October 6 - So it Begins - The Alberta Teacher Strike

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by troutman

Call me a socialist, but I don’t think any child should get academic advantages because their parents are well off. Public school for all!

I agree mostly, but if your (my) kid is failing by this system or not thriving in any way from this public system, you want to prevent me from seeking out other options? You want to physically prevent me from tutoring or a different system? My kid would be frankly fatated if he stayed in the public system.
Sylvan learning centre got enough of my money and was useless.

My kid would end up being a burden to society if I do not pay a crap tonne of extra money to make that not the case (hopefully).

Ideal world and funded right it would be no problem, but I live in the now and the real world and have limited time to correct the ship so that's what I am doing. Danielle can f off and in neverland when its correctly funded I will have my kid in public system. It's never going to happen so why dwell in it like its possible.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Why not provincial?

5% PST in Alberta would easily pay for everything the teachers wanted and have some left over for health care.

Going to 10% GST doesn't make sense because other provinces already funded their respective programs.

Or instead of putting another tax on the people, just tax corporations at a higher rate. The cost of living in Alberta is getting out of control as it is without putting another burden on individuals in the form of a PST.

8% is an absurdly low rate. When you look at the other provinces most of them have a 12% tax rate, including super conservative Moe in Saskatchewan. Ontario has a bold 11.5%.

There is no reason for Alberta to be 3.5% below the other provinces and we are truly not seeing any benefit from it. It is not like any of the O&G companies are retaining extra staff because of the lower tax rate, they are just putting more profits into shareholder's pockets.

Even if we set Corporate taxes to 11% they would still be the lowest in the country and it would result in a few billion in additional revenue.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

This doesn't sound like an argument for having different admin boards though. It's an argument to fix one that sounds pretty broken. If the CBE was the best run board, would you then support consolidation under them?

Yes. I think that's exceedingly unlikely to happen because I think education (being a people intensive operation) has significant dis-economies of scale. Even Point Blank (whom I'm sure works hard and cares) has these quotes:

"require multiple levels of vetting before approval"

And

"Massive departments that require a liaison to directors"

Those are signs that an organization is too large to be effective, imo.

My personal experience having had relatives work for both boards (and a number for both) at positions ranging from teacher to superintendent is that CSSD is more nimble and effective. I don't think it's the Catholicism that makes it better, I think it's the smaller size.

[Sylvanfan]

Private schools are not a problem. Private schools not being funded by 100% private funds is.

So if people want to send their children to private schools they should still have the right to chose that. Same with if they want to homeschool their children. So long as these kids can pass a some type of standardized test that demonstrates they have met a set criteria every school year. There's people who'll bankrupt themselves to send their kids to Private schools because they're convinced it's better or it's not run by the Government and they know better.

Supposedly the two sides will get together on Tuesday again for bargaining. Hopefully they can reach an agreement that both parties can live with.

Although I'm sure there are a few hard liners at either side who would rather see some type of revolutionary conflict.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by fotze2

I agree mostly, but if your (my) kid is failing by this system or not thriving in any way from this public system, you want to prevent me from seeking out other options? You want to physically prevent me from tutoring or a different system? My kid would be frankly fatated if he stayed in the public system.
Sylvan learning centre got enough of my money and was useless.

My kid would end up being a burden to society if I do not pay a crap tonne of extra money to make that not the case (hopefully).

Ideal world and funded right it would be no problem, but I live in the now and the real world and have limited time to correct the ship so that's what I am doing. Danielle can f off and in neverland when its correctly funded I will have my kid in public system. It's never going to happen so why dwell in it like its possible.

We are going to do what is best for our kids if we have the means to do it. I can sacrifice some my my luxuries for the betterment of society, but I will be using the resources I have available to me to make my children have the best chance possible. The entire reason we are in private school is the failures within the public system. We lost all lotteries for Charter schools (other than RT Alderman) and the option was let my son struggle through school with 35 other kids and 1 teacher (who took half a year to provide accommodations) or spend the $$ to get him a better option.

When we did the math on the amount of money we spent on tutoring it was was roughly equivalent to what we are now spending yearly on private school.

I am 100% in support of the teachers here to make things better for all the kids, but I not going back to public school with my kids.

