La CSDM se dotera d'un ombudsman

« June 5, 2009 Réaction - Opinion Part 1


The article in today's Gazette: "School probes attack on boy" , and an editorial: "Peaceful Schools" in the Hudson Gazette (June 3) , and a recounting of a story by a father at the LBPSB council meeting on April 27, reminded me of this Le Devoir article: « La CSDM se dotera d'un ombudsman» - 02/03 juin 2007.

The 2007 article mentions the role of an ombudsman which ,coincidentally, is one of the key elements of Bill 88 - protecteur de l'élève - that is being implemented soon. This is very good.

However, there could be a problem developing. Let me explain with a case study of sorts, beginning with an editorial in The Montreal Gazette of January 28, 2004 : "Teach, don't ban".

" The Lester B. Pearson School Board has wasted an opportunity by exiling two students from Pierrefonds Comprehensive High School after racially-charged language figured in a dispute between two groups of girls. This kind of forced transfer is a grave penalty at high-school age, and it is also not the most suitable response in this case.
The story, reported yesterday, involves the involuntary transfer of two of the four students who used an acronym involving "the n word" to insult a second group. The other two received lesser punishment. Reported violent behaviour from one of the taunted students received an even slighter disciplining.
These are muddled methods. Schools today are expected to teach more than classroom subjects. A multi-cultural society demands a high level of acceptance of differences. It's easy enough to give offence even unintentionally. That's why punctilious avoidance of language which is known to be hurtful is -- or should be - a sine qua non of civil public behaviour almost everywhere. Teenagers who haven't grasped that need to be taught it.
In this case a positive intervention, one or more supervised meetings involving everyone in both groups of students, aimed at explaining why some language is not acceptable, might well have been more constructive, fairer, and a better example to everyone involved. "

Indeed! ... Gazette - Letter to the Editor - "Students defend their school: it's not racist " - January 31, 2004

" Concerning the article, 'Students learn price of racial slur' (Gazette, Jan. 27), we, black students at Pierrefonds Comprehensive High School, would like to clarify PCHS is not a racist school but an outstanding, multi-cultural community school. Within PC's 33-year history, never has there been a case of racism or racial slander as there was before the holidays, and that case was an isolated one. Pierrefonds Comprehensive High School is a community with an adequate amount of resources such as a guidance counsellor, spiritual animator, social worker and a psychologist.
By far the majority of the PCHS student body, both black and white, also agree with the recent editorial of Jan.28, "Teach, don't ban." We feel the decision made to transfer the two students was harsh and the situation could have been dealt with in a more proactive manner, by using the vast internal resources available to us on a daily basis - namely our teachers.
We are not proud of nor do we support the actions of our classmates, however, we believe their punishment is severe for such a first-time offence."

The letter was signed by three students, and supported by the entire staff - with exception of one or two people. The transferred girls were my students. The community was very upset, and many tears were shed because of the way this was handled....(the editorial and letter - typed verbatim) This is the end of part 1.

http://www.ledevoir.com/2009/06/03/commentaires/0906041141694.html


Chris Eustace (ceustace@videotron.ca) »

« June 6, 2009 - Réaction - Opinion - Part 2

First - please refer to Part 1 (copy/paste) of Le Devoir link below. This brings us to a picture and article in the West Island Suburban of April 7, 2004. The article: "Apologies flow after PCHS clash" . The picture featured a group of black and white girls standing in front of PCHS. They had just kissed and made-up - witnessed by a journalist, mothers - black and white, and me.

The next day these girls, who had been together for at least four (4) years, went to three (3) different high schools in the Pearson board. (Some of these girls had been together since Grade I)....Meanwhile, the adults formed a committee which was subdivided into 4-5 sub committees and that was that.

However, on April 6 , 2005, a letter to the Editor written by "Stephanie" (one of the transferred girls) appeared in The Gazette. The content of the letter is apparent by the publication of two subsequent letters to the editor of The Gazette on April 14, 2005. They are reproduced here:

" Pearson board has a security policy " by Secretary General , LBPSB

' Re: Letters, April 6, "Pearson board needs threat policy" in which a Lester B. Pearson School Board student, responding to the arrest of a John Rennie High School student for making death threats, advocated a board wide policy on how to handle threats.
Threats are unacceptable. Everyone in our educational community is entitled to safe, secure and respectful environment, free from all forms of harassment and violent behaviour.
This the key to the Safe Schools Policy of the Lester B Pearson School Board, a document that is accessible to the public through the board Web site at www.lbpsb.qc.ca.
Moreover, in accordance with the Education Act, each school's governing board is responsible for approving rules of conduct and safety measures proposed by the principal.
If the risk assessment is wrong or the protective rules and remedial measures not properly applied a written note to any of the board's senior officials will generate a review.
At the same time, the board believes that police and public security officials are well trained to act professionally and appropriately in assessing the risk implied by any threat, and determining the most appropriate response.

" Public schools need ombudsmen " (me)

' I was saddened and angered to read your April 6 letter, "Pearson board needs threat policy."
The thrust of the letter from Stephanie (surname withheld) was praise for the way John Rennie High School was "so open" about a recent threats case, by calling the police and "handling the situation so professionally."
Unfortunately, months ago at a different school, when Stephanie was threatened with death, the police were not called, and she had to fend for herself. That doesn't seem fair. She wondered, "Shouldn't all Lester B. Pearson schools have a similar plan of action for such situations?"
What the Pearson board really needs is to create an Office of the Ombudsman, possibly supplemented by a fairness committee, as many schools and school boards have around the world. In many U.S. states, the position is known as The Office of the Child Advocate.
In B.C., the ombudsman can be contacted directly by young people themselves - even anonymously. Teachers can act on behalf of a student or parent. Lawyers are not involved and the focus of any investigation is "not to find fault but to determine fair process."
Recently, a school ombudsman in Ohio said: "It takes a self-confident school board to establish an ombudsman's office. It's a gift to the public because it shows a willingness to undergo self-criticism or assessment."
The vision statement of the Pearson board should include a sentence promising fair treatment of all students. This fair treatment should be ensured by the creation of an ombudsman's office. Children should be seen and heard.'

Now , let's fast forward to May 2008. The Minister of Education, Michelle Courchesne, drafts Bill 88 and makes reference to a "protecteur de l' élève - droits de l'élève - an ombudsman . Excellent !

The Quebec English School Boards Association quickly reacts: "QESBA Brief on Brief presented to the Commission de l'Éducation de l'Assemblée nationale on Draft Bill 88 - Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'instruction publique et la Loi sur les élections scolaires" - May 2008

"Complaints Procedures"
" We understand the draft law calls for a detailed complaints procedure. QESBA maintains that our parents and their students already get every opportunity to air their concerns fully. Our member school boards already have procedures that protect the rights of students and their parents to services and to effective recourse if they have complaints. Nevertheless, if the new measures will give the public greater confidence in how their school boards operate, and, very important if the system respects the fundamental role of school administrators and commissioners to first respond to complaints, then QESBA expects that our member boards can probably make this change work. It will be absolutely essential that responsible guidelines be put in place, after thorough consultation with school boards and their administrators. Furthermore, the resources necessary to engage additional personnel to receive complaints must be made available by the MELS."

"protect the rights of students and parents" ? "responsible guidelines" ? "thorough consultation with school boards" ? Hopefully, these questions will be answered in a final Part 3.


http://www.ledevoir.com/2007/06/02/commentaires/0906051805951.html


http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/letters/story.html?id=550d843c-a01c-48bf-bf45-0938339e68f7&k=59028


Chris Eustace (ceustace@videotron.ca) »

« June 7, 2009 Réaction / Opinion Part 3


Please stop. An explanation: Before reading this page, open the links below in descending order. Within each link, there are sub-links. Read sub-links first for background to the main link. All are copy and paste.

Le Devoir links below include Parts 1 and 2. This is Part 3:

May 2008 - At the end of Part 2 the Quebec English School Boards Association (QESBA) reacts to the Ministry's draft Bill 88 and grumbles about the component calling for a school board Ombudsman. The association writes: "Our member school boards already have procedures that protect rights of students and parents... " ...."administrators"...."commissioners".... and so on.

The association's brief is similar to the April 2005, LBPSB Secretary General's letter reproduced in Part 2. The mention of a "Safe Schools Policy" , "governing boards" , "board's senior officials" and, of course, the "Education Act" was not helpful for the girls or their parents.

Now, let's fast forward to another recent story that proves how ineffective school boards are without an ombudsman.

