Archive for the 'Parent Involvement in Schools' Category

Cease and Desist (C&D) Letters to Parents

Published
by
Tunya Audain
on October 31, 2009
in Blog and Parent Involvement in Schools
. 0 Comments

 

Sometimes parents are seriously discouraged from pursuing complaints or criticism through receipt of cease and desist letters from a School Board, teacher union, or other public service union related to schools.  Here is an interesting article:

 

http://www.parentseduchoice.org/links/Article%20-%20Canadian%20Family%20-%20Goliaths.pdf

Goliaths vs. Davids
Teachers’ unions suing parents
By Andrew Nikiforuk
Canadian Family, March 2005, p. 28

In Alberta and British Columbia, two powerful teachers’ unions are suing parents for defamation. Although both unions claim to champion the downtrodden, the lawsuits also deliver another, less comforting message. The targets of both of these actions are blue-collar families whose alleged defamations arose in the course of advocating for their children’s education.

Let’s begin with Dawna McGowan, a 42-year-old mom and former school volunteer in Hinton, Alta. The Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA) is suing her and her husband, Ken, a Canadian Pacific engineer, for $210,000 and has placed a lien on their home. It started when McGowan challenged a principal for releasing pupil information to a photographer. Before long, things turned ugly.

She is now one of four Albertans being jointly sued by the ATA for defamation. After defendants received unusual "cease and desist" letters from the ATA in 2001, they contacted Denis Lapierre, a longtime parent advocate who posted the letters on his website, Schoolworks!_now shut down. Deluged with support and inquiries, they posted other items on the site, explaining parents’ respective complaints. Though none accused a specific teacher or school district of offensive behaviour, the ATA deemed the material defamatory to the profession and sued Lapierre and the four for $1.8 million.

Robyn Reid, a single mother with three special-needs boys in Red Deer, still can’t believe the union’s tough stance. After one of her sons had been placed in a special-needs class, Reid identified several educational gaps in his program. When the local school and school district refused to provide extra tutoring, she took her case to the province. "I wasn’t out to get teachers, I was out to get the right education for my child," she says. The ATA disagreed to the tune of $150,000. One of the sued parents has already declared bankruptcy.

For posting the original letters, Lapierre is facing a lawsuit of more than $1 million. He’s shut down his advocacy business and his website. "The purpose of the lawsuit is to silence us, and it has worked," says Lapierre, who now drives a truck and can’t afford his legal bills.

Sue Halstead, a mother of five children in Comox Valley, B.C., agrees. The well-known child advocate operates a feisty website that among other posted criticisms, dares to itemize the behaviour of teachers who have been criminally charged or disciplined by the profession. Her site is still active but now displays several apologies since her receipt of a "cease and desist" letter. But neither apologies nor the removal of the offending documents stopped nine teachers, a former trustee and a parent represented by the British Columbia Teacher’s Federation (BCTF) from suing Halstead last spring for "using the internet to wage a personal attack on certain participants in the B.C. education system." That’s already cost Halstead $23,000, and she and her husband, a school janitor, can’t afford a lawyer for her trial. "We’re going to lose our house, and all I tried to do was tell the truth and protect children," she says.

Neither of these lawsuits strikes me as wise or civil, not to mention just, Terri Watson, president of the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils, describes the BCTF’s legal action as "inappropriate" and operating with a "clear imbalance of power and resources." Democratic institutions such as schools, she adds, need people like
Halstead to test the system and foster improvement.

Jinny Sims president of the BCTF, counters that the suit against Halstead was in no way launched lightly and is "not about pitting one parent against the might of the BCTF. It’s about defending our members, who are being damaged in their work and personal lives." Dr. Gordon Thomas, executive secretary of the ATA, admits that his association is "not ecstatic about representing teachers in a defamation suit" and notes that it has launched only two such actions in the past 82 years. "What we are after is the fair representation of our teachers."

The ATA claims that one of its primary mandates is "to arouse and increase public interest in the importance of education." The BCTF makes similar claims. But how do these lawsuits support that goal, let alone help children? To restore civility to the educational arena, both provinces need to set up an ombudsman’s office, where parents and educators can hash out their differences on equal ground. When teacher unions start suing parents, the behave more like punitive corporations than enlightened public organizations. Strangling dissent, even allegedly hurtful dissent, doesn’t strengthen education any more than it strengthens democracy.
 

