Sunday, May 27, 2012
My name is Karen Sebben, and together with my son, we are the co-founders of the York Region Anti-Bullying Coalition.
I will get straight to the point. Aggression between our students takes place because adults allow it to. Whether it is a child’s parent, teacher or school administrator, the job of keeping youth safe is ours.
On that first day of kindergarden, we drop them off at school and entrust the emotional, academic, and physical well-being of our children to complete strangers. We do this because giving our children an education falls within the natural order of things, and therefore we just trust. We also do this because the law says we must educate our youth.
Raising a child does not come with an instruction manual. We use our best judgment and experiences from the past to do the best that we can. I taught my boys empathy, compassion, respect and manners, but when I was faced with a situation where the parents of other children did not do the same, I found myself in a dilemma.
When my youngest was in grade 8, we found ourselves in a situation where the adults in control were non-reactive or receptive to a situation that my son found himself at the receiving end of. He was bullied by the same five peers for three school years. The reason this took place is because policy wasn’t worth the paper it was written on, policy was interpreted to protect our administrators, and the consequences chosen did not change the negative behaviour of his aggressors.
My son who was fourteen at the time could not understand why adults did not feel he was worth protecting. He is 21 years old today and if you ask him what stands out the most during those three years he will tell you he doesn’t care about the five boys that pursued him so aggressively. He will tell you that he doesn’t trust adults. The very people I taught him to go to help for if I was not around.
My son turned to cutting his skin and self-medication because adults didn’t do their job. There is no accountability built into our educational system. How can there be when tax -paying parents are up against the big business of unions.
My son was not identified as an LGBT youth, yet he was suicidal. What explicit protections will be built into this legislation to protect a child like him? Would a child like him have the same benefits as a LGBT youth through an alliance? Is anyone suggesting that he was not at great risk for being bullied because he wasn’t LGBT? Yet he suffered terribly for three years, was diagnosed with post traumatic stress which ultimately lead to social development and mental health issues, the same issues that a child who identifies as being LGBT might have. Would he have received the same legal counsel that Mr. Elliott is providing this clearly defined group of youth? How dare anyone suggest that one child’s existence is more important than that of another child based on category?
Do any of you on this committee actually know what it feels like to exist on a daily basis wondering if your child will take his life while you are at work? What’s even worse, as a parent you kept sending him into a battle zone without protection of any kind. If you did, only then would you really realize what any kind of anti-bullying legislation should look like.
I have watched, read and listened to what has transpired in the House over the past few months, and I am ashamed to be an Ontarian. Unless you have been in our shoes, or the shoes of a parent who has lost a child to suicide because of being bullied, I respectfully submit you have no idea.
My colleague, Corina Morrison, presented earlier today. We are like minded, on the same page, and I do not want to repeat here what Mrs. Morrison had to say. One thing must be understood. Families like mine in the Province of Ontario are finding each other. This is taking place because the system has failed us miserably. We are growing in numbers, our voices are growing stronger and we will no longer tolerate being marginalized tax payers.
We are hard working, tax-paying citizens who have the absolute right to be heard and not brushed off by our Government.
Just to recap, anti-bullying legislation must include supports for all involved, including readily available resources for those whom we entrust our children to, data collection to see what actually works and to ensure fiscal responsibility of spending our hard earned tax dollars, detailed prevention and safety plans, community education, a clear definition for bullying including duty of care, non-categorizing of our youth, because they are all at risk, and finally, supports for all involved, and accountability to those whom the system fails.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Anti-Bullying Legislation
SAFE SCHOOL ADVOCATES DEMAND EFFECTIVE ANTI- BULLYING LEGISLATION
It is vital to the success of our education system and the well being of generations of children and young adults to reduce the incidence and impact of bullying. Without informed decision-making and effective legislation, every Ontario student remains at risk. The following are key points for effective change:
1. ALL ENCOMPASSING
Safeguards need to be written into the Education Act that would prevent students from being harmed by all acts of bullying including, but not limited to, homophobic acts, and, especially, those acts carried out by adults in positions of authority within the system. These must apply to all members of school communities
2. EASY ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Students, families and all members of the public or school community must have easy and equal access to information that is provided to school boards as a means to assist in dealing with bullying incidents, including instructional material, data, definitions and policies.
3. TRACKING AND REPORTING
Improved data collection, tracking and reporting, and follow-up when students are withdrawn from schools or boards is needed to truly understand the impact of bullying and to make effective changes.
4. SUPPORT FOR ALL
Damage caused by bullying has a wide reach and affects all parties, including victim(s), perpetrator(s) and their families. Early intervention is critical and school boards should be held both morally and financially responsible for providing necessary counseling, especially in cases where issues are allowed to remain unresolved and damage reaches critical levels.
5. COMPREHENSIVE POLICY FOR ALL SCHOOLBOARDS
One overarching and comprehensive policy for all of Ontario’s school boards would do away with inconsistencies, confusion and too little accountability. Boards would be held to compliance and students would be kept as safe as possible, as failure to comply would bring consequences for those not fulfilling their job requirements.
6. THIRD PARTY OVERSIGHT
Autonomous school boards are not serving their students well enough as is evidenced by the increasing number of bullying related lawsuits against school boards. There is a clear need for consistent and effective third party oversight, such as the previously proposed extended jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
7. INTEGRITY AND RESPONSIBILITY
The duty to report bullying incidents must apply even if the bully is an employee. There must be some form of legislation in place to protect employees who come forward in order to protect victims of bullying at the hands of teachers or other staff. ‘Whistleblower’ legislation would serve this purpose and allow for integrity and responsibility within teachers unions.
8. ABSOLUTE ACCOUNTABILITY
Wording in the Education Act and all school board policies must be decisive and reflect a genuine desire for accountability within Ontario’s school system. At present, phrasing most frequently allows all levels to opt out of action and accountability until student safety is dangerously compromised.
In conclusion, although we would like to be optimistic about the possibility of positive change with the tabling of Bills 13 and 14, instead we are concerned that Ontario families are about to begin a lengthy period of time with no real improvement in the area of bullying prevention and no possibility for such. There are two bills tabled, two bills that have some good ideas but two bills that don’t go far enough. We beseech all parties to work together and take time for careful consideration over the drafting of a final bill because, once passed, that bill will silence bullying issues for some time. Once a bill is passed, the government of the day can claim that there is no further need to look at bullying issues. They can claim they’ve already addressed the issues and that time is needed to see how effective the new legislation is…and that will likely amount to years. The students of Ontario cannot afford to have any more ineffective legislation passed. They cannot afford any further ‘bandaid’ approaches or ‘wait and see’ attitudes. Comprehensive and effective legislated changes to the Education Act are needed to ensure that this province is doing its’ very best to keep students safe in its’ schools. Bullying is abusive in nature and is a result of intolerance, inequity and misuses of power. In order to put an end to bullying and bullycide, we must implement an anti-oppressive framework. If we are to use legislation to help build this framework, the language must be concise and specific regarding bullying and peer abuse. To integrate the problem of bullying with other school-based issues would, in effect, put the issue of bullying on the back burner yet again. Our hope is to have a bill strictly devoted to anti-bullying for all students and to keep other issues of equality separate so that the bill’s purpose is not distorted, making it about political reputations or narrowing the bullying focus to issues of sexual orientation, instead of the safety and learning success of every single one of the children and youth in this province.
It is vital to the success of our education system and the well being of generations of children and young adults to reduce the incidence and impact of bullying. Without informed decision-making and effective legislation, every Ontario student remains at risk. The following are key points for effective change:
1. ALL ENCOMPASSING
Safeguards need to be written into the Education Act that would prevent students from being harmed by all acts of bullying including, but not limited to, homophobic acts, and, especially, those acts carried out by adults in positions of authority within the system. These must apply to all members of school communities
2. EASY ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Students, families and all members of the public or school community must have easy and equal access to information that is provided to school boards as a means to assist in dealing with bullying incidents, including instructional material, data, definitions and policies.
