All in all, these FFCA letters can be interpreted as a voter suppression tactic in an effort to intimidate others into agreement with FFCA school councils' ideology. Furthermore, the voting system at the ASCA meeting was lauded as secret ballots, which begs the question of how FFCA councils were able to know which school councils voted in favour or against certain resolutions? Why are ASCA members (FFCA) calling into question voting patterns of other members? 
​

On Tuesday February 18, 2020, Minister Adriana LaGrange announced a new K-12 funding model. 
The new model made two significant changes: consolidating multiple, targeted grants into fewer, more generalized grants; and changing how and when student enrollment is calculated and how school board budgets subsequently finalized. 
In a news conference notably devoid of specifics, LaGrange was nonetheless undeterred in making three bold claims about this new model:

1. “By driving more funds towards our boards, every School Board in this province will see an increase in funding for the upcoming school year”. (1:47 Press Conference)
2. That it “ gives school boards predictable sustainable funding”. (2:44 Press Conference) 
3. That “it reduces red tape, it gives school boards more flexibility and autonomy”. (1:04 Press Conference)

Despite scant information provided by the Minister, we dived into these claims; what we discovered was that this new model does provide predictability: it will predictably underfund students.

Current Funding Model: In the current model, school boards are required to submit their upcoming budget yearly by June 30. As funding is calculated per student, board budgets must estimate student enrollment, with actual enrollment numbers not known until September 30. Of course, actual enrollment inevitably varies from the estimate, and thus, funding is adjusted in the fall to match actual enrollment. Ultimately, each student was both accounted for and funded. Variances were handled through board reserve funds, which each board independently managed. 

New Funding Model (Weighted Moving Average Model) 
In the new funding model, rather than fund boards based on actual enrollment numbers as measured in the fall, a LaGrange introduced a new “Weighted Moving Average” (WMA) formula to determine enrollment when budgets are submitted in the spring. The budgets are not subsequently adjusted with actual enrollment numbers. This WMA formula, calculates the number of funded students to be the sum of:

• 20% of last year’s enrollment; plus
• 30% of the current year’s enrollment; plus
• 50% of the upcoming year’s forecasted enrollment. ​

There’s one glaring consequence of this formula: any board that grows (currently 75% of Alberta’s boards are), will always be funded for fewer students than they actually have. Given that the population, on the whole, tends to grow, this presents a problem.

SAMPLE CALCULATION:
To see how this formula underfunds a growing school board, let’s assume a 3% year over year population growth for a sample calculation: 

Funding = 0.2a + 0.3b + 0.5c

Where
 a = 2018 enrollment
 b = 2019 enrollment 
 c = 2020 forecasted enrolment

Assuming enrollment increases ( 3% growth year over year)

Then:
    2020 enrollment = 1.03 (2019 enrollment)
    2019 enrollment = 1.03 (2018 enrollment)

Using the variables above this means:
c = 1.03b
b = 1.03a 

then  c = 1.03(1.03) a   
 c=1.032a

OR     a = c/(1.03)2​

This now allows us to use the MWA Funding Formula to simplify terms:
    FF = 0.2a + 0.3b +0.5c
    FF= 0.2a +0.3(1.03)a +0.5(1.03)2a
    FF = 0.2a + 0.309a+0.53a

FF =1.039a

But a represents the first year, we want c the current year.
Recall c=1.032a   so then     a=c1.032
FF= 1.039c1.032
FF = 0.98 c
This means, if the student population increases at 3%, the weighted average funding model will provide funding for only 98% of the enrollment. 
The claim that this new funding formula will allow for MORE dollars will somehow make it to classrooms for any division that sees an increase in population is FALSE.

Red Tape Reduction:
While LaGrange introduced a reduction in grants (from 36 -15), as evidence of a reduction in red tape, she also indicated there will be a mechanism for boards to appeal and negotiate budgets if their enrolment forecasts are different than actual numbers. 

