Why did the Edmonton Public School Board encourage families to fill out a survey about a new Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Policy if the results didn’t seriously interest them?

At its May 14, 2024 session, the Edmonton Public School Board held the first reading of a series of additions and modifications to their policy on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.

They then invited EPSB families to provide feedback on this new material, which includes a new glossary of terms.

The survey closed on Wednesday, June 12.  It received a very high response rate as such surveys go:  over 1100 responses.

Almost the entire survey instrument comprised a sequence of yes/no questions.  I wish I had taken screenshots as I filled it out, but I did not. 

The last item in the survey was a text box.  You were allowed 250 characters to provide written feedback.  I am assured by my Ward Trustee, Saadiq Sumar, that this is standard for EPSB surveys although it struck me as unduly limiting.

The school board met yesterday, Tuesday June 18, to hold the second, third, and final readings of the new policy, which was approved in a 6-2 vote.  It is now operating policy in Edmonton Public Schools.

You can watch yesterday’s meeting here.

Three things were striking about the Board’s deliberations. 

First, with the exception of the 250 character comment box, all of the survey’s questions were yes/no questions.  During the board meeting, the members of the Policy Review Committee did not report any statistics about the responses to those questions although the data analysis required to report this would be trivial. 

Second, it became clear in the discussion of the survey that the members of the Board who were *not* on the Policy Review Committee had not seen the survey results.  Instead they relied upon questioning the chair of the PRC, Sumar, to convey the qualitative results to the best of his recollection.  It is unclear if they even understood that the principal data from the survey would have been quantitative, in the form of simple numeric tabulation of yes/no responses.  If they did understand this, why did they not ask for those numbers for each separate question?  Why did Sumar not report these numbers orally during deliberations? 

Third, on the basis of Sumar’s recollections of the qualitative feedback – which he made clear were of the “as best I recall” variety, even though he must have seen both the numerical tabulations and the comment box responses – it was clear that many respondents found the phrasings “perceived gender expression”, “perceived gender identity” and “perceived sexual orientation” perplexing, along with the corresponding definitions.  The PRC decided the best way to handle this feedback would be to “add examples” to the policy, although they did not describe or show those added examples at any point during deliberations.

Board member Hancock moved that the policy go back for further review, because “important policies take time”.  She specifically suggested adding detail to the section on “accountability” and adding definitions of the terms “gender diverse” and “sexually diverse” to the glossary.  Board chair Kusiek added that she would like to have a chance to look at the survey data.

Trustee Sumar said he could not remember any of the more than 1100 comments having asked for definitions of “gender diverse” or “sexually diverse” to be added, so the further clarification of the text suggested by Hancock was unnecessary.  Trustees Hole and Estabrooks concurred that no further review was necessary.

Hancock’s motion failed on a 4-4 vote.

In favor:  Hancock, O’Keefe, Kusiek, Sawyer

Opposed:  Sumar, Hole, Estabrooks, Nelson

After additional discussion, in which Estabrooks said this new policy would “help educate” EPSB families, the new policy was recommended on a 6 to 2 vote and will now become operative in the EPS system.

In favor:  Sumar, Hole, Estabrooks, Nelson, Kusiek, Sawyer

Opposed:  Hancock, O’Keefe

This account is based on my memory and my handwritten notes taken during yesterday’s Board meeting.  Readers can check its accuracy by watching the videotaped board meeting at the link above. 

I have made a serious effort to write this up calmly and dispassionately, because I left that meeting upset by what I had witnessed.  I want to start by earnestly thanking Trustees Hancock and O’Keefe for taking their oversight responsibilities seriously.

Hancock put it perfectly:  “important policies take time”.  There are serious timing issues with the way this policy has been pushed through.  The handling of the survey to EPSB families is inexcusable.  The Board had – at best – 3 business days to consider its results.  The survey closed June 12^th, a Wednesday.  The Board held the second, third, and final reading of the policy on June 18^th, a Tuesday. 

This meant only Thursday, Friday, and Monday were working days in which the survey data could be collated and considered.  The simplest portion of the dataset – which would have been easily summarized in that time frame – was not discussed at the meeting and it was clear that Board members who were not members of the Policy Review Committee chaired by Sumar had NOT seen this data.  They did not seem to have enough familiarity with the survey instruments to even realize that most of the survey was a sequence of yes/no questions for which numerical results would be trivial to produce.

Let me be clear here:  I am a social scientist, but I am not a quantitative social scientist.  I took exactly one stats class in university.  The professor had a little bell he would ring if anyone fell asleep in class, patiently tinkling until that student woke up to everyone staring and laughing.  Reader, I have been that student.