May 27, 2009 - Letter to the Editor - "Another picture of school enrollment" - The Suburban

"It was reported in the May 24th edition of The Gazette that "At least 10,000 Anglophone students are in the French system by choice". That's one story ; here is another.
Of all the Pearson school board meetings I have attended, the April 27, 2009 Council meeting is the most revealing.
At the meeting, a parent who identified himself as a member of the Home and School Association, and a volunteer who spent "hundreds of hours at the school", told a poignant and heart wrenching story, regarding the lack of support to counter social and academic difficulties of his son.
He concluded by informing the board that because of the lack of appropriate intervention in the case of his child, he felt obliged to remove him from a Pearson school and put him into a private school.
Perhaps, after hearing the father's tale, the Council of Commissioners surely must realize that schools are in dire need of certain resources.
Unfortunately, the board continues to fritter education tax dollars in all the wrong places. Our kids are in classrooms not boardrooms ; yet administrative spending appears to be unaffected by the decline in the number of students.
The Pearson board's inaction, as in this case of the lad in grade two, will result in a continued flow of students heading into the private sector. "

What I did not mention in my letter is that the father said that he did approach the "board's senior official" who simply "towed the line". He also said at the Council meeting that his school commissioner was not helpful in dealing with the problem.

This is not a criticism of individuals, but it is - of a system with a cosy-country-club mentality combined with a culture of arrogance, negligence and extravagance.

At this point, let's take a glance at the June 3rd edition of the Hudson Gazette . From the editorial: "Peaceful schools" : "The Lester B. Pearson School Board is adept at invoking personal-privacy clauses to avoid having to provide details.".....

It is evident similar to the girls' story, these two separate stories, years later, proves that school boards and the QESBA are not capable to handle these kinds of matters. They should be left to the individual schools - just like The Gazette editorial said and what the students wrote (both in January 2004) in Part 1 - with the help of an ombudsman.

So what is the problem that may develop as mentioned in Part 1. The fear is the Ministry may allow the English school boards, under the umbrella of the QESBA, to appoint an ombudsman from within, rather than seek a protecteur de l'élève from outside the board.

Finally, I have raised this ombudsman matter at the Pearson Council meetings on more than one occasion, including, just a few months ago, showing them the picture of the girls (part 2) .

Incidentally, the transferred girls are still in school. Last I heard one is studying 'Sports Medicine' and 'Stephanie' was finishing a 'Teaching English as a Second Language' (TESL) course.

Lastly, I want to thank the editorial board of Le Devoir for giving space to this semi-bilingual, retired teacher to express opinion. At the end of the day, it is the press - English and French - that is the ultimate Ombudsman.


Chris Eustace (ceustace@videotron.ca)




http://www.ledevoir.com/2009/05/29/commentaires/0905291550482.html

http://www.ledevoir.com/2009/05/30/commentaires/0906011357442.html

http://www.ledevoir.com/2007/06/02/commentaires/0906061419691.html »

« June 11, 2009 Réaction - Opinion Part 4



Using the past three Réactions as background, and the advice given by The Gazette editorial board and the letter to the editor by students in Part 1, the key word in this réaction is PARENTS. The purpose is to link the important role of parents and the Ombudsman feature of Bill 88. Let's recapitulate.

JANUARY 2004: The girls were gone - banished.

FEBRUARY 2004: The adults formed an unnamed Committee.

MARCH 2004: The Committee was subdivided into three committees: 'Policy', 'Communication' and 'Education'.

From the minutes of a March 2004 meeting, these aspects were discussed:

" Policy : Prevents acts of bias behaviour, Decrease (reduce) unkind acts or acts of disrespect, Allowing children to participate in the process of creating policy, Develop a process (Action Plan) to deal with situations as they occur, Develop a charter - put it in writing.

Communication: 1/2 Communication leads to speculation 1/2 truths, broken telephone, Background histories (institutional and personal) shape perceptions, We need to feel able to ask questions and to be heard, Team work needs mutual 2 way communication, Any situation that arises will be better dealt with once channels of communication are opened (confidentiality qualifier). We as a staff, model our forms of communication and levels of trust, Students don't know what to expect (consequences/actions) that make them hesitate, Students and sometimes staff have greater loyalty to their peers than to other levels/groups (comfort too), Goals: To clarify and more effectively use existing links: Parents-Students-Teachers-Administration, Creation of some form of official communication line.

Education: Global Aim: Encourage all people in our immediate environment to treat each other with respect, Immediate Goals: Establish an overall plan, Create/provide antibias activities, Implement Activities, Re-evaluate, Involve students in their education process.

Suggested names for the committee: J.U.S.T.I.C.E., P.E.A.C.E., R.E.S.P.E.C.T., Be Nice, C.A.R.E., and Standing Strong." .......Meanwhile:

APRIL 7, 2004 The Suburban: "Apologies flow after PCHS clash" . Some quotes:

Black girl: "I'm really happy we were all able to communicate, it's important we concentrate on the future and maintain our relationships"

Another black student said: "It takes a lot of courage to do that (apologize) and we do forgive her."

Black mother said: "It was handled unprofessionally but now it will be dealt with in a professional way. They (students) walk around feeling guilty, feeling bad. Why should they feel they don't have the right to explain, to admit they did something wrong, to get forgiveness and to move on? I believe in second chances."

White mother: "They should have been brought together with students and teachers and some of the administration to figure out what was going on. It didn't have to last as long as it did."

Yes, indeed, the girls were deprived of the 'right' to explain and 'get forgiveness' - because of the system.

MAY 2004 - besides the mention of "ethical guidelines" part of our Policy of Ideal Communication included this recommendation: " An independent appeal process". In other words: an Ombudsman.

OCTOBER 2008 - preamble to Bill 88

" Under the new provisions, school boards will be required to establish a procedure for examining complaints from students or parents. The procedure will enable complainants who are dissatisfied with the way their complaint has been handled to refer the complaint to a Student Ombudsman designated by the council of commissioners to give an opinion and recommend any appropriate corrective measures."

Excellent - the inclusion of PARENTS !

JULY 2009 - Bill 88 starts. Below is a catch-up link.


Chris Eustace (ceustace@videotron.ca)

http://westislandgazette.com/news/news/8112 »

« June 18, 2009 Bill 88 - Ombudsman Part 5

At the end of Part 4, I mention "inclusion of PARENTS". This reminded me of an email concerning the girls that I had sent to the highest level of the LBPSB on January 28, 2004. Here are some experts:

" I am the unidentified teacher mentioned in yesterday's article re: student transfers....
I taught both groups of students last year, and 3 of the 5 this year. ( the 2 transferred, I taught both years) .... The 5 students involved are top-notch students. The 2 transferred students were active in after school sports... This situation started in late Nov., teachers were basically kept in the dark. There are details of this 'transfer' that I'm convinced the Directorate is not aware about. ( not a criticism) ....most ( if not all) teachers are very upset..
...Letters were written by the students ...given to teachers before transfer asking for FORGIVENESS....
-The girl at 'XYZ' school is being harassed... Parents looking for private school....
Please intervene and offer the parents the option of re-instatement of the girls. There are many who are willing to help... Thank you, Chris Eustace " (For this réaction, I replaced the name of the school with 'XYZ')

Unfortunately, my request for the board's intervention was ignored. Believed were the well-connected people who had the wisdom, and just knew with all their hearts who were to be banished and who was to stay. The way the PARENTS were treated is unforgivable. Some of the mothers were students themselves at PCHS. They didn't have a chance against the board. It just was not FAIR.

Thank Heaven for Bill 88 which calls for a protecteur de l'élève and PARENTS. People now will be given a fair chance.

Moving on: Near the end of Part 4, I mention "ethical guidelines". This reminds me of school boards' "Code of Ethics for Commissioners". This LBPSB story starts in late 2007. To appreciate the point, it is necessary to review Article 177.1 of the Education Act.

Loi sur l'instruction publique (the words 'et' , 'and' - my capitals)

Exercice des fonctions.
177.1. Les membres du conseil des commissaires doivent agir dans les limites des fonctions et pouvoirs qui leur sont conférés, avec soin, prudence et diligence comme le ferait en pareilles circonstances une personne raisonnable, avec honnêteté, loyauté et dans l'intérêt de la commission scolaire ET de la population qu'elle dessert

Duties of commissioners.
177.1. The members of the council of commissioners must act within the scope of the functions and powers conferred on them, and exercise the care, prudence and diligence that a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances; they must also act with honesty and loyalty and in the interest of the school board AND the population served by the school board.

In the autumn of 2007, middle of a school board election campaign, the Pearson board decides to undergo a consultation process for its code of ethics for commissioners.

