Hands up if you know how Victoria’s deeply divided school board is going to pull together to address the biggest operational budget shortfall in its history — in a way that won’t erode the health of public education.

*

“I worry about your article, frankly,” says Bev Horsman who, after 23 years, remains the longest-serving trustee in the Greater Victoria School District (GVSD). “Because September is the most hopeful month. You’ve got the sharpened pencils, the smell in the air… Everybody’s all spiffed up and they’re off to the first day of school. You have this wonderful, magical world which is a school, and that has to continue.”

Yet Horsman’s reverie segues, unprompted. “Then you have this governance aspect over it which is full of worries and concerns… We desperately don’t want to be squeezing something in a way that’s going to cut off its air supply…”

Horsman ultimately knows better than anyone that, with the biggest operational budget cuts in the school district’s history approaching, decisions made by our provincial government and school trustees could damage children’s hopes infinitely more than any foreboding news article ever could.

How has it happened? Although our provincial government frequently declares funding for public education is “the highest ever”, the BC Teachers’ Federation and Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives show that’s misleading. They note the BC Liberals changed the funding formula to a “per student” rate as student populations hit a downswing; but schools with 10% fewer students don’t require 10% less heat, hydro and staff. They’ve mandated new programs without funding them and, though the province agreed to teacher wage increases, they haven’t increased funding to cover those, either.

And cuts began before the Liberals. Page after page of GVSD’s 20-year budget overview recount hundreds of cuts: Elementary summer schools eliminated, ESL positions reduced, special education staffing reduced, schools closed and sold, support for handicapped children cut… supplies, libraries, and music cut again and again…

So we would at least expect our elected trustees to be united in defense of our children. After all, no one is “for” reducing special needs help, expanding class sizes and closing libraries. Yet recently, a highly unusual conflict widely exposed a fundamental division amongst trustees which could, ultimately, utterly derail efforts to save public education.

The Mysterious Case of the Ousted Trustee

Last November, the Victoria Public Education Coalition (VPEC) entered the trustee elections. Though community-based, the new organization was bankrolled by a union local, the Greater Victoria Teachers’ Association (GVTA)-beginning a new era in traditionally non-affiliated elections. VPEC backed three candidates, and one was elected-Catherine Alpha.

“There just comes a point where you either make up your mind to quit teaching and just walk out, or you get engaged and start doing something to change it,” says Alpha, a full-time teacher. “I got engaged.”

The engagement quickly turned rocky.

Alpha and VPEC submitted their campaign finance disclosures to GVSD secretary-treasurer George Ambeault before March 15, 2009. After this deadline, there was a 30-day additional grace period for corrections.

On April 23, eight days after the deadline for making corrections had passed, Alpha was suddenly told she could no longer be a board member, because she’d failed to file her financial disclosure.

What had happened? VPEC and Alpha had submitted a financial disclosure form together. However, that same information should’ve been duplicated on a second form from Alpha alone.

In most people’s minds, that would be a minor technicality. Alpha promptly submitted the second form-wouldn’t that settle the matter? Besides, didn’t Ambeault, the GVSD official responsible for reviewing the forms, share the blame for failing to notify Alpha about the error until after the deadline for making corrections had passed?

That’s exactly what Alpha and trustees Peg Orcherton, John Young and Bev Horsman argued. But backed by GVSD’s lawyers, five other trustees holding the majority took a hard-line stance. They said Alpha simply hadn’t submitted her form on time, and the law left “no choice” but to declare Alpha off the board.

Orcherton became outraged, declaring Alpha a victim of “political interference or gross incompetence or both”.

She had reason to be suspicious.

Some trustees disliked the unions’ foray into school board elections. During the campaign, an email had gone out endorsing six trustee candidates as “supporters of music”, while claiming VPEC candidates like Alpha would be “eliminating band and strings programs” by not allowing students to pay for their own instruments anymore.

The allegation was misleading. VPEC’s platform was to lobby the province to fully fund music and “eliminate school fees without loss of programs”. Nevertheless, frantic music teachers had forwarded the email to parents through school lists, likely swinging election results determined by hundreds of votes.

Five of the six endorsed on that email were elected, forming a majority on the board: chair Tom Ferris, Dave Pitre, Michael McEvoy, Elaine Leonard and Jim Holland. (Pitre admitted to Focus they’d written the email “by committee”.) These same five were now declaring VPEC’s Alpha ousted.

Subsequent events deepened many people’s suspicions.

The board sent a confidential request for the Minister of Education to reinstate Alpha. However, several trustees told Focus that the draft the majority signed wasn’t as supportive of Alpha as it could have been.