3. TRACKING AND REPORTING
Improved data collection, tracking and reporting, and follow-up when students are withdrawn from schools or boards is needed to truly understand the impact of bullying and to make effective changes.
4. SUPPORT FOR ALL
Damage caused by bullying has a wide reach and affects all parties, including victim(s), perpetrator(s) and their families. Early intervention is critical and school boards should be held both morally and financially responsible for providing necessary counseling, especially in cases where issues are allowed to remain unresolved and damage reaches critical levels.
5. COMPREHENSIVE POLICY FOR ALL SCHOOLBOARDS
One overarching and comprehensive policy for all of Ontario’s school boards would do away with inconsistencies, confusion and too little accountability. Boards would be held to compliance and students would be kept as safe as possible, as failure to comply would bring consequences for those not fulfilling their job requirements.
6. THIRD PARTY OVERSIGHT
Autonomous school boards are not serving their students well enough as is evidenced by the increasing number of bullying related lawsuits against school boards. There is a clear need for consistent and effective third party oversight, such as the previously proposed extended jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
7. INTEGRITY AND RESPONSIBILITY
The duty to report bullying incidents must apply even if the bully is an employee. There must be some form of legislation in place to protect employees who come forward in order to protect victims of bullying at the hands of teachers or other staff. ‘Whistleblower’ legislation would serve this purpose and allow for integrity and responsibility within teachers unions.
8. ABSOLUTE ACCOUNTABILITY
Wording in the Education Act and all school board policies must be decisive and reflect a genuine desire for accountability within Ontario’s school system. At present, phrasing most frequently allows all levels to opt out of action and accountability until student safety is dangerously compromised.
In conclusion, although we would like to be optimistic about the possibility of positive change with the tabling of Bills 13 and 14, instead we are concerned that Ontario families are about to begin a lengthy period of time with no real improvement in the area of bullying prevention and no possibility for such. There are two bills tabled, two bills that have some good ideas but two bills that don’t go far enough. We beseech all parties to work together and take time for careful consideration over the drafting of a final bill because, once passed, that bill will silence bullying issues for some time. Once a bill is passed, the government of the day can claim that there is no further need to look at bullying issues. They can claim they’ve already addressed the issues and that time is needed to see how effective the new legislation is…and that will likely amount to years. The students of Ontario cannot afford to have any more ineffective legislation passed. They cannot afford any further ‘bandaid’ approaches or ‘wait and see’ attitudes. Comprehensive and effective legislated changes to the Education Act are needed to ensure that this province is doing its’ very best to keep students safe in its’ schools. Bullying is abusive in nature and is a result of intolerance, inequity and misuses of power. In order to put an end to bullying and bullycide, we must implement an anti-oppressive framework. If we are to use legislation to help build this framework, the language must be concise and specific regarding bullying and peer abuse. To integrate the problem of bullying with other school-based issues would, in effect, put the issue of bullying on the back burner yet again. Our hope is to have a bill strictly devoted to anti-bullying for all students and to keep other issues of equality separate so that the bill’s purpose is not distorted, making it about political reputations or narrowing the bullying focus to issues of sexual orientation, instead of the safety and learning success of every single one of the children and youth in this province.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
When Healthy Relationships Fail
The World Health Organization (WHO) has decreed that bullying is a “global social health problem” that has reached epidemic proportions. A 2009 WHO report rated Canada 26th out of 35 developed nations surveyed. As a nation, millions of our tax dollars has been spent on programs, education and resources, with no decrease in the number of children who suffer at the hands of their peers. In fact, our numbers in recent years have actually risen with five youth suicides in Ontario alone since the commencement of school this past September.
"The consequences for bullying are far less severe than the consequences of being bullied, and that's why so many participate in bullying rather than risk being the target."
This is a statement made by a 15 year old girl who suffered long-term aggression, both emotional and physical for four years from a group of young males. The operative word is “consequences”.
On November 30, 2011 two new pieces of legislation were introduced at Queens Park. Our Minister of Education, Laurel Broten, introduced “Bill 13 - Accepting Schools Act, 2011”, and Elizabeth Witmer, the former education critic for the PC Party introduced “Bill 14 - Anti-Bullying Act, 2011”
The purpose of any legislation is to provide a guideline to keep society in order. Law defines the limit of public conduct and determines what is allowed and not allowed in any person’s actions that impact another person. Laws are made to maintain public order, and control.
Some highlights of Bill 13 are that it promotes early intervention, supports for victims and ongoing training. Bill 14 highlights are a clear definition for bullying, early intervention, development of detailed school board prevention plans, provision of services for the victim and the aggressor, ongoing professional development, reporting of incidents and prompt investigations.
What both Bills fail to include is a clear and concise definition for “duty of care.”
We hand our children over to complete strangers every single day trusting that these adults will keep them safe. There is a presumed duty of care that these adults act towards others and the public with watchfulness, attention, caution and prudence. If the actions of our administrators do not meet this standard of care, those actions are considered to be negligent. The only reason a child suffers long-term aggression at the hands of their peers is because administrators have failed to take appropriate action. Our Education act states that it is the duty of the Principal to keep children safe. There is absolutely no excuse of any kind for a child to reach a point that they actually consider taking their own lives.
My child considered doing this for six months. For those same six months I sent him into a battle zone called school trusting that my principal would keep him safe. For three years he did not.
The perfect legislation would be a combination of both Bill 13 and 14. I encourage you to educate yourselves on what is taking place for the benefit of our most vulnerable. Both of these Bills can be viewed on the Ontario Legislature site. I will be presenting at committee hearings at Queens Park on both of these Bills prior to the third reading of Bill 13.
It all begins with parents enforcing healthy relationships. Teaching our children compassion, tolerance and empathy towards others is paramount. It ends with accountability on the part of adults and how they deal with a situation when our children fall off track.
My son and I are the co-founders of the York Region Anti-Bullying Coalition. We work hard at raising awareness on the issue of bullying. This issue is not one for families like mine alone. It is a community issue. After all.....it takes a village to raise a child. Please make this your issue as well.
"The consequences for bullying are far less severe than the consequences of being bullied, and that's why so many participate in bullying rather than risk being the target."
This is a statement made by a 15 year old girl who suffered long-term aggression, both emotional and physical for four years from a group of young males. The operative word is “consequences”.
On November 30, 2011 two new pieces of legislation were introduced at Queens Park. Our Minister of Education, Laurel Broten, introduced “Bill 13 - Accepting Schools Act, 2011”, and Elizabeth Witmer, the former education critic for the PC Party introduced “Bill 14 - Anti-Bullying Act, 2011”
The purpose of any legislation is to provide a guideline to keep society in order. Law defines the limit of public conduct and determines what is allowed and not allowed in any person’s actions that impact another person. Laws are made to maintain public order, and control.
Some highlights of Bill 13 are that it promotes early intervention, supports for victims and ongoing training. Bill 14 highlights are a clear definition for bullying, early intervention, development of detailed school board prevention plans, provision of services for the victim and the aggressor, ongoing professional development, reporting of incidents and prompt investigations.
What both Bills fail to include is a clear and concise definition for “duty of care.”
We hand our children over to complete strangers every single day trusting that these adults will keep them safe. There is a presumed duty of care that these adults act towards others and the public with watchfulness, attention, caution and prudence. If the actions of our administrators do not meet this standard of care, those actions are considered to be negligent. The only reason a child suffers long-term aggression at the hands of their peers is because administrators have failed to take appropriate action. Our Education act states that it is the duty of the Principal to keep children safe. There is absolutely no excuse of any kind for a child to reach a point that they actually consider taking their own lives.
My child considered doing this for six months. For those same six months I sent him into a battle zone called school trusting that my principal would keep him safe. For three years he did not.