Under the heading of "Comportment" : Commissioners must, at all times, act in the Board's best interest." Period.

- not the students best interest, nor the constituents, not the population, and in my Internet research not one code of ethics from anywhere in North America was written similar to Pearson's.


Then you had sanctions: "Admonition, Censure, Revoked committee membership/attendance privilege, Withdrawal of Board services (mail, electronic services, telephone, etc.), Probation, Monitoring, Public reprimand, Suspension of the stipend, Or any other measure under Section 176 of the Education Act"

October 17, 2007 - Letter to the Editor - Hudson Gazette "LBPSB fiefdom"

The publication of the Pearson board's Public Notice in the Oct. 14 Montreal Gazette, concerning a new Code of Ethics & Professional Conduct for Commissioners should be raising concerns among anyone who believes in school board accountability.

I was present when By-law 5/07 was passed at the Council of Commissioners meeting on Sept. 24. There was passionate debate but it finally passed. The bylaw comes into force on Oct. 17, in the middle of seven school board contests for commissioner.

You can see for yourself that bylaw 5/07 is a menace to democratically elected school boards on the board's website, www.lbpsb.qc.ca
The new code of ethics consists of two addenda, A and B, which all commissioners will be expected to sign Nov. 12. Addendum B, which deals with conflict of interest matters, is fine, but Addendum A imposes a code of silence.

This confirms that the Pearson board is an autocratic institution. The chairperson is now the lord of the manor; the board is a fiefdom and commissioners are peasants. "

Also, please see link # 1 - October 25, 2007

Moving on: May 8, 2008 - please see link 2

May 20, 2008 - the CENTRAL PARENTS COMMITTEE speaks volumes following this much-advertised consultation - 2 excerpts:

"The Central Parents' Committee of the Lester B. Pearson School Board has reviewed the Consultation on
the Code of Ethics for Commissioners within the Lester B. Pearson School Board. The Central Parents'
Committee supports the position statements of our four sector parent committees. It is our intention that
these responses be considered with the full support of the Central Parents' Committee.

Under Behaviour (Article 4.6), we would argue that the statement, "Commissioners must, at all times, act
in the Board's best interest" differs from the article of the Education Act which deals with this issue. The
Central Parents' Committee suggests that this Article of the policy reflect the intention of Article 177.1 of
the Education Act. Commissioners are mandated to act in the best interest of constituents as well as the
School Board."

There you have it. Parents are telling the Pearson board how to read the Quebec Education Act. No other board - French or English - wasted so much time and money on the most elementary principle of democratically elected school boards...

Parents did not need this time-consuming nonsense. School taxpayers do not want their education tax dollars going toward a lot of advertising for nothing. Did the fishermen in the Gaspésie really care about the Pearson Board's code of ethics?

Anyway, after a lot of pestering at Council meetings - on October 2, 2008 the Pearson board finally got it right : the Code of Ethics for Commissioners now includes -

"The primary role of a Commissioner is to ensure that a quality public education program is available taking into consideration the best interests of the school board as a whole and its students and the local constituency he/she represents."

«Le rôle principal d'un commissaire est d'assurer qu'un programme éducatif public de qualité est disponible, compte tenu des meilleurs intérêts de la commission scolaire dans son entier, de ses élèves et des électeurs qu'il représente.»

(Link #3 is another réaction on ethics ; link # 4 is different matter of interest)

I wish to thank again the editorial board of Le Devoir for giving me this space to express my réaction on this important educational matter.




Chris Eustace (ceustace@videotron.ca)



http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/letters/story.html?id=6129eb9a-21d9-4a97-9ebb-21a2bb573252&k=64383

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/westisland/story.html?id=ed314de2-9db9-4c97-a1c8-719b24cccffd&k=9352

http://www.ledevoir.com/2009/05/01/commentaires/0905011235854.html

http://www.ledevoir.com/2009/06/12/commentaires/0906150944951.html »

« June 20, 2009 Loi 104 - Bill 104


On June 19, 2009, Jean Charest, premier of Quebec was asked on CJAD radio about the Bill 104 matter - a case that is before the Supreme Court of Canada. From the radio station's news department web site:

"The premier isn't taking a clear stand on bill 104, a law that blocks parents from gaining access to English public schools by sending their kids to private school for a year. The bill is up for a supreme court challenge, and though Charest says he'll "deal with it when it comes down," his words strongly suggest that if the supreme court quashes the bill, his government will introduce new legislation that will keep the option closed.

"Some people were doing indirectly what the law did not allow them to do directly," he says. "

That said, I was reminded of an opinion piece on June 17, 2009 in the Montreal Gazette by the president of the Quebec English School Boards Association (QESBA): "Landmark decision - Bill 104 ruling to shape future of English schools " (link # 1)

Let's backtrack a bit. On January 2, 2009, I sent the following email letter to Angela Mancini, chair of the English Montreal School Board, and Steve Bletas, Chair of the Sir Wilfrid Laurier School Board. The letter was copied to all commissioners of the Lester B. Pearson School Board. Of course, this included Marcus Tabachnick, chair of Pearson, since the board's inception. Mr. Tabachnick was also president of the QESBA from Day 1 till January/ February 2008. (about 10 years for both positions)

January 2, 2009 " Hello Mrs. Mancini and Mr. Bletas:

Today's Gazette article "Bilingualism and the bottom line " brings to mind the Bill 104 matter, and, in a way, gives me the opportunity to somewhat clear the air and get things off my chest. I am writing to you as chairpersons of English boards to compliment you and your commissioners. Here's why.

Even though I have serious reservations about elected school boards, and even though you both took opposite positions regarding the challenge on the Bill 104 matter, we do agree on one thing - the true meaning of democracy....

The pages of minutes in full sentences of SWLSB reflect the debate, the discussion, the passion, the emotion behind the decision they took regarding the challenge - I can read the names of commissioners who voted one way or the other...bottom line accurately reported in the Gazette article of March 18 "English school boards join Bill 104 court fight" (link 2)

Same thing at EMSB. I was there for 3 meetings...I heard democracy in action; I heard arguing; I heard the battle, the conflict and I saw the hands go up - one by one. I can read the names, commissioner by commissioner in the minutes....(also reported accurately)....

So BRAVO to you both - and your commissioners.....everything out in the open.....you stood up and were counted as democratically elected commissioners serving your constituents.

Meanwhile, as we count the bodies returning home of the Canadian soldiers who are fighting for democracy so that women in Afghanistan be treated with more dignity, and boys and girls can go to school in peace, what's Lester B. doing - hiding. That's it - hiding because they lacked courage to fight. (to be fair, there were new commissioners)

Anyway, on Monday, Dec. 15, I attended two meetings : the Supreme Court of Canada hearing on Bill 104 and another Lester B. Pearson School Board meeting. The former was enlightening; the latter - revealing and disconcerting.

At Pearson, the Gazette piece says, "The resolution said that we are prepared to support the case up to $25,000 a year for three years", said Marcus Tabachnick, chairperson of the Pearson board.

Since I have questioned the Pearson board several times about Bill 104, ( from the Gazette, letter, "On Bill 104 and school-board inaction", Sept. 6, 2007 to January 2008 - in the minutes), I asked the chair : What "resolution" ? When was it taken? Who voted ? Why isn't there something in the minutes? ...(link 3)

Despite his contentions, there are no resolutions, no votes were taken and there is nothing in the commissioners' minutes to indicate that there was any money committed to support the Bill 104 appeal........

I am so ashamed and embarrassed by the conduct of Pearson...

Apologies for the length of this note, but I felt it was important to put things in perspective - "the bottom line".

All the best in 2009 - hopefully, better than 2008" (END of letter)


Today, June 20, funeral for 20-year-old, Quebec soldier, Pte. Alexandre Péloquin ; tomorrow is Fathers Day - my Dad was a soldier (Pte.) in WW 2 ;
Monday, June 22, a meeting to mark the occasion of the Fête Nationale sponsored by the Association d'études canadiennes, to discuss the state of relations between Francophones and Anglophones. Leading Quebec thinkers including Bernard Descôteaux, Publisher of Le Devoir; David Johnston of the Gazette; Jack Jedwab, Director of ACS; and Alain Gagnon of the CRIDAQ will speak.
On Tuesday, June 23, a military funeral for Cpl. Martin Dubé who was also killed in Afghanistan, will be held in Valcartier. Mr. Dubé , a Canadian soldier was raised in Quebec City.

Merci to the editorial board of Le Devoir for allowing me to express my thoughts.


