2012.sep.17 toronto cpic meeting minutes approved · 2013. 3. 21. · minutes from the march 8,...

TORONTO CATHOLIC PARENT INVOLVEMENT COMMITTEEMinutes of a Meeting of the Toronto CPIC

Monday September 17, 2012 ~ Catholic Education Centre ~ 7:00 P.M.

APPROVED: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 Motion 12/11-02

Meeting Time & Location: 7:17 PM to 9:00 PM CEC – 3rd Floor Meeting RoomChair: Jonathan PageSecretary (note-taker): Shirley Chang, NTC Reporting & Transcription Inc.

Parent & CommunityMembers Present(voting Members):

W1 – Geoffrey FeldmanW2 – Adam GrnakW3 –W4 – Lisa RoblesW5 – John De PintoW6 – Dennis HastingsW7 – Jonathan PageW8 – Garry Tanuan W9 –W10 –W11 – Kevin MorrisonW12 – Derek RosarioPMAL 1 –PMAL 3 –Com Rep 1 – Dan BarrettCom Rep 3 –

W1 –W2 – O P E NW3 – Patricia LopezW4 – O P E NW5 – Cheryl Bristol-MatteW6 – Marco PontesW7 – David RodriguezW8 – Marla Tanuan W9 – O P E NW10 –W11 – Edith Pearson W12 – O P E NPMAL 2 – Iola FortinoPMAL 4 – Teresa Pierre Com Rep 2 –

Other Members InAttendance (ex officio andnon-voting):

TCDSB Director of Education or Designate – Rory McGuckinTCDSB Trustee Representative or Designate – Ann Andrachuk (designate)TCDSB Parent Engagement & Toronto CPIC Liaison – Carla Marchetti

Apologies for Absence: Maria Pileggi (W1), Elio Freitas (W3), Arnie Amaral (W9),Dianne Andrade (W10), Rita Borges (W10), Edmund Wang (PMAL)

Absent: Francis Baduria (PMAL), Fr. X. De Pinto (CR 2), B. Mascarenhas (CR 3)

Guests and Public inAttendance:

TCDSB Ward 3 Trustee – Sal PiccininniTCDSB Ward 7 Trustee – John Del Grande TCDSB Ward 7 Constituency Assistant – Theresa PastoreTCDSB Staff – Pauline ThorntonTCDSB Staff: Communications – John YanNo other guests present

Next Meeting: Wednesday October 17, 2012 Location: CEC @ 7:30 PM

AGENDA ITEMS DISCUSSION & DECISIONS

1 Welcome,Call to Order,Roll Call,Declaration ofQuorum and Prayer

The Chair welcomed everyone and called the meeting to order at 7:17 PM.

The Chair led a prayer for repose of the soul of Maria Pileggi’s mother,Giuseppina Iannello, and the opening prayer.

After a determination of Members present, the Chair declared that as quorumwas confirmed, the meeting was duly convened and legally constituted.





2 Adoption of ProposedAgenda

After those present had an opportunity to read and review the proposed Agenda,and a call for additions and changes was made, the following motion wasproposed:

12/09-01 MOVED THAT the proposed Agenda, including additions andchanges, be formally adopted as the Meeting Agenda.

Moved: D. Rodriguez – W7 Second: D. Rosario – W12Carried

3 Review, Approval& Confirmation ofMinutes of Prior CPICMeetings

Minutes from the March 8, 2012 and April 4, 2012 meetings were deferred to thenext meeting.

Ms. Andrachuk asked where minutes of Toronto CPIC Subcommittee meetingscould be found.

Mr. Page responded that there were no requirements in the Constitution &Bylaws or Regulation 612/00 for minutes of Subcommittee meetings – so thereare none.

The Minutes of the Meeting of Wednesday, June 13, 2012 were distributed.

After those present had an opportunity to review the Minutes, the following wasproposed:

12/09-02 MOVED THAT the Minutes of the Meeting of June 13, 2012,with corrections and changes, be formally approved and confirmed as theofficial record of proceedings.

Moved: D. Rosario – W12 Second: G. Feldman – W1Carried

4 Report from the Chair Mr. Feldman presided over the Meeting.

Mr. Page reported:

4.1 PRO Grant 2012/2013 Application – Status UpdateMr. Page reported that CPIC was successful and received 100% of the PRO Grantapplied for: $30,000.00.

4.2 Dynamix – Return VisitA return visit by Dynamix has been paid for – the date needs to be scheduled.

4.3 Engagement of Note-Taking Service ProviderMr. Page introduced Shirley Chang of NTC Reporting & Transcription Inc. as theprofessional note taker engaged by the Committee. By hiring a professionalnote-taker we can ensure accuracy and consistency in our Minutes – and obviatethe need for any member to take detailed notes at a CPIC meeting.





4 Report from the Chair

(continued)

4.4 Proposed 2012/2013 Meeting DatesThe proposed Toronto CPIC meeting dates for 2012-2013 were distributed.

The Annual Inaugural Meeting will be held on Wednesday October 17, 2012.

Ms. Pearson advised there was a conflict for the Thursday, December 6, 2012meeting since the Trustee Corporate Affairs Committee was scheduled to meeton the same evening, and all trustees sit on the Corporate Affairs Committee.

