Alberta cannot afford PC's cuts to our schools

This post first appeared on the Red Deer Alberta Party blog here.

Funding for students in Alberta schools have been cut over the last 5 years. In 2011-2012, school boards had $9,411 per student but funding in 2015-2016 is projected to drop to $9,166.

The PC cuts deepen when inflation is factored in. The gap widens from $8,997 in 2011-2012 down to $8,225 in 2015-2016 -- that’s almost $800 less per student.

“PC cuts to education over the years has forced school boards to nickel and dime families with fees. The Alberta Party would reverse the PC cuts to our schools and eliminate school fees,” said Red Deer South Alberta Party candidate Serge Gingras.

Student enrolment is projected to increase 19,000 kids this fall. That is 90,000 more kids in classrooms since 2008-2009.

“The PCs are not funding our schools to match the rate of inflation and population growth. Governments that cut education to save money are like farmers who sell their topsoil to pay the bills,” said Red Deer North Alberta Party candidate Krystal Kromm.

“Our kids’ education shouldn’t depend on the price of oil. The PCs got us into this situation and now they want students to pay for their mistakes,” said Alberta Party Leader Greg Clark.

The Alberta Party will fight to build schools, protect our teachers and reduce class sizes. Learn about the Alberta Party’s Better Way here.

Check out this powerful video from Support our Students Alberta.

What Education in Alberta looks like today from SOS Alberta on Vimeo.

My Talk on Education as Crime Prevention

My talk today focused on 3 big ideas:

1. It's easier to build strong children than repair broken people.

2. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

3. If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

My talk today about rethinking Crime Prevention was based on these blog posts:

3 big ideas about teacher workload

3 things I learned teaching in the hospital

Alberta isn't broke but the PC's ideas are

Alberta: 11,000 new kids with 14.5 million less dollars

Budget cuts could result in 2500 fewer teachers

Better Way Alberta

Alberta Could

15,000 qualified post-secondary students turned away

5 Reasons why I left the PCs for the Alberta Party

Prentice slams Johnson's Task Force

Jim Prentice is running for the Progressive Conservative leadership, but he sounded more like the opposition when he slammed Jeff Johnson's Task Force this morning.

Karen Kleiss with the Edmonton Journal writes:

In a bare-knuckled speech early Thursday morning, Progressive Conservative leadership candidate Jim Prentice said the shortage of schools in Alberta is “nearing crisis proportions” and pledged to build up to 50 more — in addition to the existing promise to build 50 and modernize 70 more. 

He pummeled the “so-called Task Force for Teaching Excellence,” saying he has spoken with hundreds of parents in the past month and he has “yet to meet even one who is preoccupied with changing how teachers are evaluated or disciplined.” 

He promised to work “in a respectful way” with teachers and their union, the Alberta Teachers’ Association, and said he will work with parents and educators to patiently determine what changes need to be made to Alberta’s curriculum.

In September 2013, I wrote a post that outlined 3 potential problems with Johnson's Task Force. Here is the first problem:

If I was Jeff Johnson and the Alberta Government, I may want to distract the public from funding cuts in public education by creating a task force that focuses on teacher quality. For this school year, the Alberta Government cut school board budgets by $14.5 million even though 11,000 new students entered Alberta's schools. This will lead to all sorts of problems for teachers' working conditions including larger class sizes.

Prentice's comments from this morning are pretty similar in theme:

“As an Albertan, as a grandparent, as a candidate for Premier — I am disappointed,” Prentice said. “I am disappointed that children are in our province are not receiving the very best education in Canada. 

“I am especially disappointed that so many of them spent the past school year in makeshift classrooms. This can’t be allowed to continue. And if I become leader, it won’t.”

It sure looks to me like Prentice sees Jeff Johnson's Task Force for what it truly is -- a giant distraction from predictable and sustainable funding.

To be clear, if the 2012 Progressive Conservatives couldn't make good on building 50 new schools before 2016, I have zero confidence that Prentice's 2016 Conservatives can build 100.

It's not that I think Prentice is lying -- I believe that he wants to build more schools, but I don't think the PC's will let him.

Who will teach Alberta's new students?

When it comes to school based accountability, we hand out microscopes for test scores and blindfolds for funding inputs and social inequities.

Alberta's Budget was released yesterday. Read about how the Budget fails to protect classrooms.

Are you short on classroom supplies?

What does this tell us about the state of public education?

I found this picture here.

Charmed by Choice: Undermining Public Education

The assault on public education is not just an agenda pursued by some Americans. In Canada, there are those who would like to dismantle our public education system, and in Alberta they are the Progressive Conservatives and the Wildrose Party.

Of course they don't come out and say they want to destroy public education -- instead they sell their privatization agenda by talking about the freedom to choose.