( link # 3 refers to Court of Appeal - Montreal - Aug. 2007 ; links 4,5, and 6 - Supreme Court of Canada - Ottawa - Dec. 2008)

http://www.montrealgazette.com/Life/Landmark+decision/1703312/story.html

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=99b6e5bd-32bc-4d4f-95e0-ce1bb9a8bf3b&k=92770

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/letters/story.html?id=66ebd934-8774-4a39-8d3e-ffa8311e75f9&k=53214


http://www.ledevoir.com/2008/12/16/223540.html

https://www.ledevoir.com/2008/12/16/commentaires/0812162132961.html

http://westislandgazette.com/images/5151

Chris Eustace (ceustace@videotron.ca) »

« June 22, 2009 Loi 104 - décision imminente sur l'accès à l'école anglaise


The latest press release by the Quebec English School Boards Association titled: " Impending Bill 104 decision on English school access: Government must recognize English public schools as allies, not adversaries" reminded me of several things.

One of them was my submission on November 29, 2007 to the Public English Forum of the Bouchard-Taylor Commission on "Reasonable Accomodation". This was it:

" I am a retired teacher with grandchildren in the English public school system.

Although the English speaking community is often wrongly considered as being a well-treated minority in Quebec, I believe there is a significant lack of an appropriate accommodation provided by successive governments of this province. In addition, recent events have occurred that impact the English fact and our future in Quebec.

I shall focus only in one area of concern, that of education. The dropping birthrate, flight from the province because of linguistic legislation, and restrictive practises regarding school entry have combined to produce legitimate worries about the future of one of the provinces founding people - the English community. Undeniably, this community has contributed significantly to the social, economic and cultural development of Quebec.

It has been argued that the English school system has the opportunity to elect commissioners, purportedly to represent our interests; hence, they should act as the voice for the frustrations of our community. That was true when public school boards fought for rights issues and the community.

Unfortunately, today's so-called representatives of the education system have provided no support for a formal challenge to restrictive legislation. These laws, which infringe on the country's charter rights, prevent mother tongue Canadian citizens from enrolling their children in the school where the country's official language is taught. Where else in the world would this state of affairs be permitted to exist? Quebec laws also contravene the U.N. Charter of Rights, yet nothing is said by our alleged representatives, in this case the Quebec English School Boards Association (QESBA).

A recent example was the silence of QESBA regarding the challenge to the law - Bill 104. The challenge was not undertaken by our elected officials but by private citizens. Justice delayed is indeed justice denied, and this case, in particular, it is the latter, for that delay prevents a right from ever being exercised by the individuals so affected.

QESBA has to this point, given no inkling that it intends to support the challenge or even join the fight against the legislation. The commissioners often seem more attached to their provincial political party than to the community that they claim to represent. Their leadership and support is woefully lacking as evidenced by their meaningless honey-worded resolutions passed at school board meetings. Maybe the puny turnout in the recent school-board elections underlines the dissatisfaction of the status quo.

I believe we need a more militant approach to fight for rights in education. Sadly, neither the federal nor the provincial governments show any interest in defending this province's minority.

For example: the Quebec Provincial Association of Teachers have recently donated $20,000 to fight the law but the real tragedy is that those whose supposed aim is to represent us - to protect us - have abandoned us.

It is worth noting at this point, that recently at an English school board meeting, the chairperson was asked by me whether they would contribute money to help underwrite the legal costs incurred by financially needy litigants. Equally important to note is that the English school boards have millions of dollars in surpluses and the issue of this legal challenge has been known for some time, yet the chairperson of the board still procrastinates on taking any action or involvement.

Contrast that reluctance with the eagerness of the board to spend money so that certain commissioners (trustees) could attend the National School Boards Association convention in Orlando, Florida next March. Defending student's constitutional rights is eclipsed by commissioners' demands to be afforded free junkets to foreign countries. This speaks oceans about QESBA's priorities.

The English community does require a greater accommodation. Where are our representatives to demand it?
( END

Fast forward: An earlier press release by QESBA in April 2009 "Changing structures again is not the answer " which basically criticised former Assistant Deputy Minister of Education Robert Bissaillon and his "comité de sages" because the report prescribes the creation of some 4,000 virtually autonomous public schools, each a bureaucratic unit unto itself....... It's the wrong answer, in our view, QESBA proposes a different prescription: renew and reinforce Quebec's duly elected English and French school boards."

No, it is not the wrong answer. In a réaction of May 14, 2008 titled : 'More effort needed' to the article - 'Courchesne renforce son autorité '. I wrote:

"It's unfortunate that Education Minister,Michelle Courchesne did not take into account the findings of the recent Leger poll commissioned by the federation of Quebec school principals.

Bill 88 did not really consider that 92.3 per cent of Quebecers felt that teachers and the heads of schools know what is best for students.

Also it seems that not too much consideration was given to the finding that 80% of Quebecers think that the autonomy of schools would best serve the needs of the students."

Today, June 22, 2009 Leger Marketing will be releasing a survey/poll that deals with the condition of the French language and how Anglophones are viewed by the Francophone population.

Although I was not polled, this is my view of the situation. I want to thank the Cites Nouvelles newspaper for help in translating - and publishing my English letters (below). The last link from the West Island Gazette is a catch-up link.

Again, thank you to Le Devoir for giving me English 'space' in their French newspaper.

http://www.citesnouvelles.com/article-93131-Deplorables-sieges.html April 6,2007

http://www.citesnouvelles.com/article-99374-Je-suis-fier-de-Yolande-James.html April 27, 2007

http://www.citesnouvelles.com/article-101605-Lettre-ouverte-a-Mario-Dumont.html May 4, 2007

http://www.citesnouvelles.com/article-105874-Lettre-ouverte-a-Pauline-Marois-copie-conforme-a-Mario-Dumont.html May 18, 2007

http://www.citesnouvelles.com/article-133243-Des-reunions-sur-Internet.html August 27, 2007

http://www.citesnouvelles.com/article-112062-Lettre-a-leditrice.html June 8, 2007


http://www.citesnouvelles.com/article-117622-Pour-contrer-la-cyberdelinquance.html June 28,2007

http://westislandgazette.com/news/news/8279 June 21, 2009


Chris Eustace (ceustace@videotron.ca) »

« June 24, 2009 Sensibility and Sensitivity Part 8



I wish to comment on two articles of the June 23rd issue of Le Devoir : «La langue diviserait-elle moins que la religion? », and «Réussir son secondaire en se moquant des préjugés» written by Education reporter Clairandrée Chaucy. Further, I will attempt to link the pieces with two events that occurred on the eve of the Fête Nationale.

I attended the meeting mentioned in the first article:

«Un ange bilingue est passé sur le panel rassemblant aussi Bernard Descôteaux, directeur du Devoir, le journaliste David Johnson, de The Gazette et Jack Jedwab, directeur de l'Association d'études canadiennes (AEC) qui a commandé le sondage Web avec le Quebec Community Groups Network. Les résultats ont stratégiquement été publiés avant la Fête nationale et la Fête du Canada, à la une du Devoir, hier. »

I was most impressed by the observations of reporter David Johnston. I learned:

«Le journaliste David Johnson a récemment publié une série sur le regain démographique des Anglo-Québécois, en hausse de 5,5 % entre 2001 et 2006. «Nous perdons de moins en moins de jeunes par rapport à il y a 20 ans, certainement parce qu'ils sont de plus en plus bilingues», a-t-il proposé. Mieux encore, de plus en plus de jeunes Canadiens des autres provinces sont attirés au Québec par le faible coût de la vie à Montréal et particulièrement par les droits de scolarité les plus bas en Amérique. «Il y a près de 80 000 anglophones à McGill, Concordia et au collège Dawson, et ce fait teinte la perception de la force de l'anglais au centre-ville», a-t-il noté en s'inquiétant de cette perception. » (D.J. gave an ex: rent in Vancouver $1100 compared to $650 in Montreal)

Moving on: front page article: "Reussir...." - an inspiring story of the schooling of a young man, and the wisdom of his parents' advice. Here are some excerpts:

« La problématique du décrochage scolaire a été omniprésente tout au long de l'année scolaire. Au-delà du concept théorique que manient les chercheurs, les administrateurs publics et autres politiciens, la persévérance a des noms et des visages...Aujourd'hui, Jonatan Lavoie aura accompli ce que nul autre dans sa famille n'a fait: il termine sa cinquième secondaire.