4.5 CPIC Report and Recommendations: dated September 17, 2012The report dated September 17, 2012 titled “The Form or Vehicle in whichAdvice, Recommendations and Information Shall be Presented to the SchoolBoard (TCDSB)” was circulated previously by e-mail to all Committee members.

The report makes six recommendations.

12/09-03 BY DIRECTION OF THE Executive Subcommittee and theGovernance & Procedure Subcommittee, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the jointSubcommittee report titled “The Form or Vehicle in which Advice,Recommendations and Information Shall be Presented to the School Board(TCDSB)” dated Monday, September 17, 2012, be, and hereby is, adopted intoto by the Toronto Catholic Parent Involvement Committee.

Moved: Executive Subcommittee and Governance & Procedure Subcommittee

Note: Since the report and its enabling motion comes from a Subcommittee –two Subcommittees in fact – no second is required.

Ms. Andrachuck points out that in the report “chair” should be with a capital “C”,and not a lowercase “c”.Note: Regulation 612/00 “School Councils and Parent Involvement Committees”uses the term “chair of the board” with a lowercase “c” in sec. 50 (1).

Ms. Pearson asked to have all six recommendations dealt with separately.

12/09-04 MOVED THAT that six recommendations in the report each bedealt with separately and voted on individually.

Moved: E. Pearson – W11 Second: D. Barrett – CR1In Favour: 5 Against: 9Defeated

Mr. Page repeated the original motion and asked for the vote to be recorded.In Favour: 11 Against: 4Carried





4 Report from the Chair(continued)

Mr. Page declared that the report dated September 17, 2012 titled “The Form orVehicle in which Advice, Recommendations and Information Shall be Presentedto the School Board (TCDSB)” has been adopted by the Committee.

The report is attached to and forms part of these Minutes.

5 Financial Report ofToronto CPICTreasurer

Mr. Page assumed the presiding officer’s chair.

Mr. Rodriguez deferred this item due to the large number of items on theagenda. The figures in the June 13, 2012 Minutes are fairly up to date. There area few outstanding expenses from the April 24, 2012 Mini-Summit.

In response to a query on the cost of note-taking services, and a request for theCommittee to approve the expenditure, Mr. Rodriguez offered the followingmotion:

12/09-05 MOVED THAT $2,500.00 be approved for stenography andnote taking services for 2012-2013.

Moved: D. Rodriguez – W7 Second: L. Robles – W4Carried

Mr. McGuckin advised that he will check with the Ministry to ensure that this wasan acceptable use of CPIC funds.

6 Unfinished (Old)Business & MattersArising from theMinutes of PriorMeetings

UNFINISHED BUSINESS / ITEMS DEFERRED FROM MAY 10, 2012 MEETING

6.1 Toronto CPIC Slogan (6.2 deferred from June 13, 2012)This item was tabled with the consent of Ms. Fortino.

6.2 Pro-Life Recommendation (11.4 deferred from June 13, 2012)Ms. Fortino recommended the distribution of a petition to solicit signatures toactively get high school students involved in Pro Life, and suggests a Pro-Life Dayto address two issues:

1) Abortion2) When is a baby a baby

Ms. Fortino wanted the TCDSB to distribute a petition to high school students tolobby the government to defund abortion and promote the rights of the fetus.

Mr. McGucken noted that one of the mandates of CPIC is to provide informationand advice to the TCDSB, and the advice would be that the TCDSB support thisparticular venture, and there are two aspects to this particular proposal.





6 Unfinished (Old)Business & MattersArising from theMinutes of PriorMeetings

(continued)

One aspect is raising awareness and another is political activism. Students arenot encouraged to focus on political activism. This should not be the focus ofCPIC.

Ms. Andrachuk interjected that the Chair should declare the item and Ms. Fortinoout of order.

The Chair thanked Ms. Andrachuk for her comments.

There was consensus among Committee members that it is important that theCommittee not impose individual personal views on other parents, that this isoutside what might be considered promoting and supporting “studentachievement and well-being”, and that it is not directly related to CPIC’s mission.

Mr. Page thanked Ms. Fortino and moved to the next item of business.

6.3 CSAC E-mail (11.5 deferred from June 13, 2012)Deferred until after Agenda item # 7.2

6.4 Unformed CSACs in TCDSB schools (11.6 deferred from June 13, 2012)Deferred until after Agenda item # 7.2

6.5 Strategic Advisory Subcommittee (11.7 deferred from June 13, 2012)Deferred until after Agenda item # 7.2

6.6 Working Jointly with TAPCE (11.8 deferred from June 13, 2012)Deferred until after Agenda item # 7.2

MOTIONS FOR WHICH A “NOTICE OF MOTION” WAS PROVIDEDThere are no motions for which a “Notice of Motion” was provided.

MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETINGS

6.7 Review of CPIC content on TCDSB website – Status Update (6.4 from June13, 2012)Deferred until after Agenda item # 7.2

6.8 Motion Requesting Trustees to rescind illegal TCDSB Trustee motion ofMarch 7, 2012 – Status Update (6.5 from June 13, 2012)Deferred until after Agenda item # 7.2

6.9 CPIC Working with Trustees (11.3 from June 13, 2012)Deferred until after Agenda item # 7.2





7 SubcommitteeReports &Recommendations

STANDING (PERMANENT) SUBCOMMITTEES

7.1 Budget & Priority Setting Subcommittee

Mr. Feldman advised there was no update to report.