The perfect legislation would be a combination of both Bill 13 and 14. I encourage you to educate yourselves on what is taking place for the benefit of our most vulnerable. Both of these Bills can be viewed on the Ontario Legislature site. I will be presenting at committee hearings at Queens Park on both of these Bills prior to the third reading of Bill 13.
It all begins with parents enforcing healthy relationships. Teaching our children compassion, tolerance and empathy towards others is paramount. It ends with accountability on the part of adults and how they deal with a situation when our children fall off track.
My son and I are the co-founders of the York Region Anti-Bullying Coalition. We work hard at raising awareness on the issue of bullying. This issue is not one for families like mine alone. It is a community issue. After all.....it takes a village to raise a child. Please make this your issue as well.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Anti-bullying legislation
Ever since the Accepting Schools Act was introduced in the House, there has been article after article with a focus on the acceptance of gay-straight alliances. While we’re at it, why don’t we have a learning disabled alliance, or an alliance for children with physical disabilities. I am a firm believer that publicly funded schools must respect the rights and freedoms of all students, however this legislation has omitted the most important aspect of what is expected by parents when they drop their children off at school. Duty of care is a requirement that a person act toward others and the public with watchfulness, attention, caution and prudence that a reasonable person in the circumstances would. If a person’s actions do not meet this standard of care, then the actions are considered negligent.
I invite readers to satisfy themselves and compare the Accepting Schools Act to Bill 14, which actually has some teeth to it.
Our school boards are publicly funded, self-governing corporations. Our hard earned tax dollars support our schools. It is the sole responsibility of adults to curb the problem of bullying. A CEO of any corporation is responsible to its shareholders, yet the same cannot be said for our Boards of Education. The only reason a child suffers long-term aggression at the hands of their peers is because the adults in control are allowing it to continue. Our publicly funded school boards are the only corporations in existence where accountability does not exist. Ask yourself why.
We can have as many gay-straight or learning disabled alliances as we want, but this won’t induce some of our administrators from using their conscience or prevent them from interpreting policy in a way that would suit their needs. If you don’t believe this is actually taking place, just speak to any parent whose child suffered from long-term aggression at the hands of their peers. I have, and this folks is the common denominator. I can't tell you how many times I heard "my hands are tied". What does this actually mean?
As with any successful business, “if you don’t measure it, you can’t manage it”, which is very important at tracking what’s working and what isn’t. Sadly, this too is not taking place. Why - I've been told this would cost too much money. We have already spent 230 million in this province without any discernible change.
So, while we are teaching our kids inclusiveness, acceptance, compassion and empathy, we should be turning our focus to the adults within the system who are not doing their job.
I'm just saying.
I invite readers to satisfy themselves and compare the Accepting Schools Act to Bill 14, which actually has some teeth to it.
Our school boards are publicly funded, self-governing corporations. Our hard earned tax dollars support our schools. It is the sole responsibility of adults to curb the problem of bullying. A CEO of any corporation is responsible to its shareholders, yet the same cannot be said for our Boards of Education. The only reason a child suffers long-term aggression at the hands of their peers is because the adults in control are allowing it to continue. Our publicly funded school boards are the only corporations in existence where accountability does not exist. Ask yourself why.
We can have as many gay-straight or learning disabled alliances as we want, but this won’t induce some of our administrators from using their conscience or prevent them from interpreting policy in a way that would suit their needs. If you don’t believe this is actually taking place, just speak to any parent whose child suffered from long-term aggression at the hands of their peers. I have, and this folks is the common denominator. I can't tell you how many times I heard "my hands are tied". What does this actually mean?
As with any successful business, “if you don’t measure it, you can’t manage it”, which is very important at tracking what’s working and what isn’t. Sadly, this too is not taking place. Why - I've been told this would cost too much money. We have already spent 230 million in this province without any discernible change.
So, while we are teaching our kids inclusiveness, acceptance, compassion and empathy, we should be turning our focus to the adults within the system who are not doing their job.
I'm just saying.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
System Changes Needed
Our Ministry of Education has invested 230 million dollars into the social issue of bullying, yet the numbers have not changed
What I mean when I say that is The World Health Organization (WHO) has decreed bullying a “global social health problem”. It has reached epidemic proportions. In fact, a 2009 WHO report rated Canada 26th out of 35 developed nations surveyed. Bullying has direct criminal, mental, educational and physical health implications. This is a societal problem and not just one for our Ministry of Education to tackle on it’s own.
It’s also time for systemic changes. There is a roadblock involved at the school board level right now, and it is as a direct result of the way our legislation is written. You may not be aware, but if a student has been suspended for bullying, that suspension can be challenged and examined. There is an appeal process. On the other hand, bullied pupils and their parents are not in a position to challenge the principal’s choice to not exercise suspension as a form of accountability. This is the roadblock my own family ran into.
It’s time to stop treating the bullies as faceless entities, and get to the source of their contempt and motive. It’s time to put into place further resources for their victims. It’s time to implement concrete supports for our bystanders so that they can find the courage to report, and stand up to say “not here, not now”. It is time to work together.
A recent report released by the Thames Valley District School Board has indicated that there is a direct link between bullying and mental health issues........for all involved. As a direct result of bullying, once happy, healthy and academically successful students turn into students with anxiety, depression and substance abuse. Now we have a bigger problem. Motivation and success slowly starts to slip away, and at great cost.
In Ontario all schools have to follow the Ministry of Education definition of bullying: “Bullying is typically a form of repeated, persistent and aggressive behaviour directed at an individual or individuals that is intended to cause (or should be known to cause) fear and distress and/or harm to another person’s body, feelings, self-esteem or reputation. Bullying occurs in a context where there is a real or perceived power imbalance.”
I don’t know how old that definition is, but experts now state that it doesn’t have to be a “repeated” act. Once, just once, is enough.
How many of you here today understand what a bully really is? Or, how many of you think being bullied is just a normal part of growing up. There are a number of misconceptions out there over those very two things.
First of all, our experts will tell you it’s not a normal part of growing up or a right of passage. It’s not an issue where you tell your kids “suck it up” or “ignore it”. It is an extremely serious health problem which will adversely affect a lot of people if you truly don’t understand the ramifications.
The Bully
There are four markers of bullying. They consist of an imbalance of power, intent to harm, threat of further aggression, and when that aggression escalates ....terror. Bullying is not about anger, or even about conflict. It’s about contempt, a feeling of dislike toward someone considered by the bully to be worthless, inferior or un-derserving of respect. Contempt comes with three apparent psychological advantages that allow kids to harm others without feeling empathy, compassion or shame. The bully can feel any one of the following three things:
1. A sense of entitlement, which is the right to control, dominate and abuse another human being.
2. An intolerance towards difference.
3. The liberty to exclude, bar or isolate a person deemed not worthy of respect or care.
The Bullied
There is one thing that all kids who are bullied have in common. This is that the bully or a bunch of bullies has targeted them. Each bullied child was singled out to be the object of scorn and the recipient of bullying, merely because he or she was different in some way.
As a parent, would you know what to look for in your child that might be a warning sign that your child is being bullied. Or, if you are a student who has been bullied, have you ever done any of the following things.