[WinnipegFan]

Originally Posted by Point Blank

I want to premise this with the fact that you’re absolutely entitled to this opinion and may have more data or experiences to back this thinking up. I work in central office and report directly to system principals and while I agree there are many problems, I also want to say a lot of them are exaggerated by people who know little about what goes on in the Ed Centre. It’s easy to hate on central office when many don’t know what they actually do because much of our work is invisible but necessary.

There aren’t as many area principals as people think. They exist in massive departments that require a liaison to directors, but most departments report directly to directors instead. Having worked in schools and system roles, I can say my department, including the area principals, are easily the strongest educators I’ve ever worked with.

I think the legacy of the Ed Centre, which was signed before I became a teacher, really messed up CBE’s image… especially to teachers in the system. And rightly so! However, most of the senior management involved in that decision has since moved on and most people in central office acknowledge that was a terrible waste of resources. I go to work everyday in a giant physical reminder of the importance of being a responsible public educator.

I’ll say that the pendulum swung so far the other way, because of the Ed Centre debacle, the desire to repair perception have actually caused much of my work to require multiple levels of vetting before approval and this process can be super frustrating. But when I take a moment to breathe and step away from my work for a bit, I actually found that feedback from senior management to be prudent, albeit removed from classroom realities at times. Not saying it’s working and changing anyone’s perspective, but it’s how it is and with CBE being the largest school board in western Canada, it’s going to take a long time to clean this mess up.

Goes to show how public boards, especially one as massive as the CBE, are under the microscope when I comes to fiscal responsibility; and one bad decision could lead to years of mistrust that will require many more years of intentional work to repair. Which is how it should be. I just wish we applied the same standard to our provincial goverment.

I am going to have to disagree. I worked and reported to an area principal there as well. It was ridiculous. I had a full hour for lunch worked only 9-5, never saw a student the whole time, and never had to take marking home or plan anything.

It was the easiest job Ihad in education and had the most perks. Private lock up for bikes, an onsite gym for lunch workouts, free coffee on every floor, many times free snaks left over from various meetings. It was not long ago either.

The legacy is perhaps from the days went it was insane, but there is little that comes out that office that benefits education in a significant fashion. The CCSD runs with significantly less budget wasted on their downtown.

The Toronto guy even saw how ridiculous it was a few years ago and at least moved a bunch of area principals out to the actual areas they represent. I would say the area office people who work directly in schools and with teacher have impact but most of the "ivory tower" could vanish tomorrow, and schools would be better off as millions upon millions of dollars would go back to schools.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by fotze2

I agree mostly, but if your (my) kid is failing by this system or not thriving in any way from this public system, you want to prevent me from seeking out other options?

I don't think that's the case.

Idealistic me - fotze's kid goes to private school, which is 100% funded by the tuition they collect.

Forte's tax dollars still go to the public school system my kid is in. Now they have the same funding, but one less student.

Everyone wins, because fotze is a loaded oil lifer.

[WinnipegFan]

Originally Posted by Point Blank

And the most annoying thing I hear from UCP supporters who want to undermine public education is their rants about inclusion. While I think there’s conversations to be had about best practices with complex learners, it’s almost always done in bad faith in an attempt to highlight the failures of public education.

Failures that the UCP manufactured due to inadequate funding.

They’ll talk about how classes shouldn’t be disrupted by complex learners. But then in the same breath would support Nicolaides’ statement that class sizes don’t affect achievement outcomes. So which one is it? Do they want better supports for complex learners or not?

I agree that a UCP rant about inclusion is often misaimed and misinformed. However, as an educator that worked in the CBE when it had specialized schools and after, I can honestly say inclusion is a failure and we need to admit and adjust course.

It's a funding disaster that results in students with needs getting less service and support than otherwise in a ridiculous claim that inclusion works. It doesn't, it has been an abismal failure.

When we make claims that UCP rants about inclusion are ridiculous, which they are, we need to also address that the far left claims that it is a holy grail of educaiton are equally bull#####. Inclusion has been one of the greatest failings of educaiton in Calgary.

The second greatest failing was when those in charge read maybe half of John Hattie's work, saw that he said class size has low impact, stopped reading and ran with it. Hence our current situation.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by WinnipegFan

I agree that a UCP rant about inclusion is often misaimed and misinformed. Hwoever, as an educator that worked in the CBE when it had specialized schools and after. I can honestly say inclusion is a failure and we need to admit and adjust course.

