Twas the night before the vote, and all through the land, electors dreamed that Vancouver would elect trustees and councillors with the vision to cope with the challenges ahead. Come on Vancouver, forget that boring mayoralty race and focus on school board. You know you want to. [sarcasm off]

Vancouver school board and education issues in the news, for your pre or post voting pleasure:

Fight Victoria, urge parents at school board debate: Parents expressed anger and frustration at the chronic delays in seismic school upgrades at a school board candidates debate last night in Vancouver, urging the panel to fight Victoria on what many see as a forced choice between school space, and school safety. (Colleen Kimmett, The Tyee, Friday November 14, 2008)

Child Care Bottleneck a Hot Voter Issue: Wait lists are long but empty classrooms stay off limits for care. Stressed parents are fuming. (Charles Campbell, The Tyee, Friday November 14, 2008) See also:

• After-school care in Vancouver hits crisis point (Charles Campbell, The Georgia Straight, August 21, 2008)

NPA makes education promises ahead of election (Janet Steffenhagen, Vancouver Sun, Wednesday, November 12, 2008)

Opposition candidates attack NPA school trustees: Two of the city's three major political civic parties have released their platforms for the Nov. 14 school board election. Vision released its school board platform Monday morning and COPE released a sprawling platform last week. The NPA says its positions will be released any day. (Cheryl Rossi , Vancouver Courier, Wednesday November 5, 2008)

NPA school trustee candidates out of touch with what is really happening in Vancouver schools, teachers say: Vancouver teachers are surprised at the lack of knowledge among the NPA candidates for school board trustee about the current realities of Vancouver public schools. (CNW Newswire, Wednesday November 8, 2008)

Vision platform to limit class size, advertising in schools (Janet Steffenhagen, Vancouver Sun, Monday, November 03, 2008)

Secret Vancouver school report on closures released, but heavily censored: A confidential report on the future of Vancouver public schools has been released more than a year after it was presented to trustees during an in camera meeting, but it's so heavily edited that it reveals little. (Janet Steffenhagen, Vancouver Sun, Tuesday, October 28, 2008)

Construction for both new schools and structural upgrades is one of the big issues facing Vancouver parents and other school community stakeholders, as almost one hundred

Fixing leaky schools: The province has settled with boards of education over the repair of leaky buildings. It was a long time coming, Wendy Stueck writes, and the work is only beginning. School boards have been looking for some way to recoup costs of repairs that in some cases amount to millions of dollars. The problems, similar to those that emerged with condominiums, involve "water ingress" or leaks, and affect schools built between 1985 and 2000. (Wendy Stueck, The Globe and Mail, Saturday November 15, 2008) See also:

• Recently constructed Dickens Elementary in Vancouver had its own construction issues; apparently either the designers or contractors got building elevations incorrect and as a result the middle block, which connects the classroom block to the gymnasium block, has what may prove to be an expensive flaw. The roof deck in the middle has a significant slope that leads directly to a glass wall and entry way on the classroom block. Some have expressed concerns that significant rain or snowfall could lead to future water ingress issues.
• Taxpayers' bill soars for leaky school: British Columbia is spending $2 million to repair an Abbotsford school built to great acclaim in 2000 as the province's first and only experiment with a public-private partnership (P3) for school construction. (Janet Steffenhagen, Vancouver Sun, Monday November 10, 2008)

Platforms for COPE [HTML], NPA [MS Word], Vision [PDF] can be found at the aforementioned links and are also attached for future reference (Note for the MS Word challenged: I've provided here a PDF version of the NPA document).

Should Vancouverites cast votes for candidates who remain in hiding or mute in the audience?

The NPA appears to have decided all they needed to do to quash the "skipping out" complaints was to show up in force last night and... sit in the audience. A fairly full suite of incumbent and would be NPA trustee candidates, plus at least a handler and supporter or two, turned out last night.

Unfortunately, and I mean that with sincerity, we heard nothing from those new to this process. Le Gallais and Singh were in the audience as was Clarence Hansen; I don't recall seeing Woo, Holden or Nance but they may have been there, mute in the audience (not for the first time).

