is only a portion of our funding. Our funding looks like this:

- Foundations 39%
- Events 26%
- Ministry of Education (which includes a research grant, a PRO grant for the conference to provide subsidies for travel, and $11,000 for being a provincial parent organization) 15%
- Donations 14%
- Membership, subscriptions and speakers’ fees 6%
We all get paid now to do our work, and so the money goes to paying salaries, doing the surveys, sending newsletters to all the schools in the province, running the website, putting on an annual conference and putting out our annual reports. (there’s more, but that’s the bulk of it)

How decisions get made at People for Education
We don’t have a voting membership, but we do really truly try to listen to everyone and we try to advocate as well as we can. We wrestle with things, we ask people at our annual conference and we talk and talk – in the online community, on the phone, at meetings etc. But people are never going to agree with everything we do. Linda (and lots of others right now) think we’re taking the government’s side too much. People in the government think we’re way too critical of them. And it’s always hard to find the right balance. Sometimes everyone – teachers, boards, the Liberals, the NDP, the Conservatives, are all mad at us. I don’t want to sound whiny but it is a balancing act and sometimes we don’t balance properly.

We really care what you think, and I promise you that we’ll talk about this a lot this week.

The Parent Engagement Policy “consultation”

Okay – here’s one where I agree with both Linda and Craig. We were too sucky on this one. We did, at the Partnership Table, ask if they’d consulted with parents when they wrote the thing, and they hadn’t really (except, apparently, with the now dead Provincial Parent Board). I sit at the Partnership Table and I did express dismay at how they were doing this. BUT – I think you guys are right – not nearly enough dismay.

So – this will be corrected. We will contact people to talk about why this draft policy, for which they supposedly want parents’ feedback, is a) not up on the Ministry website, b) not being sent to PICs and c) being reviewed, once again, with incredibly short timelines.

You have to give us a little credit though. If we hadn’t put it up on our website and sent a thing out to our lists, no one would ever have known about it. (just kidding)

I hope this helps. Please don't give up on us. We're not always going to agree, and you're not always going to like the things we do or say, but I do promise that we'll always be as open as we possibly can, and I also promise that we NEVER sit in back rooms with governments making deals about what we will or won't say. That's why we're not a lobby group. Well, that and the fact that I can't keep secrets. I'm famously indiscreet, so I would never be able to make a secret back room deal without telling everyone.
Take care.
Annie Kidder
Executive Director of People for Education

[Linda Steel]

Dear Annie,

Thank you for the detailed response. As I mentioned in my previous "rant" I support P 4 Ed. However, Bill 177 and the removal of 17.1 remains a problem. I disagree that a provincial level parent group cannot be representative. Further, the recommendations contained in the PVEP report clearly & strongly identified the need for both a provincial parent board AND regional parent groups (PICS). Why is this government putting us in an either/or position? Why can they not "build" on our voice - and strengthen it?

Ironically, the Provincial Parent Board (PPB) provided broad representation for parents; however, we were under what I will call a "gag order". We were not allowed to communicate to anyone outside the PPB on anything we were doing. It took us 6 months to convince them to give the PPB an email address where parents could communicate their concerns. The messages received went directly to the Parent Engagement Office - and were dealt with by Ministery staff, who stopped sharing those after the firts 2 months.

We produced comprehensive report that identified ALL barriers to engagement and strategies to overcome ALL those barriers. It hasn't seen the light of day - and will likely never be shared with parents or the public; including a detailed set of recommendations for the development, role, ppurpose, necessary supports, etc to have effective & productive PICs.

You indicated that P 4 Ed does not support a provincial-level parent group - was the membership consulted on this?

I agree that you are far too candid to be deemed secretive - perhaps "advocacy group" is a better term. And receiving info from P 4 Ed is good & desireable - my concern is that we shouldn't be receiving info "ONLY" from P 4 Ed; especially when there is full contact info for all PIC Chairs.

I don't know yet if I will be attending the Conference. I have laringitus and can barely talk (which some may view as a good thing!)

Again, thanks for your response.

Linda

[Annie Kidder]

I agree completely that parents shouldn't be receiving information only from People for Education. We have very limited resources, we can only get things out to people who want to be on our mailing lists, AND we're not the government.
Okay, now it's time to eat some candy.