Here are some warning signs:
1. Shows an abrupt lack of interest in school, or refuses to go to school.
2. Takes an unusual route to school.
3. Suffers a drop in grades.
4. Withdraws from family and school activities.
5. Is hungry after school.
6. Steals money from home.
7. Makes a beeline for the bathroom when arriving home.
8. Is sad, sullen, angry or scared after receiving a phone call or e-mail.
9. Does something out of character.
10. Has torn or missing clothing.
11. Uses derogatory or demeaning language when talking about peers.
12. Has stomach aches, headaches, panic attacks and is unable to sleep, sleeps too much.
There is one other extremely important thing that bullied kids do. They don’t tell anyone that they are being targeted because they are:
1. ashamed
2. they are afraid of retaliation
3. they don’t think anyone can or will help them
4. they have bout into the lie that bullying is a necessary part of growing up
5. they might believe that adults are part of that lie because they bully too
6. “rating” on a peer is not cool
Now we have the bystander who many experts say plays the most important role
Bystanders are the third group of players in this tragedy. They are the supporting cast who aid and abet the bully. They stand idly by or look away, or they can actively encourage the bully or they join in and become one of a bunch of bullies. However, bullying is challenged when the majority of bystanders stand up against cruel acts. When this is done, a new norm will be established. Since much of the bullying goes on “under the radar of adults” a force to be reckoned with is the bystander showing bullies that they will not be looked up to, nor will their cruel behaviour be tolerated. They can become active witnesses standing up for their peers and speaking out against injustices, and taking responsibility for what happened amongst themselves.
If you are a parent who wants to inform their school of a bullying situation, there is protocol that must be followed. A chain of command for a lack of a better term. Visit your board website. Familiarize yourself with the Code of Conduct and Safe School Policy and of utmost importance, conduct yourself in a respectful and professional manner if you want your voice to be heard.
If your matter does not get resolved at the school board level, there are other options available. As a community, we must all work together.
I ask that you inform and educate yourself on this issue. Your child may not be a bully, a bystander, or victim now, but they could be some day. Have some open dialogue with your children on this issue at the dinner table some time.
Excerpts from The Bully, the bullied, and the bystander, by Barbara Coloroso
What I mean when I say that is The World Health Organization (WHO) has decreed bullying a “global social health problem”. It has reached epidemic proportions. In fact, a 2009 WHO report rated Canada 26th out of 35 developed nations surveyed. Bullying has direct criminal, mental, educational and physical health implications. This is a societal problem and not just one for our Ministry of Education to tackle on it’s own.
It’s also time for systemic changes. There is a roadblock involved at the school board level right now, and it is as a direct result of the way our legislation is written. You may not be aware, but if a student has been suspended for bullying, that suspension can be challenged and examined. There is an appeal process. On the other hand, bullied pupils and their parents are not in a position to challenge the principal’s choice to not exercise suspension as a form of accountability. This is the roadblock my own family ran into.
It’s time to stop treating the bullies as faceless entities, and get to the source of their contempt and motive. It’s time to put into place further resources for their victims. It’s time to implement concrete supports for our bystanders so that they can find the courage to report, and stand up to say “not here, not now”. It is time to work together.
A recent report released by the Thames Valley District School Board has indicated that there is a direct link between bullying and mental health issues........for all involved. As a direct result of bullying, once happy, healthy and academically successful students turn into students with anxiety, depression and substance abuse. Now we have a bigger problem. Motivation and success slowly starts to slip away, and at great cost.
In Ontario all schools have to follow the Ministry of Education definition of bullying: “Bullying is typically a form of repeated, persistent and aggressive behaviour directed at an individual or individuals that is intended to cause (or should be known to cause) fear and distress and/or harm to another person’s body, feelings, self-esteem or reputation. Bullying occurs in a context where there is a real or perceived power imbalance.”
I don’t know how old that definition is, but experts now state that it doesn’t have to be a “repeated” act. Once, just once, is enough.
How many of you here today understand what a bully really is? Or, how many of you think being bullied is just a normal part of growing up. There are a number of misconceptions out there over those very two things.
First of all, our experts will tell you it’s not a normal part of growing up or a right of passage. It’s not an issue where you tell your kids “suck it up” or “ignore it”. It is an extremely serious health problem which will adversely affect a lot of people if you truly don’t understand the ramifications.
The Bully
There are four markers of bullying. They consist of an imbalance of power, intent to harm, threat of further aggression, and when that aggression escalates ....terror. Bullying is not about anger, or even about conflict. It’s about contempt, a feeling of dislike toward someone considered by the bully to be worthless, inferior or un-derserving of respect. Contempt comes with three apparent psychological advantages that allow kids to harm others without feeling empathy, compassion or shame. The bully can feel any one of the following three things:
1. A sense of entitlement, which is the right to control, dominate and abuse another human being.
2. An intolerance towards difference.
3. The liberty to exclude, bar or isolate a person deemed not worthy of respect or care.
The Bullied
There is one thing that all kids who are bullied have in common. This is that the bully or a bunch of bullies has targeted them. Each bullied child was singled out to be the object of scorn and the recipient of bullying, merely because he or she was different in some way.
As a parent, would you know what to look for in your child that might be a warning sign that your child is being bullied. Or, if you are a student who has been bullied, have you ever done any of the following things.
Here are some warning signs:
1. Shows an abrupt lack of interest in school, or refuses to go to school.
2. Takes an unusual route to school.
3. Suffers a drop in grades.
4. Withdraws from family and school activities.
5. Is hungry after school.
6. Steals money from home.
7. Makes a beeline for the bathroom when arriving home.
8. Is sad, sullen, angry or scared after receiving a phone call or e-mail.
9. Does something out of character.
10. Has torn or missing clothing.
11. Uses derogatory or demeaning language when talking about peers.
12. Has stomach aches, headaches, panic attacks and is unable to sleep, sleeps too much.
There is one other extremely important thing that bullied kids do. They don’t tell anyone that they are being targeted because they are:
1. ashamed
2. they are afraid of retaliation
3. they don’t think anyone can or will help them
4. they have bout into the lie that bullying is a necessary part of growing up
5. they might believe that adults are part of that lie because they bully too
6. “rating” on a peer is not cool
Now we have the bystander who many experts say plays the most important role
Bystanders are the third group of players in this tragedy. They are the supporting cast who aid and abet the bully. They stand idly by or look away, or they can actively encourage the bully or they join in and become one of a bunch of bullies. However, bullying is challenged when the majority of bystanders stand up against cruel acts. When this is done, a new norm will be established. Since much of the bullying goes on “under the radar of adults” a force to be reckoned with is the bystander showing bullies that they will not be looked up to, nor will their cruel behaviour be tolerated. They can become active witnesses standing up for their peers and speaking out against injustices, and taking responsibility for what happened amongst themselves.
If you are a parent who wants to inform their school of a bullying situation, there is protocol that must be followed. A chain of command for a lack of a better term. Visit your board website. Familiarize yourself with the Code of Conduct and Safe School Policy and of utmost importance, conduct yourself in a respectful and professional manner if you want your voice to be heard.
If your matter does not get resolved at the school board level, there are other options available. As a community, we must all work together.
I ask that you inform and educate yourself on this issue. Your child may not be a bully, a bystander, or victim now, but they could be some day. Have some open dialogue with your children on this issue at the dinner table some time.
Excerpts from The Bully, the bullied, and the bystander, by Barbara Coloroso
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Facts about Bullying
Introduction
• A child is bullied every 20 seconds in Canada.
• A 2008 Harvard University study found that “bullying and harassment, most often by peers, are the most frequent threats that minors face, both online and offline.”
• According to recent data from the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Health Behaviours in School-aged Children survey, Canada does not fare well on the world stage in addressing bullying problems. Canada ranked 26th and 27th out of 35 countries on measures of bullying and victimization, respectively.
• Across all categories of bullying and victimization, Canadian students consistently reported rates of bullying and victimization that ranked at or below the middle of the international group. In her article, “Binoculars on Bullying,” Dr. Debra Pepler aptly stated:
[t]his situation is even more discouraging because Canada’s rates have stayed approximately the same over the past decade, but Canada’s ranking in the WHO surveys has dropped over the same time period…other countries are making inroads in addressing bullying problems, while our efforts seem to be stalled.
• Canadian children are not safe from bullying.
• For every child concerned about being sexually abused by adults, there are three children concerned about abuse by peers.
• From an international standpoint, the WHO Health Behaviours survey tells us that we are failing to protect our children.
• The consequences of bullying are real. Bullying “not only robs self-confidence, affects physical health and leaves behind a long-term legacy for both victims and those who bully, it also destroys lives and futures.”
