What happened at the ATA All Party Forum?
On March 2nd, 2019 the Alberta Teacher's Association held an all party forum on education. It was moderated by Kim Trynacka and attended by Education Minister the Hon. David Eggen, Alberta Party leader Stephen Mandel, Education Critic for the UCP Mark Smith, Liberal Party of Alberta leader David Khan, and Freedom Conservative Party candidate whose name I regrettably didn't note and I haven't been able to find online. The second I find his name I will amend this post.
Admitting my biases, I nonetheless will try my best to objectively relay what happened and what the key messages of each party were on the subject of education.
Initial Impressions:
The UCP benefited from having Mark Smith there instead of Jason Kenney. He was overall quite likeable and did not seem as extreme as I expected.
The most critical person on the panel award goes to David Khan with David Eggen as a close second.
They were all informed and well-spoken. Eggen seemed the most like he had his back against the wall.
The biggest contentions were between Khan and the FCP and Khan and Eggen.
Eggen was forced to attack what Jason Kenney had said about education previously because Mark Smith himself presented a more moderate front. Up to you whether you believe Mark Smith or the words of his leader Jason Kenney.
The FCP candidate presented the most unique or innovative ideas (depending how you look at it) which were heavily criticized by David Khan. He proposed more private investment in schools to come up with the extra cash we need. He cited Sweden as the example. He also unexpectedly called for a reduction in public funding to private schools which no other parties mentioned.
I honestly believe that Stephen Mandel was the most impressive but I know I'm biased. To be fair he also got the loudest scoffs from the crowd from his suggestion that perhaps school divisions could be given more control over the construction of buildings as opposed to the government. I'm not sure if that had more to do with them rejecting the idea itself or laughing at the thought of their Superintendent with a hard-hat on directing construction work.
Funding -
They all agreed that education needed to be funded to reduce class sizes. Khan was comfortable in saying he believed the government should continue to borrow money to fund education. Eggen agreed that budgets should not be balanced on the backs of kids but he did mention the NDP's path to balancing the budget by 2024 (he did not mention that this includes freezing spending in education in the same way the UCP have suggested or that they are relying on royalty revenues to magically double, but I digress).
The UCP suggest that due to mismanagement of funds by the current government we now have to pay for yesterday and today at the same time (not his exact words but those were the notes I wrote down). Mark talked about tough decision needed to be made. He reiterated the UCP's devotion to funding for enrollment but that it depended on the economy which he says will grow twice as much under a UCP government (again without details of how this would happen).
Stephen Mandel pointed out that in the Alberta Party's shadow budget (the only opposition party to have one), they committed more funds to education than the NDP did. He acknowledged that the economic times were tough but this was ultimately about allocation of funds and that an Alberta Party government would be willing to cut from other areas to make sure education came first. He also mentioned giving more mental health supports through AHS to schools to ease some of the financial burden on the mental health side.
The FCP, as mentioned above believes that by bringing in private investors we could reduce capital costs and focus public funds on operating costs which would allow for greater services.
At the end of the conversation, it seemed Alberta Party, Liberals, and NDP were most committed to funding education, in that order.
Curriculum and Assessment -
We were all expecting to here UCP candidate Mark Smith talk about the "scrapping" of the new curriculum review. He clarified by stating that his leader .... misspoke... and they would only look at areas of the curriculum that were deemed ideological and not fact based. What exactly those were, it was not clarified. He also mentioned how teachers are worried that the complete overhaul was too much, too fast, and that there are concerns throughout the province about implementing it all at once. He had concerns about some of the Math in the new curriculum but specifics weren't given.
Every other party was supportive of the curriculum review and that it was overdue. Stephen Mandel added that the Alberta Party believes that there should be a mechanism for more ongoing curriculum review so that it we are not waiting a decade for updates. He also advocated for more resources to teach the arts and physical education, stating that these were skills that kids would need in our ever changing economy. He and David Khan stressed how the teachers/ATA needed to be trusted as the experts in this matter.
The FCP wants more faith to be put in teachers hands and that the government should not be dictating what should be taught. The FCP would want to streamline standardized testing so that we were only focusing our assessments on literacy and numeracy.
Eggen stated that the NDP government in his opinion had achieved more in these last 4 years than any previous government in terms of making schools safer, building and modernizing school buildings, and updating curriculum. He believed that assessments needed to be modernized to match new curriculum.