[Margo Cowie]

Good morning folks,

It saddens me that we are still having the same discussions after so so many years. What was somewhat different from the PVEP and the Interim Parent Board is that most of the parents on this group were not connected or representing groups like P4E or The Toronto Parent Network...we were from PIC and school councils...the exception and the most problematic piece was the appointment of our Chair who was definately representing a group that already sat on the Partnership Table and was looking to serve her own agenda as she was vying to be at the table this year again as chair of another group who has a permanent seat at the table. There was no advocacy for the PPB from our Chair...it was members from within, who after months of frustration...had to speak up and rock the boat. The Minister used the announcement of our appointments to serve her re-election bid...seeking the Catholic and Northern vote. A Chair would be appointed who wouldn't challenge status quo and support open democratic discussion, heated at times but necessary for real change. When the Minister sunk this Board...there was none of the fanfare...and indeed many Ontario parents do not even know...confusion, you bet. Did we fail...nope...we got the work done...as did many previous incarnations of provincial parent leadership...but this government has no courage. They also don't know how to engage. The failure of the particular board rests squarely on the Minister's head...and this bill will secure the power they so desparately need to have...the only group that has more power than the Ministry is the unions. Should parents then unionize? Well, I think this is what they were afraid of. If the voice of parents got too strong...then what would the government do. It's funny that the "table" is called "partnership" when there is no partnership involved and instead it seems like dictatorship. The role of P4E is valuable, but I don't want all my information coming from an outside source...I want to participate with the government directly. In a conference call several weeks before our "firing" it was made perfectly clear by the Minster that she would not be seeking an "Order In Council" to secure this parent voice. Members of the PPB who were "stunned" by her actions were not paying attention and essentially shot the messangers...the ones who actually were advocating for a parent voice.
So sad...but now what? For many of us, we move on to other avenues, more educated on advocacy skills and grieving what could have been. I do not want to be playing this game with grandchildren...they've had me for 14years...if there is no significant challenge or change...time to move on...what do you call this disengagement. I fully support Craig and Linda but the best way to fight now seems to be at the polls. Probably too much sugar last night...must go detox.

[Arlene Morell]

Was the Ontario Parent Involvement Policy ( Developing Partners in Education, December 1, 2005) just rhetoric?? “Parent involvement vehicles such as school councils and Parent Involvement Committees of school boards are central to the government’s vision for enhanced partnership with parents” statement taken from the Implementation of the Ontario Parent Involvement Policy , Dominic Giroux , Assistant Deputy Minister , French Language Education and Educational Operations , March 3, 2006.
Apparently PIC’s are no-longer central to the government’s vision???
There appears to be a trend developing that has myself as PIC leader disturbed…..once again ( third time to the best of my knowledge) Parent Involvement Committee’s have been left in the dark, since the Provincial Parent Board was disbanded…
Thankfully parents and education stakeholders have organizations like P4E, and OFHSA, ( I fully support and am a member of both organizations) who provide a voice for parents, however an inclusive parent voice through our school boards, school councils, also can and should be included in a manner that allows everyone to be informed and to participate ….we all have a role and together provide a unique perspective….
Much like the public input sought for the Elementary Curriculum review …. Full public opportunity should be available to all parents and stakeholders (trustees, teachers, community members, principals, superintendents, Director’s of education and students) on the Draft Parent Engagement Policy no matter their affiliation to a provincially recognized organization……
When we (PIC’s) are not included it disrespects our efforts ….that we do not have a meaningful role… and if the Ministry excludes PIC’s.. then, does this give school board’s latitude to exclude PIC’s? ….
While I am fortunate to be a parent leader in a board where parent inclusion is the operational norm…. this obvious exclusion of PIC’s is concerning ….

[Nadine Clarke]

With the same apology for the length of this response and with the same explanation that I too want to get it right. Too little is known about the Provincial Parent Board (PPB) so forgive me for the history lesson.

I agree with much of what was said in this on-line discussion. It is readily apparent “we are all different, with different opinions”, but there are many values that we share, one of which is parent engagement.

Parent Engagement was the cornerstone of the PPB and the raison d’être of our creation. I do take issue with the P4E position on a provincial voice and the reasoning behind that as explained by Annie, namely that ‘there is no such thing as a representative parent group’. Yes parents are different, with different motivations, with different experiences and dealing with a variety of circumstances. That was clear in the Parent Voice in Education Project (PVEP) report. However, Recommendation number 7 specifically addressed a provincial voice, suggesting that the Ministry establish “an advisory Board of Parents” to be selected by and accountable to, parents through an open and transparent selection process.

