Hello - I read today in Moira MacDonald's column that Minister Wynne has axed the provincial parents group. To be honest when I found out that the Minister was expunging the group out of the education act, the writing was on the wall long ago.
I don't think replacing the group with regional PICs will change things unfortunately. All that's going to do is move the frustration felt by parents at the provincial level down to regional level.
What's really rich, and something that I agree totally with in MacDonald's column is that the provincial group was doomed when it moved in the hierarchy to under the Policy and Program Branch. I believe that PPB put up the blocks and the gov't knew it.
The gov't has now officially washed its hands of their partnership with parents at provincial level.
Instead of spending money supporting the provincial parents group, an office, meetings etc. That money is now going to councils and parent outreach grants.
You do realized how watered down it's all become don't you.
First parents were promised a "partnership"(under Dave Cooke, Snobelen, Johnson).
Then it morphed to a parent "involvement" (Ecker, Witmer, Kennedy)
Now parent engagement is what we're aiming for (Wynne).
I predict that the minister just demoted parents in the province.
If the PPG and the OPC under the NDP/PCs would have been allowed to move to a different designation other than advisory to the Minister, the organization might have been relevant to parents at the local level and around the province.
For those participating here from that provincial parent group, thanks, it's not your fault. Governments have allow this to happen.
Tags:
Share
Firstly, allow me to acknowledge and agree fully with the context of your comments with respect to "Parent Engagement, Involvement, and or Partinership" whatever name tag one wishes to attach to it- as you have quite readily pointed out it is little more than lip service.
The "Critical Role of Parents" is expoused in almost every document, research or otherwise one wishes to scan since the guiding education reform in Ontario starting in 1995. The like mindedness is reflective in the fact that the Education Improvement Commission established for the implementation of education reform was co-chaired by the former New Democratic Minister of Education and Training and the former chair of the Metro Tronto School Board- no, this is not a political remark it is about stakeholder accountability.
Bill 104. Fewer School Boards Act, 1997, is an Act to improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario`s school sysyem by(reducing the number of school Boards).
Bill 160. Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997, amends the Education Act, to provide for reforms in education governance, education finance, and education labour relations. The Bill also addresses matters relating to instruction in Ontario`s schools.
In 2009, I would respectfully submit to you few if any even know where to find these documents and or, what they were meant to do; their implementation, transparency, accountability, can best be characterized as a joke.
Then came PPM-122 issued by Ministry of Education and Training, April 12, 1995, School Board Policies on School Councils. Instructoions to all boards to set up "School Councils" which were to have an "Advisory Role" and a direct involvement, engagement to the boards on issues but, surprise, surprise all school councils report to the School Principal, as goes the principal so goes the school council (the principal decides what if anything has any value) and to no ones surprise nothing rarely ever gets to the board level.
Oh yes, and we have "The Road Ahead" reports 1 through 5, from the Education Improvement Commission starting in August 1997. Then comes Ontario Regulation 612/00, School Councils (Interpretation) made under the Education Act, October 25, 2000; it seems the majority of Ontario school boards forgot to set up school councils and or did not agree with and or understand the "Advisory Role". Then Came Ontario Regulation 613/00, made under the education Act, Amending Reg. 298 of R.R.O. 1990, (Operation of Schools-General); it seems the Principals and Vice-principals of the schools were confused on, can they make us do this, it is not part of collective bargaining agreement.
Finally, the proliferation of research on characteristics of effective schools and the "Leadership " function of Principals, and Vice-Principals outcomes in "Student Learning and Achivement" is daunting material in its overwhelming conclusion that the remit of leadership is the most important function of principals and vice-principals. And Principals and Vice-Principals most critical link to students and their learning and achivement is "Parent Colloboration and Dialogue" through school Councils.
The majority of school council members attend regular meetings without ever having their board trustee and or, board representative visit the council for an information session, and a great many school council members have no idea what "Advisory Role" means. And what do the boards and ministry do..............? yea, you guessed it lip service- a new document but, no action on the ground but, lots of focus on "Local School Based Management", by the way that is what principals do.
Trust you will get some results with your efforts.
Regards,
Ernest