7.2 Governance & Procedure Subcommittee

CPIC Report & RecommendationsMr. Rodriguez distributed a report dated September 17, 2012 to Members. Thereport is titled “Reducing Systemic, Cultural and Attitudinal Barriers andCreating a More Welcoming Environment & Positive Climate for Parents”.

The report makes nine recommendations.

12/09-06 BY DIRECTION OF THE Governance & Procedure Subcommitteeand the Executive Subcommittee, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the jointSubcommittee report titled “Reducing Systemic, Cultural and AttitudinalBarriers and Creating a More Welcoming Environment & Positive Climate forParents” dated Monday, September 17, 2012, be, and hereby is, adopted intoto by the Toronto Catholic Parent Involvement Committee.

Moved: Executive Subcommittee and Governance & Procedure Subcommittee

Note: Since the report and its enabling motion comes from a Subcommittee –two Subcommittees in fact – no second is required.

Ms. Andrachuk stated the document is insulting and walked out of the meetingat 9:00 PM.

The meeting was dissolved at 9:00 PM with Ms. Andrachuk’s abrupt departure.

The following individuals also left the meeting:TCDSB Director of Education or Designate – Rory McGuckinTCDSB Parent Engagement & Toronto CPIC Liaison – Carla MarchettiTCDSB Ward 3 Trustee – Sal PiccininniTCDSB Ward 7 Trustee – John Del Grande TCDSB Ward 7 Constituency Assistant – Theresa PastoreTCDSB Staff – Pauline ThorntonTCDSB Staff: Communications – John Yan

Note: As this is the final meeting of 2011-2012 all items not dealt with are notautomatically brought forward to the next meeting.





7 SubcommitteeReports &Recommendations

(continued)

7.3 Nominating & Election Subcommittee

The discussion with respect to the October Elections in wards 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and12 and the By-Elections in wards 7 and 9 is not a matter of record as it tookplace after the meeting dissolved at 9:00 PM with the abrupt departure of Ms.Andrachuk.

7.4 Conference Planning Subcommittee

The discussion with respect to the fall Parent Conference is not a matter ofrecord as it took place after the meeting dissolved at 9:00 PM with the abruptdeparture of Ms. Andrachuk.

SPECIAL (TEMPORARY / AD HOC) SUBCOMMITTEES

7.5 Parent & CSAC Ambassador Subcommittee (11/03-11)

This Subcommittee was created by resolution 11/03-11 passed at the March 31,2011 meeting of Toronto CPIC.

There was no report as the meeting dissolved at 9:00 PM with the abruptdeparture of Ms. Andrachuk.

8 Reports from ParentMembers: WardRepresentatives

There were no reports as the meeting dissolved at 9:00 PM with the abruptdeparture of Ms. Andrachuk.

9 Report from theTrusteeRepresentativeor Designate

Ann Andrachuk (Designate)


10 Report from theDirector of Educationor Designate

Rory McGuckin


11 New Business andMotions ArisingTherefrom

Note: Item 11.1 was moved up in the Agenda to accommodate Ms. Robles.

11.1 Communications & Communications DirectorMs. Robles asked that the Communications Director be a standing item in theagenda. She mentioned the newsletter that was never distributed.

Ms. Robles suggested that CPIC should seriously consider getting its own webdomain and website to disseminate information to parents more readily.





11 New Business andMotions ArisingTherefrom

(continued)

Ms. Robles suggested a Parent Information Kit that is age appropriate to theirchild so parents could get resources to use at home to deal with their kids.

Mr. McGuckin wanted any such kit to be vetted by staff to make sure it is alignedwith Catholic values and teachings.

11.2 Insurance for CPIC Parent MembersThe discussion with respect to insurance for CPIC Parent Members is not amatter of record as it took place after the meeting dissolved at 9:00 PM withthe abrupt departure of Ms. Andrachuk.

12 Announcements &Date, Time & Locationof Next Meeting

The Annual Inaugural Meeting of the 2012-2013 fiscal year is onWednesday, October 17, 2012 at 7:30 PM

at the Catholic Education Centre80 Sheppard Ave. East, Toronto

13 AdjournmentThere was no motion to adjourn as the meeting dissolved at 9:00 PM with theabrupt departure of Ms. Andrachuk.

Respectfully submitted to the Members of Toronto CPIC,

Jonathan Page, Chair

ApprovedBy resolution of the assembly (12/11-02) onWednesday, November 14, 2012

TORONTO CATHOLIC DSB

PARENT INVOLVEMENT COMMITTEE

THE FORM OR VEHICLE IN WHICH ADVICE, RECOMMENDATIONS ANDINFORMATION SHALL BE PRESENTED TO THE SCHOOL BOARD (TCDSB)

The wisest mind has something yet to learn.George (Jorge Agustin Nicolas Ruiz de) Santayana, Ph. D., (Dec. 1863 – Sept. 1952)A Spanish-American philosopher, essayist, poet, novelist and professor at HarvardUniversity.