• Bullying must be addressed early as it has significant implications for later perpetrations of sexual harassment and dating aggression and may extend to workplace harassment, as well as marital, child, and elder abuse.
Safety is a Fundamental Human Right
• Sadly, 140,000 Ontario children dread returning to an environment toxic to them; this is the dark side of education.
• These children’s' lives and those of their family members have been altered forever.
• Many children wonder how they will survive life in the public school system from one day to the next.
• Students in our publicly funded education system are required to return and attend each day, even where their lives, innocence, and well-being are endangered.
• Current Ontario legislation, which addresses bullying through the Education Act, does not adequately deal with bullying perpetrated by, or against youth, and fails to protect children and adolescents.
• This is in contrast to adults, who are entitled to legislative protections under the Criminal Code, the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Bill 168 amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act—protections that a lot of children do not have because of their age. The law in this area is dispersed and not easily understood or applied, especially for children.
• Every child and youth has the right to be safe and free from involvement in bullying.
• Children in all three roles with respect to bullying—those who are bullied, those who bully others, and those who know it is going on—can be negatively affected.
• Further support for this argument can be found in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Canada is a signatory. Article 29 specifies that education shall be directed to:
[t]he preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of the sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin. As a society, therefore, we must educate children to ensure they develop positive attitudes and behaviours and avoid using their power to bully or harass others.
• The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child also addresses the rights of children who are at the receiving end of bullying and harassment. Article 19 of the Convention states:
Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.
• It is time to view the problem of bullying through a different lens for a more effective way of addressing this important issue—one that has serious implications.
• Transparency is crucial to reducing the incidences and enduring consequences of bullying.
Ontario’s Protection in the Workplace: Bill 168
Oversight
• Bill 168 was enacted to protect adults from violence and harassment in the workplace.
• Children, a more vulnerable group, are not afforded the same protection from similar behaviour at school. Legislation should be drafted to provide children with this protection.
• The legislation should include provisions similar to the provisions in Bill 168 that introduce elements of accountability, enforcement, transparency and oversight.
Ontario’s Ministry of Education’s Response to Bullying
• As the primary institution and a “major socialization force” in the lives of children, schools must play a leadership role in addressing bullying problems.
• While it appears that significant progress has occurred through stronger consequences for perpetrators of bullying, principals still have wide discretion to investigate and take action when allegations of bullying come to their attention.
• There are no mechanisms built into the Education Act to ensure accountability or to review incidents in which no action was taken. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a definition of “bullying” in the Act, nor is cyber-bullying explicitly included. Ultimately, the law is only as good as its implementation.
• While memorandums issued by the Ontario Ministry of Education inform the school boards and school authorities of the Ministry’s new policies. Memorandums are not statutes and can be changed at the Ministry’s discretion; therefore, this definition of bullying could be altered in the future by government bureaucrats.
Holding Schools Accountable
• As a result, their responses to bullying are reactive rather than proactive.
• Educators ought to play a significantly more active role in fostering inclusive school environments by critically assessing what they model to young people in physical school settings and in virtual space.
• Bullying impacts learning in the physical school environment and creates unwelcome physical school environments where equal opportunities to learn are greatly reduced.
• It appears that schools are rarely held liable for student bullying; “nevertheless, they have a professional duty to ensure a safe and supportive learning environment for all students.”
• It can be argued that schools have an additional responsibility to act in loco parentis, or in the place of parents, because they have charge of children.
• In fact, courts have held that schools are required to ensure that they create a school environment that provides equal opportunities to learn without fear of harassment or bullying (of any kind whatsoever).
• Currently, there is no oversight mechanism for school boards in Ontario.
• The Ombudsman's authority, as established by the Ombudsman Act to oversee the delivery of public services, has not been modernized in over 30 years.
• According to the Ombudsman’s Office, Ontario has fallen behind in oversight of non-governmental organizations providing critical public services referred to as the “MUSH” sector, which includes school boards.
• The Ombudsman of Ontario's authority with respect to this sector is the most limited in Canada.
• NDP education critic Rosario Marchese introduced a private member’s bill on November 15, 2010, which aims to give the Ombudsman review powers over school boards, as well as other “MUSH” sector organizations.
• “There are many concerns with education and thousands of kids are falling through the cracks. We need someone who has the power and independence to investigate and resolve complaints.”
• Ontario is the only province where the Ombudsman doesn't oversee school boards.
• However, the Office of the Ombudsman still received 110 complaints in 2009 about issues relating to the education system, including issues such as school violence and inappropriate suspensions and expulsions.
• These complaints could not be investigated because they fell outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
• To ensure accountability of our educational system, oversight of school boards should be part of the Ombudsman’s mandate.
Conclusion
• Schools, however, cannot be expected to address this social problem alone; parents must play a significant role as well.
• In the cyber-bullying context, it is interesting to note that just when children are beginning to conduct more of their social lives online, the number of house rules governing online behaviour starts to drop off.
• Parents are also less likely to spend time supervising their kids online or talking to them about their online activities.
• Parents who are responsible for providing their children with Internet access are not taking responsibility for monitoring their children’s activities online.
• Recent trends suggest that a parent who is aware of their child’s malicious online behaviour may be held partially responsible for their child’s actions.
• Although there are limited legal remedies available to provide redress for victims or punishment for perpetrators of bullying, solutions for encouraging positive interactions can only emerge from an ongoing collaboration and commitment from all stakeholders, including parents, schools, government, and children themselves. All have a role and responsibility in ensuring children’s safety.
• We must avoid labelling children as “victims” or “bullies,” but should instead take a broader perspective on children’s strengths and challenges, not only in terms of their own needs, but also in terms of their important relationships within the family, peer group, school, and broader community.
• Children need consistent messages and responses to bullying across all of these contexts.
• We need “to interrupt and redefine these interactions to move children out of their entrenched roles in a bullying situation.”
• To promote positive relationships, all children involved in bullying incidents—the children who bully, those who are victimized, as well as bystanders—must be included in bullying interventions.
• Regardless of the setting, adults are responsible for creating positive environments that promote children’s ability to create and maintain healthy relationships.
• They are also responsible for minimizing opportunities for negative peer interactions.
• By observing the interpersonal dynamics in children’s lives, adults can construct social experiences in ways that protect and support their developing relationships and minimize the likelihood of bullying and harassment.
• We have to break down systemic barriers and model behaviour that teaches children to be respectful and inclusive, offline and online.
• One need not look too far to see how adults are failing children by modeling negative behaviour—from football and soccer fields where parents yell obscenities and aggressive taunts at referees and players, to Parliament, where politicians openly treat each other with derision.
• Specifically, the shortcomings of the current legislated response to bullying in Ontario, in terms of accountability, transparency, enforceability and oversight, should be addressed and repaired. The manner in which Bill 168 addresses bullying and harassment in the workplace and the recent initiatives in New Jersey and Massachusetts warrant serious consideration because they increase accountability, transparency, enforceability and oversight. The American initiatives are touted as the “gold standard.” Children in Ontario deserve nothing less.
• A child is bullied every 20 seconds in Canada.
• A 2008 Harvard University study found that “bullying and harassment, most often by peers, are the most frequent threats that minors face, both online and offline.”
• According to recent data from the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Health Behaviours in School-aged Children survey, Canada does not fare well on the world stage in addressing bullying problems. Canada ranked 26th and 27th out of 35 countries on measures of bullying and victimization, respectively.
• Across all categories of bullying and victimization, Canadian students consistently reported rates of bullying and victimization that ranked at or below the middle of the international group. In her article, “Binoculars on Bullying,” Dr. Debra Pepler aptly stated:
[t]his situation is even more discouraging because Canada’s rates have stayed approximately the same over the past decade, but Canada’s ranking in the WHO surveys has dropped over the same time period…other countries are making inroads in addressing bullying problems, while our efforts seem to be stalled.
