Ontario’s School Councils:

Leading Them Forward to Have An Impact on Student Learning

Originally Published as:  School Councils

Still in Transition - With Room to Grow

February 2000

 

The School Council System – Effectively Still New

The school council system in Ontario is still effectively very new.  Introduced to the province through PPM 122 in April 1995, the 1995/1996 school year was the year in which many schools began the process of either creating a school council, or transitioning an older, established parents group (PTA, Parents Association, etc.) to properly adhere to ministry guidelines.  Effectively, the school council system had its first full year of operation during the 1996/1997 school year and the 1999/2000 school year is only the fourth full year of operation.

1995/1996	1996/1997	1997/1998	1998/1999	1999/2000
Creation Year	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	Year 4
PPM 122 issued Apr. 95 A year of creating new school councils or transitioning established groups to meet ministry guidelines.	First year of operation for the new school council system. Strong emphasis on constitutions, roles and working relationships.	Second year of operation. Entire system  affected by a highly divisive province wide debate and labour disruption over Bill 160, the new bill governing schools in Ontario	Third year of operation. System wide labour issues again as school boards negotiated new contracts to fit within the resources provided by the province for teacher salaries.	Fourth year of operation. Labour peace. Councils again more focused on how to move forward in an effective and meaningful way.
		Education Improvement Commission began studying the progress of school councils	E.I.C. report issued in November 98.	Ministry seeking input on how to better support development of school councils

Granted, those schools that had parents groups operating prior to 1996 had an advantage over other schools as some level of organization existed.  However, many of the established groups were primarily focused on fundraising.  Those groups were challenged to take on the new roles and responsibilities presented in PPM 122.  

Whether schools had a parents group or not operating prior to the 1996/1997 school year, that was the first year in which many parents were faced with responsibilities beyond basic volunteering and fundraising.

The Progress Report of the Education Improvement Commission

In November of 1998, the Education Improvement Commission issued a report entitled ‘The Road Ahead - III: A Report on the Role of School Councils.’  It analyzed input on a number of issues to understand both the status of school councils and how people were responding to their new roles and responsibilities, and how they might move forward to become more effective.  The report was issued after two full years of school council operations.  What the E.I.C. discovered were some very fundamental issues with the direction provided to school councils regarding their roles and responsibilities, and with their very purpose.

“PPM 122 provides good direction but it became apparent to us that too few members of the education community know or understand its content.  Many of the frustrations experienced by school councils stem from this lack of understanding.  ...Despite its considerable merits, however, PPM 122 lacks the accountability measures that would ensure its policy directives are followed.  In addition, many of those who participated in our consultation requested that aspects of the memorandum be clarified, particularly the section of the roles and responsibilities of school councils.” 

“Research indicates that school councils are more effective if they are given a mandate that is clear and meaningful.  Many school councils in the province have been hampered by a lack of clarity about their purpose.

... The background statement of PPM 122 indicates that school councils were established to increase the level of parental and community involvement in the education of Ontario’s young people.  But is it their purpose?  Given that the focus of education reform is to improve programs and increase accountability for student achievement, we believe that the purpose of school councils is is one of the means of achieving this purpose.”

The report then went on to make 43 recommendations to the Ministry of Education and Training about how school councils might become more effective.  The report highlighted three specific areas in which school councils might focus to improve student learning. 

1.  Fostering parental and community involvement in education.

2.  Participating in the school improvement planning process.

3.  Influencing decisions made by Principals, school boards and the Ministry of Education and Training.

Training and Development for School Council Chairs and Members

Training and development provided to school council participants to date has focused on the mechanics of running a council; running elections, preparing agendas, conflict resolution etc.  Training has been limited and sporadic but addressed some of the fundamental needs during the initial phases of developing the school council system in Ontario.