It's a funding disaster that results in students with needs getting less service and support than otherwise in a ridiculous claim that inclusion works. It doesn't, it has been an abismal failure.

When we make claims that UCP rants about inclusion are ridiculous, which they are, we need to also address that the far left claims that it is a holy grail of educaiton are equally bull#####. Inclusion has been one of the greatest failings of educaiton in Calgary.

The second greatest failing was when those in charge read maybe half of John Hattie's work, saw that he said class size has low impact, stopped reading and ran with it. Hence our current situation.

"inclusion without support is abandonment"
"inclusion without support is abandonment"
"inclusion without support is abandonment"
"inclusion without support is abandonment"
"inclusion without support is abandonment"

If you repeat it enough times, it starts to make sense. The UCP's plan is to have inclusion without support to help crash the public education system faster.

[Sr. Mints]

I tried digging into this, and struggled to find data: did class sizes go down in the last 30-35 years?

At least at my school in the early '90s (smaller school, gr 1-9), it was a big deal when Klein was gutting..well, everything. My grades one and two class sizes hovered around 30, and I specifically remember grade three there was something like 33 kids, and parents were buying pitchforks, my mom among them.

Most of the core class stuck around til grade six, then there was a huge drop in grade seven. But I think I remember my younger brother had slightly lower numbers, he was in grade one when I was in grade eight. He may have even been in a 1/2 split, or maybe it was a 2/3--no idea if it was a numbers issue or what.

[WinnipegFan]

Originally Posted by Wolven

"inclusion without support is abandonment"
"inclusion without support is abandonment"
"inclusion without support is abandonment"
"inclusion without support is abandonment"
"inclusion without support is abandonment"

If you repeat it enough times, it starts to make sense. The UCP's plan is to have inclusion without support to help crash the public education system faster.

This isn't the issue, you are simply approaching this from a polarized side of the argument. Inclusion took place before the UCP existed. The UCP underfunded it but the philosophy and practice cae before them.

My argument is even funded properly, inclusion is a failing philosophy. I taught adn witnessed kids in specialized settings flourish, become incredible leaders in a context where they could. The same kids, exactly the same as it happened over one summer, after inclusion, lasted 3-4 weeks in the new school and dropped out.

They are the unseen victims of inclusion. It forces kide into a culture and context where they will never have a chance to be leaders or achieve at a level that makes them prooud. To argue otherwise is simply pandering to the egos of parents that don't want ot accept their kids need help.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by WinnipegFan

This isn't the issue, you are simply approaching this from a polarized side of the argument. Inclusion took place before the UCP existed. The UCP underfunded it but the philosophy and practice cae before them.

My argument is even funded properly, inclusion is a failing philosophy. I taught adn witnessed kids in specialized settings flourish, become incredible leaders in a context where they could. The same kids, exactly the same as it happened over one summer, after inclusion, lasted 3-4 weeks in the new school and dropped out.

They are the unseen victims of inclusion. It forces kide into a culture and context where they will never have a chance to be leaders or achieve at a level that makes them prooud. To argue otherwise is simply pandering to the egos of parents that don't want ot accept their kids need help.

Yes, that is the abandonment part that the UCP is embracing so hard.

I am good with killing the "inclusive classroom", I think the intention should be to have an inclusive education system with diverse programs designed to help kids and kids should be place in those programs based on evaluations (as opposed to their parent's demanding that their little snowflake get put into the class of their choosing that might not actually be a good fit for the kid).

It has been mentioned a few times here already that the existing system does have non-standard program offerings but they are always full. If those programs are always full then they should allocate more money to expanding their capacity (which ultimately goes back to the government funding the system properly).

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I don't think that's the case.

Idealistic me - fotze's kid goes to private school, which is 100% funded by the tuition they collect.

Forte's tax dollars still go to the public school system my kid is in. Now they have the same funding, but one less student.

Everyone wins, because fotze is a loaded oil lifer.

Fata you, you big gangly boob who has a sweet pad in bridgeland. Oil is so wonderful though. Kill me.

I don’t care if the govt puts in their 14 cents, it’s negligible to the actual cost anyway. Private schools are a sham and you hold your nose paying them, but it’s still way better. It’s gross.

