So your plan would be for the government to expropriate the existing private schools (and pay off the non profits that own those buikdings) and then increase the funding those students receive to the full amount they give to public schools vs the lower amount private schools get?
And you're thinking this will save money?
To be fair, I didn’t know about the specialized private schools that work with special needs. Still think they should be under the public school banner and funded 100% by the government.
Private schools that cater to the well off that just want a better learning experience should be 100% privately funded.
This is not a time to be saving money - it’s not an expense, it’s an investment.
The Following User Says Thank You to Geraldsh For This Useful Post:
Funding increases were 1998 to 60% and 2008 to 70%.
Thanks, I honestly had no idea that’s when it went up but still think it should be zero in my opinion. I’ll definitely be signing the new petition to hopefully have it removed and I have absolutely no problem with having my tax dollars properly funding public education. It’s the single greatest investment we can make in our society.
Last edited by CactusJack; 10-07-2025 at 07:19 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to CactusJack For This Useful Post:
I don't think the answer is to pit public against charter and private schools. As someone said earlier, the real problem isn't affordability; it's adequate funding... we have the ####ing money, the UCP just chooses instead to flush it down the drain.
Alberta Ed has an annual operating budget of nearly $10B... The $300mm that goes toward private schools (38k students * $11,464 per student * .70) is a literal drop in the bucket.
Personally, I think that all students should be funded equally and that funding should follow the child to whatever school they / their parents choose, but that's surely not a popular opinion around here. But I can't help but shake my head at some comments made along the lines of "my taxes shouldn't support private schools", as-if conveniently forgetting that parents at private schools pay taxes too.
Adequately fund all students, pay the teachers what they deserve and the rest is just noise.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to you&me For This Useful Post:
I don't think the answer is to pit public against charter and private schools. As someone said earlier, the real problem isn't affordability; it's adequate funding... we have the ####ing money, the UCP just chooses instead to flush it down the drain.
Alberta Ed has an annual operating budget of nearly $10B... The $300mm that goes toward private schools (38k students * $11,464 per student * .70) is a literal drop in the bucket.
Personally, I think that all students should be funded equally and that funding should follow the child to whatever school they / their parents choose, but that's surely not a popular opinion around here. But I can't help but shake my head at some comments made along the lines of "my taxes shouldn't support private schools", as-if conveniently forgetting that parents at private schools pay taxes too.
Adequately fund all students, pay the teachers what they deserve and the rest is just noise.
I agree. It's sad to see people pushing public versus private. Unreal.
Thanks, I honestly had no idea that’s when it went up but still think it should be zero in my opinion. I’ll definitely be signing the new petition to hopefully have it removed and I have absolutely no problem with having my tax dollars properly funding public education. It’s the single greatest investment we can make in our society.
I don't think the answer is to pit public against charter and private schools. As someone said earlier, the real problem isn't affordability; it's adequate funding... we have the ####ing money, the UCP just chooses instead to flush it down the drain.
Alberta Ed has an annual operating budget of nearly $10B... The $300mm that goes toward private schools (38k students * $11,464 per student * .70) is a literal drop in the bucket.
Personally, I think that all students should be funded equally and that funding should follow the child to whatever school they / their parents choose, but that's surely not a popular opinion around here. But I can't help but shake my head at some comments made along the lines of "my taxes shouldn't support private schools", as-if conveniently forgetting that parents at private schools pay taxes too.
Adequately fund all students, pay the teachers what they deserve and the rest is just noise.
The reason we have public ed is for public benefit. Having private ed takes high quality students out of public Ed. Having well resourced parents and students in schools raises all boats. It also creates more support for the public system when people with more access to power are involved in the system.
The public does not benefit from a person going off into the public system. It actively harms the public system. So why should the public pay for a system that makes the public system worse?
Genuine question, how is this better for the public education system? Where is the extra 30% per student going to come from for private school students returning to public education? What about capex for facilities and other operational costs that come with having an influx of new students in the public system?
From the funding that no longer goes to the rich kids remaining in private schools.
Oh, I see. All of the conservative posters fled back to this thread instead of hashing out the public v. private school conversation in the strike thread.
The short answer to most of you guys is:
Funding private schools with public dollars is wrong - full stop - and harms the public system.
Charter schools were a cool idea when they launched in 1994 but they failed to achieve the results and have basically become "private schools that get more money than the other private schools by pretending to be public".
Both Private and Charter schools are leeches on the public system.
"There is only one pot of money for schools in Alberta. When money is diverted to private and charter schools, it leaves public schools in a funding shortfall."
When you have 1 system and all of the kids of the rich and powerful are put into that system along with everyone else, a funny thing happens: The rich people support the public system better and agree to invest more in supporting all kids instead of just their kids.
Most importantly, with that funding all going to one system, you can then design the system in more complex and advanced ways to enable tracks for different types of learning so that all kids are supported. That solves the problem that most of you cry about but does so in a way where no kid is left behind. This is better than your solution of a tiered education system, which is the ultimate form of trying to give more to one kid by taking away from many others.
So now that we are going to talk about teachers and schools in the other thread... I thought this new line of thinking from the landlocked provinces was interesting:
Basically, they are trying to claim that something that clearly belongs to BC (their land and coast line) belongs to everyone. It is an interesting argument because if I were living in BC, my reply would be "cool, there is no such thing as Alberta or Saskatchewan resources, those are all Canada resources" and we will take our ownership over the resources that you want to export through our land and out of our ports.
Eby also likes to point out that they are already sitting on a multi-billion dollar project that was just funded by the tax payers while everyone else is waiting for their turn.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Wolven For This Useful Post:
Just imagine a world where is doesn’t take 18 months for a knee replacement.
You can pay money to have surgery done in the USA if you like. Of course it would cost anywhere between $20,000 and $50,000.
The reality is, minus the cost of a flight and hotel it would cost that much in Alberta as well. Introducing private healthcare is introducing private health insurance companies. That would introduce the following rigmarole, and you'd have to pay for the pleasure of convincing these people the work needs to be done, by paying a doctor for a check outrasound , xray whatever and then sending your recipts to to the insurance company. Of course if your knee doesn't need surgery you'd just eat that cost.
I for one have no desire to be scammed by insurance companies any more than I already am.
Quote:
Insurance policies typically cover necessary knee surgeries but vary in coverage limits, pre-authorization requirements, and network restrictions. Patients should verify their plan’s coverage for specific surgeries like total or partial knee replacements and ligament repairs before scheduling procedures.
Pre-authorization: Most insurers require approval prior to surgery to confirm medical necessity.
In-Network vs. Out-of-Network: Using in-network providers reduces costs significantly.
Deductibles and Copays: These vary and can affect the total out-of-pocket payment.
Coverage for Rehabilitation: Physical therapy post-surgery is often covered but may have limits on sessions.
How to Lower Knee Surgery Costs
There are ways to minimize knee surgery expenses without compromising quality of care:
Compare Facility Prices: Request cost estimates from multiple hospitals or outpatient centers.
Understand Your Insurance Benefits: Review plan details and negotiate payment plans if needed.
Opt for Outpatient Surgery When Possible: Minimally invasive procedures performed in outpatient centers often cost less.
Seek Financial Assistance Programs: Some hospitals offer discounts or payment plans for uninsured or underinsured patients.
Use Physical Therapy Alternatives: Combining home exercises with professional care can reduce rehabilitation expenses.