Presented at Toronto CPICMeeting

Adopted by vote of TorontoCPIC Members

For Delivery To

September 17 , 2012 September 17 , 2012 Director and Chair of Trustees

REPORT & RECOMMENDATIONS

2 of 17THE FORM OR VEHICLE IN WHICH ADVICE, RECOMMENDATIONS AND INFORMATION SHALL BE PRESENTED

TO THE SCHOOL BOARD (TCDSB)

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3. Reference Question and Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

4. Results and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

6. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Appendix “A” – Survey Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Appendix “B” – Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17



1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Following a request on May 10, 2012 at a meeting of Toronto CPIC by the Trustee Representativesitting on Toronto CPIC, Ms. Angela Kennedy, for the process by which Toronto CPIC communicates itsadvice and information to the school board, the Chair of Toronto CPIC convened a meeting of the“Subcommittee of the Whole” of Toronto CPIC on May 24, 2012 to consider how the views of TorontoCPIC Members could be obtained on the question.

At the May 24, 2012 meeting a survey was agreed upon and the contents of the survey were agreed to.

The survey was presented to Toronto CPIC Members at the June 13, 2012 meeting of Toronto CPIC.

The results of the survey were tabulated and analyzed at a special joint subcommittee meeting of theExecutive Subcommittee and the Governance & Procedure Subcommittee held on July 10, 2012.

The recommendations contained in this report of the Executive Subcommittee and the Governance &Procedure Subcommittee are presented for the consideration of and adoption by the Committee.

The recommendations proposed by the Executive Subcommittee and the Governance & ProcedureSubcommittee can be found in Section 6: Recommendations.

The members of the Executive Subcommittee and the members of the Governance & ProcedureSubcommittee thank the Members of Toronto CPIC for their support and endorsement of therecommendations contained in this report.



2. BACKGROUND

Mission & Objectives and Mandate of the Toronto Catholic Parent Involvement Committee

Under the Education Act, Ontario Regulation 612/00 School Councils and Parent InvolvementCommittees, Section 27 (1) states that the purpose of a parent involvement committee is:“to support, encourage and enhance parent engagement at the (school) board level in order toimprove student achievement and well-being.”

Further, Section 27 (2) states that “a parent involvement committee of a (school) board shall achieveits purpose by:

(a) providing information and advice on parent engagement to the (school) board;(b) communicating with and supporting school councils of schools of the (school) board; and(c) undertaking activities to help parents of pupils of the (school) board support their children’s

learning at home and at school.”

O. R. 612/00 Section 28 states that “A parent involvement committee of a (school) board shall,(a) develop strategies and initiatives that the (school) board and the (school) board’s director of

education could use to effectively communicate with parents and to effectively engage parentsin improving student achievement and well-being;

(b) advise the (school) board and the (school) board’s director of education on ways to use thestrategies and initiatives referred to in clause (a);

(c) communicate information from the Ministry to school councils of schools of the (school) boardand to parents of pupils of the board;

(d) work with school councils of schools of the (school) board and, through the (school) board’sdirector of education, with employees of the board to,(i) share effective practices to help engage parents, especially parents who may find

engagement challenging, in their children’s learning,(ii) identify and reduce barriers to parent engagement,(iii) help ensure that schools of the (school) board create a welcoming environment for parents

of its pupils, and(iv) develop skills and acquire knowledge that will assist the parent involvement committee

and school councils of the (school) board with their work; and(e) determine, in consultation with the (school) board’s director of education and in keeping with

the (school) board’s policies, how funding, if any, provided under the Education Act for parentinvolvement as described in Section 27 and clauses (a) to (d), is to be used.”



The Constitution of Toronto CPIC dated June 1, 2011, Section 2.0 states:“Toronto CPIC shall:

i. Promote and foster Catholic education in the City of Toronto;ii. Support, encourage and enhance meaningful parent engagement and parent involvement to

improve student achievement and well -being across TCDSB schools; andiii. Enhance the accountability of the Catholic education system to parents.

In addition, the Constitution of Toronto CPIC dated June 1, 2011, Section 2.1 states:“The Toronto CPIC shall further its Mission and Objectives by:

i. Providing information and advice on parent engagement to the TCDSB through the Director ofEducation and the chair of the Board of Trustees.

ii. Communicating with and supporting catholic school councils (CSACs) of schools of the TCDSBthrough the principals of the schools and the chairs and members of the catholic schoolcouncils (CSACs).

iii. Undertaking activities to help, and communicating with, parents of students in TCDSB schoolsto support their children’s learning at home and at school.

iv. Participating in various committees, boards and forums to represent the views of Catholicparents of students in TCDSB schools.”

Section 2.1 (i) of the Toronto CPIC Constitution elaborates on Section 27 (1) (a) of the Regulation byproviding specific direction to the Committee as to whom at the school board any information andadvice should be provided. Since the original Ontario Parent Involvement Policy titled “DevelopingPartners in Education” dated December 1, 2005 noted that “School boards will be required to establishParent Involvement Committees with a direct link to the Director and Trustees, to provide parentadvice and to support parent engagement” it follows that the Director of Education and the Chair ofthe Trustees are the logical linkages through whom any pertinent information and advice may flow.