Ses parents l'ont inspiré... à ne pas faire comme eux. Sa mère a quitté l'école à contrecoeur alors qu'elle était enceinte de sa soeur aînée tandis que son père n'aimait pas l'école...
«Mes parents me disaient qu'il fallait que j'aille à l'école parce qu'ils ne voulaient pas que je sois comme eux dans la vie.»

Now let us go back to the meeting. After the panellists finished talking, there was an opportunity to ask questions. The first question posed was by the Director of the Quebec English School Boards Association. Although I did not quite grasp his point because of my poor comprehension of the French language, it did manage to stir me to speak.

The first point I tried to make, in a roundabout way, dealt with the Pearson board and its planning for an off-island much-needed English elementary school. (meeting did include the subject of demographics, and we all know the Ste. Lazare/ Hudson area is a fast growing community.) CBC News of June 8 characterized the situation as a "multi-million-dollar-mess" with the chair of the board admitting, " Maybe, we should have put things in writing"....Maybe? ...

See the sad segment for yourself and judge. Go to: www.acdsa.org

" Citoyens pour la démocratie scolaire et l'école publique autonome / Citizens for Democratic & Autonomous Schools" (scroll down a bit till blank screen image)

The second point I mentioned dealt with Bill 88 and the different approaches that the English and French school board associations took concerning the subject of the election of the chair by universal suffrage.
Do you remember QESBA's reaction when draft Bill 88 came out? Their "first and foremost" concern was the election of the chair business....Not classroom size, not textbooks, not anything to do with schools or students....
From journalist Clairandrée Chaucy, of Le Devoir - June 4, 2008 - " Le milieu scolaire anglophone proteste" ....« Les commissions scolaires anglophones font pression sur leurs députés respectifs pour s'opposer à l'élection au suffrage universel des présidents de ces instances...» and so on...

The French boards were not too happy either but they accepted it - with class and dignity.

To digress a bit: On Sept. 5, 2008 the English School Boards Association was invited by CTV News to pose questions to Education Minister Michelle Courchesne regarding education concerns of Bill 88. Their final main thrust was that they were not being treated fairly in contrast to the French boards. What nonsense!

Madame Courchesne's answer was something like this: " It is our collective responsibility ... the government has the 'sensibility and sensitivity' so the boards don't feel neglected..."

That said, let me touch on two events that occurred on June 23, 2009:

First: The Gazette reports "Quebec premier Jean Charest shuffles three ministers" and requests 'comments'.
This was mine: " Thank Heaven, Education Minister, Michelle Courchesne stays put...

I'm reminded of a "réaction" of May 14, 2008 titled : 'More effort needed' to Le Devoir article - 'Courchesne renforce son autorité '. I wrote: "It's unfortunate that Education Minister, Michelle Courchesne did not take into account the findings of the recent Leger poll commissioned by the federation of Quebec school principals...
Bill 88 did not really consider that 92.3 per cent of Quebecers felt that teachers and the heads of schools know what is best for students...
Also it seems that not too much consideration was given to the finding that 80% of Quebecers think that the autonomy of schools would best serve the needs of the students."...
But that was then, this is now. After hearing the whining for over a year from the Quebec English School Boards Association with their demands for more "flexibility" and "innovation" concerning Bill 88, perhaps the Minister now appreciates the facts in the aforementioned poll.
Supplement those facts with the sound advice in the June 22, Gazette op-ed piece: "Want to reduce the dropout rate? Make schools better" - then we're really off to a good start cleaning up the education mess in Quebec..."

Finally : a military funeral in Valcartier was held for Quebecer, Martin Dubé, a Canadian soldier killed in Afghanistan - fighting for democracy. R.I.P.

(The first link below is a repeat because the original that was listed in an earlier "part" no longer works. This one does. Also, in 'Part 7', I messed up a bit. I put the dates too close to the links. Just copy the link. They all work. The other 3 links are for this 'Part' - indicated above.

Merci, Le Devoir et Bonne Fête de la Saint-Jean.


Chris Eustace (ceustace@videotron.ca)


http://www.lactualite.com/societe/entretien-les-solutions-de-michelle-courchesne

http://www.ledevoir.com/2009/06/23/256318.html

http://www.ledevoir.com/2009/06/23/256331.html

http://www.montrealgazette.com/Business/Want+reduce+dropout+rate+Make+schools+better/1719694/story.html »

« June 25, 2009 JE ME SOUVIENS Part 9


The news in Le Devoir and The Gazette today about former Education Minister, François Legault, leaving politics reminded me of a story that happened 10 years ago. Mr. Legault laid down the law to Marcus Tabachnick. Mr.Tabachnick was the president of the Quebec English School Boards Association then, and still is the chair of the Lester B. Pearson School Board. The story:


November 10, 2000, CBC News: "Quebec zaps YNN program in schools


Quebec's education minister has come out against the Youth News Network, a commercial enterprise that provides high schools with video equipment in exchange for daily newscasts in classrooms.
Education Minister Francois Legault sent a letter to school boards urging them not to sign a contract with Athena Educational Partners, the Montreal company behind the YNN package.
Earlier this year, YNN announced it had signed up three Quebec high schools for the program. YNN supplies schools with up to $200,000 worth of video equipment, monitors and a satellite dish if they agree to show a daily newscast, with two minutes of commercials.
Legault's letter says the YNN deal is contrary to Article 94 of the Quebec Education Act. The section of the Act says school boards may not accept commercial contributions "incompatible with the mission of the school."
Supporters of the YNN deal have criticized Legault for overstepping his authority. "He's just trampled all over governing boards," complained Marcus Tabachnick, chairman of the Lester B. Pearson School Board.
Most teachers and teachers' unions in Canada are against YNN entering the schools with their commercial newscasts. "

Link # 1 : June 22, 1999, Gazette article: 'Legault looks at legality of YNN' written by journalist Karen Seidman, who has covered most (if not all) education stories concerning the LBPSB.

Link 2: July 21, 1999, Gazette op-ed: 'A potential vehicle for propaganda' by Henry Aubin. 'Since joining The Gazette in 1973, Aubin has been an investigative reporter, editorial writer and, since 2001, full-time columnist'. (The 'scrap-school-boards' piece is educational - last link.)
Furthermore, Aubin is an author. His latest novel for young adults: 'Rise of the Golden Cobra' is set in Egypt - where President Obama gave his "New Beginning" speech a few weeks ago.

So what do we learn from this?

- The government is in charge - hence a Minister of Education for English and French school boards

- There is the law - the Education Act - written in English and French

- The Pearson board attempts to circumvent the Education Act in 1999 - Article 94 .

- Since Day 1, the QESBA did not say anything or do anything about Article 1.7 - textbooks.
Former Minister of Education, Pauline Marois, made it very clear: English and French students following the curriculum reform get books. The lack of English books business caused Pearson parents to meet in a chalet in June 2008 to complain to MNA. Everybody upset. Present day Minister of Education, Michelle Courchesne, comes to the rescue.

- In 2008, parents educate the LBPSB on what Article 177.1 means regarding the Code of Ethics... "Loyalty of commissioners - board AND constituents (see Part 5 of Le Devoir link below)

- then Article 1.1 - "age of admission" - LBPSB takes school taxpayers dollars away from those whom it is meant for - and puts it where it is not intended - an outcry from community - a petition is a stinging indictment of the school board's leadership.

Then we have the problem of the much-needed, off-island English elementary school. Today front-page article in West Island Gazette: 'Quest for off-island school site stalled again' ; the Hudson Gazette: 'St. Lazare to LBPSB: We won't allow it', and letter to the editor: 'LBPSB needs a reality check' and so on.

Anyway, earlier in this piece I made reference to President Obama and his "New Beginning" speech. It got me wondering..... Regardless of how good (or how bad) Barack Obama performs as president, one thing is certain: he will not be president in 2017. Presidents can only serve two terms...

I was thinking: Michelle Courchesne, who seems to possess 'sensitivity and sensibility' for the English community, and her Bill 88 kicking in...perhaps, now is the Time for Change. Indeed, it has been an Annus Horribilis.

Thank you for the space, Le Devoir.


Chris Eustace (ceustace@videotron.ca)



http://interact.uoregon.edu/MediaLit/CAMEO/ynn/35.html

http://interact.uoregon.edu/medialit/CAMEO/ynn/37.html

http://www.ledevoir.com/2007/06/02/145926.html

http://interact.uoregon.edu/MediaLit/CAMEO/YNN/index.html

http://interact.uoregon.edu/MediaLit/CAMEO/ynn/oposition.html

http://www2.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=7225b3f0-6144-481d-9b5e-88e15a2d2980 »

« June 26, 2009

LBPSB: The Inner Sanctum and Messaging System Part 10 -


The Supreme Court of Canada stated that a person's reputation is the most precious asset that anyone has - indeed it is.

