David Staples, the Wildrose and their war on teachers and learning

Here is Bruce McAllister and David Staples
 talking with Alberta teachers.

David Staples is a columnist who has an interest in education.

Bruce McAllister is a Wildrose MLA and education critic in the Alberta Legislature.

Together, they are waging war on teachers and learning by demanding that teachers teach in a way that mandates children play a passive role in school. Together, they argue there simply is not enough memorization and tests in school.

Standardized Testing

When the Wildrose and David Staples cite a real world need for annual standardized testing, I ask some questions:

1. As a columnist, can you share the standardized multiple choice test that the Edmonton Journal makes you do to keep you accountable and transparent? As a politician, would you be willing to take Alberta's Diplomas exams and have your results published for all to see?

2. As a columnist, can you share the standardized rubric that the Edmonton Journal uses to score and judge your columns? As a politician can you share the scoring guide that citizens use to score and judge your work?

4. As a columnist or a politician, can you show me the column you wrote or the bill you voted on where you are not allowed access to the Internet, fact-check or talk to anyone? 

5. As a columnist or a politician, if there were no standardized test scores, what would you know about education?

We need to stop thinking we can meet all
children's needs by pretending all children
have the same needs.

It is hypocritical for adults to demand students and teachers be held accountable in ways that they would not hold themselves to.

Standardized testing is what constitutes an amazingly contrived and unrealistic form of assessment that is used by people outside the classroom to judge and control what happens inside the classroom without ever visiting the schools.

Teachers are not afraid of accountability -- but they do oppose being held accountable for things out of their control. Teachers also know that there is nothing transparent about having children fill in bubble-tests.

The best feedback parents can receive about their children's learning is to see their children learning. The best teachers don't need tests because they make learning visible via projects and performances collected in portfolios.

This is a shift from test and punish accountability to more authentic public assurance. The Alberta Teachers' Association also outlines a vision for A Great School for All, and the Alberta Assessment Consortium offers A New Look at Public Assurance.

And here's my story about how I teach and my students learn without grades.

"Old" and "New" Math

Staples continued his war on learning with a column that featured Ken Porteous who is a retired chemical engineering professor from the University of Alberta. Porteous writes: 

The discovery approach has no place in arithmetic at the junior elementary level. There is nothing to discover.

If there was ever a need for a single statement that one could show people such that their response would predict whether they knew anything about how children learn -- this is it. 

To carry this mindset out to its (il)logical conclusion, I guess there is nothing left to discover in this world...

Teachers and other early childhood development experts who understand how children learn define their careers by children's Aha! moments. These are the moments when metaphorical lightbulbs illuminate on top of children's heads. Anyone with a clue about how children learn knows that these Aha! moments rarely, if ever, happen because kids were simply told to have them. Aha! moments are not passively absorbed or memorized -- they are actively constructed by the student with the artful guidance of a teacher.

The best teachers have teeth marks on their tongues because they know that when kids are simply told the most efficient way of getting the answer, they get in the habit of looking to adults instead of thinking things through for themselves. They understand that learning happens when the child is ready to learn, not necessarily when someone is ready to teach -- teachers call these teachable moments.

I am a huge supporter of teacher professional development where teachers learn how to be better teachers, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that a back to basics approach that romanticizes the past will make things better for our children.

Let's not pretend that traditional math instruction didn't confuse and turn a lot of students off of math. When adults think back on their schooling, it's easy to succumb to something called Nostesia which is a hallucinogenic mixture of 50% nostalgia and 50% amnesia which distorts rational thinking.

Wishing tomorrow to be just like yesterday won't make today a better place. We aren't going to get more children to love math by pretending that school already doesn't have enough lectures, direct instruction, worksheets, textbooks, tests and memorization.

Staples and the Wildrose would like Albertans to believe that they are waging war against the government and education consultants but the truth is they are also attacking teachers who work hard to engage students in a way that has them play a more active role in constructing their own understanding with the artful guidance of their teacher.

While some teachers and parents may agree with Staples and the Wildrose, it's important to note that many teachers in Alberta feel that they are doing more harm than good. When Staples and the Wildrose mislead the public by telling teachers how they have to teach, they make it harder for great teachers to do their job.

Here's my take on the math wars, and Alfie Kohn's article answers the question: What works better than traditional math instruction?

Columnists are not Journalists and (most) Politicians are not teachers

Staples is a columnist -- which is not the same as a journalist, and I fear that too many people don't understand the difference.

