Students on board

The election is over, the Libs have won, Dix is (likely) out and the Green got one; now it’s time to return to the greater minutiae of regional education politics.

Photo courtesy: Google Images.

In response to @pattibacchus’ tweet announcing the development of a student trustee position to provide Vancouver students with a voice on the board (Vancouver’s School Board), trustee Mike Lombardi replied via Twitter:

@bkostinuk VSB will develop criteria in consultation with VDSC. We have lots of info from Ont. @pattibacchus

— Mike Lombardi (@LombardiMike)

Well, “We have lots of info from Ontario,” doesn’t explain too much when even basic criteria hasn’t been set out.

What this appears as is a meaningless attempt, a mere tongue-in-cheek maneuver, to give the students “a voice.” Pragmatically, it’s difficult to perceive that a single, teenage voice, sitting at the table with a dozen or so relatively high-figured adults, could gain any traction.

Will the trustee be required to speak at every board meeting? Will he or she be given a free time-slot to voice any opinions and concerns each week? Both may be necessary to begin with.

And say the trustee is listened to, respected, will he or she truly be a representative voice for the general student population? How would this even be achieved?

A student trustee position isn’t a groundbreaking idea, it’s the lack of foresight and creativity that’s irritating. Better ideas are required. To capture the attention of students and to really find the true pulse of a student population, a need to tap directly into the student body is a prerequisite.

• Student referendums. Especially given the success of the latest student mock-voting for this year’s election, sending out proposed initiatives or ideas district-wide for students to vote on with a simple yes or no better captures the student voice.
• The use of email and Facebook campaigns to reach students. Social media in the classroom.
• Hold mini-assemblies or during major scheduled events present initiatives and ideas to students. Present the good and bad, then have each class take a vote.

I am quite familiar with how Grade school was during my time at Cedar Hills Elementary and L.A. Matheson Secondary in Surrey. Students weren’t too involved, there were pockets of interested individuals but by and large many weren’t participants or knew anything that was developing on the horizon.

The above applies to Surrey’s school district as much as Vancouver’s. Interest begins with knowledge. Appointing or electing student delegates isn’t a novel idea (copying Ontario) nor one that appears to be a practical measure that will enhance students’ experiences.

The tirade is now over.

The VSB, politics and a timely infographic

VSB infographic taken from the Tyee: http://bit.ly/11jKLG9

The Vancouver School Board released a letter and handy infographic that detailed what the district claimed to perennial underfunding since 2002/03.

Based on a 10-year comparison to 2002/03 provincial funding levels, the VSB estimated that it is currently operating under a shortfall of $47 million.

In 2013/14, $486 million in funding will be provided to Vancouver.

But, even with a shrinking student population, according to the reporting of the Tyee’s Katie Hyslop, the VSB stated:

“The district’s base operating budget 11 years ago was $415 million. Taking into account salary increases, collective agreement increases and changes to employee benefits, turnover, enrolment levels, cost increases, and inflation, Landry and Krowchuk calculated the cost of the services provided in 2002/03 would be $533 million today.”

Yet, what a strange way, and perhaps waste of resources, to try to prove a fiscal argument.

What justification is there to use 2002/03 as a benchmark year? Further, how can an arbitrary year’s fiscal history be reason for a present need? I’m certain if teachers were using 10-year old history books, they would think it grossly inadequate for 2013. The economy was different back then, using decade-old comparisons is like recalling salary increases of the ’90s and using it as justification for a raise in 2013 — isn’t it or am I missing something?

As mentioned, elementary and secondary student enrolment levels in Vancouver have consistently dropped since 2002 from just over 55,000, to around 50,000 by 2012, yet BCTF salaries and benefits have gone up.

Here is a list of BCTF members’ salaries for the Vancouver school district.

The calculated 2012 living wage rate for Metro Vancouver is $19.62 per hour. Even at the lowest pay grade, Category 4 Step 0, a teacher makes above the standard living wage rate for the city.

However, every time the teachers strike and picket for new a collective agreement, its (almost) always about increasing wages or salary and benefits — and all the power to them.

But what about the students?

They are used as political pawns in the capitalist game to financial providence, while the youth of B.C., and in the rest of Canada, are jobless, with surmounting debt and diminishing hope.

Take a look (After page 5) at the extravagant salaries of Vancouver superintendents and treasurer. Surrey and other district supers too receive similar or greater salary packages.

The VSB’s infographic displays $31.5 million in lost staffing, which would have included 524 entry level teacher’s jobs. Plus, another $15.5 million in supplies lost.

These are speculative numbers of course.

But what’s real is the salaries and money going into the pockets of union members who time and again use students as leverage to securing increasing amounts of funding.

During last year’s dispute, B.C. teachers refused to lead extra-curricular activities in protest to the government’s handling of the labour relations snafu. The teacher’s, among other tenets, sought 15 per cent wage increases over the following three years. The government summarily denied such demands and the situation was eventually resolved.

Unions should be held under the same scrutiny as government. The VSB’s latest plea appears at a superficial glance as another juking of the stats in an attempt to turn the faucet on just a little more, and quite timely when you consider the election just around the corner.

Is Surrey ready to embrace Surrey?

Photo by: Brandon Kostinuk

Connectivity.

This message should reverberate through the minds of Surrey residents, especially following Mayor Watts’ State of the City address, her eighth in fact.

The much sought after transit line is encouraged for its ability to connect downtown Surrey to the three city centres in Newton, Guildford and Langley.

This upcoming weekend, the city will host its first community summit where residents are encouraged to voice any opinions, interests or ideas.

Then, during today’s address, the mayor presented another progressive idea: a virtual town hall called City Speaks. City Speaks will allow thousands of citizens to offer their opinion via, presumably, an online form or interface.

The idea itself isn’t exactly reinventing the wheel, though the mayor called it the first initiative of its kind in Canada. For instance, Vancouver has held its own Twitter town hall meeting (the number of occasions is uncertain), whereby Mayor Robertson and councillors are made available to questions via twitter, for a limited space of time.

In truth, Vancouver’s idea likely cost a lot less than Surrey’s City Speaks, but the idea is positive. The more open spaces citizens have to voice their concerns, the better the democratic process of course.

Returning to the notion of connectivity, it’s definitely clear council is pushing towards a more unified city. Whether the city can see itself under a single Surrey umbrella will remain to be seen. At the moment it feels like six separate town centres that share utilities, but not concerns.