Hansen, Denike, and Gibson we already well know. It's the rest that need to earn our votes and in my opinion they have failed to do this. That's not a partisan swipe but fair comment on the process. How are we to understand how these newcomers would act as stewards of the district without having meaningful interaction from them?

I don't elect slates, I want to elect capabilities.

How can a responsible voter become aware of a candidate's capabilities if the candidate hides from the public? Should a two paragraph party-supplied bio be enough? No.

(Tangential rant: We don't even know what the writing skills of the MIA candidates are, as the biography for most NPA candidates appears to have been written by a single person - note the style similarity and consistent use of the third person.)

A scant bio on the the city and party web sites isn't enough to provide voters with sufficient information to elect someone to be responsible for the management of a board of education that touches 55,000 children and 100,000 (one in six) Vancouverites. Should we be voting for candidates we know very little about, thus giving them the management responsibility for a budget of almost half a billion dollars?

No, I don't believe we should.

I have routinely voted for a mix of candidates from all parties, including the NPA, picking and choosing who best should take on responsibility. I certainly will not be casting a ballot for candidates that refuse to speak out in public, or, having done so once and failed, aren't brave enough to use another public opportunity to perhaps better express themselves.

There is no point in electing weak representatives to School Board. Their hands are already bound by the nature of the co-governance relationship all school boards share with the Ministry of Education. I would hope Vancouver voters don't further hamstring the School Board by electing members who are not strong enough to speak with courage of their convictions and past experiences and how they will apply those abilities to the task of continually improving our local school system.

If trustee candidates aren't strong enough to brave an evening with some parents, how in the world are they going to be strong enough to take on the (often thankless) job?

Vancouver parents and other school community stakeholders have on Thursday evening a last opportunity before the election Saturday to interact with school trustee candidates:

NPA school trustee candidates at a press conference today apologized for not showing up at last week's DPAC sponsored event at Bayview Community School.

Heather Holden, an NPA incumbent parks board trustee now running for school board, said "It was regrettable that nobody was there to represent us", while at the same time claiming their candidate's schedules prevented participation. That's not accurate at all. Thankfully at least NPA incumbent candidate Carol Gibson was honest about the situation today.

A question for Heather Holden: should one vote for a candidate if they can't even be honest about attending a meeting? I should think not.

Held at Bayview Community School in the picturesque west side neighbourhood of West Point Grey, last night's forum for school board trustee candidates was well attended by the public and by many trustee candidates. Regrettably for all involved not a single NPA candidate or incumbent trustee showed up.

Last night was not the first time the NPA muzzled candidates.

According to organizers of the meeting, despite having long planned to participate, the NPA pulled their participation citing concerns over the format which allowed for a five minute opening statement by a representative from each party. The NPA is said to oppose having a productive town-hall style forum merely because COPE and Vision together are seen as a slate, and effectively are given an extra opportunity to speak.

This complaint is of course utter nonsense. Parents and public attending these meetings don't care at all about the delivery of scripted party lines in an opening statement. What we really came to hear is how candidates answer questions and thus be forced to think on their feet. Hearing their answers is hugely instructive as to the nature of their experience and quality of their character.

Put in context, the opening statements covered only fifteen minutes of what has turned out at both DPAC hosted events this week to be more than two and a half hours of productive discussion.

The evening prior four NPA candidates--incumbent trustee Ken Denike along with hopefuls Sophia Woo, Margit Nance, and Eileen Le Gallais--turned out for a similar meeting at Van Tech on Vancouver's east side.

I attended both meetings. Having carefully watched both forums, my objective assessment is that the NPA does not wish to put its rookie candidates under the light of further scrutiny. One can naturally draw a conclusion, quite correctly in my estimation, as to why.

At the Van Tech debate on Wednesday incumbent trustee Ken Denike took most of the questions and was seen to be urging his co-candidates to take questions from time to time, often without success. Some, not all, responses provided by the NPA rookies could be at best described as... disappointing. At worst? Ill-informed.

Margit Nance, judging by how little we heard from her, is capable of speaking for herself but repeatedly chose not to. We'll never know, before election day at least, if she can acquit herself well or not.

