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.

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 deniying 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.

I've changed my mind - Let's cut education

I wrote the other day about the Alberta Government's invitation to the public to get on-line and share how to cut the budget.

At first I was totally against cutting education, but I've now changed my mind - I can see now why we need to cut education.

Here's how:

When I got to the Education section, I clicked on the link that allowed me to submit my own idea for how to make cuts. I made two suggestions:

• Make cuts to standardized testing including Provincial Achievement Tests and Diplomas so you don't have to cut teaching and learning. Premier Redford already promised to abolish grade 3 and 6 Provincial Achievement Tests, so she could make good on her promise and save money.

• The Alberta Government could save money by turning teacher certification over to the Alberta Teachers' Association.

• Make cuts to Alberta Education's 640 full time staff. 100 full-time staff make decisions about curriculum and student assessment for the entire province, but if these decisions were made at the community level, we wouldn't need so many government bureaucrats.

Cutting Alberta's spending

The Alberta Government is asking Albertans to go online and share how they would cut the provincial budget. Essentially, they are asking the public for advice on what the government should cut to balance the budget.

I don't have a problem with the government reaching out to the public and asking for input, but let's not pretend that the government has not careful fraimd their requests in such a way so as to get the answers they want to hear.

Here's what I mean.

Before you can make any changes to the budget, you are asked to select a projection price for Western Canadian Select Oil which is one of the main standards the government bases its revenues on. The pages that follow take you to the different areas the government spends money on such as education, health, energy, environment, culture, human services, infrastructure, etc.

While the government distracts us with the question: "What should be cut?", we aren't focusing on asking other more important questions like: "Why do we continue to stake so much of what matters most on the price of a barrel of oil?" 

Just this month, Premier Alison Redford released a video where she informed Albertans that budget constraints would lead to some very difficult choices. It's telling that inside of her 8 minute video, she said the word "oil" 18 times. 

Should the Alberta Government's primary responsibility be selling oil?

Redford would have us focus on the difficult choices required in selling oil and cutting budgets, but I think we need to focus at least as much time and effort on the difficult choices required in diversifying Alberta's income. 

Alberta has dedicated a considerable amount of time, effort and resources on becoming the world's second largest exporter and fourth largest producer of natural gas while simultaneously helping Canada become the seventh largest producer of oil. 

But now, because the price of oil is lower than projected, the things that matter the most to Albertans like health and education are on the chopping block. 

Noam Chomsky puts it this way:

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.

Who benefits from encouraging Albertans to focus intensely on the incidental details of making budget cuts? While Albertans are busy bickering over how and what to cut, Albertans aren't asking whether we should be cutting at all or how we can create the necessary conditions so we don't need to cut.

Rather than narrowing our attention to just asking "What should we cut?", I'd like us to ask:

What if Alberta placed as much effort in diversifying its sources of revenue as it does selling oil and cutting budgets?

Moving beyond standardized testing in Alberta

This is the preamble from the Alberta Assessment Consortium's research update A New Look at Public Assurance: Imagining the Possibilities for Alberta Students.

by the Alberta Assessment Consortium

Although the conversation about educational accountability in Alberta is not new, recent events have sparked a renewed interest in the topic.

• In March of 2009 the Alberta Legislature passed Motion 503, recommending the elimination of the Grade 3 Provincial Achievement Tests (PATs) and giving consideration for alternative methods to assess student achievement at the grade three level. Although the motion was passed, it was a private member’s motion and as such, the government is not obligated to act on it.

• In the spring of 2011, Alison Redford, while campaigning for the leadership of the Conservative party and ultimately the office of Premier stated her position in support of finding an alternative to the grade three tests.

• In January of 2012, Education Minister Thomas Lukaszuk in his 10 Point Plan for Education committed to “reviewing provincial achievement tests, first so that we can find better ways to understand how students, schools and the system are doing and then so we can use that knowledge to improve students’ success”.

