In response (it would seem) to questions and concerns about the details of their personal expense accounts, District 42 school trustees have given first reading to two new policies.

The Trustee Professional Development and Attendance at Conferences policy and the Trustee - Provision of Resources policy are both posted to the school district website and public comment is invited until the end of April (2010).

As I have pointed out previously, some trustees are putting in for expense reimbursement at a rate of more than $5,000 annually during the 2008/2009 period - as reported within the required Statement of Financial Information (SOFI).

The proposed policies say nothing about accountability for individual trustee spending back to the full Board of Education, nor does it mention cost/benefit analysis of the value to the education system of these expenditures.

Indeed, the policies appear to simply expand the list of “allowable” expenses. For example, the “Attendance at Conferences” policy specifically allows each trustee to attend one annual national conference such as the Canadian Education Association or the Canadian School Trustees Association when they are held out of province. There are no restrictions for in province conferences, retreats or events.

Attending out of province conferences has not been a past practice of the board. Even if trustees stay at discount hotels and take advantage of seat sales the cost per trustee to attend these events will still run into the thousands.

Neither policy addresses the fact that one-third of the trustee stipend is tax-free because it is for expenses.  The policies are comprehensive in outlining trustee reimbursement for every concievable expense including car insurance, so how is the tax free status of approximately six thousand dollars a year justified?

The policy does not allocate dollar amounts, with one exception: Trustees can claim $35 a month for a connection to the internet.

For the past decade trustees have been provided with a personal computer and printer purchased with tax dollars. They have had the option to purchase for a depreciated amount at the end of the term. Neither draft policy mentions computer equipment.

Actual dollar amounts allocated to trustee budgets in each fiscal year should be prominently and publicly posted. The policies should clearly indicate this expectation. This is particularly important given the move to pooling trustee resource money as opposed to individual allocations.

The cost of membership in the BCSTA is also mentioned and this generally runs close to $50,000 annually. This amount should be publicly disclosed separately and early during budget discussions every year. The policy should clearly state this requirement.

Details of individual trustee expense spending should be posted quarterly to the school district website.

I haven’t been able to find any studies that examine the benefits of trustee professional development (if you know of any please leave a comment with a link). However, it is common sense that some training around fulfilling the trustee role is beneficial. The B.C. ministry of education contracts with the BC School Trustees Association (at least they used to, please let me know if this has changed) to provide four days of training within a couple of weeks of the municipal election every three years.

On the other hand, the benefits of providing professional development opportunities to teachers and others who work directly with students is well-researched and of proven benefit.

Therefore, to provide some context to this discussion, I contacted the president of the Maple Ridge Teachers Association Drusilla Wilson.

I asked Drusilla about professional development funding for teachers in School District 42.

The Maple Ridge - Pitt Meadows school district employs approximately 850 FTE (full time equivalent) teachers. Teachers do not receive individual professional development funding.

Instead, the union is allocated $75 per FTE teacher and this amount has not changed since 1992 (for comparison, Chilliwack allocates $200 per FTE teacher). 70 percent is paid for directly with education dollars and 30 percent is from a fund teachers pay into as part of their dues.

Therefore the district only has to budget just over $50 per teacher or about $44,000 annually plus an additional $30,000 or thereabouts for teacher on call costs (release time).

In addition the district budgets approximately $200,000 annually for management initiated in-service training.

A further $50,000 or so, may be budgeted for curriculum implementation depending on necessity.  Examples are new literacy initiatives and all day kindergarten in servicing.

Adding it all together, the district directs approximately $285,000 annually to teacher professional development or a grand total of $350 per FTE teacher.

Ms. Wilson explains how decisions are made about what professional development is offered to teachers,

“The PD fund is administered by an MRTA Committee, with district oversight.  We have a Joint PD Policy that the district has also agreed to that provides the guidelines for administration of the fund.  Any proposed changes to the policy are discussed with the district staff before being implemented, but the policy is largely determined by teachers.  The MRTA routinely provides a report to the district that outlines the nature of activities that have been funded and numbers of participants etc.  Additionally, there is a Joint Committee (Management and MRTA reps) that discusses broad issues and directions for PD. ”

Last year, trustees each enjoyed a budget of $2500 for professional development and four trustees overspent their budget by up to 100 percent.  Further, school trusteeship is not a full time position. It may be up to a .5 FTE position and that really makes for an uncomfortable contrast.

Trustees should also consider adopting a model for the selection, accountability and oversight of their own professional development that mirrors the one in place for district teachers.  A committee with representatives from the public that elected them and partner groups who are affected by their decisions would be appropriate.

The two policies mentioned above are only in the draft stage. There is still time to provide trustees with suggestions for improvement.