Eileen Le Gallais should have said less. Notably her suggested solution for the interlinked problems of class composition and chronic underfunding of special education positions was to draft volunteers, in some cases from within the ranks of senior school grades. Le Gallais left the distinct impression that her years of experience in education are rooted in yesteryears, and that her thinking has not advanced with the times. Sophia Woo had nothing remarkable to say during her infrequent times at the microphone. The public has an interest in hearing more, not less, from these and other candidates.

The point of this post is not to rail on about individuals or one party but to illustrate why the NPA pulled out which had nothing to do with "format" but everything to do with the performance of their own candidates. If NPA rookie trustee candidates are unwilling to stand up to public scrutiny, they certainly should not be entrusted with the job of standing up for our children!

After over two and a half hours of questions and answers, we mostly heard from Ken Denike and barely heard anything from the three rookie NPA candidates sitting on stage. At least one other NPA rookie trustee candidate, Lakhbir Singh, was in the building but did not participate.

There was a subtle difference in how each meeting was moderated. At Van Tech a representative from each party was given opportunity and time to respond to questions. Some parties took advantage of their time to pass the microphone to another representative to complete an answer. The NPA did not take advantage of this possibility to include more voices than Denike's.

At Bayview the process started out similarly but the moderator quite adeptly recognized that time limits were not so necessary and all those who had something to add in response to a question were provided the opportunity to do so.

Yesterday many parents gave three hours of their evening and came out to Bayview on a cold and blustery night. Had the NPA bothered to repay this courtesy and join the discussion, I have no doubt whatsoever that the all trustee candidates would have found the atmosphere collegial and conducive to a substantial discussion on what turned out to be a broad array of topics.

Pulling candidates from debate is a tactic which the Conservative Party has made its signature move. By adopting this sleazy tactic, it would appear the NPA believe their best route to electoral success it to hide its candidates from public view and scrutiny.

I have never voted a "slate" in civic elections, preferring to pick and choose on my own the candidates for council, parks, and schools. Thus in the past I've cast a vote for some of the same NPA trustee candidates who now refuse to talk openly with parents. I travelled across town expecting to be able to chat with Trustee Gibson (NPA) and some of the new faces now vying to lead our board of education. I want to know where my vote is going—no party and no individual gets an automatic ✗ from me.

Anyone who knows me well understands I am a passionate believer in real democracy. Too many of our world's problems are caused, aided, and abetted by secrecy and deception. Our political process and outcomes deserve better than underhanded tactics.

The NPA school trustee candidates have one last chance to redeem themselves: Hosted by Think City, there will be a final all candidates forum held next week, Thursday November 13th from 7:00pm to 9:00pm at Laura Secord Elementary, 2500 Lakewood Avenue (in between Broadway and 12th avenue). Details and registration.

Vancouver Sun education columnist Janet Steffenhagen writes: Is the premier playing favourites?

Four more Vancouver schools have been promised benefits from the Neighbourhoods of Learning project, but other districts are still waiting to hear what's in it for them.

Last month, a ministry official wrote to the Vancouver board of education offering to include Douglas, Kitchener, Sexsmith and Secord elementary schools in the NoL program. It's not clear what that means since these four will not be part of the pilot project, but they have submitted wishlists, as requested, for ministry consideration.

For the record our school, Sir James Douglas Elementary - in Vancouver, not the identically named school in Victoria - submitted a detailed requirements gap analysis, not a "wishlist".

The analysis determined where the Ministry of Education's Ministry Area Standards (attached) fail to recognize and meet the needs of a large, middle-school like, elementary school. The school community came together to analyse what was additionally required on top of the MAS to deliver all the programming Douglas currently provides. Completely devoid of any wishlist items, the factual and unemotional document ran on some 13 pages.

Its telling of the existing B.C. Seismic Mitigation Program and school capital funding process that at no time does anyone connected with MEd or the Vancouver School Board even pretend to undertake the analysis the school community ultimately had to do themselves. Yet, unbelievably, MEd funds school replacement projects without ever having contemplated actual on the ground requirements. Local boards of education are instead forced by MEd to use a simplistic cookie-cutter approach where quite literally what defines a school project is looked up in a table based on headcount alone.