School council members have not had training in the more advanced responsibility of improving student learning.  Without training or a connection to resources to provide some guidance on this issue, is it any wonder that school councils are having a hard time coming to terms with this responsibility?  Without guidance, involved parents will slip back into their ‘comfort zones’ and school councils will continue to struggle to move beyond the more traditional roles of parent groups.

A response from the mid-term review at Whitchurch Highlands Public School in York Region, completed in January 2000, reinforces this perspective very succinctly.

“Parents are usually asking what they can do to help - both at home and those that come into the school.  So at council meetings, issues that parents can understand and that they can actually do something for are the ones that come to the fore in discussions, such as [fundraising for] playground equipment.” 

There is a deep body of research available on nurturing family/school/community partnerships.  Unfortunately, very little of it is in the hands of the people trying to make a difference at the school level.  School council participants continue to deal with issues at hand such as Pokemon cards, broken playground equipment and the like, without any connection to an overall direction that will advance the capability of the system to improve student learning.

Good will and good intentions cannot replace a clear mandate, relevant training and accessibility to the resources necessary to leverage knowledge that already exists on how parents can partner with the education system to improve student learning. 

For parents to take on a more significant role in improving student learning, training must move beyond council mechanics to practical and proven methods for stimulating relevant family/school/community partnerships.

Training and Development for Principals and Teaching Professionals

In 1997, the Harvard Family Research Project completed a study entitled “New Skills for New Schools:  Preparing Teachers in Family Involvement.”  In the United States, its conclusion was as follows:

“School efforts to promote family involvement in children’s education will succeed only if teachers are adequately prepared to support these efforts.  The high standard of professional development that policymakers espouse for teachers of core academic subjects applies equally to partnerships for family involvement.  Teachers -- from pre-kindergarten to secondary school -- need skills to create the positive family partnerships that result in student success and improved schools

“Teacher preparation in family involvement lags far behind school efforts to promote family involvement.  In 1992, the initial research for this report found that teacher certification requirements in the majority of states did not mention family involvement.  States whose certification requirements did allude to family involvement, however, often defined family involvement in vague terms.  Likewise, most teacher education programs did not offer substantial training in family involvement.  Training that was conducted was often limited in scope of content and teaching methods.  Thus, a serious discrepancy existed between preservice preparation and the types of family involvement activities that teachers were increasingly being expected to perform in schools.”

While this is a study conducted entirely in the United States, the situation is similar in Canada.  Family involvement is something that teachers are not often prepared for, either preservice or inservice. 

Leveraging Existing Knowledge and Systems on Family/School/Community Partnerships

Dr. Joyce Epstein is considered one of the leading researchers in North America dedicated to the further development family/school/community partnerships.  Her work in this field over the past 15 years has provided a research-based framework along with strategies for developing partnerships that result in improved student performance.

Today, Dr. Epstein operates a facility at Johns Hopkins University offering schools access to her planning system, access to a host of proven ideas, and regular updates to share new learnings and promising new partnership practices.  The cost to join the National Network of Partnership Schools is $0.  However, there are some costs associated with the development of action plans, which she refers to as investing in our own schools.  Most of the information is available on-line, although there are regular training sessions held in Baltimore for new Network members.  In Canada today, there is only a single school district connected to the Network (Winnipeg District # 1) and a handful of schools involved individually.  Information is available at http://www.partnershipschools.org

On-line professional development is also available through the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development http://www.ascd.org

Summary - School Councils:  Still in Transition with Room to Grow

This paper proposes a perspective that, while school councils have come a long way in a very short time, they remain in their infancy in Ontario.  People involved in the school council system are still learning how to make them work for maximum possible advantage.   

Interestingly, the way forward appears to involve a focus on learning for school council participants, principals and teaching professionals.  However, the learning has to progress to topics beyond the mechanics of running a school council.  A focus on learning more advanced topics offers the opportunity for participants to gain access to the deep body of knowledge that exists for developing and nurturing successful family/school/community partnerships, for the purpose of improving student learning.  With 30 years of research on file on the topic, it would be inefficient and foolish for each council to attempt to discover successful methods for improving student learning on their own.  Councils do not have the resources to gain the knowledge on how to impact student learning independently. 