Section 2.1 (ii) of the Toronto CPIC Constitution elaborates on Section 27 (1) (b) of the Regulation.

Section 2.1 (iii) of the Toronto CPIC Constitution elaborates on Section 27 (1) (c) of the Regulation.

Section 2.1 (iv) of the Toronto CPIC Constitution enshrines a de facto role performed by Toronto CPICsince its founding in 2007, and is consistent with both the December 2005 Ontario Parent InvolvementPolicy titled “Developing Partners in Education” and the Ontario Parent Engagement Policy datedSeptember 2010 titled “Parents in Partnership”.



Further, the Constitution of Toronto CPIC dated June 1, 2011, Section 2.2 states:“To accomplish its Mission and Objectives, the Toronto CPIC shall:

i. Identify and develop effective strategies, practices and initiatives that the TCDSB and theTCDSB’s Director of Education could use to communicate with parents and to engage parents inimproving student achievement and well-being;

ii. Provide information and advice to the TCDSB and the TCDSB’s Director of Education on ways touse the strategies, practices and initiatives referred to in clause (i) above;

iii. Communicate information from the Ontario Ministry of Education to catholic school councils(CSACs) in TCDSB schools and to parents of students in TCDSB schools;

iv. Work with catholic school councils (CSACs) in TCDSB schools and, through the TCDSB’s Directorof Education, with employees of the TCDSB to,a) share effective practices including outreach to help engage parents in their children’s

learning, especially parents who may find engagement and involvement more challengingdue to language, recent immigration, poverty, newness to the system or otherimpediments,

b) identify and reduce barriers to parent engagement,c) help ensure that TCDSB schools create a welcoming environment for parents of its students,

andd) develop skills and acquire knowledge that will assist the Toronto CPIC and catholic school

councils (CSACs) of the TCDSB with their work, including helping to identify parent andcatholic school council (CSAC) training needs within the TCDSB and contributing to thedevelopment of workshops, forums and conferences to address these needs.

v. Encourage and facilitate dialogue with parents and catholic school council (CSAC) chairs onrelevant TCDSB policies; and

vi. Determine, in consultation with the TCDSB’s Director of Education and in keeping with TCDSBpolicies, how funding provided under the Education Act for parent involvement as described inArticle 2.1 and Article 2.2 clauses (i) to (iv) is to be used.”

A legal opinion dated June 23, 2011 from the law firm of Sevigny Westdal LLP, states on page 1: “Weconfirm that the Constitution (of Toronto CPIC) complies with the Regulation”

Further, a report on Toronto CPIC dated April 19, 2012 and presented to the members of the TCDSB(the Trustees) – with Paul Matthews, legal counsel to the TCDSB being one of the lead authorsaccording the report the status of a legal opinion – notes on page 15 in the Conclusion: “The by-laws(Constitution) of the Toronto Catholic Parent Involvement Committee dated June 1, 2011 complywith Ontario Regulation 612/00 School Councils and Parent Involvement Committees. Further, theCPIC of the Toronto Catholic District School Board is fulfilling its legislative mandate and is operatingwithin the parameters of this mandate.”

Accordingly, Toronto CPIC should rely on – and draw from – its Constitution dated June 1, 2011 forspecific guidance and direction with respect to its Mission and Objectives or Mandate.



3. REFERENCE QUESTION AND APPROACH

How Specifically (Via What Vehicle) Does the Toronto Catholic Parent InvolvementCommittee Provide Information and Advice – on Parent Engagement, Reducing Barriers,Creating a Welcoming Environment for Parents, Related Matters and Related Strategies andInitiatives – to the School Board to satisfy O.R. 612/00 § 27(2)(a) and § 2.1(i) of theConstitution of Toronto CPIC – Which Could Improve Student Achievement and Well-Being?

At the May 10, 2012 Toronto CPIC Meeting, the Trustee Representative sitting on Toronto CPIC, Ms.Angela Kennedy “questioned the process of communicating recommendations from Toronto CPIC tothe school board” (Minutes of the Toronto CPIC Meeting of May 10, 2012, page 8).

The response provided by the Chair of Toronto CPIC, Mr. Jonathan Page, was deemed insufficient byMs. Kennedy.

Central to the dilemma is the perception by the parent members of Toronto CPIC that“recommendations made to the Chair of the Board of Trustees and recommendations given to theTrustee representatives on CPIC appear to not have been shared with Trustees in the past” (Minutesof the Toronto CPIC Meeting of May 10, 2012, page 8) suggesting that Toronto CPIC recommendationsare either not communicated by the Trustee representative, not championed by the Trusteerepresentative as the de jure voice of the parents within the TCDSB, or, if such recommendations arecommunicated and championed, the perception by the parent members of Toronto CPIC is that theyare accorded little significance by the Trustees.

In order to begin the process of providing a response, a meeting was held by the “Subcommittee of theWhole” of Toronto CPIC on May 24, 2012. At this meeting a survey was agreed upon as the optimalmeans of obtaining Toronto CPIC Member input and a survey form was developed.