The Board of Parents was NOT to be a representative body but a group of parents selected for their specific knowledge, talents and skills and reflective of the diversity of the province. If the PPB had been a representative group voted by its constituent parents, councils and boards, its composition would have been very different. For example there was a greater proportion of parents from the separate boards and rural areas where the numbers alone would result in less ‘representation’. Recommendation Six of the PVEP report acknowledged that not even school councils are representative of the entire school community. “We believe that to meet the need for balanced and diverse membership, there will have to be an application process” which will also open up the process to as many parents as possible. The report went on to describe other factors to be taken into account in the selection process to reflect a balance: language, religion, four school systems, urban and rural, elementary and secondary, experience with other parent groups and organizations, and male and female members. It was also agreed amongst the members that the three parent organizations, OFHSA, OAPCE and PPE would not have guaranteed seats on the board so as to ensure the broadening of parent participation. And finally “the provincial Board of Parents will push for broad consultations in the parent community and not act as the sole voice of parents”.

Therefore Annie’s statement that “figuring out how the many many different voices are heard is always the hard part” is not a barrier to a provincial level of parents mandated to advise the Minister on parent engagement. The challenge was answered by the voluminous amount of work the PPB completed. In the recent School Advocate, we highlighted some of that work. Every comment, recommendation and reflection made in the PVEP report was taken into account in the strategic plan put forth by the PPB. The Logic Model methodology identified all the barriers to parental engagement not only from the group’s extensive experience but also from studying submissions, presentations and reports from the 1995 Royal Commission on Learning, the Education Improvement Commission report in 1998, the Parliamentary Assistant’s School Councils Consultation Paper Committee in 2000, the Rozanki’s hearing ins 2001 and building on previous surveys and parental involvement research. The methodology then led us to creative solutions.

NOT A LOT CHANGES. As the more experienced parents told the PVE Project members “we have been asked before and little has changed”. Repetitious calls to parents across the province to identify common concerns and barriers to engagement are a waste of time. The response to those calls has been, is and will be the same.

Why do we have to create the image that this is an impossible take, that the way forward is so complicated because the “many many different voices” cannot be accommodated? The PPB accomplished that and much more. We were not a representative, elected body of parents. We were parents, selected in an open and transparent process, who did what too many seem to think is too difficult.

As to parent consultation, the PPB developed tools, processes and outcomes to ensure that the parent voice is heard in school councils and in PICs and to make the schools more welcoming. The same approach was taken to ensure outcomes for better communication and accountability.

Without a voice at the provincial level, advising on parent policy and programs, acting as a sounding board for the minister, we will revert to the traditional piecemeal, inefficient and non-inclusive ways of gathering a few parents’ opinions on government positions. We already know the faults in that process: too short a timeframe for response, too few ways to access parents on a local and provincial level, to communicate with, inform and gather input, too many well-placed special interests and non-inclusive voices. Not very effective and not transformative in achieving what we, as parents, have been requesting for so many years. The PPB proved it could be done differently but the government was not ready for the answers.

[Sheila Stewart]

Does this suggest then, that there is a whole other plan for school councils and PICs? I asked a similar question at a meeting recently: What is happening to our parent voice in education? ....As well as questions about how we can represent parents/school councils better, in a broader way......

[Linda Steel]

PPB members - literally - spent 1000's of volunteer hours creating what we called "The Logic Model" and recommendations for PICs & how they related to school councils (and many other things!). So we would sit in engaged meaningful recognized roles as partners in education. It was a backwards approach on going from A to Z. We started with 'Z' our ultimate desired results - and worked backwards. The philosophy is/was if "this" happened "then" X would result. School Councils, PICs, Boards - anyone - could take this model & work through it step-by-step. If the anticipated step did not lead to the results you expected along that timeline, you would immediuately be aware of where your approach was not working - and would be able to review & adjust rather than continue down a path that wasn't working for you. It is/was comprehensive!

Government rhetoric now tells parents there is no difference between Parent Involvement or Parent Engagement - or that the difference does not matter. They are wrong!!! And this certainly is meant to broaden our roles and position.