There is plenty of room for school councils to grow.  Growth will only come, however, with sustained and planned efforts to intervene, guide and connect councils to the overall goal of improved student learning.  Without continued efforts to lead the school council system forward, the talents of many interested and dedicated individuals will be underutilized, the system will fail to have a meaningful impact, and the initiative will stall.

The key question that remains to be answered is – who will lead?

Recommendations

1.  Select and endorse a standardized framework for defining the types of family involvement proven to lead to improved student learning.

Use it to guide the ability of boards and school councils to develop an improved community capability to impact student learning.

The most commonly referenced, and deeply understood framework is the one developed by Dr. Joyce Epstein, and summarized by Michael Fullan as follows:

1.  parenting skills (improve home environments)

2.  communication (two-way -- school-to-home, home-to-school)

3.  volunteering or parent aides (recruit and organize parent help)

4.  learning at home (specific home tutoring assistance)

5.  participating in decision-making (involve parents and develop parent leaders)

 6.  coordinating with community agencies (identify and interpret community services)

2.  Join the National Network of Partnership Schools or create a similar support mechanism at a Canadian University.  Leverage it at the provincial, board and school level to provide practical guidance and action steps.

        Dr. Epstein offers schools membership in the National Network of Partnership Schools and provides specific guidance on planning and implementing actions to improve student learning.  It is also an appropriate framework for guiding the development of family and community partnerships at the provincial and board level.

3.  One professional development day per year for teachers focused on family/school/community partnerships.

Evidence suggests that teachers require specific preservice and inservice training to nurture the skills necessary to create the kinds of positive family partnerships that result in student success and improved schools.  One day per year dedicated to the topic represents a significant increase in the current level of commitment - and a significant step forward.

4.  Professional development for school councils and parents.

Both school council members and members of the school community require access to training that will complement the training recommended for teachers. 

Beyond the mechanics of running a council, parents require a more in-depth understanding of the six types of involvement that are most likely to result in improved student learning. 

References

Education Improvement Commission. (1998).  The Road Ahead III: A Report on the Role of School Councils. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario 

Epstein, J. (1995). School/Family/Community Partnerships, Caring for the Children We Share. Phi Delta Kappan. May 1995, pgs 701 – 712.

Fullan, M. (1996).  School Councils, Non-Event or Capacity for Building for Reform.  Orbit.  Vol. 27, No.4, Pgs 2-5.

Harvard Family Research Project. (1997).  New Skills for New Schools:  Preparing Teachers in Family Involvement. Cambridge, MA. Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Whitchurch Highlands Public School Mid-Term Review.  (2000).  Unpublished mid-term report on the effectiveness of the Whitchurch Highlands School Advisory Council.

Training Resources

National Network of Partnership Schools.  Directed by Dr. Joyce Epstein, this offers a research-based framework and strategies for developing family/school/community partnerships proven to have impact on student achievement. http://www.partnershipschools.org

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.  On-line professional development on the topic of Parents as Partners in Schools.  The $34.95 (U.S.) course is based on the framework developed by Dr. Joyce Epstein and offers a series of complementary readings.  http://www.ascd.org  

Brief Biography for Gord Kerr

Gord has been involved in the school council system since its inception in Ontario, initially as a member of a transition team beginning in January 1996, then as either co-chair, vice-chair or chair in each of the following four years.  In 1998, Gord was accepted into the Master of Education program offered through Nipissing University, in cooperation with the York Region District School Board.  Gord’s purpose for enrolling in this program was to gain the necessary knowledge to advance the ability of parents and educators to work as partners in the interests of student achievement.  His vantage point within this field of study is unique, approaching it from a parent’s perspective.  Gord is currently the chair of the Whitchurch Highlands School Advisory Council.

For more information, please contact Gord Kerr