Questions for the Education Minister

From: Peter Dauphinee [peter.dauphinee@gmail.com]
Sent: February 24, 2011 4:26 PM
To: Carr, Hon. Jody (ED)
Cc: Stultz, Hon. Sue (SD/DS); Blais, Marie-Claude (Hon.) (JUS); Betts, John W. (LEG); Williams, Claude (Hon.) (DOT/MDT); Boudreau, Victor (LEG); Melanson, Roger (LEG); Collins, Chris (LEG); LeBlanc, Bernard (LEG); Brent Mazerolle
Subject: MHS and District 2

Minister Carr,

Further to my email of last week, I have elaborated on my concerns about accountability and transparency in District 2 in an article which you can access at http://modernthoughts21.blogspot.com/2011/02/accountability-and-transparency.html?spref=gb.

I appreciate you are aware of the challenge of rebuilding trust in the education system.  I hope you don't underestimate the extent and depth to which this problem has pervaded the system.  My article explores some of that but there is much more that remains buried and yet will certainly come out.

I have a few specific questions and comments:

1. Please tell me what is the source of the "long-standing agreement between employee/employer relationship" that prevents teachers from speaking out publicly and even privately in the course of carrying out their professional responsibilities?  This has been interpreted in District 2 to place teachers and administrators in a position which is untenable, unfair and causes me a great deal of concern.  If the staff of a school believe in good faith that the health conditions in a school are inadequate, they deserve protection not condemnation if they warn parents of their concerns.  I, as a parent, expect no less of the system.

Further, the teachers are the greatest resource we have in education, and they should be free to engage in discussions about curriculum which are outside the rigid bounds of what DOE decrees.  Free discourse on such an important matter does not have to amount to criticism.  The restraint that is now felt by teachers places our system in a straight jacket from which it cannot escape.  I realize this is a much broader issue but it must be addressed if we are to properly educate our children for the 21st century.

2. I believe you mentioned at the Edith Cavell meeting on February 16 that you would release the past air quality test results for Moncton High once the monitoring committee is formed.  Is my understanding correct?  In any event, why have we waited so long for these and why must we continue to wait?  There has never been any justification provided for the withholding of these reports at any time, and certainly this sort of disclosure was expected to take place pursuant to your statement on October 22 that the superintendent would explain fully what led the district to the closure of MHS.

3. I understand that you have again gone ahead with the process of using candidates hand-picked by District officials to form the monitoring committee, exactly the process that formed a Working Group that so blatantly failed to meet the objectives you promised on October 22.  Once again it seems, you or District has seen no need to undertake any form of public consultation as to who would be a suitable candidate for a representative role.  This is beginning as another instance of going through the motions and ignoring the substance of what you have promised, and if that is correct it will very likely fail to meet its objectives and diminish rather than rebuild the public trust in exactly the same way as did the Working Group.

I look forward to receiving more specific information about why the teachers are so fearful of voicing opinions, and why the air quality data continues to be kept as a state secret.

Regards

Peter Dauphinee

On 24/02/2011 7:02 PM, Carr, Hon. Jody (ED) wrote:

Peter, I have worked very hard to create open and transparent processes.  I do not underestimate the need for this.  Teachers as well as other civil servants do not speak out publicly about their employer, they have their union to represent them and we have been in contact with their union representatives and will continue to be through out.  In addition we have offered for the teachers to be involved and members to the transition committee that will work on monitoring the repairs prior to Sept 2011, monitoring the air quality after Sept 2011 and form the basis of a complaint process to ensure prompt attention towards any possible concerns going forward.  This is inclusive, respectful and transparent.

Through the transition committee all necessary and relevent information will be shared.

The working group in my opinion did meet its objective and I am very appreciative of its work, which was to engage the public and present the best contingency plan for the relocation of students and staff if they were not able to return to MHS after Sept 2011.  This committee recommended "option C", which is to displace EC students, Lewisville and Sunny Brae, in addition to MHS students.  If the current plan, for whatever reason does not succeed, we still have at our disposal this option as a back up plan.

We are in the process of forming the tranisition monitoring committee.  The co-chairs are Bob Martin, ADM at Supply and Services, and Ron White, Director of Facilities at Education and Early Childhood Development.  The other members include representatives from District 2, Public Health, WorksafeNB, MHS PSSC, NBTA/F (2), CUPE 2745 + 1253, and MHS administration (2).  These names are being finalized and will be selected from those organizations themselves.  The first meeting will be scheduled soon and all updates and information will be available on the District 2 website.  The first order of business will be to go over the work plan and timeline, list of extensive items to be repaired, discuss process for responding to complaints, etc...

I am very appreciative of your interest and look forward to sharing with you more information as it becomes available.

thank you.

Jody

From: Peter Dauphinee [mailto:peter.dauphinee@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 06:01 PM
To: Carr, Hon. Jody (ED)
Cc: Stultz, Hon. Sue (SD/DS); Blais, Marie-Claude (Hon.) (JUS); Betts, John W. (LEG); Williams, Claude (Hon.) (DOT/MDT); Boudreau, Victor (LEG); Melanson, Roger (LEG); Collins, Chris (LEG); LeBlanc, Bernard (LEG); Brent Mazerolle <brent.mazerolle@timestranscript.com>; White, Ron (ED); Campbell, Tyler (ED); McLeod-MacKnight, Wendy (ED)
Subject: Re: MHS and District 2  

Jody,

I respect that your immediate priority is to focus on looking forward to resolve the current crisis.  However, if we do not address the problems that have led us to this point, the distrust that has pervaded this discussion will continue to plague our District.  We need to draw what lessons we can from the MHS experience as to the health of our education system.