But EVEN I KNOW if you send out a survey with a bunch of yes/no questions, you can assess those results pretty quickly.  Why were the numerical results for each question not clearly communicated?  I also know that the preferred method of assessing over 1100 written responses is not to turn to one guy and have him relate what he more or less remembers about their content.  (Also, if you are *really* interested in feedback, you allow for more than 250 character responses).  You have a clearly explicable methodology where you look for themes and patterns in those responses and you analyse the outcomes statistically.  It’s complicated and it can’t be done in 3 business days.

Or at least: that is what you do if you administer a survey in order to elicit results that you plan to take into serious consideration.  If you have a thing you just plan to do no matter what, but you also have to mumble mumble consultations stakeholders blah blah whatevs, you do exactly what the Board did.  I’m sorry that only two Board members found that to be disconcerting and unseemly.  I am not in either of their wards, but they are the only two Trustees I’d vote for in the next elections (should they be running).

ADDITIONAL NOTES

I and one other parent, Kylee Nixon, came to the Board meeting in person to share our concerns about the additions to the SOGI policy.  Nixon’s excellent comments, which zero in on how confusing the new glossary terms are, can be heard starting in minute 44 on the video linked above.  Mine precede hers, beginning at 40:30. For some reason we both appear in almost total shadow.  I paste the text of my comments in below.  There is a 3 minute limit on public commentary.  The final paragraph of my comments appear in italics because I did not offer them at the meeting.  When I practiced my spiel I wasn’t sure I could squeeze everything in under the 3 minute mark.  I include them here for interest. My statement:

“I am concerned about the definitions in the new Board SOGI policy, item 6 on today’s agenda.  Adding "cisgender" language presumptively assigns a gender identity to every single student in school.  Some students find gender identity language meaningful and important – trans, nonbinary, and so on – as do their families.   But introducing the language of “cis” for everyone who does not actively embrace gender identity is not neutral, it assigns a position to people in a belief system they may not share and to which they may quite strongly object. In my view, “gender identity” is another way of saying “sex role stereotype” and to suggest that women like me identify with sex role stereotypes is grossly insulting.  I would not teach my child this sexist, misogynist lesson and I object to the school system taking it upon itself to do so.

Gender identity and gender expression should be handled in the public school system the way religious belief is handled.  Not grounds for exclusion, but also something that we recognize people have different beliefs about:  including non-belief.  Respecting Christianity does not mean you officially call non-Christians pagans or heathens; respecting Islam does not mean you officially label non-Muslims infidels; respecting Judaism does not mean you categorize non-Jews goyim in the classroom.  Public schools cannot officially adopt and assign religious terms to non-believers.  You can ask non-believers to respect the fact that YOU have a belief system.  You cannot also demand that they participate in it on your terms, including by accepting the labels your belief system uses for them.

Public schools cannot erase categories that are protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which prohibits discrimination

based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

In this light, I am concerned about the novel definition of heterosexuality the Board proposes to now adopt, that is it attraction to others “considered to be the opposite gender identity”.  The Board is here giving itself the power to decide for other people what their sexual orientation is. My sexuality – and that of many other Edmontonians – is based on opposite-sex attraction.   My lesbian and gay friends assure me their homosexuality is based on same-sex attraction.  The Edmonton Public School Board has no power to reassign heterosexual and homosexual people whose sexual orientation is based on sex to a sexual orientation based on gender identity.  The board has no right to tell our children raised in our gay, lesbian, and straight families that gender identity is substitutable for sex.  Some Canadians believe that to be true, other Canadians don’t, in the same way that some Canadians believe in God and others are atheists. Children from families that are atheistic about gender identity must be welcome in public schools, which are NOT religious institutions and which have no business engaging in proselytizing.”

(cut because of 3 minute limit):

Public schools have absolutely no business at all promising to

“Work towards the removal of institutional and individual barriers related to heteronormativity and cisnormativity in order to improve the experience of sexual and gender diverse students, staff and families.”

After baptizing those of us who don’t believe in any of this as “cis” and “hetero” (according to a definition we would not accept), you say are going to work against us in favor of those who are believers. Edmonton Public Schools are NOT RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS. This policy has no more legitimacy than a policy saying you are going to “work toward the removal of barriers related to atheism in order to improve the experience of the faithful believers”. This kind of zealotry has no place in secular public school policy.

FOLLOW UP: 

In an Edmonton Journal article posted today, it is reported that “There were 1,137 respondents, including teachers, students and families, with 68 per cent of respondents saying the intent and purpose of the draft policy was clear”. Well, that’s one more number than we got at the meeting!

Here’s the thing:  there were multiple questions on the survey.  What were the numbers for each survey question?  Why is only this one number being released?  It would be nice if a curious journalist would ask these questions.  If none of them do, I’ll put in a Freedom of Information request for the full survey results:  every question, and the text box feedback.