This is akin to creating a new grant, but with no defined parameters, criteria, or process transparency, and puts the onus on school boards to approach the ministry for adequate funding. 

Greater Autonomy for School Boards
This claim is a stretch as the new formula actually centralizes the budget process, which used to lie in the hands of school boards. For example, with the existing model:

• School boards created and submitted their own budgets for Ministerial approval.
•  Boards previously used reserves as a buffer against the ebb-and-flow of enrollment each year.
• Boards were accountable for competently forecasting enrollment and being judicious with their reserves.
  
  

However now, under the Moving Weighted Average Model, 

• School Boards have less autonomy with respect to their budget. 
• The budget calculation is centralized by a formula that relies 50% on previous years enrollments.
• This means 50% of the budget is a forecasted variable. How is this forecast calculated? It’s done by the government. So forecasting and buffering variances -- previously responsibility of the boards -- now lies in the government’s hands.
• This formula seems to fund and control boards, rather than fund students and education.

Click here to On January 29, 2020, SOS Directors huddled around a laptop to watch Education Minister Adriana LaGrange’s press conference announcing the recommendations of the Curriculum Advisory Panel review.  

When it was over, we hurried to put our first impressions together. We wanted to communicate quickly and efficiently that this review did not centre on students, nor education as a developmental journey. We were troubled to see the repeated focus on work related skills, and references to the “end student”. Most concerning was to see the introduction of formative assessment (standardized tests) for Alberta children in grades 1-5. 

We released our initial thoughts on our blog and did a number of media interviews and consulted with other educators and curriculum experts. We couldn’t find anyone who wasn’t seeing huge red flags with the whole process and the recommendations.

We’ve had some time to properly reflect on what was presented by the Minister and panelist Glenn Feltham, and how it was presented. We stand by our original assertion that it wasn't pretty.

We named our initial blog on the review “ Welcome End Students to Alberta Education Corp.” as a tongue in cheek way to illustrate how unwelcoming this assembly line approach will be for students. The focus on the “final product” and “Starting with the end in mind” through repeated formative assessment and workforce ready focus describes a joyless, uninspiring education.

But we would like to expand on our initial analysis.
The press conference revealed both Minister LaGrange and Glenn Feltham were ill prepared and poorly informed about the content of the report.

The recommendations are unfocused, disjointed and often contradicts its own findings, much like the MacKinnon Report before it.

The report repeatedly exceeds the boundaries of curriculum review and wades into pedagogy and assessment. (Timely reminder here that curriculum is WHAT is taught to students, and not HOW things are taught, that’s called pedagogy. This is a very important distinction.) 

We urge you to watch the press conference:

​​It’s important to see first hand the level of preparedness the Minister and panelist have when it comes to our education system, particularly when pressed with questions by the media.
For example:

​Adriana LaGrange was unable to specifically detail any real, substantive changes, and struggled to answer this question. As did Glenn Feltham. It's important to see the level of difficulty in answering a question about the basic premise of this ‘new vision’ for education. 

​Is this the purpose of a curriculum review? Really? How telling is it for LaGrange to speak about presenting climate change in a balanced way, only to have Feltham follow that up with how important it is for students to understand Alberta’s economy?

​The Minister immediately referred to Glenn Feltham on this saying “ I will turn it over to someone who knows this inside and out!” 

​He was unable to articulate what discovery math is, and in all likelihood that's because discovery math is not a thing but rather a manufactured crisis to undermine public education. 
Secondly, why would this panel feel the need to recommend multiple pedagogical approaches if that was not part of their purview? He himself indicates that they were commissioned to look at curriculum, which as he states, is about the what and not the how.

​When pressed on what the reports means specifically, ​Minister LaGrange answers with:

We could point to any number of instances where the responses by both LaGrange and Feltham result in less clarity or contradict their own findings. 
The level of unpreparedness when presenting this report is not just shocking, but insulting to Albertans.
It becomes apparent that the findings were predetermined and all the recommendations were made to fit a forgone conclusion. This is why it seems difficult to answer questions about the report, LaGrange and Feltham performance here makes this evident.
​Please watch the video. It’s 46 minutes long, with media questions starting at 16:00. It is very telling to see who is in charge of education in Alberta. There are no current Alberta teachers, no current curriculum experts to be found anywhere. Watch this press conference - it will tell you more than we ever could in a blog. See it for yourself. 