Hudson Gazette article: 'Webcast meetings, LBPSB urged' Matthew Brett Oct. 1, 2008


" The Lester B. Pearson School Board was the first board in Quebec to broadcast its public council meeting on the Internet on September 22, but one former teacher is calling for the board to go one step further and broadcast its executive meetings.
"If they don't do that, they might as well abolish it," Chris Eustace said of the executive last week.
Some 425 people viewed the board's council of commissioners meeting in September, but Eustace said full transparency is required.
"Everybody knows that decisions are made at the top and then filtered down," Eustace said.
Eustace's top-down criticism of the executive committee is "irresponsibly misleading and plainly untrue," LBPSB president Marcus Tabachnick wrote in an email on Monday.
"The LBP Executive Committee has, in contrast to most other public organizations, very little decisional authority," Tabachnick wrote. "The authority to decide resides almost exclusively with the council."
Tabachnick said executive committee meetings "may eventually be part of a webcasting schedule, but for now we need to make sure that we have all the kinks worked out and that we have more than one trained person to operate the equipment."
The main purpose of the webcasts are pedagogical, Tabachnick said. Student, teacher and staff training would benefit from the webcast equipment.
It can be used at special events, public hearings, town halls and other community meetings.
Tabachnick also said Eustace is known for "misleading and misinforming the press so that he can appear to have special knowledge." END

.............................................................

From the approved Minutes of a February 19 meeting of Secondary Schools Parents' Committee:

" 7.4 Parental Concerns about 'Connect- Ed': Although all parents agreed that the Board definitely needed a better method of communication in the case of emergencies, they were just wondering why the necessary and required step of attaining prior permission from parents (to send their personal information to the US), was skipped. 'ABC' mentioned that she would get more information on this and report back to us."

(I replaced the name of a commissioner by 'ABC'. There were 4 other commissioners at this meeting. A question: Excuse me, 'ABC', why don't you know the information? What about the other 4 commissioners? The parents at the meeting represent 1000's of taxpaying parents. They asked a simple question. You were elected to know. This issue was not debated at a full Council web cast meeting ; you should at least know the information. With respect, 'ABC', can't you see there is something anti-democratic here? It's just plain not right.)

.............................................................

The Suburban, letter to the Editor: 'Second look at law' March 4, 2009

"Next Tuesday, March 10, the National Assembly of Quebec reconvenes. That's good because a review and some action are needed concerning the law: "An Act respecting Access to documents held by public bodies and the Protection of personal information".
I would link Section 70.1 of the law with your Feb. 18, 2009, West Island edition of The Suburban article: "LBPSB gets Connect-ED".
Connect-Ed is an American based firm that the board will use to transmit data by voice mail "to two separate e-mail accounts and (up to) six phone numbers for 30,000 students."
This is a worry because the transmission of data by the Pearson board of student information using computer technology via an American system puts us now in uncharted waters.
Let me explain.
Servers in the U.S. need to have contact information to generate the phone calls to student numbers. So a database with contact information was sent to the states.
Now the data resides in the states and falls under U.S. laws, which are different from those in Canada.
In the States, database information falls under the domain of the 'Patriot Act' ; in Canada, database information falls under the purview of PIPEDA (Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents).
I believe Canada's privacy laws are better than those of the States are because organizations are required to protect information, and inform individuals when their data has been shared.
Furthermore, Section 1.3.11 and 12 of Pearson's "Management Policy " states: "to meet Quebec's legal requirements regarding personal information" and "to ensure that documents and database transfers are done according to the laws...".
Nonetheless, the main concern is that the board did not ask permission from parents to transfer child names and telephone numbers to a database in the United States.
This oversight is a basic error in judgement, and consideration by the Lester B. Pearson School Board.
It is also in direct contravention of Bill 88 of Quebec's Education Act, which calls for greater parental involvement in school board matters.
Hopefully, Education Minister, Michelle Courchesne; Justice Minister, Kathleen Weil and Family Minister, Tony Tomassi will look into this state of affairs. END

A complaint was filed with the Commission d'accès à l'information du Quebec. I was granted permission by the CAI to make my letter public. It will be in Part 11. Thank you, Le Devoir


Chris Eustace (ceustace@videotron.ca)


http://www.ledevoir.com/2007/06/02/145926.html

http://westislandgazette.com/news/news/8279 »

« March 30, 2009

M. (school-board lawyer)

1925 avenue Brookdale

Dorval, Québec

H9P 2Y7
Hand Delivered at LBPSB Council meeting - March 30, 2009

Copy: Commission d'accès à l'information du Québec

Cai.communications@cai.gouv.qc.ca

I am writing to you as the person at the Lester B. Pearson School Board who is responsible for the protection of personal information.

The matter concerns the messaging system contract the Board has entered with United States based Blackboard Connect - Connect-Ed. In order to provide the messaging services, personal contact information was transferred to the United States. This transfer of data has fundamental implications on individual liberties and privacy.

The Board should have:

- informed the parents that the data was going to be transferred to the US and that this personal information may be made available to the US government or its agencies;

- asked for expressed consent to transfer personal information to the US;

- established a clear opt out mechanism for those not wishing to have their personal information transferred to the US.

According to the 'Report from the Chairman of the Board', in the February 'Pearson News' issue, on February 11, 2009, the Board sent an announcement via telephone to over 23,000 households concerning the system. In the Report is an explanation by the Chair Marcus Tabachnick concerning security and privacy matters. It also includes information and an opinion, submitted on Feb.18th, prepared by an independent legal counsel "on a mandate from Connect Ed as requested by the Lester B. Pearson School Board."

Also listed are the security protocols to protect the information. Yet, this is the same company that posts the following, on their web site's "privacy policy" section:

"Unfortunately, no data transmission over the Internet or any wireless network can be guaranteed to be 100% secure. As a result, while we strive to protect Client Data, you acknowledge that:

(a) there are security and privacy limitations of the Internet which are beyond our control;

(b) the security, integrity and privacy of any and all information and data exchanged between you and us through the Blackboard Website cannot be guaranteed; and

(c) any such information and data may be viewed or tampered with in transit by a third party."

On the technical front, this is troubling but on the societal front, this has much wider ranging implications. This concern revolves around the fact that data submitted by the Board to the US, now falls under the jurisdiction of the Patriot Act. This Act has deep ramifications on our sovereignty with its sweeping search and surveillance features that do not exist in Canada. The Act facilitates the ability of the US law enforcement authorities to search databases containing personal information while at the same time requiring the organizations holding the database, to keep the disclosure a secret; a level and type of privacy invasion unseen in Canada.

The protection of private information is of paramount importance for public institutions. The equivalent protection accorded to personal information residing in the US on Canadian citizens is doubtful. It is with this spirit I am writing you to find out the following:

Did the Board submit to the Commission d'accès à l'information du Québec (CAI), a request for an opinion that it was OK to send personal information to the USA without the consent of parents?

If so, when did the board request to the CAI for an opinion?

Finally, when was this opinion given by the CAI?

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

(Signed)
Chris Eustace
13445 Purcell
Pierrefonds, QC
H8Z 3H9
514 620-0726
Email: ceustace@videotron.ca »

« July 10, 2009

Bill 88 and Finland : A lesson to the Canadian School Boards Association (CSBA) - Part 12

This commentary ties in with the article : « Échec de la lutte contre le décrochage » by Clairandrée Cauchy and an editorial by Marie-Andrée Chouinard: « Décrochage scolaire - L'effet nul» - both in Le Devoir of July 9, 2009. Both pieces are linked not only by the matter of student success, but also by the mention « Le Devoir a obtenu par la Loi sur l'accès à l'information...»

Coincidentally, this is connected to Part 11 (eleven) of my series on Bill 88. It is the first link below and deals with a matter that is illegal in British Columbia and Nova Scotia.

Ironically, yesterday, July 9, the Canadian School Boards Association (CSBA) started their 3-day annual convention in Halifax, Nova Scotia. The association is the umbrella organization of the provincial school-board associations. (not New Brunswick)

What do they do?

Actually, the Association asks the same question on its website: "What does CSBA do?" Answer: "CSBA advocates excellence in public education and promotes the value of elected school boards through information sharing with partner organizations."

The Association's past president said in speech on Nov. 16, 2008: "As school board members, we get to deal with many issues that can drag us down, but please remember that our primary role is to take the dollars provided and use them in the most efficient way we can, to generate the highest level of student success, so that our student's dreams can come true!" Nonsense !