Indeed the capital funding formula and processes have been broken for many years. Notwithstanding the past, given the recent communication from MEd to the Vancouver School Board I remain hopeful that we are witnessing something of a sea change in Victoria's attitude towards funding school seismic safety upgrade and replacement projects. Yet as optimistic as I'd like to be, its impossible not to note the sudden shift in attitudes towards funding school capital projects has arrived just as a civic election is about to conclude, and a provincial election is about to start.

Today and tomorrow Vancouver DPAC (District Parent Advisory Council) will host two all-candidates forums:

• East side: Vancouver Technical Secondary, 2600 East Broadway, Wednesday November 5 @ 7pm (Map)
• West side: Bayview Community School, 2251 Collingwood, Thursday November 6 @ 7pm (Map)

I'll be at Van Tech this evening; judging by the response from friends and parents I talk to at Douglas and other schools, tonight's debate ought to be well-attended. (Update: It wasn't, either by trustee candidates - several missing, or by members of the community. Here's hoping Bayview will draw a larger crowd. See you there!) Bring your questions!

On Wednesday night the University Neighbourhoods Association held a School Trustee All Candidates Meeting. The well-attended debate took place at 7:30 at the Old Barn Community Centre.

It is to be expected that all candidates would both attend and participate in an all candidates meeting. Yet three of the candidates, all NPA hopefuls, attended but took the unusual step of sitting with the audience, effectively refusing to be part of the debate.

Sources familiar with the matter indicate the truant candidates were ordered to sit out the debate by their campaign team. Vancouver voters will want to know the muzzled candidates are:

• Eileen LeGallais (NPA)
• Margit Nance (NPA)
• Sophia Woo (NPA)

The NPA was unable to nominate a full slate of school board candidates. Of the eight fielded candidates, four have run for school or parks board in the past and therefore have had prior public exposure. Why would the NPA choose to deny the public an opportunity to hear from three of the remaining four political newcomers? Surely Vancouver's public school stakeholders deserve to learn more about school trustee candidates than a couple of paragraphs presented on-line.

If candidates can't stand up for themselves in debate, they certainly shouldn't be pretending to stand up for our children!

Vancouver District Parents Advisory Council (DPAC) will host two all-candidates debates early in November. Lets hope that all trustee candidates have been unmuzzled by then.

Mark your calendars Vancouver area parents, for Vancouver DPAC (District Parent Advisory Council) will host two all-candidates debates during the first week of November. Vancouverites really need to pay more attention to School Board, so please pass this on.

• East side: Vancouver Technical Secondary, 2600 East Broadway, Wednesday November 5 @ 7pm (Map)
• West side: Bayview Community School, 2251 Collingwood, Thursday November 6 @ 7pm (Map)

The big question: will all parties commit to having all their candidates participate?

In what seems like a distinctly "Conservative Party of Canada" style move, several candidates were ordered to sit out last night's all candidates debate of School Board prospects, held at UBC. Parents and voters don't need to tolerate such disrespect for basic democracy. Candidates that won't speak don't deserve our votes.

Newsflash to the offending: If your candidate(s) can't stand up for themselves in debate, they certainly shouldn't be pretending to stand up for our kids!

85% of Vancouver district school children enter an unsafe building each school day

One of the advocacy projects I'm working on in my copious spare time is the on-going effort by parents to force local, provincial and federal governments to step up to the plate and once and for all deal with a looming disaster in our midst ... earthquake safety in Vancouver and other at-risk B.C. communities.

Last night I went through the entire inventory of Vancouver schools and apportioned students into "at risk" or "safer" buckets according to the seismic assessments done in 2004. Here's what I come up with: Seven of every ten Vancouver district students sit in an unsafe classroom each school day.

The safety issue is actually worse than that. If one accounts for all children attending a facility with one or more at-risk building blocks there are more than 45,000 of Vancouver's 54,000 school children (four of every five) exposed to elevated risk from earthquakes.