The purpose of the survey was to empirically determine, through an objective scoring system, the mostappropriate vehicle or mode of communicating any information, advice or recommendations to theschool board. The survey form is attached as Appendix “A” to this report.

The survey form offered the following seven options in terms of modes or vehicles:1. Advice provided to the Director of Education or Designate at a CPIC Meeting2. Advice provided to the Trustee or Designate at a CPIC Meeting to be read at a Trustee meeting3. A combination of options #1 and #24. Advice provided via Toronto CPIC’s Annual Report5. Advice provided via CPIC Minutes6. Advice provided via a written Report to the Director of Education and Chair of Trustees7. Advice presented as a separate TCDSB agenda item at TCDSB Trustee meetings



In addition to the seven options of modes or vehicles, the survey form provided six objective criteriafor evaluating each option, viz:1. Timeliness. Provides advice in a timely fashion and is not subject to undue delay2. Visibility at TCDSB Meetings: Advice is publicly expressed at TCDSB Meetings3. Preserves Independence of Parent Voice: Advice of Toronto CPIC is wholly constituted by parentson CPIC or by parents consulted4. Effective and Purposeful: Provides clear and concise advice and is not commingled with extraneousinformation5. Legally Compliant: Complies substantively with Regulation 612/006. Audit Trail and Accountability: Provides a clear, indisputable written record for accountability

Each of the six objective criteria were to be used to evaluate each option by scoring the criterion on ascale from 1 to 5. 1 if the respondent believed the option did not satisfy the criterion and up to 5 if theoption satisfied the criterion perfectly.

At the June 13, 2012 Toronto CPIC meeting, the survey form was distributed to Toronto CPIC Members.

Survey respondents were asked to independently complete the survey and return the survey form tothe Chair of Toronto CPIC, Mr. Jonathan Page.



4. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

Results

The survey forms were tabulated at a joint meeting on July 10, 2012 of Toronto CPIC’s ExecutiveSubcommittee and the Governance & Procedure Subcommittee.

The survey results and summary is attached as Appendix “B” to this report.

The total score each option received is noted adjacent to the option number – in red on a whiterectangle background.

The overall mean score for all seven options is 158.3

The last row in the table contains the mean (average) score for each criterion.

Each individual criterion for each option is presented as follows: a green shaded box means the score on the particular criterion for a given option is above the

mean score for that criterion. A rose shaded box means the score on the particular criterion for a given option is below the

mean score for that criterion. a green background “up arrow” in a box beside or below a score indicates the high score for

that criterion – these are always above the mean a red background “down arrow” in a box beside or below a score indicates the low score for

that criterion – these are always below the mean

Accordingly, the options which scored below the overall mean – in descending order – are:#4 – Score 155 – Option 4: Advice provided via Toronto CPIC’s Annual Report#5 – Score 150 – Option 3: Advice provided as a combination of Option #1 and Option #2#6 – Score 146 – Option 1: Advice provided to the Director or Designate at a CPIC Meeting#7 – Score 140 – Option 5: Advice provided via CPIC Minutes.

Option #5: Advice provided via CPIC Minutes received the lowest overall score.

Similarly, the options which scored above the overall mean – in descending order – are:#1 – Score 180 – Option 7: Advice presented as a TCDSB Agenda item at TCDSB Trustee meetings#2 – Score 169 – Option 6: Advice provided via written Report to the Director and Chair of Trustees#3 – Score 168 – Option 2: Advice provided to the Trustee or Designate at a CPIC Meeting to be readat the Trustee meeting.



Analysis

The option [Option #7] with the highest score [180] had three individual criterion high scores: Visibility at TCDSB Trustee meetings. Effective and Purposeful. Audit Trail and Accountability.

This option also had above mean scores for every individual criterion except one: PreservesIndependence of Parent Voice.

The option [Option #6] with the second-highest score [169] had two individual criterion high scores: Preserves Independence of Parent Voice. Legally Compliant.

This option also had above mean scores for every individual criterion except one: Visibility at TCDSBTrustee meetings

The option [Option #2] with the third-highest score [168] had two individual criterion high scores: Timeliness. Visibility at TCDSB Trustee meetings.

This option also had above mean scores for all but two individual criteria: Effective and Purposeful,Audit Trail and Accountability.



5. CONCLUSION

Combining the top three options provides the best of each and results in all six individual criterionhigh scores:

Timeliness. Visibility at TCDSB Trustee meetings. Preserves Independence of Parent Voice. Effective and Purposeful. Legally Compliant. Audit Trail and Accountability.

The preferred method or vehicle for providing advice and recommendations to TCDSB Trustees asinsisted on by several Trustees – Option 5: Advice provided via CPIC Minutes was at the bottom ofthe rankings as being neither timely, nor visible, nor preserving of the independence of the parentvoice, nor effective and purposeful, nor legally consistent with Ontario Regulation 612/00.

The rationale on which this view is based has also been enunciated on many occasions: “CPIC is justlike SEAC, so CPIC will report via its Minutes just like SEAC.”

the Regulation which governs Special Education Advisory Committees (O. R. 464/97) contains noclauses which would require SEAC’s recommendations to be made via Minutes and provides that theschool board “shall provide an opportunity for the committee (SEAC) to be heard before the board” –the phrase “heard before the board” cannot reasonably be construed or interpreted as via Minutes.