I, for one, maintain that this organization, similar to the Quebec English School Boards Association, uses our school tax dollars against us. This association should be recognized as being little more than a feeder at the public trough, whose minimal value to the public good is hugely outweighed by its cost to the Canadian taxpayer.

Let us take a look at their website. The CSBA site mentions "Quebec is now implementing sweeping legislation, known as Bill 88, on school governance and democracy" . Furthermore, "QESBA is looking for any new measures from the Ministry of Education, Recreation, and Sports to allow school boards maximum flexibility so that they can tailor approaches to local needs." "Flexibility?" Forget it! Bill 88 is a parent-friendly law, and puts school boards in their place.

Then the CSBA has the boldness to come up with a chart titled: "Myths and Facts about Finland - February 6, 2009. The association simply recycles some information from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), twists it around a bit to defend and justify its existence.

The irony is that the OECD mentions there is a correlation between the autonomy of schools and the success at school. Everyone knows that Finland is often referred to as an example of school autonomy and is a leader in the field of education. It does the job of educating their youth well - at a fraction of the cost. Simply put: the bigger the educational system does not mean better education. Actually, the opposite is true.

Meanwhile here is the schedule of the upcoming expensive congresses of the CSBA:
In 2010 - Newfoundland and Labrador ; 2011 - Ontario ; 2012 - Manitoba ; 2013 - Quebec ; 2014 - British Columbia ; 2015 - Saskatchewan - 100th anniversary!

100 years! ... Anyway, here is a published letter to the editor of The Suburban on Dec. 17, 2008 titled:

School Board Reform: Yes, We Can!

" Permit me to make two points for a plan concerning the English school system in Quebec.
First: Would someone inform the Lester B. Pearson School Board and the Quebec English School Boards Association that the world is struggling with an economic downturn, looking for ways to cut costs, and overburdened taxpayers are getting fed-up with their spendthrift ways. Let me elaborate.
The nine English school boards in Quebec are members of the QESBA, which is a member of the Canadian School Boards Association (CSBA). Membership in either association is costly and, of course, paid by taxpayers.
That said, in the past few weeks the Pearson board granted the usual annual bonus for its directorate. However, this year, all three directors will receive a 6 per cent bonus. Furthermore, approval was given for two commissioners to go to yet, another conference in California, next April.
Meanwhile, despite fewer students in English schools this year, the QESBA is increasing its staff. (You may recall the 14.5 per cent raise they got last May.)
Now, due to declining enrollment in Canadian public schools, the CSBA wonders in their Nov. 2008 bulletin: "Can we lever existing member resources?" This means they need more money - our Quebec school tax dollars.
Second point: on Dec.15, I went to the Supreme Court of Canada, in Ottawa, to hear Brent Tyler, civil rights lawyer, present the case on the Bill 104 matter. In his summation, he made reference to the fact that in the past the English school boards had not been helpful for his clients to access English schooling.
The plan: a new government, which promised to be prudent with our tax dollars, has been re-elected. This government adopted Bill 88 that gives parents/taxpayers a bigger say in our education system. Remember, this government had to come to the rescue, due to QESBA's negligence regarding the English textbook situation.
Let's use the law and not renew our 2009-10 membership in the QESBA. If the Pearson board goes at it alone, we could reinvest about $230,000 into our English-speaking classrooms. If all English boards joined, make it over one million dollars.
Can we really do that ? "Yes, we can." (END of letter)

Lastly, I'm reminded of a National Post article (Jan. 24, 2008) "Give native grads tax breaks: boards".
Marcus Tabachnick, president of the CSBA said, "What we want to do is put out an idea worth looking at." Both the Aboriginal Human Resources Council and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation slammed the idea. They said the idea was "misdirected" and "divisive", and "at the end of the day the CSBA created an artificial world and that hurts people".

Exactly!.... the CSBA is "misdirected" and living in "an artificial world" at school taxpayers expense. Now is the Time for Change - a New Beginning : QESBA and CSBA - Go away!


The Letter: Commission d'accès à l'information du Québec- June 28 - Part 11

http://www.ledevoir.com/2007/06/02/commentaires/0906282028572.html

http://www.ledevoir.com/2009/04/04/commentaires/0904051902005.html

http://westislandgazette.com/news/8373


Chris Eustace (ceustace@videotron.ca) »

« July 20, 2009 Part 13


Adieu/Farewell: L'Association canadienne des commissions/conseils scolaires - Canadian School Boards Association


Please consider this scattered commentary a follow-up to Part 12 regarding the Canadian School Boards Association. The association's get-together in Halifax is now over. So what did we learn? What did the media report? What does the CSBA's web site say about the event? What did they do regarding a "project related to student achievement"?

The answer is nothing. Actually, it's worse than nothing. Some information on CSBA's website (as mentioned in Part 12) took unnecessary swipes at Quebec's Bill 88 and Finland's education system - both good things...

Let's look at two facts:

1) Consider New Brunswick, which is not a member association of the CSBA. How do they operate anyway? This is rough but here's an example: The New Brunswick Federation of Home and School have a 64-page Education Policies booklet. Their first 'Policy Statement' reads:

"N.B.F.H.S.A.I. supports working with the N.B. Teachers' Association to lower the maximum class size with consideration for class composition." Then they explain:

"Background: Teachers are faced with diverse student needs and the number of students alone does not
truly represent the needs in the classroom. The composition of the students in the class
must also be taken into consideration when establishing class size." (Contrast that with the nonsense spewed by the QESBA last year. )
Furthermore, three years ago the teachers of N.B. and the government reached an agreement regarding class-size. However, that was not good enough for Home and School. They complained, and they won getting class sizes further reduced.

2) In last autumn's federal election, the CSBA requested answers from the major political parties to certain questions. The association was completely ignored by the ruling present government.

So what benefit is there for the (English-speaking) school-taxpayer of Quebec to contribute to CSBA's existence?

None...Furthermore, I contacted the National Post, left a message with the Globe and Mail, and emailed and spoke to the Chronicle Herald of Nova Scotia, in the hope that the media would cover the convention in Halifax.... but, alas, nothing.

Now, let us look back at the CSBA's recent history. In July 2007, I recall reading on their site a press release heralding a new president from Quebec, a businessman, who would revitalize the organization because (as they admitted) the association had been "dormant" for two years. Links 1, 2, and 3 ( ties in with Part 12) sum up that tenure.

Moving on: In my internet travels, I came across an instructive article published in the 'Nova Scotian': "Town, school are in it together". This winning school is the Polyvalente La Samare in Plessisville, Québec. An excerpt:

"What is its secret? An intense relationship with the whole community...." (last link)

The school is part of the Commission scolaire des Bois-Francs. I was impressed with its code of ethics for commissioners. It starts by listing the pertinent articles of the Education Act : from 175.1 to 177.1.

Remember 177.1? Parents at Lester B. had to remind the board that commissioners'.......honnêteté, loyauté et dans l'intérêt de la commission scolaire ET de la population qu'elle dessert. (The 'ET' is my capitalization)

Furthermore, so there is no misunderstandings, the CSBF's "Règlement sur le code d'éthique et
de déontologie du commissaire" defines:

"Famille immédiate : L'expression réfère au conjoint, la conjointe, le fils, la fille, le père, la mère, le frère, la soeur, le beau-frère, la belle-soeur, le neveu, la nièce, le beau-fils, la belle-fille, le beau-père, la bellemère, le gendre, la bru. Sont également inclus les conjoints et conjointes de fait."

Anyway, the following is a published letter:

The Suburban Questions for QESBA July 15, 2009


Allow me to pose questions to the Quebec English School Boards Association (QESBA) following a letter to the editor in The Suburban on Dec. 17, 2008 titled: School board reform: Yes, we can!

The thrust of the letter was that the Lester B. Pearson School Board community to think about withdrawing its membership from the dysfunctional QESBA , thus saving about $230,000 and reinvest the money into our classrooms.

Now consider the July 7th, Canada News Wire press release: "The Canadian School Boards Association (CSBA) will hold its annual Congress on Education July 9-11, 2009, at the World Trade and Convention Centre in Halifax."

Since the QESBA is a member of the CSBA, how many Quebec school tax dollars were spent toward this event? What was the cost-benefit for students who attend English schools in Quebec?

The theme of the convention was "Vision for the Future of Public Education". This is what I envision: Ditch the QESBA and, by extension, the CSBA. Now is the "Time for Change - a New Beginning" (END)


Bottom line: We are in a watershed moment. Pretentiousness and pomposity are out. The QESBA and the CSBA have done nothing to promote parents and taxpayers confidence of their usefulness for the English public schools of Quebec. The associations' criticism of the benefits of Bill 88 justifies their riddance.