Privacy in the Internet Age

Published
by
Tunya Audain
on August 4, 2009
in Blog, Parent Involvement in Schools and Parent Rights
. 0 Comments

 

On July 30/09 I saw this interesting interview with the host on CNN with Kyra Phillips:

 

education-advisory.org/Involved/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/privacy-in-the-internet-age-cnn-090730.pdf

 

It relates to parent rights and duties and student rights.

 

 


 

Parent Rights a Top Priority for Education Responsiveness

Published
by
Tunya Audain
on January 13, 2009
in Accountability, Parent Involvement in Schools and Parent Rights
. 0 Comments

 

How well parents exercise their rights determines what degree or quality of services they get in public schools.  It is quite different in independent or private schools as there the customers are usually treated as paying customers.  So, how can parents exercise their expectations and rights better, across the socio-economic spectrum?

People often think that by moving to an affluent district the schools are better.  And this is generally true, even though there are exceptions where schools in poorer areas achieve excellent scores. We can learn from this demographic skew and adopt some of the characteristics of parents in rich districts. It is not necessarily the money that makes the difference!

First:  High Expectations. They are used to good service, and can afford to shop around.  For doctors, for accountants, for cars, for groceries, whatever. If they make mistakes, the costs are not earth shattering.  Whether from their parents or from experience or both, they soon embody the ancient dictum:  Caveat Emptor, buyer beware.

Second:  Using Choices and Competition. They know how to handle shoddy goods and services.  They do not patronize them. They shop around.

Third:  Complaining is Effective.  They know how to get results, especially if public services are at issue. Whether roads, sewage, zoning or public health, complaints take many forms:  letters to the editor, using your elected officials for remedies, law suits, etc.

Fourth:  Knowledge of Rights is Inherent in their Bones.  They seem to know and expect what they have a right to, and as citizens and taxpayers, have a keen awareness of what to expect from public service providers.  Furthermore, they use information systems, including the Internet, to augment information on what to expect and what constitutes good practice.

So it is with public education.  Even though parent rights in education are not usually enshrined in legislation or printed in school handbooks, somehow parents from responsive school districts have a good sense of how to negotiate the system to benefit their children. 

If you seek more information on Parent Rights, Google will yield many references, especially for special needs.  However, we have an already compiled document which has been around since 1977 and still stands the test of time in empowering parents.  Whether you use it as a starting point for your own needs or as study material with other research and tools to develop new material, here it is:

Parent Rights and their Children’s Education

On visiting this site…

Published
by
Tunya Audain
on December 11, 2008
in Announcements and Parent Involvement in Schools
. 0 Comments
On first coming to this site please be aware:
 1. ARCHIVES
I’m using this site to gather, record, sort, etc. tons of archive material I’ve gathered regarding the struggle for effective parent involvement in education. Much of the material relates to my own personal involvement and thoughts.
 
 2. TOOLS
I also include tools produced to help parents and public in support of meaningful parent involvement. These tools can generally be accessed here:
 

-          Starting a Parent Advisory Council from Scratch

-          School Checkup

-          Do’s and Don’ts for PAC’s

-          Levels of Parent Involvement

-          Effective Schools Checklist

-          Functions of a Parent Advisory Council

-          Projects for a Parent Group

-          Essential Features of a PAC

-          Parent Advisory Councils

-          Why a Parent Group in Every School

 

 
B) The following documents can be retrieved in PDF form from here:

    * Home Education: the third option (1987, 5pg)

    * Indoctrination Laws and Guideline for Schools

    * Effective Schools Checklist

    * The BLOB (Obstacles to Education Reform)

    * Parent Rights and their Children’s Education

 

Parent Volunteers Resent “Scab” Label

Published
by
Tunya Audain
on July 31, 2008
in Abolish School Boards, Blog and Parent Involvement in Schools
. 0 Comments
Jan 5/83, North Shore News, North Vancouver, BC, Canada

(Continuing to archive past education struggles to inform current struggles … )

That was the front page headline of a story by Bill Bell, the story continues …

 “Union intimidation”: is keeping parents from volunteering their services in West Vancouver’s schools, claim representatives of the Hillside Parents Group.

Co-chairpersons Tunya Audain and Suzanne Latta have told the school board that since the teaching aides were laid off last September, parents have not been allowed to volunteer in areas where they were normally welcomed….. 