Before providing any recommendations we note that throughout the Education Act and several of theRegulations which govern other statutory committees of school boards, the phrases “member of adistrict school board” or “member of a (school) board” and “members of a district school board” or“members of a (school) board” are used to refer to an individual Trustee or the Trustees collectively,respectively. It is useful when reading the Education Act or Regulations to insert the word “school”before the word “board” for clarity, improved understanding and the removal of doubt.

Ontario Regulation 612/00 Section 27 (2) (a) states that “a parent involvement committee of a(school) board shall achieve its purpose by providing information and advice on parent engagementto the (school) board”. The “school board” – a body corporate and a legal person – is separate anddistinct and apart from the governing body of members – Trustees – and any individual member orTrustee. Accordingly, “school board” does not necessarily mean “members of the school board”.

If the government of Ontario intended that advice and information should be provided directly andonly to the governing body of the school board, it could easily have used the clause “members of the(school) board” in Regulation 612/00. However, this is not the wording used in the Regulation.

This allows a Parent Involvement Committee to use its judgement and discretion as it sees fit.



An analysis of the mission and specific legislated focus of the school board is therefore warranted.

Amendments to the Education Act passed in 2009 (in the wake of continued deficits which led to theTCDSB being placed under the supervision of the Ministry of Education) via the “Student Achievementand School Board Governance Act”, make the duties and powers of the governing body of the schoolboard – the Trustees collectively – clear:

DUTIES AND POWERS

169.1 (1) Every school board shall,

(a) promote student achievement and well-being;

(a.1) promote a positive school climate that is inclusive and accepting of all pupils, including pupilsof any race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation,gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status or disability;

(a.2) promote the prevention of bullying;

(b) ensure effective stewardship of the board’s resources;

(c) deliver effective and appropriate education programs to its pupils;

(d) develop and maintain policies and organizational structures that,

(i) promote the goals referred to in clauses (a) to (c), and

(ii) encourage pupils to pursue their educational goals;

(e) monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of policies developed by the board under clause (d) inachieving the board’s goals and the efficiency of the implementation of those policies;

(f) develop a multi-year plan aimed at achieving the goals referred to in clauses (a) to (c);

(g) annually review the plan referred to in clause (f) with the board’s director of education or thesupervisory officer acting as the board’s director of education; and

(h) monitor and evaluate the performance of the board’s director of education, or the supervisoryofficer acting as the board’s director of education, in meeting,

(i) his or her duties under this Act or any policy, guideline or regulation made under this Act,including duties under the plan referred to in clause (f), and

(ii) any other duties assigned by the board. 2009, c. 25, s. 15.

It is patently evident that the Education Act prescribes that the focus of the governing body of theschool board – the Trustees collectively – is on the strategic areas of policies, the periodic review ofthose policies, the development of a multi-year plan to serve as a road map to achieve the goalsoutlined in 169.1 (1) (a) to 169.1 (1) (c) as stipulated in 169.1 (1) (f) and the annual review of the multi-year plan.

Straying outside of these prescribed responsibilities is not permitted by the Education Act.



In addition, other 2009 amendments reinforce this “strategic focus” of school boards and individualTrustees:

CONDUCT OF MEMBERS OF SCHOOL BOARDS

Duties of board members218.1 A member of a board shall,

(a) carry out his or her responsibilities in a manner that assists the board in fulfilling its duties underthis Act, the regulations and the guidelines issued under this Act, including but not limited to theboard’s duties under section 169.1;

(b) attend and participate in meetings of the board, including meetings of board committees of which heor she is a member;

(c) consult with parents, students and supporters of the board on the board’s multi-year plan underclause 169.1 (1) (f);

(d) bring concerns of parents, students and supporters of the board to the attention of the board;

(e) uphold the implementation of any board resolution after it is passed by the board;

(f) entrust the day to day management of the board to its staff through the board’s director ofeducation;

(g) maintain focus on student achievement and well-being; and

(h) comply with the board’s code of conduct. 2009, c. 25, s. 25.

It is abundantly clear from the 2009 amendments, that the TCDSB’s Director of Education and TCDSBstaff have sole and exclusive authority over “the day to day management” of the school board.

If we consider the practical matter of efficiency and expediency, it is less cumbersome and faster tomake recommendations and provide advice and information to the TCDSB’s Director of Education for“day to day management” items which do not rise to the level of TCDSB policy. The Director ofEducation can implement internal change virtually instantaneously and without delay, whereas theprocess by which the members of the school board come to agreement on a matter is often impactedby political considerations and other not readily apparent agendas – and is typically quite lengthy.

Nonetheless, when the nature of any advice, recommendation or information rises to the level ofTCDSB policy – or TCDSB By-laws – then Toronto CPIC should provide such advice, recommendation orinformation to the Chair of the Trustees. It should be noted that standard practice is for the Trusteesto “receive” reports and not to “adopt” the recommendations contained in reports presented to theTrustees. Toronto CPIC should vigorously challenge this practice with respect to its reports andrecommendations.