Merci, Le Devoir for giving me this space to share my thoughts.




http://www2.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/westisland/story.html?id=e7e4ed7d-8e40-458d-a984-3e1771436e2f&k=56358

http://www2.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/letters/story.html?id=b7c7693c-d6d9-46aa-a868-2193f4cf188e&k=8198

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/letters/story.html?id=73c4f531-9875-4295-bc5d-06f8af2bdb21&k=2704

http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotian/1131988.html


Chris Eustace (ceustace@videotron.ca) »

« July 30, 2009



Notice of intent: to disaffiliate from QESBA and CSBA


This is a taxpaying citizen's notice of intent to convince the English school boards of Quebec to become independent from the Quebec English School Boards Association and, by extension, the Canadian School Boards Association.

Let's backtrack a bit: Take a glance at the two Le Devoir opinion pieces below. They are titled:

'Bill 88 and Finland: A Lesson for the Canadian School Boards Association'
'QESBA and CSBA Are Detrimental to Bill 88'

Besides other pertinent information, included in the pieces are two published letters to the editor of The Suburban (www.thesuburban.com). More important: note the reference to (then) president of the CSBA's idea regarding educational matters of the aboriginal peoples - reported in The Montreal Gazette and National Post. Note the reaction to the CSBA's meddling.

Now look at similar letters to the editor, and the Globe and Mail article by columnist, Jeffrey Simpson - " Atleo sets an example for Indian education reform".

There are about 50 comments - in full sentences, in paragraphs - from all across Canada following the article. It is astonishing not one of the dozens of comments, opinions and suggestions is remotely similar to the CSBA's perception of things. That is telling.

That said, what do we do? Not much can be done as long as the QESBA exists - since it is a member of the CSBA.

The history of the QESBA is well known in the education circles of Quebec. The association is an embarrassment to the English community. The association is costly and serves no purpose whatsoever. In fact, it is a detriment to the English boards. Think of the English textbooks situation and its notion of class sizes.

(Let us put aside the Bill 104 - the access to English schools - matter. At least the three major political parties of the Quebec government had the class to recognize the importance of this issue and agreed to let the Supreme Court handle the matter. The QESBA was shamed into doing something. Shamed by the 'Home and School' and teachers.)

Anyway, questions of membership of school boards in provincial associations is not new. Think of New Brunswick. They are not a member of CSBA and doing fine - and saving money. (P.E.I. too). Consider these excerpts from the Minutes of an Ontario board and a Quebec school board:

Ontario: August 30, 2006 - " that the Durham District School Board no longer be affiliated with the OPSBA, effective immediately " ( the board did though renew its membership on June 18, 2007)

Quebec: June 2009 - " QESBA Preliminary Fees 2009-2010:
The Secretary General advised the Executive Committee that the preliminary membership fee for
the Quebec English School Boards Association (QESBA) for 2009-2010 is 89 419,86$.
Commissioner Mario Di Domenico requested that the membership in QESBA be an agenda item
for the 2009-06-30 caucus meeting as membership in this group needs to be reviewed."

I agree with Commissioner Di Dominico. The membership in the QESBA should also be reviewed by the Lester B. Pearson School Board. (Perhaps, I will request that at the next board meeting, in addition, to the other unanswered questions re: QESBA, I have asked at previous meetings)

It is my understanding that the QESBA is redesigning its Mission Statement, in the hope, it will improve its image. It will not. The organization is in disarray and for over a year has complained about Bill 88 - a bill that emphasizes school-board accountability.....(On one occasion, this association even turned on their own and questioned the minister of education on , basically, an impeachment matter)...And we're paying about one million dollars+ for this nonsense?

This is what the QESBA should do. Demonstrate transparency. Post on its website and provide all documents, reports and budget statements with respect to allocation of financial resources associated with its operations. Supply the revenues and expenses in dollar figures, as well as all such documents with respect to the allocation of financial resources on an individual school board basis. Make available the minutes of its meetings. What decisions were made at its recent convention in Quebec City?... and so on.

The QESBA is a menace to democracy and out of touch with the realities of this century. For the greater good it should be scrapped.

(Shortly after this is posted, it will be forwarded to the CSBA, the QESBA and the other provincial associations. Merci again to the editorial board of Le Devoir for the space.)



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/letters-to-the-editor/beyond-residential-schools/article1232051/

http://www.montrealgazette.com/opinion/letters/Invest+education+First+Nations/1835267/story.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/atleo-sets-an-example-for-indian-education-reform/article1232880/

.............................................................


http://www.ledevoir.com/2007/06/02/commentaires/0907100928841.html

http://www.ledevoir.com/2007/06/02/commentaires/0907200923292.html



Chris Eustace (ceustace@videotron.ca) »

« Aug.10,2009


On Saturday, August 8, 2009, The Gazette published a full 3-page informative advertisement by the Minister of Education, Michelle Courchesne, titled: "Ready to Roll?"

The first two sentences read: "Young people's success concerns everyone: parents, children, teachers and society as a whole. And everyone has an essential role to play." The key word is "everyone" - and that includes the media...

That said, during the past several months a lot of ink has been spilled over Quebec's high school dropout rate. Consider these 3 pieces from Le Devoir.

http://www.ledevoir.com/2009/07/09/258382.html

http://www.ledevoir.com/2009/07/09/258327.html

http://www.ledevoir.com/2009/07/10/258519.html

The aforementioned articles include many instructive 'Réactions'. Common to three were comments of Mr. Donald Bordeleau whose réactions, in my view, were most enlightening.

Now let us look at a Gazette editorial: 'Spend smart to stem the dropout plague' - July 11, 2009

http://www.montrealgazette.com/opinion/editorials/Spend+smart+stem+dropout+plague/1780390/story.html

The editorial mentions businessman Jacques Ménard. The following link is a speech he gave last April:

http://www2.bmo.com/speech/article/0,1087,contentCode-8638_divId-4_langId-1_navCode-124,00.html

On July 29, The Gazette put out : "Low marks for graduation rates"
　
The article accompanied with a map: "2008 Report Card - Percentages of high school students who graduated in five years" is a source of despair. Even the Montreal Island school board that fared best of seven other surrounding school boards has not much to really cheer about. One-third of the boys and one-quarter of the girls did not obtain their high school certificate on schedule.

In addition, a review of the dizzying array of statistics by the Ministry of Education, in its 103 page report of the 2008 graduation rates of Quebec students, further points to a depressing trend.

http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/sections/publications/index.asp?page=fiche&id=145


Even so, the good news is that "a major new offensive" is in the works. Promoted by Education Minister Michelle Courchesne and linked to Bill 88, which calls for accountability, the plan is primarily a mentorship program.
The general idea of the plan is fine and, I believe, will help, but there is one worry - the role of the school boards. Boards must understand that is the people who have a vested interest in the child who are in a better position to pursue the students "at risk" concerning their ways - their conduct.

It is the schools via their governing boards that will maximize the full potential of the plan in tackling the problem. Hence, the approach and the strategy must include more school independence - autonomy - because every school is unique.

Let's look again at The Gazette's July 11th editorial concerning past programs: "Spend smart to stem the dropout problem". Money is not the problem; this is the problem:

"Not enough people inside schools or outside in the community seemed to be involved, although the programs depended on community and school mobilization to be successful."

True. Ownership of the problem belongs mainly to the schools. School boards are simply service providers. After all, kids go to school, not school boards. Consequently, for this program to succeed and turn-around this study of failure, school boards ought to lie low - and the Quebec English School Boards Association must stop whining and complaining about Bill 88.

We will then surely "produce results" with more students becoming useful contributing members of society.


.............................................................

This is part 15 of a series of opinion pieces under the June 2, 2007 article: 'La CSDM se dotera d'un ombudsman' by Clairandrée Cauchy, education journalist of Le Devoir. To trace the first 14, click the link below. A shortcut: the first 11 (eleven) can be found in the West Island Gazette link.

Finally, I was pleased to read Madame Courchesne's note in The Gazette Aug 8 'Back to School' piece concerning: " New! A student advocate" - i.e. an ombudsman... Also, Thank you to the editorial board of Le Devoir for giving me space to express my concerns.


http://www.ledevoir.com/2007/06/02/commentaires/0907301128730.html

http://westislandgazette.com/news/8448#


Chris Eustace (ceustace@videotron.ca)

　 »