Audain later told the News that her group had been sent a letter from the West Vancouver Municipal Employees Association which she said gave her a very quick ‘political lesson’ in how ‘rough’ unions can be…..Audain point out that the parents did not want to replace the teaching aides but only wanted to continue in the volunteer positions held before the aides were laid off. She told the News she resented the parents being labeled ‘scabs’ for doing volunteer tasks.

“Our first concern is the students, the union is way down the list,” Latta said….

Newly elected school board chairman, Norm Alban, refused to comment on the situation, fearing that the confrontation could escalate. 

 

First School Laws in North America

Published
by
Tunya Audain
on April 6, 2008
in Parent Involvement in Schools
. 1 Comment

At the National Conference on Parent Involvement in 1976 in San Anselmo, California we all received a bookmark in our kits with the following inscription:

The First School Laws in America (Massachusetts, 1642) embodied all the basic principles which underlie the American School System today. These are:

  1. Universal education of youth is essential to the well-being of the State.
  2. The obligation to furnish this education rests primarily upon the parents.
  3. The State has a right to enforce this obligation.
  4. The State may fix a standard which shall determine the kind of education, and the minimum amount.
  5. Public money, raised by a general tax, may be used to provide such education as the State requires. The tax may be general although the school attendance is not.
  6. Education higher than the rudiments may be supplied by the State. Opportunity must be provided at public expense for youths to be fitted for the university.

 

Implement the Rhetoric of Parent Involvement!

Published
by
Tunya Audain
on November 9, 2007
in CARE and Parent Involvement in Schools
. 0 Comments

“Implement the Rhetoric” was the rallying cry of a group of parents - Citizen Action to Reform Education (CARE) – in the 70’s and 80’s in Vancouver BC (Canada). Tokenism, lip service, and symbolic use of parents were frustrating many parents. Below is a report I prepared in 1980.

 

PARENT INVOLVEMENT IN EDUCATION: THE STATE OF THE “ART”

Ten years ago when my daughter entered public school I fully intended to continue being actively involved with her education. Her early childhood years were enormously satisfying and edifying for me and I hope for her.

Our experience in a co-operative, parent participation pre-school was very rewarding. Parent participation was a requirement in the co-ops. Parents were involved at all levels – clean-up, policy, fund-raising, and staff evaluation and selection. Parents filled some of the personnel requirements of the school and attended evening classes to acquire the sets of skills desirable with respect to psychology of learning, philosophy of education and child development. 

I felt I did my part in this co-educational partnership and could see the mutual benefits for myself, my daughter and the school as a whole.

But, my good intentions to carry on this notion of education partnership were brought up short by the Kindergarten teacher. Visits to the classroom were not encouraged, and, never more than one parent at a time. No parents volunteered in the classroom, and communication was limited to twice yearly parent-teacher conferences. 

Plus, of course, voluminous pieces of art work which told me little.  

Teacher newsletters lacked warmth and even though the invitation was written down that parents were welcome to discuss concerns with the teacher at any time – this seemed hollow in view of the “tone”. 

Needless to say, I was deflated by the experience – and found my experience was similar to most other parents who had “graduated” from the co-op. From a “high” of being needed and part of the child’s education, the “low” of rejection was hard to take, much less comprehend. 

I, like a number of other enthusiastic parents, had, — in the thrall of early parenthood  –  taken all the “right courses”: pre-natal, post-natal, early childhood development. As well, we bought all the right books and educational toys. The joy of leaning together with my children (My daughters are now 14 and 12) was something I wanted to build on. 

The “hands off” attitude by the school was common, I found, even though today Kindergarten teachers are more attune to bringing parents along. What made me really confused and hurt was that the “hands off, leave it to the experts” approach did not square at all with the rhetoric of participation as espoused in early childhood courses.

I resolved there and then that this was something to be wrestled with. I’ve been wrestling with it ever since. *

Thereafter, in allying myself with other like-minded parents, “Implement the Rhetoric” became our rallying cry and created an instant bond between us. We knew exactly what that meant. Lip service to parent involvement is a frustration many parents have experienced and experience to this day.

I, even in those days, went so far as to complete a teaching degree in the event I might see the desirability of educating my children at home. This precaution, I found from my research, was not necessary as today there are parents educating their children at home without these paper qualifications. 