These are much broader issues than the plight of one school building.  We often lose sight of the fact that the purpose of the education system is to prepare our children to meet the challenges of a new era.  Buildings are an important accessory to this, but most important are our teachers and pupils.  Parents are ultimately responsible for the well-being of their children and must have an important voice in what happens to them in school.

These issues of the governance of our school system, and the relationship to the current crisis, are explored in my article at http://modernthoughts21.blogspot.com/2011/02/accountability-and-transparency.html.  These major flaws in our system of education affect not only the buildings our children are taught in, but also our ability to create an education system that does not rank perennially near the bottom rung in performance among Canadian provinces.  We can and need to improve.

I will not reiterate our differences over the Working Group process except to note that your perception differs quite markedly from that widely held by the public in Moncton.  I do take issue specifically with the concept of “open and transparent” that is held by your Department and District 2.  “Open and transparent” does not mean that information is shared based on an official’s view of what is “necessary and relevant”.  It means that all information requested is shared except what can be justified to be withheld based on strictly defined criteria.  Information will have to be shared much more readily in District 2 before trust will be regained here.

Throughout last fall and to the present, the public has been questioning the actual reason for the closure of MHS, and asking for access to the air quality testing that was done.  That information has not been publicly disclosed.  On February 23, I attended as a guest a meeting of the MHS PSSC and listened to a discussion about levels of CO2 in the school that exceeded the allowable limit of 1,000, and were found to peak at 2,600 and sometimes over 5,000.  I was previously unaware of this information which to my knowledge has not been disclosed publicly.

This information, and the persistent absence of the air quality testing data, suggest something very ominous.  Could it be that this information has been known for years and withheld from parents?  And is there even worse news that has not been disclosed?  Surely we deserve a credible answer to these questions before you ask us for our trust.

If there had been anything open and transparent about what has happened with regard to MHS, I would not have to wonder about these questions.  If the air quality has been that poor, parents are surely entitled to have some say in whether they send their children to that school.

Not unexpectedly, the teachers at MHS have been more aware of, and more troubled by, the air quality problems at MHS than anyone.  I have heard that last September the teachers met with government representatives including the Department of Supply and Services, Worksafe New Brunswick, the District 2 Education Council, and presumably District 2 personnel to discuss their concerns, and that this meeting led to the decision to close MHS.  Nothing about this meeting has been disclosed to the public.  You tell me that:

Teachers as well as other civil servants do not speak out publicly about their employer, they have their union to represent them and we have been in contact with their union representatives and will continue to be throughout.

The union speaks for the teachers, but the union is not speaking to me.  Who speaks for the children?  You are in contact with the union representatives, but who is in contact with me?  Frankly, no one is in contact with me.  No one has thought it necessary to tell me the information that was shared with the teachers.  Nothing that you have said to date indicates any change from the processes you have followed to date, and I am rapidly running out of any trust in the education system to have a proper regard for the well-being of my children.

As alarming as is the secrecy about matters that concern our children is the nonchalant attitude about accountability for the proper running of the education system.  The problems with MHS have been known for years and were not appropriately addressed.  This has put at risk the education of our children and is now being remediated under the most inefficient conditions possible at great public expense.  It is obvious that our education system is not working properly, and yet there appear to be no plans to address the causes of this fiasco.

What we are seeing this year is only a small taste of the harmful effects of an education system which is dysfunctional due to lack of appropriate governance.  It is not only buildings that are neglected.  The quality of education itself suffers from a rigid top-down management of the curriculum.  You would do a great service to the families of New Brunswick to establish an independent body to study the governance of our education system and to recommend improvements that can be implemented within your government’s mandate.

Regards,

Peter Dauphinee

On 02/03/2011 6:08 PM, Carr, Hon. Jody (ED) wrote:

We are finalizing the terms of reference of the repair and monitoring transition committee and confirming the members, which will include Teachers, Parents, District, CUPE, administration and central office officials. All information will be provided via this committee. I have nothing to hide and will not place students and staff in harms way....we will be prepared to have the first meeting of the committee soon after March break, and will provide all information to the committee and on-line....thanks again peter for your comments, we are more on the same page than not.
Thanks
Jody

On 04/03/2011 12:35 PM, Peter Dauphinee wrote:

Jody,

Thank you for your reply.  It would be comforting to think that we are substantially on the same page.  I hope you will forgive my skepticism.  I was once satisfied to trust to government and hope for the best, but that no longer seems a responsible proposition.  Every citizen in a democracy has a duty to become informed on public issues.  This is mostly honoured in the breach, occasionally to great misfortune.  My approach now is to use my abilities to the fullest to become informed with the information I need to form responsible opinions.

 I do still have concerns about how the monitoring committee will work.  You indicated it would be composed as follows: “The co-chairs are Bob Martin, ADM at Supply and Services, and Ron White, Director of Facilities at Education and Early Childhood Development.  The other members include representatives from District 2, Public Health, WorksafeNB, MHS PSSC, NBTA/F (2), CUPE 2745 + 1253, and MHS administration (2)”.  This is a lot of people but there seems to be only one parent.  The presence of one parent on a committee dominated by bureaucrats and union representatives is hardly reassuring unless there is a mechanism in place to disseminate complete detailed information online, and someone other than one volunteer parent is designated to answer questions about that information.

 I do not believe that you are hiding anything, and I have no concern that you would put anyone in harm’s way.  I believe you are working very hard to carry out your responsibilities in good faith.  There is a great deal of evidence that the same is not true of everyone who works under you.  I am quite certain that you are not receiving the complete facts on many aspects of the problems within your portfolio.  If you do not listen to warnings and look into discrepancies – for example the difference between your stated intention with respect to the Working Group and what actually happened – and insist on accountability and reform, you will lose the good faith of the public.

 I hope you will enjoy some rest and time with your family over March break.

 Regards,

Peter Dauphinee