Bloated boards and language laws not addressed

This report, recently presented to the Quebec English School Board Association (QESBA), is noteworthy for what it carefully avoids rather than for what it contains.

The plunging enrollment in English schools both in actual numbers and in proportion to French schools has two principal causes. Since Bill 101, adopted in 1977, student numbers in English schools are 40 per cent of what they were. Restrictive entry to English schools and massive westward emigration by English Quebecers have produced the largest school population decline in any developed country. The report devotes just one line to this issue by stating “it does not choose to offer its views on language legislation.� Helpful!

The other challenge facing public schools is the growth of the private schools. Yet, this too is dismissed in one line, saying that in the area of special needs “It is a task that most private schools do not share.� Are parents avoiding the public system because of the number of special needs students? Why does the report ignore that possibility or is that such a politically hot potato? However, the most glaring omission in this report is the refusal to deal with administrative structures and its costs. A comparison with the private system might have been a healthy and useful exercise. As an example, there are 186 commissioners for only 350 schools in the English sector, approximately one commissioner for every two schools. That is an incredible ratio. With their stipends and expenses the bill for commissioners hits seven

figures. Money well spent? The report seems to think it is.

In addition to the school boards, we have the governing boards for each school. Even the report notes that parents on the governing boards regard them as being a mere rubber stamp. Parents of those schools recently closed by the Lester B. Pearson School Board and other English boards would echo that view. The solution to this malaise surrounding governing boards according to the report is for them “to focus on educational projects, school safety, school budgets, field trips, discipline, time allocation for subjects, fundraising and book selection.� And then, hey presto, says the report “complaints disappear.� Of course then one might question the need for all those commissioners.

An interesting fact revealed in the report is that there are 8,000 teachers “supported� by 5,000 other employees in English boards. This does not include those who work at the government levels of education. In fact teachers complain about the lack of support they are receiving in the classroom. Maybe some kinds of “support� may be actually more of a burden to teachers in the front line.

Curiously, as student enrolment falls, administrative positions and numbers of commissioners seem to remain untouched. The paradox is that student numbers have fallen dramatically but school taxes have increased significantly, too! Since there are far less children to support and if, as the report admits, “Many buildings are in desperate need of repair,� why have school taxes gone up, not down?

With six present or retired director generals involved in the report, it is no surprise that this advisory council can find no fault with the school boards, “they exercise admirable judgment, compassion and leadership,� particularly in dealing with special-needs students. The Pearson board is touted as being at the forefront of the inclusion approach, specifically in dealing with the autism issue. The Riverside board is a leader dealing with students with behavioural problems. That is strange, my former colleagues seem remarkably unaware of any magic recipe that these boards claim to have

discovered. Anecdotes, not research, drive this report. Even by the low standards of reports on English education this one is poor.

Doesn’t the report make any suggestions for the future? It does, but they are surprising. For those on the West Island who have already seen English schools having been transferred to the French sector, the advisory council claims that we must’ strengthen English education by exchanging our essential “asset, � — i.e. share the schools. Many of the recommendations seem to focus on how we help the French system. Why? Did they indicate a need? Maybe the council did not notice that there are numerous English elementary schools in name only. We have, in fact, bilingual schools, in some cases teaching more French than English. So how will “sharing� help the English community? Needless to say it adds no additional student to the English rolls. Ironically, the report points out that “further closings are imminent.� Do we face another noticeable reduction in English schools?

This advisory council and its recommendations are not solutions but are part of the problem facing English schools — a reticence to face reality, a willingness to sacrifice taxpayers’ money on reports and a timidity to challenge a bloated bureaucracy.

— Jim Wilson is a retired president of the Pearson Teachers Union.