This report on the state of parent involvement, then,is not without subjective feelings. But, it is a report to the best of my ability, to convey the reality of parents and schools today – the good news and the bad news – based on an active involvement and study of the field for over ten years.

*[My note: I wrote that in 1980. Today, 27 years later, Nov 9/2007, and as a grandmother, I'm still wrestling with the plight of parents in our public school systems. I am producing this blog as a record of the past and a platform to continue current discussions on the topic.]

 

Family and Education Report (1987) – Part 6

Published
by
Tunya Audain
on November 4, 2007
in Parent Involvement in Schools
. 0 Comments

V. BUILDING HOME-SCHOOL PARTNERSHIP 

Regarding the question of school/family relations we became aware of the yet unpublished article by Dr. John D. Friesen, Department of Counseling Psychology, UBC, entitled “The Family and School: An Uneasy Relationship.” In it he writes that

 The thesis of the paper is that parents should assume an important role in the child’s education and that a cooperative partnership between the home and school needs to be promoted.” 

He reviews the evidence in support of this position. He begins to ponder concerning 

…resistant attitudes toward parent involvement in education”, 
and wonders if egalitarianism may be a factor. He states, 

…schools have a tendency to deny the influence of all home environments as educators try to equalize educational opportunities for all children.”

 He further states that 

School and families have a reciprocal relationship, which requires the development of a partnership in which cooperation, trust, and mutual understanding exist.” 

In view of our long-standing interest in improved home-school relationships, we ask: 

Question #10: Do parents think they have adequate, supportive and meaningful consultation with their schools?

Question #11: If the consultation is unsatisfactory, and in light of positive evidence in support of greater parent-school cooperation, to what would parents attribute this resistance. Where could the remedies come from?

VI.             ADULTS AS ROLE MODELS TO CHILDREN

The Committee was mindful throughout its deliberations and study that good education occurs not only from good materials, textbooks and lessons, but also from the role models students have before them. Parents, for one, must be seen as effective people by their children with a role to play in educational decision-making (not as frustrated, “driven-to-tears”, helpless individuals). Family competency and stability relate to how well parental duties are carried out. Family efficacy enhances positive parent-child communication. The following question arises: 

Question #12: Do parents think they are as fulfilled as they could be in carrying out their role in the education of their children?

Teachers, principals and others in school settings must also have exemplary role modeling attributes.  We would like information on the following: 

Question #13. Do parents think mechanisms are appropriate for both the selection of school personnel and for the removal of those considered incompetend and abusive to students?

VII SUMMARY

While we recognize there are many laudable experiences and practices in the school system, our Committee was not charged with the task of examining the overall picture, but rather to pursue those questions relating to how the family is portrayed in the curriculum and how the family is treated in home-school relationships. To date, the Committee detects a general concern that the family role has been diminished in the system, and there is anxiety, at least among a good number of our members, about the decreased influence of parents in the education of their children and in quality control of their schools. 

The Committee is seeking to eventually propose policies and tools to greater enhance the family role in education. In order to do this, we would now like to broaden our base of information. 

Through the general distribution of this Interim Report #1, the B. C. Council for the Family hopes to receive input from across the province on the above 13 questions in order to proceed to development of tools and policy proposals for greater family involvement in the education of their children. 

March 1987

 

Family and Education Report (1987) – Part 5

Published
by
Tunya Audain
on November 1, 2007
in Parent Involvement in Schools
. 0 Comments

 

III. CURRICULUM DECISION-MAKING

We note that the general principle in a free, democratic society is that public institutions must reflect the public’s will and not the self-interest of those who run the institutions. The Let’s Talk About Schools discussion paper (1985) reflects this basic principle: 

The Provincial curriculum is presently determined by elected representatives of the people – the legislature and schools boards. Their authority in this regard is based on the proposition that the public, through its representatives, has the right to determine what is taught in schools.” 

However, our committee found a discrepancy between policy and practice. The seemingly official practice is described in this passage from a recent article in the BC Teacher, April/May ’86 (“An Agenda for Curriculum, the Next 10 years: A Perspective from the Ministry of Education”, by Bob Overgaard), 

…curriculum development in B.C. is a system controlled largely by teachers, on behalf of, and in contact with, their colleagues. Although the government reserves the right to inject its authority at any point in the process, its role has consistently been to support a process of professional and collegial negotiation…” 

We pose the following questions: 

Question # 5: What do parents think about their exclusion from the curriculum process, that is, the development, review and incorporation of community values?