When it comes to the document, the report lacks substance, focus, is disjointed and often contradicts its own findings, much like the MacKinnon Report before it.
 
How it contradicts its own points:

Specifically Recommendation 3 and Recommendation 9.1

3. Recommendation: Explore options for single-stream course offerings at the high school level by examining the practices of high-performing jurisdictions around the world and the impact of such policies on student success and graduation rates. 

9.1 Undertake an examination of curriculum that can be delivered in a dual structure, similar to the Germanic Model, exploring the definition of skilled trades and how students acquire these skills. 
 
Except the Germanic model absolutely streams students, that’s the point: 

    “The German Educational Class System"

Although most Germans claim to be against elitism and favoring any social class, their entire educational system is basically a three-class system that divides students into three different tracks: (1) Gymnasium for bright students headed for college, (2) Realschule for the next step down, kids headed for average or better white-collar positions, and (3) Hauptschule for the bottom tier, generally aimed at the trades and blue-collar jobs. By the age of 10 most pupils in Germany have been put on one of these three educational tracks. But it has become easier to switch tracks, and this is now more common in Germany than it used to be.”  (The German Way & More)

 Recommendation 4:

4. Recommendation: Update the Guiding Framework for the Design and Development of Kindergarten to Grade 12 Provincial Curriculum (Programs of Study) to reflect the impact of any recommendations that are implemented as outlined in this report.

The Guiding Framework, as a design document for curriculum, should not reflect pedagogical perspectives. 

20. Recommendation: Ensure curriculum is free from the prescription of pedagogical approaches, such as discovery math. 
 
This does not square with the statements made during the press conference about “Discovery Math”, where both Adriana LaGrange and Glenn Feltham spoke about how curriculum can and should be delivered. There is also absolutely no reference in the existing curriculum to “discovery math”. 

The recommendations have a hyper focus on the workforce, and on Alberta’s resource based economy. Six of the 26 recommendations make these mentions. 

8. Recommendation: Integrate awareness and exploration of careers into the curriculum to increase the relevance of career opportunities and development of workplace skills. 

9. Recommendation: Provide students with opportunities to learn outside the classroom, including experiences with elements of the workforce and community involvement.  

10. Recommendation: Enhance student’s learning of life skills throughout the K-12 curriculum by addressing areas of financial literacy, work readiness, wellness, and goalsetting.

11. Recommendation: Create opportunities to bring the needs of Alberta’s employers into the curriculum-development process.

25. Recommendation: Ensure social studies curriculum reflects a balance of perspectives with respect to the importance of Alberta’s resource-rich economic base in relation to the impact on the economy, families, services, and government.

25.1 Ensure content includes additional foundational knowledge-building opportunities with respect to Alberta’s economic system, entrepreneurship, the world of work, and the roles and jobs of members of the community

The report refers to work force, employment and the economy in six recommendations, but only once addresses inclusivity;

13. Recommendation: Ensure curriculum reflects the diversity of Alberta’s students. Curriculum should provide opportunities and maintain flexibility within learning outcomes to enable all students to explore their unique perspectives and life experiences in their learning. 

That’s it. No mention of curriculum that reflects children with disabilities, LGBTQ2+ students, newcomer, students living in poverty, or racialized children. Six recommendations on employability, and one “all students matter” mention. 
 
The review exceeds its boundaries of curriculum review;

16. Recommendation: Examine teacher certification, teacher education programs, and educator professional learning to support continued quality delivery of curriculum. 

Recommendations around increased standardized testing for students as young as grade1:

17. Recommendation: Ensure a rigorous assessment system that builds public confidence, enhances accountability, and provides parents, Albertans, and the Minister with reliable information with respect to student achievement and system performance.

