Recent Changes

Philosophy and process


I believe that resource allocation should strive to address school and student equity issues. The Renewed Funding Framework provides jurisdictions with considerable flexibility to decide on a local allocation model that addresses unique contexts, needs and priorities. In my opinion, we need further discussion about what “equity within the context of choice” means in Elk Island Public Schools. Secondly, I believe that district improvement results from a collaborative culture where the collective wisdom of the organization can be brought to bear on issues in schools and at the district level. With respect to budget, it is my opinion that the Leadership Team/ Administrative Association needs to be more actively involved in the budgetary process. Several examples from other jurisdictions:
o Budget distribution formulae are developed collaboratively by both division and school administrators
o The formulae used in the distribution of funds are under regular annual review
o Areas of responsibility and budget that are allocated to school and to the division respectively are reviewed on an annual basis
o Staffing formula reflects the wide variety of school sizes and configurations within the division as well as the distances between school, and the particular needs of small rural schools.
o A central funding contingency is in place to cover unanticipated costs or costs that that would be difficult for the budget of any particular school to accommodate. The parameters for this pooled funding are developed in collaboration with school administrators.
I recognize that these processes require that principals attend meetings but these are substantive issues. Ultimately, budget decisions are made by the Superintendent and the Board; but, if we are truly a school system, we need to be engaged.

At the December Leadership meeting, several tables commented that special education is a priority area. Although I agree with this statement, given the current fiscal realities and in preparation for “Setting the Direction,” I believe special education programming and services are issues where we need to bring the collective wisdom of the organization to bear. For example: although standards state that inclusion is the first option for parents, do our programming, support structures, and therefore, funding models, reflect the principle of inclusion as the first option? If we consider inclusive education in a broader sense, are congregated special education programs sufficiently supported to allow for integration? Is our programming structure equitable?

Common Themes from Leadership
I have reviewed the results of the 3 questions asked at the leadership meeting and identified common themes (identified by 2 or more discussion groups).

Are there any sacred cows:
1) Special education is important

How can we deliver services more efficiently:
1) Centralize school programs (CTS, logos, French immersion)
2) Close non-viable schools (this takes about 18 months)
3) Centralize purchasing
4) Special education - mild/mod programming
5) Special education - less testing at parents request
6) special education - more programs
7) Larger class sizes
8) Reduce the school calendar

What can we live without:
1) ERI - (costs about 500k per year)
2) HR mentoring program
3) Small non-viable schools
4) Reduce services in Communications

Efficiency
Deliver services more efficiently: Can we consolidate services at various sites.

Barriers might be the sacred cow of special education. We already have segregated systems with Special Ed. Maybe we can have special education centres.

Perhaps we need to define a maximum level of service. What are the “must haves” and what are the “nice to haves”.

Maybe we could have Central Office collect school fees. Perhaps we would not have the challenges at the school sites.

Move away from Site based management and perhaps even look at school closures.

Some things are not negotiable.

Reduction of services could be ERI which is also an expensive one on one program.

Learning Assistance and Teacher Librarians - are they "necessary"?

Perhaps we could centralize services such as French Immersion.

Perhaps we can generate $$ like Sylvan Learning, for example. Can we offer tutoring services in our district?

Are we making the most revenue from our buildings?

What about centres that specialize in Early Childhood?

Should we offer a gifted education centre?

Should we offer online learning for kids at Outside areas into courses at places like Facey or Sal?

Reduce printing costs – example newsletters and Pd brochures. Energy efficiencies – are there more savings there?

Revenue generating ideas include municipalities supporting rural schools as well as sponsorship.

Can we offer very enticing early retirement packages?

Sacred cows: special education is something we cannot do without.

What can we live without: ERI? Free transportation, busing to school of choice.

We can do without the enrolment projection study. We can close some schools, and we can look at our calendar to save some costs.

We should look at all Central Office positions to see if we need every position.

Sacred Cows: small schools are a sacred cow and special education.

The funding model and the programming could be changed.

Student support services – can we save money with the contracts vs. those who have people who can do the testing.

Let’s look at the formula for determining the number of staff required for Principals, Assistant Principals, clerical, etc.

Busing is an area where we can possibly save some $$. We can move back to central budgeting.

Can we make the purchasing agent more efficient for the district?

District PD – can we reduce that to one day, not two? Keep the PD at the school.

What we can do without: expensive leadership retreat. Perhaps we can do something less expensive.

Pricey PD – when people are travelling to pricey locations. Some of the magnet programs – are they $$ or effective.

How much are we spending on PD?