• Canadian children are not safe from bullying.
• For every child concerned about being sexually abused by adults, there are three children concerned about abuse by peers.
• From an international standpoint, the WHO Health Behaviours survey tells us that we are failing to protect our children.
• The consequences of bullying are real. Bullying “not only robs self-confidence, affects physical health and leaves behind a long-term legacy for both victims and those who bully, it also destroys lives and futures.”
• Bullying must be addressed early as it has significant implications for later perpetrations of sexual harassment and dating aggression and may extend to workplace harassment, as well as marital, child, and elder abuse.
Safety is a Fundamental Human Right
• Sadly, 140,000 Ontario children dread returning to an environment toxic to them; this is the dark side of education.
• These children’s' lives and those of their family members have been altered forever.
• Many children wonder how they will survive life in the public school system from one day to the next.
• Students in our publicly funded education system are required to return and attend each day, even where their lives, innocence, and well-being are endangered.
• Current Ontario legislation, which addresses bullying through the Education Act, does not adequately deal with bullying perpetrated by, or against youth, and fails to protect children and adolescents.
• This is in contrast to adults, who are entitled to legislative protections under the Criminal Code, the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Bill 168 amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act—protections that a lot of children do not have because of their age. The law in this area is dispersed and not easily understood or applied, especially for children.
• Every child and youth has the right to be safe and free from involvement in bullying.
• Children in all three roles with respect to bullying—those who are bullied, those who bully others, and those who know it is going on—can be negatively affected.
• Further support for this argument can be found in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Canada is a signatory. Article 29 specifies that education shall be directed to:
[t]he preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of the sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin. As a society, therefore, we must educate children to ensure they develop positive attitudes and behaviours and avoid using their power to bully or harass others.
• The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child also addresses the rights of children who are at the receiving end of bullying and harassment. Article 19 of the Convention states:
Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.
• It is time to view the problem of bullying through a different lens for a more effective way of addressing this important issue—one that has serious implications.
• Transparency is crucial to reducing the incidences and enduring consequences of bullying.
Ontario’s Protection in the Workplace: Bill 168
Oversight
• Bill 168 was enacted to protect adults from violence and harassment in the workplace.
• Children, a more vulnerable group, are not afforded the same protection from similar behaviour at school. Legislation should be drafted to provide children with this protection.
• The legislation should include provisions similar to the provisions in Bill 168 that introduce elements of accountability, enforcement, transparency and oversight.
Ontario’s Ministry of Education’s Response to Bullying
• As the primary institution and a “major socialization force” in the lives of children, schools must play a leadership role in addressing bullying problems.
• While it appears that significant progress has occurred through stronger consequences for perpetrators of bullying, principals still have wide discretion to investigate and take action when allegations of bullying come to their attention.
• There are no mechanisms built into the Education Act to ensure accountability or to review incidents in which no action was taken. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a definition of “bullying” in the Act, nor is cyber-bullying explicitly included. Ultimately, the law is only as good as its implementation.
• While memorandums issued by the Ontario Ministry of Education inform the school boards and school authorities of the Ministry’s new policies. Memorandums are not statutes and can be changed at the Ministry’s discretion; therefore, this definition of bullying could be altered in the future by government bureaucrats.
Holding Schools Accountable
• As a result, their responses to bullying are reactive rather than proactive.
• Educators ought to play a significantly more active role in fostering inclusive school environments by critically assessing what they model to young people in physical school settings and in virtual space.
• Bullying impacts learning in the physical school environment and creates unwelcome physical school environments where equal opportunities to learn are greatly reduced.
• It appears that schools are rarely held liable for student bullying; “nevertheless, they have a professional duty to ensure a safe and supportive learning environment for all students.”
• It can be argued that schools have an additional responsibility to act in loco parentis, or in the place of parents, because they have charge of children.
• In fact, courts have held that schools are required to ensure that they create a school environment that provides equal opportunities to learn without fear of harassment or bullying (of any kind whatsoever).
• Currently, there is no oversight mechanism for school boards in Ontario.
• The Ombudsman's authority, as established by the Ombudsman Act to oversee the delivery of public services, has not been modernized in over 30 years.
• According to the Ombudsman’s Office, Ontario has fallen behind in oversight of non-governmental organizations providing critical public services referred to as the “MUSH” sector, which includes school boards.
• The Ombudsman of Ontario's authority with respect to this sector is the most limited in Canada.
• NDP education critic Rosario Marchese introduced a private member’s bill on November 15, 2010, which aims to give the Ombudsman review powers over school boards, as well as other “MUSH” sector organizations.
• “There are many concerns with education and thousands of kids are falling through the cracks. We need someone who has the power and independence to investigate and resolve complaints.”
• Ontario is the only province where the Ombudsman doesn't oversee school boards.
• However, the Office of the Ombudsman still received 110 complaints in 2009 about issues relating to the education system, including issues such as school violence and inappropriate suspensions and expulsions.
• These complaints could not be investigated because they fell outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
• To ensure accountability of our educational system, oversight of school boards should be part of the Ombudsman’s mandate.
Conclusion
• Schools, however, cannot be expected to address this social problem alone; parents must play a significant role as well.
• In the cyber-bullying context, it is interesting to note that just when children are beginning to conduct more of their social lives online, the number of house rules governing online behaviour starts to drop off.
• Parents are also less likely to spend time supervising their kids online or talking to them about their online activities.
• Parents who are responsible for providing their children with Internet access are not taking responsibility for monitoring their children’s activities online.
• Recent trends suggest that a parent who is aware of their child’s malicious online behaviour may be held partially responsible for their child’s actions.
• Although there are limited legal remedies available to provide redress for victims or punishment for perpetrators of bullying, solutions for encouraging positive interactions can only emerge from an ongoing collaboration and commitment from all stakeholders, including parents, schools, government, and children themselves. All have a role and responsibility in ensuring children’s safety.
• We must avoid labelling children as “victims” or “bullies,” but should instead take a broader perspective on children’s strengths and challenges, not only in terms of their own needs, but also in terms of their important relationships within the family, peer group, school, and broader community.
• Children need consistent messages and responses to bullying across all of these contexts.
• We need “to interrupt and redefine these interactions to move children out of their entrenched roles in a bullying situation.”
• To promote positive relationships, all children involved in bullying incidents—the children who bully, those who are victimized, as well as bystanders—must be included in bullying interventions.
• Regardless of the setting, adults are responsible for creating positive environments that promote children’s ability to create and maintain healthy relationships.
• They are also responsible for minimizing opportunities for negative peer interactions.
• By observing the interpersonal dynamics in children’s lives, adults can construct social experiences in ways that protect and support their developing relationships and minimize the likelihood of bullying and harassment.
• We have to break down systemic barriers and model behaviour that teaches children to be respectful and inclusive, offline and online.
• One need not look too far to see how adults are failing children by modeling negative behaviour—from football and soccer fields where parents yell obscenities and aggressive taunts at referees and players, to Parliament, where politicians openly treat each other with derision.
• Specifically, the shortcomings of the current legislated response to bullying in Ontario, in terms of accountability, transparency, enforceability and oversight, should be addressed and repaired. The manner in which Bill 168 addresses bullying and harassment in the workplace and the recent initiatives in New Jersey and Massachusetts warrant serious consideration because they increase accountability, transparency, enforceability and oversight. The American initiatives are touted as the “gold standard.” Children in Ontario deserve nothing less.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Bill 177 - Parents should be extremely concerned
LONDON DISTRICT
CATHOLIC SCHOOL COUNCIL
AND PARENT INVOLVEMENT COMMITTEE
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): I now invite our next presenters to please come forward: Ms. Steel, Ms. Morell and Mr. Hurst of the London District Catholic School Council and Parent Involvement Committee. Welcome. You've seen the protocol. Please do introduce yourselves individually for the purpose of Hansard recording, and I would invite you to please begin now.