Then, the majority didn’t wait for the Minister’s response, nor wait when Alpha launched court action. Instead, within the week, an elections officer was appointed and advertisement taken out announcing a by-election to fill Alpha’s seat. And this was hurriedly done days before the full board would even meet to legally authorize the actions.

More curiously still, in court, GVSD’s lawyer didn’t support Alpha’s application. He argued that the law simply unequivocally dictated Alpha’s removal. Further, Ambeault’s affidavit, and the lawyer, steadfastly contended that GVSD had no obligation to notify Alpha in a timely fashion that her forms were incomplete.

The judge quickly saw otherwise. “Obviously,” he stated, if there were problems with a candidate’s submissions, Ambeault had a “statutory obligation” to notify the candidate while there was still time to make corrections. Alpha was reinstated.

Nevertheless, board chair Ferris expresses outrage at those who accuse the majority of trying to oust Alpha. “That’s totally nutty. It’s so unbelievable!… Name one advantage to anybody to not having (Alpha) on the board… Do you have any idea how stressful that whole business was?… There’s absolutely no way that I would go through that willingly.”

Told of Ferris’ contention that nothing political was afoot, GVTA president Thierry Ponchet retorts, “I think that’s patently absurd, and untrue. No matter what Tom thinks, this was very political… (Alpha) has brought forward all kinds of motions that they don’t want to deal with.”

Pitre says they wanted a prompt by-election simply because many voters would be leaving for summer vacations. In hindsight, though, he understands how Alpha’s supporters might feel. “Well, because of the way it played out, I thought, ‘Oh boy, that sure doesn’t look very good,’” he admits. “I just think, ‘Aw geez, that’s not what we wanted to be portraying’. We weren’t after Catherine Alpha… We were being told we had to do it (by the lawyers); it was not negotiable.”

Ferris, McEvoy and GVSD superintendent John Gaiptman all similarly emphasize their lawyers said they had “no choice”.

GVSD lawyer Guy McDannold continues to assert this same hard-line position. They didn’t support Alpha’s application in court, says McDannold, because “the provincial legislation doesn’t provide any mechanism to reinstate a candidate or give the court any authority to reinstate a candidate”.

Since the judge, like Alpha, Orcherton and others, evidently read the law differently, I ask, “Did you as lawyers at no time see that there were possibly some ‘contestable’ issues within your position?”

McDannold pauses and then states, “I can’t comment on that.”

So to many, the Alpha affair was symptomatic of an insidious, if not outright acrimonious political division within the school board. But what’s the exact nature of that division? And what does it mean for area public schools?

To answer these questions, it’s important to understand how the school district works.

Is School Management “Apolitical”?

Teachers and staff report to principals, who report to the superintendent. The superintendent and secretary-treasurer oversee education, finances and facilities management, and report to the elected school trustees who set policies and directions.

The provincial government provides the bulk of funding. In exchange, school districts develop a “compliance budget”-deficits aren’t legal. This year, GVSD’s operations budget is $160 million. But after subtracting salaries, most negotiated by the province, just $18 million is left to manage 43 schools with 20,000 students in Victoria, Saanich, Esquimalt, View Royal, Oak Bay and the Highlands.

Everyone agrees money’s painfully tight. But they have different ideas about how to deal with that.

Superintendent Gaiptman describes himself as “the person who sweats the details” of achieving literacy and numeracy. When asked about funding problems, he responds, “I’m not a politician, so I don’t get into that. These are the rules, I live by them… Our job is to make it the best possible educational system. So regardless of what the Ministry (of Education) does, you’re never going to hear me blame it on the Ministry.”

That’s partly why, he explains, the public rarely hears from principals, superintendents and other administrators during high-profile education controversies. Daily, he explains, he has to convince stressed teachers, struggling students and frustrated parents they can together create real solutions that aren’t dependent on hypothetical funding changes years from now.

“Where was I during the (2005 teachers’) strike? I was totally non-visible,” says Gaiptman.

Similar perspectives are put forth by the majority of trustees.

Ferris says trustees do often argue about provincial funding issues; however, he adds, “From a pragmatic point of view, (any particular argument) may be true or not true, but my responsibility and the problem that’s directly in my face is, what do I do with what I’m given? Our responsibility is to provide an educational program given the money that we’re allocated.”

However, others argue Ferris and Gaiptman’s “apolitical” compliance to ever-tightening fiscal restrictions is itself a very political, sometimes even ruthless approach.

For example, Gaiptman has final say-so on the increasingly controversial issue of the number of students with special needs in any one class even when extra support isn’t available. Gaiptman says he considers matter-of-fact questions, like “Is this a good learning environment?” But VPEC President Patrick Schreck describes Gaiptman’s twice-yearly public reports on class composition as “political” documents aimed more at assuaging concerns than raising appropriate alarms.