Climate Change -
A Lethbridge teacher posed a question that would force candidates to quantify their concern with climate change. The candidates were compelled to rate their belief in and concern with climate change from 1 - 10. Each panelist avoided giving a number at first. The FCP candidate conceded that man affects the environment and that there were two sides to the argument. David Khan probably came out as the candidate who was the most concerned with climate change and how it was taught to our kids. When pushed by the moderator to give a number David Eggen gave a response that I think sums up how most people perceive the NDP. His answer was '11'.
Mandel's response was 8 and that we needed to be realistic as to how we can reduce emissions without crippling the economy.
Mark Smith also responded with an '8' stating that he was following Mandel's lead in being moderate but argued that a carbon tax doesn't work in reducing emissions and that we needed to fight climate change from the research and development side.
Khan's response was '10' but that his version of a carbon tax would be revenue neutral because the current CTax doesn't have the desired market effect on emissions. He also chastised the NDP government for not being transparent about emission rates, hinting that they probably haven't gone down despite their efforts.
The FCP, after some creative mental gymnastics, gave a '7' and that we should focus on both sides on the debate and that even climate change deniers want clean air, water, and soil so that we should focus on promoting that which would help get more people on board.
Closing statements -
I haven't captured every nuance but in general here are the basic points brought forward by each panelist.
The UCP believe they are the best bet to get the economy to a place where we will be able to fund education like we need to. Mark Smith denied that they will make cuts but he kept saying that difficult decisions needed to be made. He made a comment to the teachers in the room that we do this job for the kids, not for the money, which given his party's past statements probably sounded like a plea to get teachers to agree to do the job for less. I don't think those were his intentions but it came off that way.
The FCP want more choice in education. If you were Somali (his example) and wanted a school that was more sensitive to Somali culture then you should be able to do so. If you wanted your kids to be in a school that taught more progressive values, that should be available, likewise for conservative. You get the picture. They want more private investment in education to help cover the costs.
The Liberal Party of Alberta want equal opportunity for all kids to get a world class, free education. David Khan was adamant about banning seclusion rooms and critical of the NDP's delay in this ban. He believes if schools are better funded and trained than there would not be need for this type of intervention.
The NDP want you to look at their actions over the last four years to illustrate their commitment to education. David Eggen was proud of his track record and accomplishments and said that he couldn't have done it without the support of educators throughout the province. They are committed to funding for enrollment.
Stephen Mandel and the Alberta Party expressed their commitment to fund public education so that it could be inclusive for all. He said that they believe that education is the great equalizer and that if elected they would fund education so that caring skilled teachers could be supported in fulfilling their passion as educators.
Thanks to the ATA for hosting the event and for those that participated.
Admitting my biases, I nonetheless will try my best to objectively relay what happened and what the key messages of each party were on the subject of education.
Initial Impressions:
The UCP benefited from having Mark Smith there instead of Jason Kenney. He was overall quite likeable and did not seem as extreme as I expected.
The most critical person on the panel award goes to David Khan with David Eggen as a close second.
They were all informed and well-spoken. Eggen seemed the most like he had his back against the wall.
The biggest contentions were between Khan and the FCP and Khan and Eggen.
Eggen was forced to attack what Jason Kenney had said about education previously because Mark Smith himself presented a more moderate front. Up to you whether you believe Mark Smith or the words of his leader Jason Kenney.
The FCP candidate presented the most unique or innovative ideas (depending how you look at it) which were heavily criticized by David Khan. He proposed more private investment in schools to come up with the extra cash we need. He cited Sweden as the example. He also unexpectedly called for a reduction in public funding to private schools which no other parties mentioned.
I honestly believe that Stephen Mandel was the most impressive but I know I'm biased. To be fair he also got the loudest scoffs from the crowd from his suggestion that perhaps school divisions could be given more control over the construction of buildings as opposed to the government. I'm not sure if that had more to do with them rejecting the idea itself or laughing at the thought of their Superintendent with a hard-hat on directing construction work.
Funding -
They all agreed that education needed to be funded to reduce class sizes. Khan was comfortable in saying he believed the government should continue to borrow money to fund education. Eggen agreed that budgets should not be balanced on the backs of kids but he did mention the NDP's path to balancing the budget by 2024 (he did not mention that this includes freezing spending in education in the same way the UCP have suggested or that they are relying on royalty revenues to magically double, but I digress).
The UCP suggest that due to mismanagement of funds by the current government we now have to pay for yesterday and today at the same time (not his exact words but those were the notes I wrote down). Mark talked about tough decision needed to be made. He reiterated the UCP's devotion to funding for enrollment but that it depended on the economy which he says will grow twice as much under a UCP government (again without details of how this would happen).