He is not required to check his biases or opinions at the door -- in fact, as a columnist,  he has a better chance of selling newspapers and collecting page-views online with his biases and opinions fully intact. Staples is biased because that is his job.

Research isn't sexy and it doesn't sell unless it's accompanied by sensationalism, and when it comes to sensationalism, Staples sells the Wildrose. Making claims that teachers are no longer teaching children basic arithmetic may make for a snappy headline and a wedge issue to gain cheap political points for the next election but it couldn't be further from the truth.

As a side note, when I tried to share my math post with Bruce McAllister on his Facebook page, he deleted it and blocked me. You'd think that the opposition party would have a keen sense of appreciation for opposition, but I guess not.

"I wish a columnist and politician with no teaching experience would just
 come in and tell me how to teach," said no teacher ever.

And yet Staples isn't always wrong -- he knows just enough about education to get in trouble. His columns are filled with half-truths that are supported by cherry picked research, revisionist history and preconceived notions. He props up math PhDs, engineers, testing consultants, bureaucrats and others who have expertise in areas other than teaching young children math.

Canadians love their Olympians, but nobody confuses a hockey players' expertise for a rhythmic gymnastics coach. Similarly, a PhD in mathematics or engineering is not a PhD in early childhood development, psychology or math education.

Mathematicians are not (necessarily) Math Teachers

The best math teachers understand math and how children learn math -- these are two different skills. It is irresponsible to simply assume that someone who is good at math knows anything about how to teach it.
Just because you know how to skate or shoot a puck doesn't mean you have a clue how to properly teach young children how to skate or shoot. If you want to coach organized hockey in Canada, you are required to be educated through a certification process. One expectation is for coaches to learn the content of hockey, and another expectation is to learn how to teach children to skate and shoot.

The teaching part is so important that even if you played hockey at a high level, you would still be required to take the certification program. Knowing how to play hockey or how to do math is necessary but not sufficient for coaching or teaching -- this is why we have coaching and teaching certification programs.

Getting advice on how to teach or play hockey from someone who has never taught or played hockey is kind of like getting advice from a virgin on how to get laid. Opinion needs to be based on experience and expertise -- Staples and the Wildrose have neither.

I'm not saying that there isn't a place for columnists and politicians -- what I'm saying is that columnists and politicians need to be kept in their place, because when David Staples and the Wildrose confuse having an interest in education with being experts, they mislead people.

Wildrose and PCs vote against supporting Gay-Straight Alliances in schools where children want them

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."

-Martin Luther King Jr.

Liberal MLA Kent Hehr's Motion 503 which called for schools to support the establishment of Gay-Straight alliances to help protect children from bullying and discrimination was defeated in the Alberta Legislature Monday.

The final vote saw the motion lose 31 to 19. Every Liberal and NDP MLA supported the motion with some PC MLAs. However, the majority of PCs and all Wildrose MLAs voted against the motion. (37 MLAs didn't show up for the vote)

I have four points:

1. Gay-Straight Alliances save children's lives by reducing bullying and suicide attempts. Gay-Straight Alliances create safe places for children to organize, empower, educate and protect each other from discrimination against their sexual orientation. They make schools safer for children. The Alberta Party has come out strongly in favour of Gay-Straight Alliances.  Watch PC MLA Sandra Jansen's remarkable speech on Gay-Straight Alliances:

2. Gay-Straight Alliances put children first. There isn't an MLA in Alberta who would disagree with putting children first. The PCs and Wildrose alike have boasted that they put children first and highlight the freedom to choose as a distinguished and important feature of Alberta's education system. 

The Wildrose specifically claim that they respect individuality and want to empower local autonomy. To be clear, Motion 503 only mandated Gay-Straight Alliances in schools where students want them. A vote for Motion 503 would have put students first by empowering them with the freedom to choose Gay-Straight Alliances. 

A vote against Motion 503 is a vote for the status quo where individual children who want Gay-Straight Alliances to protect themselves and others from bullying can and are rejected by centralized authorities.

When it comes to Gay-Straight Alliances, Education Minister Jeff Johnson claims that he doesn't want to interfere with school boards because he respects their local autonomy -- but when it comes to collective bargaining, he has no trouble hijacking school board's local autonomy with with legislation.

Alberta's Education Minister Jeff Johnson

3. Gay-Straight Alliances don't single out any single specific group of students any more than efforts to support First Nations, Metis and Inuit (FNMI) students. For the MLAs who defend their vote against Motion 503 because it unfairly singles out one specific group of students, I have one question:

Do you reject Alberta's recent efforts to specifically support First Nations, Metis and Inuit (FNMI) students because it unfairly singles out a specific group of students?