“The most vulnerable children suffer the most,” comments Schreck.

Similarly, Orcherton points out Ferris’ attitude has led directly to the closure and sale or long-term leasing of seven schools since 2003 to help balance the GVSD budget, despite broad-based community protests.

“I don’t believe we should ever be selling off school lands. Ever,” says Orcherton, noting student populations are projected to increase again. “That’s our trust for the kids of the future. Once that land is gone and redeveloped, in urban areas, you’re not going to get it back. What are we going to have, big box schools?”

“My mandate is to provide an educational program for the children; not for the children of 2025 or 2035, but in 2009 and 2010,” counters Ferris. “I wouldn’t say I’m not concerned about the people 25 years out, but it isn’t my primary concern. Building a budget is often about a choice.”

But many argue even the budget options the trustees hear aren’t without political bias.

The Politics of Numbers

“Financial advice is taken pretty seriously by the board,” says Horsman. “And so sometimes boards don’t have the courage to ask questions that need to be asked… Legislatively we have the power, but in pragmatic terms, we don’t have the expertise… And it takes guts.”

“There are (trustees) that feel that the administration knows best and they don’t want to micro-manage,” agrees Orcherton.

Even Gaiptman defers to secretary-treasurer Ambeault on financial questions. “Does he have influence over me? Absolutely,” says Gaiptman. “He brings me back to reality.” (Focus requested an interview with Ambeault, but he was on sick leave and then vacation.)

Pitre confirms Orcherton’s view; although, he feels it’s a good thing.

“We should not ‘play with the trains’,” says Pitre. “Where a trustee can get themselves into trouble is to, for instance, not pay attention to the advice that’s being given by the people in the system who know what needs to be done.”

But doesn’t that give unelected administrators extraordinary power?

“Well, it’s very true,” Pitre replies. “Especially the district staff can have an incredible amount of power. But remember they’re hired by the board. So those administrators have to be keenly aware of the philosophical stance of that particular board.”

For Orcherton, that’s the whole problem: the administration gets a feel for where the majority lies, and then decisions start getting made without being thoroughly explored by all trustees.

It’s not the first time such complaints have arisen. In 2007, some trustees expressed shock when Ambeault put Richmond school up for sale before the final decision had come from the board. In 2006, a public furor erupted when it was discovered financial arrangements were taking place surrounding the future of Burnside School, which were apparently only known to the administration and selected trustees.

“I’ve had the privilege to work with boards that really followed process and were very inclusive,” comments Horsman. “And it annoys me and frustrates me when things don’t go through the process they were supposed to go through.”

These long-simmering conflicts came to a head this year. Alpha argued building a budget was itself an implicitly political act-and then pushed the trustees to vote on it.

Compliance or Civil Disobedience?

This spring, Alpha put forth a motion that the board submit a “needs” or “restoration” budget to the province. Ambeault would re-cap cuts since 1991, and the Greater Victoria School District would submit a budget for restoring those lost services-which amounted to well over $30 million, depending on how inflation and school closures were factored into the equation.

However, what Alpha was proposing would be breaking the law.

Unanimous support emerged for submitting the restoration budget, but only as a symbolic protest. Many trustees preferred to submit the legally-required compliance budget alongside the restoration budget. Everyone knew that, when Vancouver’s school board submitted only a “needs” budget in 1985, the provincial government fired the trustees.

“It’s incumbent upon us as trustees to make sure (our) voice is really, really, really heard,” says Pitre. At the same time, he says, he’s a “law-abiding citizen” who is “naïve enough to think that reason, common sense, the right kind of pressure et cetera is going to win the day… without government bashing, or polarizing.”

Ferris, too, felt the board already did enough lobbying. “Very rarely a month goes by that we don’t write a letter or talk to the Minister or Deputy Minister or British Columbia School Trustees Association,” he says.

“Letters don’t do it for me,” comments Orcherton. “A letter from a board is not active lobbying.”

“You have to stop thinking about holding onto your position on the board and be willing to see yourself as a servant of the children in the classroom,” says Alpha. “I’m not wedded to being a trustee forever. I’m wedded to being effective.”

Horsman agreed the board should lobby more vigorously, but she drew the line at voting for her own firing.

“Voting for motions that are going to flout your legal responsibilities is not the way to go,” says Horsman. “The hard work is staying in the fight.”

Alpha believed they’d win the fight.