6. RECOMMENDATIONS

The Executive Subcommittee and the Governance & Procedure Subcommittee jointly recommend toToronto CPIC that the Committee adopt the following and the Chair and Co-Chair of Toronto CPICprovide a copy of this document to the Director of Education and the Chair of the Trustees:

1. Advice and Information to the TCDSB Provided via Written Report Adopted By Toronto CPIC.Effective immediately, any and all advice to the school board – TCDSB – shall be provided via a writtenreport voted on and adopted by the full Committee –similar to this report – and provided to theDirector of Education as the primary linkage through which the Committee’s information and adviceshould flow.

Where the advice or information is such that it rises to the level of requiring new or amended TCDSBpolicy or a change to the TCDSB’s By-laws – the purview of the Trustees – then such advice should beprovided to the Chair of the Trustees as the logical conduit through whom such information and adviceshould flow. If deemed appropriate, at the discretion of Toronto CPIC, the report may be addressed toboth the Director of Education and the Chair of the Trustees.

2. Trustees amend Meeting Agenda to Provide a Separate Agenda Item for Toronto CPIC Reports.The Committee recommends that Trustees amend the TCDSB’s By-law “Relating Generally to TheConduct of its Affairs” and specifically Article 10: Agenda and Order Paper, to provide for a separateitem on the Order Paper (Agenda) at TCDSB Trustee meetings for Toronto CPIC written reports toTCDSB Trustees. These changes should be in place by January 1, 2013. A Toronto CPIC Subcommitteeshould be charged with monitoring what action is taken with respect to this recommendation andprovide a report to the full Committee at its first meeting in 2013.

3. Toronto CPIC Chair or Co-Chair be Permitted to Read Recommendations at Trustee Meetings.The Committee recommends that the Trustees amend the TCDSB’s By-law “Relating Generally to TheConduct of its Affairs” and procedure at TCDSB Trustee meetings to permit the Chair or Co-Chair ofToronto CPIC to read aloud at TCDSB Trustee meetings the recommendations contained in any reportprovided by Toronto CPIC to the Chair of the Trustees – as Toronto CPIC expects to be heard andrepresented by its legally-mandated spokespersons, in accordance with section 38 (6) of OntarioRegulation 612/00 which states “the chair or co-chairs of a parent involvement committee shall actas spokespersons for the committee in communicating with the director of education of the (school)board and the (school) board”. This would include the members of the school board – the Trustees.These changes should be in place by January 1, 2013. A Toronto CPIC Subcommittee should becharged with monitoring what action is taken with respect to this recommendation and provide areport to the full Committee at its first meeting in 2013.



4. All Reports to the Director of Education or Chair of the Trustees be sent to all TCDSB CSACs.To strengthen the bonds and linkages with school councils (CSACs) within the TCDSB, hard copies ofevery report to either the Director of Education or to the Chair of the Trustees – or both – shall bedelivered via TCDSB “interoffice” mail to the Chair and / or Co-Chair of each school’s school council(CSAC). This practice should commence upon the adoption of this report. Further, any report from theToronto CPIC Subcommittee charged with monitoring what action is taken by the Director of Educationor Trustees with respect to any recommendation or advice shall also be delivered via TCDSB“interoffice” mail to the Chair and / or Co-Chair of each school’s school council.

5. All Reports to the Director of Education or Chair of the Trustees be sent to all Ontario PICs.To promote cross-pollination, thought-leadership and adoption of best practices across Ontario byother Parent Involvement Committees, every report to either the Director of Education or the Chair ofthe Trustees – or both – shall be e-mailed to the Chair and Co-Chair of each school board’s ParentInvolvement Committee (PIC). In addition, hard copies of every report to either the Director ofEducation or the Chair of the Trustees – or both – shall be delivered by courier to the seven otherParent Involvement Committees affiliated with district school boards in the Greater Toronto Area. Thispractice should commence upon the adoption of this report. Further, any report from the TorontoCPIC Subcommittee charged with monitoring what action is taken by the Director of Education orTrustees with respect to any recommendation or advice shall also be delivered by e-mail and courier asnoted above to the Chair and / or Co-Chair of each school board’s PIC.

6. All Reports to the Director of Education or Chair of the Trustees be sent to the Minister of Ed.To enhance the accountability of the education system and elected public officials to parents, topromote transparency of the process of acting on recommendations and advice, and to preserveToronto CPIC’s position as a thought-leader among Ontario Parent Involvement Committees, hardcopies of every report to either the Director of Education or the Chair of the Trustees – or both – shallbe delivered by courier to the Minister of Education, the Deputy Minister of Education and the Premierof Ontario. This practice should commence upon the adoption of this report. Further, any report fromthe Toronto CPIC Subcommittee charged with monitoring what action is taken by the Director ofEducation or Trustees with respect to any recommendation or advice shall also be delivered by courierto the Minister of Education, the Deputy Minister of Education and the Premier of Ontario.

The members of the Executive Subcommittee and the members of the Governance & ProcedureSubcommittee thank the members of Toronto CPIC for their support and endorsement of therecommendations contained in this report.



Appendix “A”Survey Form



Appendix “B”Survey Results

2012.sep.17 toronto cpic meeting minutes approved · 2013. 3. 21. · minutes from the march 8,...

Documents