Of course not.

No one would say that they value all sports so schools should not give special attention to individual sports like basketball or that school should value all subjects so we shouldn't give special attention to individual subjects like math.

Sometimes people say they value everything so they don't have to take a stand on anything.

Voting against Motion 503 because you want to protect all students from bullying, not just some, might make some politicians look good because they won't tolerate any bullying -- but it represents a hollow promise to children who would be safer with Gay-Straight Alliances in schools where the adults won't allow them.

4. The Wildrose are still morally bankrupt. It's true that the majority of PCs voted against Motion 503 and they most certainly need to be challenged individually, but because every single Wildrose MLA voted against Gay-Straight Alliances, the entire Wildrose party needs to be challenged.

I can't help but remember Alberta's 2012 election when Wildrose MLA hopeful Allen Hunsperger spawned his comments about gay people burning in a lake of fire and that public education is godless, wicked and profane for putting into place anti-bullying policies to protect children from being targeted for their sexual orientation.

As shameful as Hunsperger's hateful comments are, I hold a special distaste for Danielle Smith's refusal to condemn her party's candidate. That Smith retreats to the party line that "the Wildrose will not introduce legislation on contentious social issues" is nothing more than silence as assent.

On Monday, April 7, 2014, the Wildrose's unanimous opposition to Motion 503 shows Albertans that nothing has changed with the Wildrose. 

The Wildrose are still morally bankrupt and intellectually indefensible.

Here are the math posts Wildrose education critic Bruce McAllister deleted from his Facebook page

When I shared my blog post on the nuances of the math wars on Wildrose Education Critic Bruce McAllister's Facebook page, he deleted it and blocked me.

I'm not the only one.

Dave Martin is a high school math teacher and he too had his math post deleted from McAllister's Facebook page. Dave has his masters in mathematics and blogs regularly about teaching math.

Why is McAllister and the Wildrose deleting and blocking math teachers comments from his Facebook page?

Of course McAllister and the Wildrose can choose to run their Facebook accounts in any way they like but it is dishonest to then say that they are listening to Albertans.

There are many more Alberta teachers who have written about math education, and you can check out some of those posts here. 

I can't share them with Bruce McAllister because he blocked me, but maybe you could.

Alberta needs to be healthy and wealthy

I attended a Wildrose meet and greet event in Red Deer where leader of the Wildrose Danielle Smith gave a talk and took questions. I went because I wanted to see and hear what the Wildrose are doing and what the people who would attend a Wildrose event are saying and thinking.

I was there to learn.

Danielle Smith talked about the ridiculous wages that some government administrators make like the head of Alberta Health Services or Redford's chief of staff.

Talking about income inequality is often a great way to get labelled a communist or a socialist, but when Danielle Smith and the Wildrose talk about government employees who make a ridiculous salary, they get head nods and hell-yeahs from Wildrose and NDP alike. 

Albertans who don't make six figures have a problem with public-sector employees who do.

Danielle Smith elicited gasps from the crowd when she said that the Alberta Union of Public Employees (AUPE) reported that many of their frontline members don't make $45,000 in an entire year -- which happens to be the cost of Alison Redford's flights to Nelson Mandela's funeral.

This hit home big time amongst the room of people in Red Deer -- I saw heads nodding everywhere. The tension in the room was escalating. If Smith was trying to elicit an emotional response, she hit everyone, including me, between the eyes.

Smith also talked about making Alberta's Heritage Fund a priority and pointed to Norway's Oil Savings Fund that now sits at over $900 Billion, compared to Alberta's $17 Billion.

That's some of what Danielle Smith and the Wildrose talk about.

Here's some of what Danielle Smith and the Wildrose don't talk about.

Like Smith and the Wildrose, I too am interested in what Alberta can learn from Norway. It turns out that Norway does a better job of saving money in the bank and keeping kids off the street. Smith and the Wildrose make a point to be envious over Norway's bank account, while ignoring their superior skills in keeping children out of poverty. I think Albertans care about both, and so should any political party worthy of governance.

The whole point of being fiscally responsible is born out of the idea that responsible adults don't run up a tab and then throw the bill at our next generation of children. If this matters, and it really does, then so does ensuring that our present generation of children don't live in poverty.

It is disingenuous to talk about government cronyism and then ignore Alberta's growing income gap and children living in poverty. (Did you know that the top Canadian CEOs earn average workers' salary in a day and a half?)

Anyone who wants to talk about fiscal responsibility or education without talking about reducing poverty has an agenda and should be challenged, and anyone who talks about social responsibility and reducing poverty without talking about balancing the books is irresponsible and should be challenged.