Mr. Craig Hurst: Thank you. My name is Craig Hurst. I'm a former school board trustee with the Simcoe County District School Board and a former member of the provincial parent board. We are here today to discuss true and effective embedding of parent engagement into the legislation. Specifically we bring forward three points: One is that section 17.1 of the current legislation should not be removed. Number two is that consideration for the legislation of parent trustees similar to student trustees with the same rights and responsibilities and sitting on school boards be considered. Number three is that we clarify parent involvement committee mandates and entrench a parent as the chair of parent involvement committees.
I would now like to ask Arlene to speak.
Ms. Arlene Morell: Arlene Morell, chairperson of the Thames Valley Parent Involvement Committee. There are an estimated 2.3 million parents of students in publicly funded education, who make up both a formidable potential resource and the largest single constituency for publicly funded education. Parents give credibility by providing a practical, culturally relevant contribution from a unique perspective. With no governing parent body, parents have been and are the most under-represented partners in provincial education policy deliberations, despite our wealth of first-hand knowledge about our children. Accessing this parent knowledge and experience is critical to shaping policies that are responsive, appropriate, sensible and effective in the province. Our perspectives can help design and implement more effective programs and help reduce barriers.
Clear legislation is needed to bring parents into the decision-making process in a meaningful way. In 2004, Minister of Education Gerard Kennedy appointed 20 parent leaders from across the province. The task of the parent-led project was to give advice on how to create an independent, representative, province-wide parent voice accountable to parents. Over 1,150 submissions representing thousands of voices representing parents' views on education matters, to ensure that the parent voice at the provincial level remains inclusive and effective-they saw that a parent voice at the provincial level is something that would support and enable parents to speak directly to the minister and other decision-makers.
The more experienced parents voiced, "We have been asked this before and little has changed. When is someone going to act on our suggestions?" Including parents in the policies and planning processes is critical to building a trusting relationship between providers, ministry and school boards and consumers, parents and students. Taking this one step further by acting on their advice, this builds confidence in our publicly funded education. Listening to parents' perspectives and learning from our experiences can result in more responsive policies and programs that truly improve the lives of children and families across the province.
Ms. Linda Steel: I'm Linda Steel. I'm chair of the London District Catholic School Council and Parent Involvement Committee.
Please do not remove section 17.1 from the Education Act. Parents across the province have not even been told they are losing their provincial voice and that this government plans to renege on the promises made to Ontario parents in 2005. I refer you to appendix D to see the promises made.
The provincial parent board was silenced and shut down in August. Our reports were never published or acted on. Thousands of volunteer hours were spent creating a document that not only identified all barriers to parent engagement but the solutions to eliminating those barriers. The report is currently sitting in the minister's office collecting dust. Parents have been asking and asking for that information and provincial leadership to communicate their concerns.
The PPP did communicate their concerns and provide answers. It seems they will never reach the parents of this province. And now Bill 177 proposes to eliminate any inclusive, accessible provincial parent voice. This is not acceptable, does nothing to create confidence in the public education system or support meaningful parent engagement. Please see appendix A for further details.
1730
Mr. Craig Hurst: We ask you to strongly consider the inclusion of parent trustees in school boards, similar to the student trustees that currently exist under section 55 of the Education Act.
Parent trustees could be given the same rights and responsibilities, and limitations, as student trustees. There is no reason why a strong parent voice can't be legislated within the construct of a school board.
Ms. Arlene Morell: Clarifying and expanding parent involvement committee mandates and entrenching a parent as the chair: The PIC purpose is serving as a school council to the school board to strengthen local initiatives that enhance the engagement of parents to improve student achievement, by providing a direct link to the director and trustees. Parents must be in the majority, and the committee chairperson must be a parent.
To ensure a parent voice at the school board level, the legislation must include:
-that the committee is a standing committee of the school board, and must be chaired or co-chaired by a parent who is not employed by the school board;
-that the committee is solely responsible for the allocation of base funding;
-that parent members must form the majority, inclusive of the existing parent organizations; and
-that base funding shall not cover board employee salaries.
Committee function:
-to assist school councils and parent groups in establishing goals and actions to increase parent engagement;
-to be consulted on and participate in the development of school and board policies and initiatives affecting education and the educational community as meaningful contributors;
-to act as information conduits to parents, schools, boards, the Ontario Parent Council and the Ministry of Education;
-to develop inclusive bylaws;
-to consult with school councils and parents on matters under consideration;
-to make recommendations to the school board and the Ministry of Education on any matter that affects parent engagement and student outcomes.
Ms. Linda Steel: Collectively, parents across this province raise in excess of $700 million. School councils and parent involvement committees are not even supposed to fundraise, particularly for what is supposed to be a publicly funded education system. We are advisory groups, period.
Parents and students have no unions that can collectively represent their interests. Bill 177 will effectively eliminate the only accessible, fully provincial parent voice we have. How are we to interpret this? "Thanks for the money. Now go away quietly"?
While there are outside provincial associations, these associations require membership fees, one of the first barriers to parent engagement; and most limit membership to certain groups with specific agendas. They operate outside the education system, and by definition they cannot represent all parents.
Bill 177 was supposed to be a governance review. Not once were parents advised during the round-table discussions that took place last February that their provincial representation was going to be removed from the Education Act. They still haven't been told. Why has there been no public or parental input requested on the removal of 17.1? Who is the Education Act supposed to serve?
Despite their claims otherwise, this government is quietly but systematically eliminating the parent voice. The provincial parent board was dissolved effective August 31, with no explanation. The provincial demonstration school council was dissolved last June. School councils were told by the director that she would not listen to their input as there was no requirement for her to do so. Full parental public input on Bill 157, the safe schools act, never took place. And recently, only after a number of parents, boards and media outlets began pressuring the ministry to explain why only select groups were invited to give input on the elementary curriculum, were parent involvement committee chairs invited to participate. We see a trend developing here, and it concerns us.
While we are pleased to see the addition of parent involvement committees in the act, again no public input was requested on how these committees should operate and no details are provided in the bill. Reaching consensus among 72 unconnected PICs is improbable at best, especially during a once-annually meeting. It feels like the old "divide and conquer" scenario all over again.
While the intent of this committee may be to provide an equitable input approach with equal considerations, it quite simply cannot when no timely or informed notice has been given to the largest group of stakeholders and voters-parents. Again, we ask, "Why?" We are the primary educators and advocates for our children; why are we being silenced?
Mr. Craig Hurst: Thank you.
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Thank you. We've got about 15 seconds per side. Ms. Witmer.
Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Thank you very much for your presentation. Your viewpoints are very important to be heard and I look forward to going through this. It's most regrettable that the parent voice has been eliminated from providing input. When I was chair of a board, I remember setting up councils-
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Thank you, Ms. Witmer. Mr. Marchese.
Mr. Rosario Marchese: Thank you all. A quick question: How would we elect and/or nominate the parent trustee on the boards?
Mr. Craig Hurst: In the same nominating process as used for students.
Mr. Rosario Marchese: Would you find that process to be difficult, easy or-
Mr. Craig Hurst: I think it's straightforward, given that schools have a very good grassroots network amongst themselves within a board.
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Thank you, Mr. Marchese. Ms. Sandals.
Mrs. Liz Sandals: So if I understand you correctly, then, parents would be selected by school councils to be board members, as opposed to elected by the general public. Is that what you're suggesting?
Mr. Craig Hurst: That's the same process being used for student trustees, yes.
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Thank you, Ms. Sandals, and thanks to you, Ms. Steel, Ms. Morell and Mr. Hurst for your deputation on behalf of the London District Catholic School Council and Parent Involvement Committee.