17.2 Implement a systematic approach that uses standardized formative assessment tools in the evaluation of literacy and numeracy, in grades 1 through grade 5. 

There is no high quality research that supports standardized test for children of this age. For an extensive list of this research, Alberta teacher Dan Scratch has created an excellent resource: A Collection of Research on Standardized Testing 
Similarly:  “In an article for Education Week, Alfie Kohn, an independent lecturer and author of "The Case Against Standardized Testing," Called children the victims of standardized testing and asserts that virtually no experts in early childhood education believe tests should be administered to children younger than 8 or 9 years old. Kohn also argues that standardized tests promote teaching children superficial thinking, rather than pursuing deeper learning.” The Classroom.com

Of course, our favourite random but standout recommendation is 26. Where they saved the best for last:
26. Recommendation: Examine the efficacy of cursive writing for student learning.

What kind of curriculum review, 30 years overdue, would it be, if cursive writing didn’t get its own mic drop mention? Nothing says “ 21st century work ready” like cursive writing!

This review and its subsequent recommendations does almost everything but address curriculum. 
It rarely refers to curriculum outcomes, and makes vague recommendations about “enhancing learning”. 

It does not address the needs of LGBTQ2+, racialized, newcomer, or students in poverty or with disabilities. 

It fails to address the need for students to see themselves reflected in their curriculum and how curriculum can and should be used to forge relationships with people in their schools, like other students, like teachers and educational assistants. 

It does not address the developmental journey of children. Children, students seem like static actors in this review, there’s no role for their needs or voice.

Zero consideration is given to the effects that standardized tests and academic streaming have on children, while recommending both practices begin at earlier ages than currently exist.

It makes absolutely no mention about curriculum being an important tool to engage students. 
 
The primary factors for student success are not about understanding Alberta's resource rich economy, nor making contact with potential employers, but feeling heard, building confidence and feeling relevant, and valued.

This panel jumped all over the place covering issues of economy, employment, standardize testing, cursive writing and even creating an “end student”. The assembly line tone of this report runs absolutely contrary to everything public education is meant to be and meant to achieve. 

Children are not “end products”.

Students should not spend 12 years interviewing for jobs.

This curriculum review panel is a real time example of Goodhart’s Law: When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.

We should be very concerned that this document in any way will guide our government in creating curriculum for our children. Have your voices heard. Write your MLA, write the Minister Adriana LaGrange, organize in your community, start conversations at school council about advocacy in lieu of fundraising, attend an SOS info session if possible. Start contemplating actions you can take in your communities that show your support for public education, students, and teachers. If you have a child in grades 6 or 9, consider opting out of standardized tests this year.
 
We are currently working on an Advocate’s Toolkit with information on how to get active in your community that we hope to have available shortly. In the meantime, keep the conversations going, let’s reclaim public education. 

Support Our Students Alberta Foundation, as a public education advocacy organization, and a citizens action group has several concerns regarding the Ministry of Education Curriculum Panel Review as released January 29, 2020.
General Concerns:
Minister Adriana LaGrange indicated that the Ministry has listened to Alberta parents. 

• SOS Alberta has held an online letter writing campaign since late October. 
  
• More than 6000 emails have been sent to Minster LaGrange
  
•  Virtually no response has been received from the Minister’s office or MLAs by SOS Champions.
  
• The emails outlined concerns about the choice in education survey and the budget cuts.
  

Minister Lagrange evaded almost every pressing question about the details of the report, by deflecting to the statement, “these are simply recommendations.” 

• Considering the time and energy spent on this initiative, Albertans expect some concrete answers to specific questions about the recommendations.  
  
• Alberta’s children have been operating with insufficient funds, and outdated curriculum during this time. 
  

Minister LaGrange stated “Climate change is real, but we want to present it in a balanced way”.

• Unable to provide clarification on what balances out fact?
  
• How will this apply to other widely accepted facts like evolution? Vaccines? Roundness of the earth? 
  