It's quite ingenius really -- I mean who in their right mind would object to having more choice? This assault on public education is phrased very carefully so to make it very difficult to oppose -- because if you do oppose it, the quick response might be "what's wrong with you, you don't want choice?"

At this point, it's important to remember that when something looks too good to be true, it's usually not what it appears -- and when it comes to those who are selling choice as a means to authentically improve public education, they are either neglectfully ignorant, willfully blind or outright lying.

Pedro Noguera explains why school choice is not what it seems in his guest post for NBC's Education Nation:

The problem with using vouchers as a means to expand access to quality schools for poor children is that it is based on the premise that parents are the one's who do the choosing. The truth of the matter is that schools are the ones who choose and not parents. 

When a low-income parent shows up at a private school, especially an elite school with few poor children of color, there is no guarantee that their child will be chosen for admission - even if the parent has a voucher. This is particularly true if the child has learning disabilities, behavior problems or doesn't speak English very well. As we've seen with many charter schools, such children are often under-served because they are harder to serve and possession of a voucher won't change that. Many private schools maintain quality through selective admissions and vouchers won't change that either. 

Moreover, choice assumes that a parent has access to information on the choices available and transportation. Neither of these can be assumed. Many parents choose a school based on how close it is to their home or work, rather than the school's reputation. Many are unwilling to send their children to schools in neighborhoods far from their homes, particularly if transportation is not provided. 

The idea that vouchers would solve the lack of access to quality schools in poor, inner city neighborhoods is based on the belief that the free market is a better regulator of goods and services than the government. While this idea sounds good in theory, it's not borne out by the facts. 

In most inner city communities in the United States, the free market is not effective at providing healthy food at affordable prices, banking services or safe, affordable housing. That's because the poor in the inner city constitute a "captured market" and suppliers of goods and services are typically able to get away with low-quality products because community members have few available alternatives. 

Systems of school choice only work when there are lots of good choices available and a means for parents to exercise their choices. This can only be done when government insures quality by holding schools accountable for the quality of education they provide. Of course, our policymakers have largely failed to do this because they've focused on accountability as measured by student test scores, rather than concentrating on insuring that all schools have the resources and support systems in place to meet the needs of the students they serve, and holding themselves accountable if they don't.

Today more than ever, we need public education to educate all children to a standard that at one time may have been reserved for the elite. This means we can no longer afford to ignore the challenge of educating those who are difficult to educate.

In his publication Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: An American Agenda for Education Reform, Marc Tucker tackles education funding:

Two decades ago and more, elementary and secondary education in most of the provinces was funded much the way it is funded in the United States, with each locality raising much of the money locally, with the provinces providing additional sums intended to moderate the disparities in per student funding that such a system inevitably produces.  But, about 20 years ago, this began to change.  Conservative governments, in response to complaints from citizens about skyrocketing local tax rates, initiated a move to steadily reduce reliance on local taxes and to increase the portion of the total budget paid for by the province.  In the biggest provinces now, little if any of the money for public education is raised locally.  All or almost all comes from the province.  Not surprisingly, the gross inequities that came with raising money locally are gone, too, and Canada, like the top performing countries elsewhere, is moving toward a funding system intended to promote high achievement among all students, which means putting more money behind hard to educate children than children who are easier to educate.

Vouchers and choice tend to benefit those who have already "won the lottery" and often alienates and marginalizes those who can least afford it. Competition and the free market is for the strong. Public education is for all. See the problem?

In some US states, there is a movement underway called the "Parent Trigger" which is being sold as a way to empower parents in reforming and improving their children's schools. However, upon closer inspection this is no more than another fraudulent ploy with a charming name whose objective is to undermine public education. Diane Ravitch writes:

In early 2010, when Arnold Schwarzenegger was governor of California, the state legislature passed the "Parent Empowerment Act." This law is commonly known as the Parent Trigger. It allows a majority of parents in a low-performing school to sign a petition that leads to various sanctions for the school: firing all or some of the staff, turning the school over to charter management, or closing the school. These are similar to the options in the U.S. Department of Education's School Improvement Grant program. All of them are punitive, none is supportive of changing the school for the better, and none has a shred of evidence to show that it will improve the school. Neither the Parent Trigger nor the federal SIG program offers any constructive alternatives to unhappy parents, only ways to punish the school for low scores.

Supporters of the Parent Trigger say it empowers parents, especially poor parents, and gives them a tool with which to change their school. They say that it enhances not only parent power, but school choice.

Throwing educational funding to the competitive free market via school vouchers and selling it as the freedom to choose may allow politicians to look good but it offers a hollow promise to the families that can least afford to compete. It's sadly ironic that education reforms built around choice, competition and parent empowerment tend to victimize the very people they profess to be supporting.