CATHOLIC SCHOOL COUNCIL
AND PARENT INVOLVEMENT COMMITTEE
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): I now invite our next presenters to please come forward: Ms. Steel, Ms. Morell and Mr. Hurst of the London District Catholic School Council and Parent Involvement Committee. Welcome. You've seen the protocol. Please do introduce yourselves individually for the purpose of Hansard recording, and I would invite you to please begin now.
Mr. Craig Hurst: Thank you. My name is Craig Hurst. I'm a former school board trustee with the Simcoe County District School Board and a former member of the provincial parent board. We are here today to discuss true and effective embedding of parent engagement into the legislation. Specifically we bring forward three points: One is that section 17.1 of the current legislation should not be removed. Number two is that consideration for the legislation of parent trustees similar to student trustees with the same rights and responsibilities and sitting on school boards be considered. Number three is that we clarify parent involvement committee mandates and entrench a parent as the chair of parent involvement committees.
I would now like to ask Arlene to speak.
Ms. Arlene Morell: Arlene Morell, chairperson of the Thames Valley Parent Involvement Committee. There are an estimated 2.3 million parents of students in publicly funded education, who make up both a formidable potential resource and the largest single constituency for publicly funded education. Parents give credibility by providing a practical, culturally relevant contribution from a unique perspective. With no governing parent body, parents have been and are the most under-represented partners in provincial education policy deliberations, despite our wealth of first-hand knowledge about our children. Accessing this parent knowledge and experience is critical to shaping policies that are responsive, appropriate, sensible and effective in the province. Our perspectives can help design and implement more effective programs and help reduce barriers.
Clear legislation is needed to bring parents into the decision-making process in a meaningful way. In 2004, Minister of Education Gerard Kennedy appointed 20 parent leaders from across the province. The task of the parent-led project was to give advice on how to create an independent, representative, province-wide parent voice accountable to parents. Over 1,150 submissions representing thousands of voices representing parents' views on education matters, to ensure that the parent voice at the provincial level remains inclusive and effective-they saw that a parent voice at the provincial level is something that would support and enable parents to speak directly to the minister and other decision-makers.
The more experienced parents voiced, "We have been asked this before and little has changed. When is someone going to act on our suggestions?" Including parents in the policies and planning processes is critical to building a trusting relationship between providers, ministry and school boards and consumers, parents and students. Taking this one step further by acting on their advice, this builds confidence in our publicly funded education. Listening to parents' perspectives and learning from our experiences can result in more responsive policies and programs that truly improve the lives of children and families across the province.
Ms. Linda Steel: I'm Linda Steel. I'm chair of the London District Catholic School Council and Parent Involvement Committee.
Please do not remove section 17.1 from the Education Act. Parents across the province have not even been told they are losing their provincial voice and that this government plans to renege on the promises made to Ontario parents in 2005. I refer you to appendix D to see the promises made.
The provincial parent board was silenced and shut down in August. Our reports were never published or acted on. Thousands of volunteer hours were spent creating a document that not only identified all barriers to parent engagement but the solutions to eliminating those barriers. The report is currently sitting in the minister's office collecting dust. Parents have been asking and asking for that information and provincial leadership to communicate their concerns.
The PPP did communicate their concerns and provide answers. It seems they will never reach the parents of this province. And now Bill 177 proposes to eliminate any inclusive, accessible provincial parent voice. This is not acceptable, does nothing to create confidence in the public education system or support meaningful parent engagement. Please see appendix A for further details.
1730
Mr. Craig Hurst: We ask you to strongly consider the inclusion of parent trustees in school boards, similar to the student trustees that currently exist under section 55 of the Education Act.
Parent trustees could be given the same rights and responsibilities, and limitations, as student trustees. There is no reason why a strong parent voice can't be legislated within the construct of a school board.
Ms. Arlene Morell: Clarifying and expanding parent involvement committee mandates and entrenching a parent as the chair: The PIC purpose is serving as a school council to the school board to strengthen local initiatives that enhance the engagement of parents to improve student achievement, by providing a direct link to the director and trustees. Parents must be in the majority, and the committee chairperson must be a parent.
To ensure a parent voice at the school board level, the legislation must include:
-that the committee is a standing committee of the school board, and must be chaired or co-chaired by a parent who is not employed by the school board;
-that the committee is solely responsible for the allocation of base funding;
-that parent members must form the majority, inclusive of the existing parent organizations; and
-that base funding shall not cover board employee salaries.
Committee function:
-to assist school councils and parent groups in establishing goals and actions to increase parent engagement;
-to be consulted on and participate in the development of school and board policies and initiatives affecting education and the educational community as meaningful contributors;
-to act as information conduits to parents, schools, boards, the Ontario Parent Council and the Ministry of Education;
-to develop inclusive bylaws;
-to consult with school councils and parents on matters under consideration;
-to make recommendations to the school board and the Ministry of Education on any matter that affects parent engagement and student outcomes.
Ms. Linda Steel: Collectively, parents across this province raise in excess of $700 million. School councils and parent involvement committees are not even supposed to fundraise, particularly for what is supposed to be a publicly funded education system. We are advisory groups, period.
Parents and students have no unions that can collectively represent their interests. Bill 177 will effectively eliminate the only accessible, fully provincial parent voice we have. How are we to interpret this? "Thanks for the money. Now go away quietly"?
While there are outside provincial associations, these associations require membership fees, one of the first barriers to parent engagement; and most limit membership to certain groups with specific agendas. They operate outside the education system, and by definition they cannot represent all parents.
Bill 177 was supposed to be a governance review. Not once were parents advised during the round-table discussions that took place last February that their provincial representation was going to be removed from the Education Act. They still haven't been told. Why has there been no public or parental input requested on the removal of 17.1? Who is the Education Act supposed to serve?
Despite their claims otherwise, this government is quietly but systematically eliminating the parent voice. The provincial parent board was dissolved effective August 31, with no explanation. The provincial demonstration school council was dissolved last June. School councils were told by the director that she would not listen to their input as there was no requirement for her to do so. Full parental public input on Bill 157, the safe schools act, never took place. And recently, only after a number of parents, boards and media outlets began pressuring the ministry to explain why only select groups were invited to give input on the elementary curriculum, were parent involvement committee chairs invited to participate. We see a trend developing here, and it concerns us.
While we are pleased to see the addition of parent involvement committees in the act, again no public input was requested on how these committees should operate and no details are provided in the bill. Reaching consensus among 72 unconnected PICs is improbable at best, especially during a once-annually meeting. It feels like the old "divide and conquer" scenario all over again.
While the intent of this committee may be to provide an equitable input approach with equal considerations, it quite simply cannot when no timely or informed notice has been given to the largest group of stakeholders and voters-parents. Again, we ask, "Why?" We are the primary educators and advocates for our children; why are we being silenced?
Mr. Craig Hurst: Thank you.
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Thank you. We've got about 15 seconds per side. Ms. Witmer.
Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Thank you very much for your presentation. Your viewpoints are very important to be heard and I look forward to going through this. It's most regrettable that the parent voice has been eliminated from providing input. When I was chair of a board, I remember setting up councils-
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Thank you, Ms. Witmer. Mr. Marchese.
Mr. Rosario Marchese: Thank you all. A quick question: How would we elect and/or nominate the parent trustee on the boards?
Mr. Craig Hurst: In the same nominating process as used for students.
Mr. Rosario Marchese: Would you find that process to be difficult, easy or-
Mr. Craig Hurst: I think it's straightforward, given that schools have a very good grassroots network amongst themselves within a board.
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Thank you, Mr. Marchese. Ms. Sandals.
Mrs. Liz Sandals: So if I understand you correctly, then, parents would be selected by school councils to be board members, as opposed to elected by the general public. Is that what you're suggesting?
Mr. Craig Hurst: That's the same process being used for student trustees, yes.
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Thank you, Ms. Sandals, and thanks to you, Ms. Steel, Ms. Morell and Mr. Hurst for your deputation on behalf of the London District Catholic School Council and Parent Involvement Committee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