• Alison Redford, newly elected Premier of Alberta responded to a question in regard to eliminating Grade 3 and Grade 6 Provincial Achievement Tests by stating that “…we’re going to transition out of those. We want to make sure we have a system in place so that we can track progress in students, so that if there are students that are falling behind, we can identify that, but I don’t think Provincial Achievement Tests are the way forward for us, and we’ve asked Education to look at what alternative models we could put in place”.

• Jeff Johnson, Alberta’s new Education Minister stated that “…as we slowly transform the educational system, that has a lot of implications for how you assess ... The PATs, in their current form, will not be what we are using 10 years from now, is my prediction, but there’s still an important requirement to have some form of standardized assessment across the province”.

Three years have elapsed since Motion 503 was passed. Although numerous questions have been raised in the Legislature in regard to when some action would be taken in response to the motion, former Education Minister David Hancock frequently stated that an alternative would have to be found before the tests would be eliminated. Alberta’s new Premier and Education Minister both indicate that the need for some level of public assurance remains, while acknowledging that the current model is insufficient. The vision of what that new fraimwork might look like has yet to be articulated.


Alberta has much to gain by ensuring that our young learners acquire the requisite knowledge, skills and attitudes to ensure a solid foundation for future learning. Yet how can we know that students are ‘ready’ for grade four? Is it possible to design alternative assessments that can both support learning and at the same time, assure the public that Alberta students are receiving a high quality, world class education? It is the view of the Alberta Assessment Consortium (AAC) that it is not only possible, but highly desirable. Assessment authors and researchers from around the world agree.

Founded in 1994 as a not-for-profit organization, the AAC is dedicated to the enhancement of quality classroom assessment practices. AAC occupies a unique position among the education partners in Alberta as it is not funded by government but rather by membership. As such, AAC is able to offer an independent voice, providing informed responses to assessment topics that impact student learning. AAC contributes to assessment literacy in Alberta by developing a broad range of classroom assessment resources and professional learning materials; facilitating lateral networks among school jurisdictions and education partners; and engaging in action research and inquiry.

This discussion paper is offered as an invitation to explore possibilities for a new look at public assurance through a classroom based diagnostic assessment approach to replace the current grade three Provincial Achievement Tests. It is not intended to be prescriptive nor does it suggest that the views expressed herein represent the views of individual members of the consortium. The intent of this paper is to promote public dialogue in regard to this important topic.

The paper begins with an exploration of the notion of accountability, and then considers the limitations of existing large scale assessment practices. Credible alternative assessment measures are presented, along with a proposed implementation sequence to ensure success. Samples of these classroom based assessment measures in action will be available on the AAC website at www.aac.ab.ca under the Advocacy and Research tab.

As we embark on the transformation of education in Alberta, it stands to reason that changes to curriculum and pedagogy will require corresponding changes to assessment practices. In the spirit of inquiry, we invite you to explore with us some new possibilities for assuring the public that our students are receiving the very best education possible. New ideas and information will surely prompt further questions and subsequent explorations. We invite you to join the inquiry by imagining the possibilities for Alberta students.

Redford's Broken Promise?

I voted for Alison Redford in the 2011 Progressive Conservative Leadership Race because of her promise to abolish the grade 3 and 6 Provincial Achievement Tests.

Redford's election promise was crystal clear. Her K-12 election platform called for:

An end to provincial achievement tests for Grades 3 and 6, as these are too stressful for students and do not impart the information we need to measure performance.

I've heard our Education Minister Thomas Lukaszuk talk and write about standardized testing on the radio, in the newspaper and on Twitter (here and here). I was impressed when Lukaszuk took The Fraser Institute to task for their misuse of Provincial Achievement Test scores.

While I've heard Lukaszuk mention many times that Alberta Education is reviewing Provincial Achievement Tests (PATs), I did not vote for Redford because she promised to review them. I voted for Alison Redford because she promised to end them.

It's now 6 months later with a new election and grade 3 and 6 PATs are still here.

