David Kircher
Dear editor:
Many have asked what happened to the petition?
The petition and all related material, the returned production order, the four charges and court transcripts relating to the MoE charge at Sturgeon Creek School, and all relevant correspondence with the board were submitted to the minister of education on May 19, 2009.
The following is my last letter to the assistant deputy minister:
To Assistant Deputy Minister,
The ministry’s Operational Review of the Rainy River District School Board identifies that the board’s strategic plan for student success is based upon the concept of Seven Correlates of Highly Effective Schools.
Furthermore, the ministry’s Operational Review identifies the strengths of the Rainy River District School Board include “a clearly articulated system plan for student success . . . and a strong and aligned leadership team that communicates effectively and shares a common vision.”
Based upon the above, and the ministry’s conclusion that the Rainy River District School Board is well-managed, it is very difficult for the constituents of this board to rationalize and accept the actions of this board with regard to the missing funds at Fort Frances High School, the failed water system at Sturgeon Creek School, the disregard of board oversight for operational purchases, and the failure to be ready for the new school construction are, in any way, aligned with the Seven Correlates of Highly Effective Schools or be considered well-managed.
In fact, the board’s response to these problems and issues suggest their common vision is one of denial, avoidance, and/or evasion of employment and fiduciary responsibilities.
This has contributed significantly to our loss of confidence in this board and management to provide effective oversight and stewardship of the resources for our children’s education.
The Operational Review outlines policies, procedures, processes, and goals of this board, but is mute on whether they are, in fact, fully implemented and monitored for effectiveness. Thus, our request to the minister to look into the conduct of this board, not its organizational structure.
How can the ministry expect the constituents of this board to believe the district education system is adequately and effectively implemented, monitored, and administered by this board and management?
Furthermore, if the ministry is satisfied with the operations of this board, and finds the management of the board’s resources acceptable, our concern will extend to the operations of the other school boards in Ontario.
For, if the non-responsive and evasive conduct of the RRDSB is typical of the 71 other boards in Ontario, we fear that the recent e-health scandal will pale in comparison to the budgets of, and the administration of public resources, by such closed and unaccountable organizations.
Thank you,
David Kircher
Fort Frances, Ont.