“Definitely, it wouldn’t have been a quiet reaction from the government,” she speculates. “It would have got people talking. Not just people in Victoria, but people all over the province… And it was coming up to an election. It was a really perfect time to hold the government accountable… And we might’ve got more funding. There are points in time where there’s a very small window of opportunity and, if you can leverage that for the kids, then leverage it. Have the courage to do it.”­

In familiar fashion, Alpha, Orcherton and Young voted for, and Ferris, Pitre, McEvoy, Leonard and Holland, this time joined by Horsman, voted against this act of civil disobedience, and the restoration budget was only submitted as an addendum to the legally required one.

So the fundamental, recurring division on the board was now more clearly in focus than ever. There are those trustees who are most comfortable as managers: they work compliantly within the fiscal constraints they’re given, follow the advice of administrators thinking that same way, use entrepreunerial means to make up shortfalls, and advocate diplomatically through normal government channels. And then there are those trustees who see themselves partly as political activists willing to be confrontational.

Notably, this same tension exists in the provincial BC School Trustees Association.

“The membership (this year) sent a clear message,” says McEvoy, who’s also BCSTA vice-president. “It was a call for stronger advocacy on the funding issue, that we needed to put greater pressure, and during the election particularly.”

Nevertheless, BCSTA President Connie Denesiuk gained little traction with polite, lukewarm requests for “all parties” to demonstrate how they would “keep public education strong”.

Not surprisingly, there’s growing evidence this reluctance of the majority to step away from managerial compliance towards more strident activism is leaving public education open to erosion and, ultimately, privatization.

Privatizing Public Education

Many school districts now charge fees for pencils, paper, glue and other essentials; GVSD sends out lists of “suggested” purchases. Local students must also often buy music instruments, and some voluntary sports programs cost $1200.

In principle, all our trustees would like public education fully funded. But Trustee Young has alone twice taken the school board and government to court over fees-and won. Even with the district’s pledge to provide supplies and fee waivers on request, Young argues the policy serves to humiliate the disadvantaged and attacks the core principal of free public educa­tion. He plans another court challenge this fall.

“I’m going to be launching it under the provisions of the Charter (of Rights and Freedoms),” says Young. “If I win that one, this would apply to every public school in Canada.”

Valued programs could be lost if governments fail to pony up.

“The year (Young) won his first court case, it literally took the colour out of the art program,” says Horsman.

But Orcherton notes we’re already on a slippery slope. “What are we going to have? If you want Basic English you get that, but if you want Enhanced, you’re going to have to pay a fee?”

In the wake of several rounds of BC Liberal tax cuts and a recession, some argue there simply isn’t enough money to go around. Alpha, though, points to a Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives study showing a profitable long term “social rate of return” in higher income taxes coming back for every dollar invested in public education. She believes the pressure to charge fees is part of a broader ideologically-driven assault, like attempts to open health care and other public services to the private sector.

There’s definitely a lot of privatizing going on in BC.

Under Campbell, government funding for private schools has increased at twice the rate for public education. One-hundred eighty public schools have been sold. Millions are being diverted into private companies doing teacher training, student data collection and tutoring. Parents groups are increasingly doing private fundraising, causing disparities in education quality between schools in wealthy and poor areas. Meanwhile, the “per student” funding formula makes public schools compete against private schools and each other for students. (An astonishing $7 million-nearly 40% of GVSD’s discretionary budget-is now coming from overseas tuitions.)

Horsman worries this competitive environment makes open dialogue itself threatening to our school system. “What we have in public education is top of the line. You don’t want to undermine people’s faith in public education. But you do want them to understand that it has been underfunded and it is at risk.”

Can Public Education Be Saved?

Horsman suggests next year’s projected $6 million shortfall-a staggering 1/3 of the Greater Victoria School District’s discretionary spending -could be an opportunity for new visioning.

“If we’re looking at any reason and time that we have to work together, it’s about to start in the fall,” she says. “I’d like to see a much more democratized process for decision making that involves the public more and the worker groups more… I think that’s the root of the problems, quite frankly; there’s not enough talking and listening going on.”

Young and Orcherton advocate less reliance on the administration’s suggestions, and more creative thinking during closer analysis of the budget.

Orcherton hopes the broader community becomes more engaged.

“Those kids are going to be the adults of tomorrow,” she points out. “They are going to be our replacements in the work that we do. In the growth of our economy. In the growth of our society. They are our future.”

Alpha also feels we all hold the key to uniting the board and igniting its effectiveness. “I’m hoping to see coalitions building between parents, trustees, teachers, the community… I’m hopeful that maybe we’ll all as a society start asking, what does public education mean to us? Do we value it? What does it mean to our democracy? What happens when you don’t have a strong system; why do we want a strong system?”

And we need to start asking these questions in earnest, Alpha suggests, “Because I honestly don’t think that public education has that long to really last as a quality institution, if we don’t stand up for it.”

*

Originally published in Focus, September, 2009.