Please note: Our Board has not yet developed a final position on the new Education Act to share with the Minister and our Edmonton MLAs as they consider Bill 18 the next time it comes to the Legislature. But here are some personal thoughts for your reflection from Trustee Michael Janz and me as your ward trustees in the southwest. To see the full Act, please visit http://ideas.education.alberta.ca/engage/current-initiatives/action-on-legislation and click on the pdf link at the bottom of the page.
Like! Overall, the whole Act. The new Act directly builds on what was heard over two years of consultation with students (Speak Out! Initiative) and with other education stakeholders and the public (Inspiring Education dialogue and Setting the Direction for Special Education). It is an enabling piece of legislation focused on student success, and it recognizes that “collaboration and cooperation of all partners in the education system is necessary to ensure the educational success of all students” (Preamble Statement 4).
Like! The proposed Act increases entitlement to an education until age 21 (Section 3: a) and makes attendance compulsory until age 17 (or the completion of high school) (Sections 7: 1c and 2). For some students, the extra support and time to complete their high school education will be excellent. Raising the mandatory age shows an increased value being placed on education by the Province. Again, excellent! Note: the challenge for school boards is to provide education that keeps ALL students fully engaged and excited about learning as well as to work with community partners to address home issues that contribute to students dropping out.
Like! Emphasis on everyone’s responsibility for creating safe, caring and respectful learning environments – Students (Section 31: c, d & e ), Parents (Section 32: d ) and School Boards (Section 33: 1,d and 2). This emphasis mirrors two current Edmonton Public Schools policies that state that we will make our best efforts to ensure safety, caring and respect in both working AND learning environments. Potential problem: The language proposed in the new Act makes this an obligation (as opposed to specifying that Boards will make their best efforts) and this may increase risk of litigation. Also, the Act states that students are to “refrain from, report and not tolerate” any disrespectful and hurtful behavior (bullying) that happens outside of school and the school day (including when online) as well as when in school. Enforcement for events outside of school could present a challenge.
Like! Increased Expectation for Involvement by Everyone in Public Education. The Act recognizes that for the transformation of education to be successful, everyone is needed and plays a part (Section 33, c & f). As trustees and as per Section 34: d, we are both big believers in engaging communities and helping them to understand the value of public education, its challenges and its successes.
Like! Natural Person Powers for School Boards. This enabling provision gives boards greater flexibility to respond to their students and their communities’ needs. As per municipalities, boards will be able to act without asking for permission (as long as it is not prohibited). But note that the Minister reserves the right to approve any partnership a Board wishes to create to co-own a building (187), can take capital funding saved up for one project and apply it to another (Section 139: 3), and approve the borrowing of any money (176: 1).
Like! Enabling School Boards to create their own School Closure processes. In cases where a school must close for K-12 educational purposes, the ability to create our own “made in Edmonton” process would allow the Board the chance to work more collaboratively with our communities during a difficult time. For example, we might be able to build into an EPSB policy the idea of considering a closure or consolidation at the same time as developing a future plan for the building with the community and/or to conduct the process over several years (not have to start and complete it in one school year as is currently the case).
Question? Will the change to recognize students based on their residency, rather than their parents’ residency, be workable in our school district? Currently, each student is guaranteed a space at a designated school based on their family’s home address. Pressure on popular programs and schools and the district itself may grow as student residency is more easily changed than parent residency. The district may not be able to respond effectively if students can reside with friends or relatives to be closer to a preferred school. Also, this may affect district resources. Currently, if a student requiring specialized services and supports comes from outside Edmonton, EPSB and the home district arrange for the full cost to be borne by the home district. If the student were to be residing with a relative, there would be no ability to approach the home district for full funding (i.e. to cover the additional costs not supported by the Province’s grant for the student).
Question? Should the process around the Minister’s Power to Make Regulations be more specific? For many sections, the Minister retains the power to make regulations. On one hand, this will allow a timely response by the Minister as situations emerge because regulations are not subject to legislative review. On the other hand, there is no requirement outlined for any stakeholder engagement in developing the regulations. Also, in Section 66 the areas in which the Minister can make regulations have been expanded to include board governance and administrative procedures.
Question? What does the Government mean by inclusive education? (as mentioned in the Preamble Statement 7 and Section 33: e). Including a definition in the Interpretation Section could be useful for parents, boards, and staff in the case of disputes over how to best meet the needs of a student (Part 3, Division 3 and 4).
Question? Should Boards have to hold a plebiscite to enact a Special School Tax Levy? As per the current School Act, the new Act allows Boards to propose a special tax levy for a specific initiative that costs no more than 3% of their annual budgets (Division 5). The levy must be voted on in a plebiscite. In the situation of insufficient resources, removing the plebiscite requirement would allow Boards to respond more quickly to community needs and also, reconnect Boards directly to their taxpayers.
Question? Should there be a commitment in the Act by the Government to fund education in a sufficient, predictable, sustainable manner? While the Government commits to “…one publicly funded education system that provides a choice of educational opportunities to students…” (Preamble Statement 9), and while there are requirements for the Board to be accountable to its community (Section 33: b, h; Sections 136 and 137) for educational outcomes and its financial decisions, there is no corresponding accountability for the government with respect to funding in the Act.