Parent Involvement = participation; Parent Engagement = partnership. A BIG difference in attitudes , roles, responsibilities, and recognition.

Soooo.... to answer your question: yes; there is another plan - a plan that was developed by parents for parents - and it is sitting somewhere gathering dust at Queens Park. You will likely never see it!

Someone - lots of "someones" (AKA: parents) should be asking why....

[mary-Lou VanBerkle]

The Provincial school system includes schools for the deaf, blind, deaf/blind and demonstration schools for children considered severely learning disabled. Previously, there was at the provincial level a council which included parents from all of the provincial schools known as the PDSC. There were also councils which focused on Deaf student issues and those which concentrated on learning disabled issues.

Last year the PDSC was disbanded. This was done regardless of parent’ expressed wishes to continue with some changes to meeting structure, time and location to address barriers to participation at the final meeting in June. The reason given for disbanding the group was that “parent participation was inconsistent, and therefore the group was not able to meet its mandate.” This is actually fairly accurate; however, barriers to parent participation (notably meetings held in Milton during the day required long drives and parents booking time away from work to attend) which were communicated to the senior administration were never addressed to see if participation could be improved before taking the step to disband the group.
The other issue that faced the groups was that often the meetings seemed more like administration telling parents what they were doing as opposed to discussing initiatives, gathering feedback or allowing parents to provide input, so many parents felt that if this was to be our sole purpose a newsletter would be more effective eliminating the need to book time off work and travel to the meetings.

The current governance and framework for the Provincial schools illustrates that there are significant gaps in service system provision. Notably a lack of transparency for policy and procedures which provides no opportunity for stake holder or community input.
Our desire as parents is to promote a strong vibrant publicly funded school where students enjoy high levels of achievement in order to reduce the significant gaps between those identified exceptional students and the rest of Ontario’s student population. We would like to see improved information sharing regarding the services available at the demonstration schools communicated to the public. We would like to see legislated changes within the act which would see the Provincial Demonstration schools recognized in the same manner as the schools for the deaf, the blind and the deaf/blind.

Currently the only parent body at the provincial level is a learning disabled group, which is to include the chairs of the demonstration schools and is run by the superintendent of provincial schools. There isn't a shared document to outline the mandate, or by-laws of this group and no official commitment or policies in place to ensure policy makers provide opportunity for parent input in a timely manner or even consider any feedback or concerns expressed at these meetings.

The provincial system has no elected trustees, the minister being the only elected person in this particular system is more or less our trustee and that minister is not directly accountable to the parents as very few of us reside in the constituency where she runs for election. The minister appoints the director and the director hires all other senior staff, including principals and the residential staff without any other stakeholder input. This is a system completely lacking in checks and balances. The director is responsible and controls all staffing policies and procedures so all other members at the table where policy procedure budget etc. report directly to and owe their jobs to this appointed person who only reports to the minister.


In a regular system parents would have a trustee, who they elect and in so doing vest their interest in the trustee. If the trustee fails to properly represent the constituents they will not be re-elected. Parents have direct access to their representative who as part of the board of trustees appoints the director who then hires the senior administrative staff. The director reports to the elected representatives. Parents, through their trustee have a place at the table to provide input, the trustee is directly responsible to the constituent, and the director responsible to the trustee. In the provincial school system where the minister is the only elected person and let’s face it, most of us have no real access to the minister there is no place with any power at the table for any discussion. This system lacks transparency and accountability. The parent council is the only venue for parent input and it has been divided into smaller groups which have no real power. The director is under no obligation to consider parent input.

It is important to know that these schools are residential schools, and all residence policies are also administered through the director’s office. Our children are under the care of a person who is not required to consider our concerns, our children live under the roof of a school where we have no elected representation directly accountable to us (as stated earlier most of us do not reside in the area where the minister is elected), and we cannot actually access that office or the minister directly for appeals or to voice concerns. Even when the ministry invites stake holders to the table through the now defunct Provincial Parent Board, OAPCE, People for Education, etc. NOT ONE PARENT from the provincial school system is included to provide input.

Surely the residential school experiences of our past would suggest that this is not an ideal structure. We must at least recognize in light of all that has happened in the country that parents are an essential part of the day to day lives of their children, even when they are living away from home, and that education should be a partnership not a dictatorship.