Question #6:  Do parents think “collegial negotiation” among differing educator view-points adequately covers the range of input that might be gleaned from the wider community?”


IV FAMILY IN THE CURRICULUM 

We have examined the materials relating to Social Studies, Grade 1 - 3. With respect to the question of family and personal privacy, we note that much attention is focused in the Grade 1 materials and suggestions for class discussions on sharing information about one’s family and one’s feelings (What are some things that make your family happy? Sad? Tell your class about a special relative.”…) 

The concepts to be learned from the Grade 1 curriculum are listed as understanding “family, identity, interactions, need, change, diversity, interdependence and power.” 

We note awareness on the part of curriculum developers concerning matters of privacy and sensitivity: 

Studying family life involves many sensitive subjects: death, divorce, adoption, step-parents. We remind you that tact will be needed when dealing with such topics and urge you to reassure the student that his or her family, whatever its form is an acceptable one. Many of the activities call on the students’ own experiences of family life and some children may reveal confidential information about their families. You should be sensitive to situations which approach an invasion of privacy: guided by a knowledge of your students and the local community, you should be able to select and monitor appropriate classroom activities.” 

The Committee would like the following feedback: 

Question #7 Do parents think the children are mature enough at the age of 6 and 7 to deal with such matters as the above curriculum goals dealing with interactions, interdependence, power and such matters as may be raised concerning death, divorce and adoption?

Question #8: If any problems concerning lack of sensitivity arise, how do parents proceed for appeal or remedy?

In our study, we also examined contrasting views of the family as held by such divergent ideologies as traditionalists, feminists and socialists (Family Issues and Public Policy, Study Commission of the Family, London, England). We note that one’s attitude to the family is strongly influenced by one’s value system or point-of-view. 

Depending on one’s philosophy, ideology or value system, there is a difference of opinion as to whether curriculum should aim at a) giving students facts with which to make their own decisions, b) extend family values, or 3) change values. We feel that the “decision-making” exercises and the texts in the Explorations series can undermine family authority and integrity and can lead to peer dependency and socialization to a group norm. The following question arises: 

Question #9: Do parents think schools should be involved in value questions, and if so, at what age levels, and with what guidelines and philosophy? 

Family and Education Report (1987)– Part 4

Published
by
Tunya Audain
on October 21, 2007
in Parent Involvement in Schools
. 0 Comments

 

The Family and Education Committee was established by the BC Council for the Family in the Spring of 1985. On August 26th the President of the BCCF wrote to the Minister of Education requesting assistance with respect to gaining information and materials for examination. The letter emphasized the following:

-          the Council’s concern that many problems of western society were traceable to the erosion of the family

-          that the BCCF has a role to play in conducting studies and communicating with parents on matters which help to enhance the family

-          that efforts to foster positive home-school interaction had not resulted in improved consultation

-          that there was concern about how the family is portrayed in the curriculum and how it is treated in home-school relationships.

 The letter requested access to sets of materials for examination by the committee as well as other information about policies and process. The committee was expected to present interim reports
 

…to help us further elicit response from our various audiences. In this way, we believe, we will be able to build some useful tools to help parents become more involved with their schools.”

 After two years of work the Committee produced Interim Report #1, March 1987. The following briefly reports the experiences and findings of the committee and poses the questions for which we would like feedback. 
 

I.                   ACCESS TO INFORMATION

It was a difficult and long process for the Committee to obtain materials and textbooks for examination. Since the Committee feels it is important for parents and public to know what is being taught in public schools we would like feedback on the following:

Question #1:  What is the experience of parents, at all levels of the education system, in obtaining materials and textbooks for purposes of review?
 

II.                PARENT CHOICE

 
The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights states that
 

Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given their children.”

We noted that, like the rest of Canada, BC has few alternatives to offer in the public education system. We would like to ask parents:

Question #2:  What do parents think about the number and range of choices concerning schools for their children?

Question #3:  What information is available from different schools about programs, philosophy, results and services in order that parents might make informed choices?

Question #4: When parents have the right to excuse their children from controversial subjects or programs to which they object, is the process respectful of the child and family?