Missing & Inaction

For many years, Alberta has been known across Canada for it's entrepreneurial spirit and its can-do attitude. Of course, at the heart of that attitude is unflinching readiness to perform great amounts of work to accomplish great goals.

However, our elected officials, both in Alberta and in the Federal government (including the PM who's riding is in Calgary) seem feel that the important work of running a province or a country respectively does not need that much attention. I'm speaking of the disturbing trend of reducing the sitting times of the two levels of governments, supposedly for "consultations" or "caucus meetings". While the Federal government seems happy proroguing parliament when it pleases, the Alberta governments tendency to take time off on a whim is a more serious issue at the moment.

As pointed out at Christmas in the Edmonton Journal, total number days the Alberta legislature sat in 2009 was 64 and then last year was 50. It would seem that this year, it will be even less, with the legislature apparently not going back into session until sometime in the second half of February. Admittedly, the number of days has fluctuated wildly over the past few decades as shown in a Pembina.org report.

The problem here is that there is no reason for the legislature not to be back at work. There are numerous issues that face this province - health care, education at all levels, homelessness, infrastructure, and on and on. While the implementation of government programs is of course carried out by the provincial bureaucracy, there is still leadership needed from the cabinet as well as full discussion by the entire legislature.

This is even more disturbing after the release today of the fact that Premier Stelmach is the highest paid premier in all of Canada and the government ministers earn "the most among the provinces and territories". Remember, this is after the ministers gave themselves a pay raise shortly after the last election, without outside consultation or discussion with opposition MLAs.

I can imagine what my boss would say if I went up to him and said - "I'm taking off for a couple of months, by the way, thanks for the big raise!" - I would end up in the Alberta Works employment line the next day.

Now, I'm all for fair compensation for executives. However leaders must meet the expectations of the stakeholders, in this case the voters of Alberta. During the past few years there have been a number of problems that have appeared or worsened. Some have been a direct or indirect result global recession - reduced income from resource revenues among the most notable. But, this does not excuse poor management!

We've had the highest per capita spending in Canada for a while. Despite this, we have infrastructure problems, a collapsing health system and insufficient allocation of resources for education. On top of this, the government is in a cycle of deficit budgeting to pay for everything.

Note that I don't follow the belief that governments should be run like a corporation - they are radically different than corporations, both in terms objectives and its methods. Governments provide necessary services using taxes to fund them; it should not be making a profit (although, in the case of natural resources, I agree with the Alberta Heritage Fund as a way of compensating the extraction of resources). The thing is, efficiency should be measured against government operations. Root causes of the problems should be found and addressed, and streamlining of operations and reduction in bureaucratic red-tape should be implemented. More to the point, input from the public should be collected and acted upon - use the ideas from the people to find solutions! Talk to the people, not down to them!

The Alberta PCs have had 40 years to work at the problems facing this province, and while the province has grown and is better off than was, many of the problems facing us have been here for a long time and have gotten worse. So, I'm still unsure why the Stelmach government believes that they deserve the high rate of compensation that they gave themselves, or the extended time away from work.

If they feel that they are bereft of ideas on how to solve the problems facing the province, then let's call an election! Otherwise, get back to work!

Guest Post: Public Education Must Be Inclusive

I was approached soon after I started this blog by Robert Hurdman (Twitter handle @RobertHurdman) who is an active participant in the online Twitter discussions for Alberta politics and wanted some space to occasionally share his political thoughts without the hassle of starting a full time blog.

So, without further ado:

---

Dave King, formerly the Minister of Education in Peter Lougheed's provincial government, has started a website (http://separateschooleducation.ca/) and a petition about public education in Alberta. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that there are much larger issues with our public education system, I'd like to elaborate my reasons for signing his petition.

I tend to agree with Mr. King's vision of what the public education system should be. Public schools are funded by the government in order to provide a certain education to all children. Because the system uses public funds and is intended to benefit all children, it should be inclusive and it should reinforce our values of multiculturalism and tolerance. Catholics, who share these values, seem to feel attacked by Mr. King's suggestion that their school system should be “disestablished.” In reality, this is not a proposal to take away their schools as much as to end the duplication of resources that result, for example, in two underutilized elementary schools neighbouring each other in established communities such as Midnapore (where I attended elementary school) and the attendant transportation costs. There is also the lack of involvement in the governance of schools that results from segregation and confusion about who can support which system. This was particularly apparent during the recent school board election and the lack of press coverage.

There are strengths that exist in the Catholic system from which all schools could benefit. One example is in learning and living their values. My children's public school talks about a “value of the month,” but little real learning accompanies these values. Further, there are families of many other religions who would be happy for their children to experience moral or faith-based education at school. Witness the number of private and charter schools that provide these programs. Rather than force parents to choose a private school, it seems that it would be preferable to offer faith-based classes in community schools which are targeted toward the community they serve and completely optional. This way, more students could participate in reinforcing their values and exploring their beliefs. I may not choose to send my child to a class about Catholicism, but I would extremely interested in exposing my child to Buddhism or Taoism or aboriginal beliefs in an effort to help understand the cultures of our land and our extended family.

In light of this view of a public education system that is inclusive of all students, I would propose more than a merger of the public and Catholic school boards. Excepting the duplication of resources, I see the Catholic schools as very similar to charter schools in that they provide the publicly-mandated curriculum with a special focus. The problem that I see is that charter schools are able to exclude students arbitrarily. This is particularly unfair to families who live in the neighbourhood of the school and are forced to travel because the school won't accept them, as well as students who struggle in school. It's very easy for a charter school to exclude all but the students who score in the top 1% on tests. They may then boast that they have a great program of instruction because (surprise, surprise), their students are scoring in the top 1% on tests. I believe that choice is of great value to families and I believe that charter schools fill a valuable role. However, they should no longer be allowed to exclude students based on any criteria except location (for transportation reasons) as long as they receive public funds.

There also exist private schools in Alberta. Private schools are funded 60%-70% by public funds. Private schools must meet the same curriculum as other schools in order to offer a recognized diploma, but they are under no requirement to accept all students, they are not required to employ teachers that belong to a union (the ATA) and they are able to charge tuition. I don't believe that private schools present any danger to the program of public education. They provide choice for parents who have the desire and resources to participate. Again, as long as they are exempt from providing an environment that is inclusive of all students, I don't believe they should receive any public funds.

Saying that the funding should follow the student sounds good in theory, but encounters problems when followed to its logical conclusion. We all pay taxes that are collected by the provincial government to fund the public education system. This includes families with children who attend school, single people and families without children, families who will leave Alberta before their children attend school and families who will immigrate to Alberta after their children are grown. There are no exemptions. It is understandable that parents who choose a private school would prefer to have their tax dollars redirected to support their child's school. But if we allow that, do we begin to offer full funding to home schoolers? Do we offer full refunds to families without children in public schools? If we do, we might as well cut out the tax middleman and simply charge tuition for all schools with a lifetime payment plan. This is not the view of education as a public good that we currently hold in Alberta.

I believe that there is much value in an inclusive public education system. As long as our tax dollars are supporting schools, I believe those schools must accept all students who live within a reasonable distance. Allowing schools to offer diverse programs or a novel focus provides choice, which is valuable to parents who want to provide the best experience for their unique children. These programs could focus on fine arts, sports, religion, back-to-basics, or any other focus that there is a demand for. If parents choose a program within the public system, it will be publicly funded. If parents choose a program outside the public system, they should expect no public funding.