Stephen Mandel pointed out that in the Alberta Party's shadow budget (the only opposition party to have one), they committed more funds to education than the NDP did. He acknowledged that the economic times were tough but this was ultimately about allocation of funds and that an Alberta Party government would be willing to cut from other areas to make sure education came first. He also mentioned giving more mental health supports through AHS to schools to ease some of the financial burden on the mental health side.
The FCP, as mentioned above believes that by bringing in private investors we could reduce capital costs and focus public funds on operating costs which would allow for greater services.
At the end of the conversation, it seemed Alberta Party, Liberals, and NDP were most committed to funding education, in that order.
Curriculum and Assessment -
We were all expecting to here UCP candidate Mark Smith talk about the "scrapping" of the new curriculum review. He clarified by stating that his leader .... misspoke... and they would only look at areas of the curriculum that were deemed ideological and not fact based. What exactly those were, it was not clarified. He also mentioned how teachers are worried that the complete overhaul was too much, too fast, and that there are concerns throughout the province about implementing it all at once. He had concerns about some of the Math in the new curriculum but specifics weren't given.
Every other party was supportive of the curriculum review and that it was overdue. Stephen Mandel added that the Alberta Party believes that there should be a mechanism for more ongoing curriculum review so that it we are not waiting a decade for updates. He also advocated for more resources to teach the arts and physical education, stating that these were skills that kids would need in our ever changing economy. He and David Khan stressed how the teachers/ATA needed to be trusted as the experts in this matter.
The FCP wants more faith to be put in teachers hands and that the government should not be dictating what should be taught. The FCP would want to streamline standardized testing so that we were only focusing our assessments on literacy and numeracy.
Eggen stated that the NDP government in his opinion had achieved more in these last 4 years than any previous government in terms of making schools safer, building and modernizing school buildings, and updating curriculum. He believed that assessments needed to be modernized to match new curriculum.
Climate Change -
A Lethbridge teacher posed a question that would force candidates to quantify their concern with climate change. The candidates were compelled to rate their belief in and concern with climate change from 1 - 10. Each panelist avoided giving a number at first. The FCP candidate conceded that man affects the environment and that there were two sides to the argument. David Khan probably came out as the candidate who was the most concerned with climate change and how it was taught to our kids. When pushed by the moderator to give a number David Eggen gave a response that I think sums up how most people perceive the NDP. His answer was '11'.
Mandel's response was 8 and that we needed to be realistic as to how we can reduce emissions without crippling the economy.
Mark Smith also responded with an '8' stating that he was following Mandel's lead in being moderate but argued that a carbon tax doesn't work in reducing emissions and that we needed to fight climate change from the research and development side.
Khan's response was '10' but that his version of a carbon tax would be revenue neutral because the current CTax doesn't have the desired market effect on emissions. He also chastised the NDP government for not being transparent about emission rates, hinting that they probably haven't gone down despite their efforts.
The FCP, after some creative mental gymnastics, gave a '7' and that we should focus on both sides on the debate and that even climate change deniers want clean air, water, and soil so that we should focus on promoting that which would help get more people on board.
Closing statements -
I haven't captured every nuance but in general here are the basic points brought forward by each panelist.
The UCP believe they are the best bet to get the economy to a place where we will be able to fund education like we need to. Mark Smith denied that they will make cuts but he kept saying that difficult decisions needed to be made. He made a comment to the teachers in the room that we do this job for the kids, not for the money, which given his party's past statements probably sounded like a plea to get teachers to agree to do the job for less. I don't think those were his intentions but it came off that way.
The FCP want more choice in education. If you were Somali (his example) and wanted a school that was more sensitive to Somali culture then you should be able to do so. If you wanted your kids to be in a school that taught more progressive values, that should be available, likewise for conservative. You get the picture. They want more private investment in education to help cover the costs.
The Liberal Party of Alberta want equal opportunity for all kids to get a world class, free education. David Khan was adamant about banning seclusion rooms and critical of the NDP's delay in this ban. He believes if schools are better funded and trained than there would not be need for this type of intervention.
The NDP want you to look at their actions over the last four years to illustrate their commitment to education. David Eggen was proud of his track record and accomplishments and said that he couldn't have done it without the support of educators throughout the province. They are committed to funding for enrollment.
Stephen Mandel and the Alberta Party expressed their commitment to fund public education so that it could be inclusive for all. He said that they believe that education is the great equalizer and that if elected they would fund education so that caring skilled teachers could be supported in fulfilling their passion as educators.
Thanks to the ATA for hosting the event and for those that participated.
Comments
Post a Comment