If we care about children, then we need to talk about fiscal and social responsibilities. For too long, Alberta political parties have been marinated in ideology that prioritizes one at the expense of the other. The ancient tug o' war between left and right over fiscal and social responsibilities is an old and tired political model that have many people angry, cynical or apathetic.

If you are a fiscally responsible and socially conscious Albertan who is looking for a different way of doing politics, then I invite you to check out Greg Clark and the Alberta Party.

Greg Clark and the Alberta Party believes, "we can have a strong economy. We can have a strong commitment to the environment. A strong balance sheet and a strong social conscience."

The Alberta Party understands that it is easier and cheaper to build strong children than to repair broken people. Their social policies reflect an understanding for the idea that an ounce of prevention can be worth a pound of cure.

The Alberta Party is a breath of fresh air that Alberta desperately needs.

Winston Churchill once said:

Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.

While I give Churchill full credit for being pithy, this kind of black and white thinking holds us back. If Alberta is going to be healthy and wealthy, we have to stop choosing between having a brain or a heart.

Alberta needs both.

Alberta needs the Alberta Party.

5 reasons why I left the PCs for the Alberta Party

I am a fifth generation Albertan whose family has farmed in the Red Deer area for over 100 years.

In 1907, my great-great grandfather James Bower purchased the first International Harvester gasoline tractor in western Canada and in 1909 he became the first president of the United Farmers' Association.

While my family has an appreciation for tradition we have also thrived as pioneers with an entrepreneurial and humanitarian spirit.
My father and I are both x-Progressive Conservative Association Presidents. We are both long-time supporters of the Progressive Conservatives.

And I am breaking up with the PCs.

I'm done.

No, really. I'm done with the PCs.

Not just a little bit done. But a lot done.

I would say to the PCs "it's not you, it's me." Except it's you.

I would suspect that many Albertans are searching for a new political home. In 2012, too many Albertans voted Wildrose because they hated the PC's, and too many voted PC only because they were scared of the Wildrose. In 2012, too many Albertans voted for the lesser of two evils and then in 2014 wonder why we still ended up with nothing we wanted.

Holding your nose and voting for the PC's or the Wildrose out of fear of the other one won't change a damn thing in this province.

If you are like me, you are an Albertan looking for an authentic alternative to the Progressive Conservatives and Wildrose.

Well, I've got good news.

I found the Alberta Party and their leader Greg Clark.

I got to spend some time getting to know Greg, and he's the kind of principled leader that I can get behind.

I was very impressed.

Here's my top 5 reasons why I left the PCs to vote for the Alberta Party.

1. I don't want to vote against a party -- I want to vote for a party that I believe in. I refuse to "waste my vote" by wasting my vote on the PCs out of fear of the Wildrose. Voting strategically for the PCs to block the Wildrose is not the same as voting for someone or something. Friends don't let friends waste their votes strategically.

2. I want a government that represents me, not their party. The Alberta Party wants to reverse the role of the MLA from being a spokesperson for their party to their constituents, to being a true representative of their constituents in the legislature. I want my MLA to speak for me not at me. MLAs should be citizens' voice to government, not government's voice to us.

3. Greg Clark. I had the pleasure of meeting Greg in Red Deer yesterday and he is the kind of principled leader that I can get behind. When Greg listens, he doesn't just wait for his turn to talk -- he really listens and engages. He's experienced, genuine and thoughtful.

4. As long as Albertans continue to vote the way they have always voted, Albertans will continue to get what they have always gotten. The world is changing around us; politics and policy need to change with it. The PCs are being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century, and the Wildrose are enamoured with a last out of the past mentality -- the Alberta Party is the breath of fresh air that Albertans are desperate for.

5. Healthcare and Education funding shouldn't rely on the price of a barrel of oil. While The Alberta Party understands that oil and gas are one of Alberta's greatest economic natural resources, they also understand the need to broaden our economic base by investing in Alberta's other most important natural resource -- our people. Couple the need for softening the effects of our boom and bust cycles with their vision of a fiscally responsible government (with balanced books) and I think the Alberta Party is on to something.

All change is impossible until it happens. Since Redford resigned, the Alberta Party has gathered an incredible amount of attention. Main stream and social media have taken notice of the Alberta Party as the authentic alternative to a legacy of PC cronyism, Wildrose antics and an opposition mired in loser brands.

The Alberta Party is positioning itself to play a role in bringing sanity to Alberta's next government.

And you can buy your membership the same place I bought mine. Right here.