My review only took into account Vancouver School District - #39. While we have the most students at risk of any single district in the province, there are many tens of thousands of additional B.C. students and other school facility users that need and deserve safe schools too.

In an instant a significant earthquake can change our city. In May of this year in an instant thousands of children were killed by their own school collapsing upon them in China's Sichuan province. We've seen the same sorry tale play out all over the world.

These disasters do not only visit far off lands. It isn't a China or a Pakistan problem, it is our problem. We will see a major earthquake in this region, very likely within our lifetime. We mustn't gamble with the lives of tens of thousands of B.C. children, yet for every day projects that we know must be done sit on waiting lists unapproved and unfunded, that is exactly what our society is doing.

We should all be shocked but aren't as many parents are completely unaware scope of the problem. If you are a Vancouver area parent, next time you are at the school yard have a look at the kids and consider that on every school day 4 out of every 5 Vancouver children will spend their day in unsafe classrooms, gymnasiums, workshops, science labs, libraries, administration offices, change rooms, lunch rooms and wash rooms.

This is not an issue which only affects the obviously very old schools in our city. Almost every single school built prior to the 1970's (and even some of those built as recently as thirty years ago) requires either seismic upgrades or total replacement.

Our provincial government made a big promise in 2004 to fix and replace the broken schools but they've not yet achieved the objective they set for themselves. Its time to see that promise fulfilled: fix or replace the dangerous schools.

We are not talking about a divisive issue. Ideology plays no part in this. All parties and any government will want to do everything possible to ensure the safety of our most precious resource, our society's children. Committing the right amount of money and to an accelerated schedule to address all of the hundreds of B.C. schools at risk is simply the right thing, the only thing, to do.

As quoted in a recent CBC news piece, Vancouver School Board Chair Clarence Hansen appears to suggest that he has been lobbying for a special situation for the General Gordon school community for many months. This is a revision of history which needs to be corrected.

The chair of the Vancouver Board of Education issued a statement Monday night, offering a "clarification" of the decision upon which the three schools were selected. Clarence Hansen said a seismic study determined General Gordon should be replaced because the cost for renovation exceeded the cost of replacement.

He said the school's parent advisory committee took their concerns to the premier's office and advocated for it to be one of the three project schools while getting seismic upgrades at the same time.

"I … wrote to Education Minister Shirley Bond in February 2008 to request parents' concerns be considered in the planning of a replacement school," Hansen said.

Hansen wrote the letter to Minister of Education Shirley Bond on 20 February 2008. Only one paragraph makes mention of the Gordon community needs specifically; Hansen's letter is appropriately focussed on the additional needs which many of Vancouver's schools have over and beyond the standard Ministry policy. Indeed Hansen recognizes this as the current reality in the second paragraph of his letter (attached in full at the end of this post):

Many of the issues raised in this case are also relevant to other proposed and current projects within the district. The Board recognizes the Ministry's policy on such issues but is asking herein for clarification and consideration for change to the current facility area and funding standards. Clarence Hansen, Chair, Vancouver School Board

Parents did not meet with Premier Campbell until many weeks had passed; they did so in frustrated reaction to the lack of flexibility the Vancouver School Board had at its disposal.

Hansen's letter translated into zero action. He did what he was asked to do. Nothing was forthcoming from the Ministry until parents from the Gordon community went direct to their MLA who happens to be the Premier of the province. They were provided with positive feedback from the Premier but no conclusive promises up front.

Meanwhile back at the VSB, Trustees continued to operate with no knowledge of a forthcoming pilot project announcement from the Premier which means that every school under consideration, including Gordon, had to operate within the existing policies Hansen refers to in his February letter to Minister Bond--policies which Gordon and many other school communities have long been fighting against.

The Minister would have us all believe that extensive consultation was taking place between the VSB and the Ministry at the same time that the Vice Chair of the VSB was berating Gordon parents for "blindsiding" the VSB by going direct to the Premier.

This doesn't wash as anyone involved or closely observing the process can attest. Minister Bond and Chair Hansen ought to get their stories straight before going on camera.

Attached: