Time to review nature of school boards

Re: “Local school boards shouldn’t be irrelevant,” Oct. 25.

Geoff Johnson yearns for a time when school boards had “a real say over what went on in their local school systems.” He is correct in remembering that during the 1970s, school trustees could set curricula.

But during B.C.’s 143-year history of education, local school districts have had the power to set curricula for only three of those years. At the height of civil- and human-rights movements, school districts began demanding that provincial authorities transfer curriculum development to local districts, which was granted to local districts in 1972. But parental demands led government to reclaim that control in 1975.

Johnson also argues that local school boards should have greater policy-making powers because “the best decisions are usually made nearest to the consequences of those decisions.” But is it true that boards are close to the schools they oversee? I’d say no.

School districts were formed during the 1870s when inadequate transportation and communications prevented provincial authorities from overseeing schools’ daily operations. By 1932, B.C. had 830 school districts — essentially one district per school. By the 1940s, governments across the western world opted for fewer, larger districts (and schools) to increase revenues — through broader tax bases — and offer more programs.

In 1947, B.C. merged its districts (reducing them to 89) which left trustees to oversee more schools from further away.

Since 1947, B.C.’s transportation and communication infrastructures have improved, as have curricula and instruction. So, too, have teacher-preparation programs, which took eight months to complete in 1947, but average four to five years today.

Recently, B.C.’s government has been promoting educational reform. Isn’t it time to review the nature and role of school boards?

Helen Raptis Associate professor, Faculty of Education University of Victoria