Albertans need to stop holding their noses to vote

Politics in Alberta are heating up.

Two years ago, Alison Redford and the Progressive Conservatives somehow dodged their demise by denying what many thought would be a Wildrose majority and the end to the PC's 40 year reign.

Some argue that Redford and the PC's won while many more argue that Danielle Smith and the Wildrose's bozo eruptions simply gave it away.

It might be convenient to pin the Alberta Government's problems on Alison Redford's leadership. Many are calling for her resignation -- but this would be a superficial solution to a complex problem. Jettisoning Redford in 2014 will no more fix the problems than dropping Stelmach in 2012.

Alberta blogger Dave Courneyer writes that, "the PC party in 2014 has become tired, arrogant and absent of real principles." This is bigger than Redford.

While there is no shortage of pundits and talking heads speculating on what they deem as the real problems, Calgary-Varsity MLA Donna Kennedy-Glans, who left caucus to sit as an Independent MLA, may have said it best: "Since being elected, however, and particularly since joining Cabinet, I am increasingly convinced that elements of this 43-year old government are simply unable to make the changes needed to achieve that dream of a better Alberta."

A lot of Albertans were ready for change in 2012 -- two years later, even more are ready for change.

So why isn't anything changing?

Alberta's 2012 election was victimized by fear. Too many voted Wildrose because they hated the PC's, and too many voted PC only because they were scared of the Wildrose. In 2012, too many Albertans voted for the lesser of two evils and then in 2014 wonder why we still ended up with nothing we wanted.

The members of the PC's and the Wildrose are brothers from the same mother. After all, the Wildrose is largely made up of x-Progressive Conservatives while the PC's have some members who would find the Wildrose a comfortable fit.

It's not rocket surgery. As long as Albertans continue to vote the way they have always voted, Albertans will continue to get what they have always gotten.

Holding your nose and voting for the PC's or the Wildrose out of fear of the other one won't change a damn thing in this province. This was true in 2012. It's true today in 2014. And it will still be true in 2016.

Alberta is desperate for an alternative to the PC's and the Wildrose.

Wildrose is morally bankrupt

I was disgusted when I read Wildrose candidate Allan Hunsperger's hateful comments about gay people burning in a lake of fire and that public education is Godless, wicked and profane for putting into place anti-bullying policies to protect children from being targeted for their sexual orientation.

I was appalled when I heard Wildrose Candidate Ron Leech say that he has an advantage in the election because he is white.

Deep down there is a religious libertarian contradiction that lives in the bowels of the Wildrose and it goes something like this:

"I want to be able to say and do whatever the hell I want without the government meddling and interfering with my life so that I may impose my will on others who are different than me."

As shameful as these two examples of the Wildrose's bigotry and racism are, I hold a special distaste for Danielle Smith's refusal to condemn either of her party's candidates. That Smith retreats to the party line that "the Wildrose will not introduce legislation on contentious social issues" is nothing more than silence as assent.

We all have the moral authority to stand up and speak out against hatred and intolerance, but when given the opportunity to lead her party, Danielle Smith chooses to follow a racist and a bigot.

Danielle Smith and The Wildrose are both morally bankrupt and intellectually indefensible.

Condoning bigotry

The 2012 Alberta Provincial Election is something I routinely discuss with my students.

I was reading a blog post that was written by Wildrose candidate Allen Hunsperger that featured his views on gay people that included:

-“accepting people the way they are is cruel and not loving.”

-Hunsperger used Lady Gaga's song Born this Way to preface his point that gay people can choose “to not live the way they were born.” He went on to write, “You can live the way you were born, and if you die the way you were born, then you will suffer the rest of eternity in the lake of fire, hell, a place of eternal suffering."

-Hunspurger went on to label public education as “godless,” meaning “profane or wicked.”

Afterward the leader of the Wildrose Danielle Smith refused to condemn Hunsberger's post and reiterated that her party won’t legislate on contentious moral issues. You can read about all this here.

How the hell am I going to explain this to my students?

Can you imagine if a teacher witnessed one student bullying another for their sexual orientation and the teacher opted out of doing anything because they didn't believe in taking a stand on contentious moral issues?

Allan Hunspurger is a bigot. Danielle Smith is a coward and Albertans should be ashamed of both and leave them where they belong -- in the past.

If this is how our potential elected officials model citizenry, what affect will this have on our children?

Bravo to Glenn Taylor and the Alberta Party for challenging Danielle Smith and the Wildrose to withdraw Allan Hunspurger as a candidate for the upcoming election.