[Point Blank]

Originally Posted by WinnipegFan

This isn't the issue, you are simply approaching this from a polarized side of the argument. Inclusion took place before the UCP existed. The UCP underfunded it but the philosophy and practice cae before them.

My argument is even funded properly, inclusion is a failing philosophy. I taught adn witnessed kids in specialized settings flourish, become incredible leaders in a context where they could. The same kids, exactly the same as it happened over one summer, after inclusion, lasted 3-4 weeks in the new school and dropped out.

They are the unseen victims of inclusion. It forces kide into a culture and context where they will never have a chance to be leaders or achieve at a level that makes them prooud. To argue otherwise is simply pandering to the egos of parents that don't want ot accept their kids need help.

So would you have them segregated?

It can definitely be argued that there’s a threshold requiring an alternative setting, that’s what specialized classes like EES, L&L, TASC, LEAD, PLP, Access, Bridges, and The Class are for. I’m sure you also know there’s specialized schools like Dr Oakley, Alternative High, and Emily Follensbee. I’ve done processes to transfer students to a PLP program and another to Dr Oakley. Problem is those are all over capacitated as well, and because of that, the requirements are astronomical.

Maybe we can both agree here that adequate funding to these programs can alleviate a lot of pressure felt in inclusive classrooms. What we might disagree is where the line is for a student to remain in an inclusive setting.

[fotze2]

Education and health care should be funded to the titties and everything else should be a distant 7000th.

[WinnipegFan]

Originally Posted by Point Blank

So would you have them segregated?

It can definitely be argued that there’s a threshold requiring an alternative setting, that’s what specialized classes like EES, L&L, TASC, LEAD, PLP, Access, Bridges, and The Class are for. I’m sure you also know there’s specialized schools like Dr Oakley, Alternative High, and Emily Follensbee. I’ve done processes to transfer students to a PLP program and another to Dr Oakley. Problem is those are all over capacitated as well, and because of that, the requirements are astronomical.

Maybe we can both agree here that adequate funding to these programs can alleviate a lot of pressure felt in inclusive classrooms. What we might disagree is where the line is for a student to remain in an inclusive setting.

Yes, I would and we did. You point out extreme cases that are overburdened and underfunded because the funding for the individual students with needs are spread out throughout all of the schools. Where their individual funding is not enough to support their needs. In these extreme cases for the sites you mention, we all know no one is getting into those programs. They are over burdened and bursting at the seams because we closed schools like Lord Shaughnessy and Van Horne.

The schools like Shaughnessy served an incredible purpose. Students with learning needs were grouped into a smaller culture where funding was focused on their needs and brought together from all of the studnets with need. We had incredible teachers who WANTED to teach these studnets, specialized in educaating them and had EAs of the same nature. These students were in a small culture where they could be big fish in tehir small pond.

They played on sports teams, whereas in your "inclusive" schools if you are not rich enough to play on a club team you will never make it. These "inclusive" schools are simply an extension of the sports season for their clubs so the elite can keep playing.

Educaitonally the funding doesn't cover EAs so these kids end up in lower acadmic courses. In the "inclusive" setting many kids are in these courses, not because of their learning needs but because of behaviour issues. So, these studnets are ignored with their needs as teachers pander to the behaviour of those with privilege and poor behaviour.

I could go on and on, but in short, yes, I would segregate them into schools that serve them. Schools that focus on their learning needs and provide incredible pathways like Van Horne to careers and futures. The "inclusive" model has simply set them up for failure. Which is why we see spikes in mental health needs, if you are the poor, under priviliged kids with need in these schools it is stressful. We also see dropout rates sky rockey so out alternative settings get full such as Discovering Choices.

We failed these students. Time to own it.

Don't get me wrong, the theory of inclusion I agree with. Hwoever the practicality of doing it properly and well is far too expensive for a public educaiton setting. We will never get the funding to do it properly and when a population because too complex, as teachers are arguing now, it becomes to challenging to meet all of the needs. So we owe it to our kids to change course.

[shermanator]

Cavalry are offering teachers 2 free tickets to the Forge game tomorrow night.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1976433782316990954

[#-3]

Originally Posted by troutman

Call me a socialist, but I don’t think any child should get academic advantages because their parents are well off. Public school for all!