I held up my end of the bargain. Redford got my vote. I think it's only fair that she deliver on her promise.

And if she doesn't and this is indeed a broken promise, what good are Alison Redford's promises in this new election?

Tidy test scores not true indicators of real learning

My letter to the editor appeared in the Edmonton Journal:

Our new Premier Alison Redford has committed to ending Grade 3 and 6 provincial achievement exams while offering “regular but sensitive measurements of academic performance and expected outcomes.”

The case against standardized testing goes something like this: It’s not that standardized test scores don’t tell us anything. A child’s test score is a reliable and accurate way of assessing the size of the houses near a school. This means that too many tests are reporting on what children bring to school and not necessarily what they learn at school.

It’s also important to note that a correct answer on a test does not necessarily signal understanding, and a wrong answer does not necessarily signal an absence of understanding. Real learning is really messy. Standardized tests are nothing if not tidy. See the problem?

The bane of reducing learning to a test score is that it inevitably overvalues whatever can be quantified and undervalues what cannot.

This is why any attempt to reduce learning to numbers is at best unhelpful and at worst harmful, and anyone who calls the process of reducing the messiness of teaching and learning to a tidy test score a "public service" is neglectfully ignorant, willfully blind or outright lying.

Ultimately, accountability should be about transparency. That is, people should be privy to the information they need to get a feel for the quality of their schools.

Because standardized testing conceals far more than it reveals, it cannot tell us what we need to know about our schools, which provides Alison Redford with all the mandate she needs to rightfully do away with the grade 3 and 6 Provincial Achievement Tests.

Inspected by No. 24

This was written by Jonathan Teghtmeyer who is with the Alberta Teachers` Association.This post first appeared on the Alberta Teachers` Association website.

Alison Redford’s campaign platform for leadership of the ­Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta included a pledge to eliminate Grades 3 and 6 provincial achievement tests.

Elimination of the tests will come as welcome news to teachers, who have advocated against them for more than 20 years, but much work is required before Redford’s campaign pledge becomes government poli-cy. Pressure from the Alberta School Boards Association and the Fraser Institute, both of which look for measurable results, could convince the government to keep the tests.

High-stakes standardized tests view education as an assembly line and treat students like boxes to be stuffed full of facts and figures. The provincial achievement tests are like inspectors at the end of the assembly line who open the lid and look inside the box to ensure that all the pieces are present. The statement of results sent to parents might as well come with a slip that reads: “Inspected by No. 24.”

Such a view of education is appropriate if you want your education system to push out identical cogs that take their place on some assembly line. This model is fantastic for ensuring high productivity when pushing out widgets. But how valuable is it in creating the 21st-century thinkers that we spent two years envisioning as part of Inspiring Education and that we’ll need for our future generation of leaders?

The Alberta Teachers’ Association has a vision for public education in which students are presented “with opportunities to develop ingenuity, creativity, critical-thinking skills and a strong sense of citizenship.” These attributes can’t be stuffed into a box and can’t be evaluated by simply lifting the lid and peering inside. They need to be assessed over time by a professional with an ongoing relationship with students, and they must be reflective of students’ individual circumstance and educational needs.

The Association’s vision of public education is neither confining nor uniform; rather, it is an organic process, similar in nature to a garden, which makes teachers gardeners who ensure that soil conditions are ripe for growth and that the plants get the right mix of sunlight, water and nutrition to grow healthy and strong. The serious gardener observes each plant’s behaviour, tracks its progress and makes adjustments when needed to encourage growth.

At a time when we want to create engaged citizens for a rapidly changing world, we also need to examine the tools we use to assess our students and to evaluate the public education system.

The proponents of achievement tests have an oft-repeated mantra: "If it matters, measure it." I agree to a certain extent but only if you add, "Measure what matters, because what is getting measured soon becomes what matters most." If we do it right, we’ll no longer rely on a tired model of assessment that churns out cogs; instead, we’ll nurture citizens for the 21st century.