The appointment of Rob Wood, CEO of Housing Nova Scotia, as deputy minister in the Ministry of Education, arouses a variety of responses from within the system: curiosity, anxiety, optimism or pessimism, depending on whom you ask.
Trustees will be hoping for clarification as to what governance role they play or will be playing within the system, beyond that of frontline apologists for provincial fiscal decisions.
Boards of education had the authority at one time to fund their districts partly through a system of local taxation for which they were directly answerable to their electorate. The effects of the provincial government’s 1982 restraint program in curtailing local spending removed from local boards that authority to set district budgets — traditionally their most important responsibility.
Superintendents, who at one time were government employees but became locally employed in the 1970s, will be watching for any hint of a change in their own relationship with the deputy and government. Local employment changed everything in terms of communication between district leadership and government.
As the minister’s representatives, superintendents had been directly answerable to the deputy minister and minister. On more that one occasion, I heard my own mentor, a longtime senior superintendent, explain to his board that, while he did not disagree with their position on an issue, “the minister’s view of this is …” and that ended the discussion.
Lines of authority were clear, and both the longevity and background of deputy ministers also meant that superintendents could pick up the phone and consult directly with the deputy and his depth of experience any time the need arose.
The New Democratic Party victory in 1972 signalled the beginning of the end of Victoria’s direct control over the superintendents.
As the organization of public education has evolved since then, meetings between trustees or superintendents and the deputy minister have become more directive than consultative. Meetings are usually called for the announcement of new fiscal structures, policy directives and program initiatives from government.
Other players within the system who have tended to define their own relationships with government will also be watching for restructuring.
The B.C. Teachers’ Federation and the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils have both come to regard themselves as “stakeholders” in the system with claims to quasi-governance roles. They will watch with interest to see if the deputy is intent on redefining their influence.
Forty thousand teachers will be watching to see if the new deputy picks up on B.C.’s new education plan, which is the legacy of his education-oriented predecessor, James Gorman, who becomes president and CEO of the Council of Forest Industries.
They might be encouraged by the fact that the ad seeking a new education deputy, while it did not require a particular education or work background, other than to emphasize experience at the “senior executive” level, did describe the position as assisting in achieving the goals of the B.C. Education Plan.
As one who has hired many school principals and senior district people, I always tended to classify candidates based on their references, resumés and interviews.
There were always pure “administrators,” detail people.
Then there were “managers” who were good administrators, but also brought with them evidence of an ability to work effectively with people.
The best candidates had demonstrated an elusive and difficult-to-define “leadership ability.” They could administer and manage, but also had the capacity and political skills to lead the organization to new places it had not imagined for itself.
Change at the top can be a good thing, but as educator Milt McClaren once explained: “Anybody can make change — it’s progress we need to talk about.”
Geoff Johnson is a retired superintendent of schools.