It's funny, many have called me a socialist in the past. Possibly because, I believe we should fully fund education from 12 months to bachelor / trade level. With robust merit grants to support post grade learning and research.

But I also think that equal and fair are not synonymous. A kid with severe autism, vs an ESL learner, vs an elite athlete like Mckenna vs an 80th percentile student all have different needs, and exceptional students who will be the ones earning those research grants do have different needs too. Denying that is unfair to all of them.

I think of you want to pay for education that meets minimum standards, you should be free to without help from the government.

And I think if you want religious education it should fall into that category or happen outside of school hours.

But I also might have a more market based take in thinking that more than one style of school board or governance institution can exist without undermining the system, and log as funding the boards is equitable. For me this would include preK, daycare, school, college... There should be a fairly open public option for free with a relatively small premium option for those who do not want any funding.

And last I think civilly electing random unknown people to make the schools is among the worst ideas available. Maybe it should be an election held by parents councils and the active members within the schools, but general elections with low information voters is dumb.

[kootenayguy9]

Originally Posted by WinnipegFan

Yes, I would and we did. You point out extreme cases that are overburdened and underfunded because the funding for the individual students with needs are spread out throughout all of the schools. Where their individual funding is not enough to support their needs. In these extreme cases for the sites you mention, we all know no one is getting into those programs. They are over burdened and bursting at the seams because we closed schools like Lord Shaughnessy and Van Horne.

The schools like Shaughnessy served an incredible purpose. Students with learning needs were grouped into a smaller culture where funding was focused on their needs and brought together from all of the studnets with need. We had incredible teachers who WANTED to teach these studnets, specialized in educaating them and had EAs of the same nature. These students were in a small culture where they could be big fish in tehir small pond.

They played on sports teams, whereas in your "inclusive" schools if you are not rich enough to play on a club team you will never make it. These "inclusive" schools are simply an extension of the sports season for their clubs so the elite can keep playing.

Educaitonally the funding doesn't cover EAs so these kids end up in lower acadmic courses. In the "inclusive" setting many kids are in these courses, not because of their learning needs but because of behaviour issues. So, these studnets are ignored with their needs as teachers pander to the behaviour of those with privilege and poor behaviour.

I could go on and on, but in short, yes, I would segregate them into schools that serve them. Schools that focus on their learning needs and provide incredible pathways like Van Horne to careers and futures. The "inclusive" model has simply set them up for failure. Which is why we see spikes in mental health needs, if you are the poor, under priviliged kids with need in these schools it is stressful. We also see dropout rates sky rockey so out alternative settings get full such as Discovering Choices.

We failed these students. Time to own it.

Don't get me wrong, the theory of inclusion I agree with. Hwoever the practicality of doing it properly and well is far too expensive for a public educaiton setting. We will never get the funding to do it properly and when a population because too complex, as teachers are arguing now, it becomes to challenging to meet all of the needs. So we owe it to our kids to change course.

Being a teacher for 28 years I agree that specialized programs like EES, PLP, or Dr. Oakley are essential for some learners the challenge is that the entry thresholds have become so restrictive that many students who would benefit never get in. We’ve created a system where the ideal model exists in theory, but it’s inaccessible to most families in practice.

That’s where the frustration lies for teachers and parents alike. When supports are spread thin across “inclusive” classrooms, neither model functions as intended. Students with complex needs aren’t receiving the intensity of support they require, while teachers in regular educational settings are stretched to manage multiple exceptionalities at once.

So while I respect the goal of inclusion, I also believe we need to re examine how we define it. Inclusion shouldn’t mean placing every student in the same setting regardless of fit; it should mean giving each learner equitable access to the environment that best supports their growth whether that’s a specialized site or a well-resourced mainstream classroom.

Until funding matches the complexity of today’s classrooms in 2025, we’ll keep having this same debate.

[GullFoss]

Id continue with the NDP strategy of increasing taxes at the highest tax brackets. At 1% and above is where Albertans who do well...do really, really well relative to other cities.

8% Up to $60,000
10% $60,000.01 to $151,234
12% $151,234.01 to $181,481
13% $181,481.01 to $241,974
14% $241,974.01 to $362,961
15% $362,961.01 and up

I'd bump up the 13% tax bracket to 14%
Id bump the 14% tax bracket to 15.5%
Id bump the 15% tax bracket to 17%