Week of Feb. 18 (Special Needs Committee)

Our class on Monday, Feb. 18th focused primarily on the special needs of students and the structures in place and changes to be implemented in the near future.

Sam gave us an overview of what changes will be in effect. In essence, schools will be forming something called a "School Parity Committee" to oversee the allocation of resources for speical needs students. For example, requests may be made to have a speech therapist in the school twice a
week - something we urgently need at my school (Nesbitt). The change stems from the fact that money will be allocated by the boards but schools will get to decide who they get (e.g. speech therapist, child-care worker, etc.). In addition, the entire school staff will get to vote on proposals for resources and distribution as oppossed to a small group (school level or board level) or some ad hoc committee.

Things will get a little tricky given that you will need a majority vote from the school staff (80-85%) to approve of a particular plan. The plan will be developed by a school level committee made up of the principal, teachers and or resource teachers. Going back to the issue of a majority vote, this is going to have the potential for stalling requests for resources. That is, if a plan does not get the required majority from the staff, the plan is scrapped and a new one must be formulated. This requires more time to meet, discuss, reflect, and draw up another plan and once again go through the process of another vote. Meanwhile, little Johnny, who is desperate for a speech therapist, has to wait while we get the magic number to vote in favour. If the plan is rejected once more, a new plan will be formulated, but this time it will go to the school board where a Central Parity Committee must create it - in other words, we have gone back full circle.

As it has become obvious by now, I have some concerns about this entire process. I am worried that schools with a large staff will be faced with the kind of delays that will be detrimental to our students. I see the potential for certain staff to use this process as a way of grinding an axe with administration or other staff members by purposely derailing proposed plans. I like the concept of democratization but there is too much at stake here to allow for the kind of delays this process can create.

I think that certain things must be decided by those who have been entrusted the job of educational leadership. Consultation is crucial, but tough decisions need to be made from the top as well. As I reflected on the issue of a majority vote, I was reminded of the article by Heifetz and Linsky, "When Leadership Spells Danger." One of their recommendations for the survival and success of an administrator is to "accept casualties." They argue that changes that benefit the organization as a whole can hurt others and this is something we must accept. It is a choice between acquiesence and making progress.

Rather than risk losing the advantage of preparing a plan that is formulated at the local, school level, we must forego the need to have a majority school-wide vote. The potential for stalling, political sabotage, and losing the final say to a Central Parity Committee at the board level is not worth this particular exercise in democratization of schools - the will of the masses is not always progressive.