• What do we balance fact with? 
  
• This is a concerning approach to education.
  

While we have concerns with the entire document, here are a few specific concerns: 

Recommendation 9
Provide students with opportunities to learn outside the classroom, including experiences with elements of the workforce and community involvement. There is value in exposing students to experiences outside the classroom that can build awareness and opportunities on the variety of career paths and choices available to them. Learning is strengthened when students learn in the context of real-world experience and work. Curriculum can be delivered in many ways beyond the classroom context, including in workplaces and employment settings. Curriculum should be flexible to deal with alternative skills models outside the classroom. 

9.1 Undertake an examination of curriculum that can be delivered in a dual structure, similar to the Germanic Model, exploring the definition of skilled trades and how students acquire these skills 
9.2 Expose students to practical work and learning outside the classroom, including participating in volunteer activities that engage students and benefit local communities.
SOS Interpretation: 

• This is code for more online learning, moving children into ‘the workforce’.
  
• Different name for academic streaming. 
  
• Also runs completely contrary to Recommendation 3, to eliminate academic streaming.
  

Recommendations 17.2, 17.5
17.2 Implement a systematic approach that uses standardized formative assessment tools in the evaluation of literacy and numeracy, in grades 1 through grade 5. These can identify where students may require additional support and enable the use of appropriate interventions at the earliest possible stages”
17.5 Explore other ways that standardized testing can be used to ensure public confidence.
SOS Interpretation: 

• This is simply code for ongoing standardized testing. 
  
• Starting standardized testing at even even younger age, Grade 1.
  
• Way to circumvent reintroducing grade 3 PAT
  
• Using a testing regime as a tool to measure a system, teachers under guise of accountability.
  

Repeated References:

• “Create opportunities to bring the needs of Alberta’s employers into the curriculum development process”.
  
• “Importance of Alberta’s resource-rich economic base in relation to the impact on the economy” 
  
• “with respect to Alberta’s economic system, entrepreneurship, the world of work, and the roles and jobs of members of the community”
  
• “ With the end student in mind”
  
  SOS Interpretation:  
  
• Hyper focus on the economy, work related skills, and terminology like “End Student”, these are not the goals of public education. 
  
• This language commodifies education and gives impression K-12 is an assembly line and children are the final product. 
  
• Schools are not factories.
  
• This is a concerning approach to have for public education 
  
• This government seems both unwilling and unable to diversify Alberta’s current economy, how can we then have faith in their ability to design a system that is 2033 ready. 
  

SOS Alberta continues to advocate for a universal, accessible and equitable public education system in Alberta. It is our position that this panel review does not move us in that direction. We have many concerns about the effects these recommendations will have for Alberta’s students for years to come if implemented.. 
We urge Minister Lagrange to hold open consultation with Alberta citizens in ways that are more open and transparent than online surveys. As an organization we have already FOIP’d the Choice in Education Survey which is proving a large barrier to public information.

Dear Hon. Adriana Lagrange, Minister of Education,

Recently you have made public comments, including on the Danielle Smith Show (December 17, 2019), that Support Our Students Alberta has not sought a meeting with you like other groups have. Presumably, you hope to undermine the concerns of Albertans by suggesting that their concerns are illegitimate without a closed-door meeting. 

Our answer is simple: we are public education advocates who advocate in public; we have nothing further to present in secret, closed door meetings. Our position is transparent to all Albertans in the “10 Strategies for Equitable Public Education” which is available on our website. We have included it again here for your convenience. 

It is true that we have not requested a meeting with you, nor have we requested a meeting with a sitting Minister of Education for the previous three years. We would like to clarify that Support Our Students Alberta is not a lobby group, we are a citizens action group. Our goal is to inform, organize and equip Albertans so that if and when they decide to meet with you, their MLA, their trustee or their school staff, they are well informed on what universal, equitable and accessible public education means for Albertans.

If you do feel your policy position could be influenced from hearing the voices of concerned Albertans directly, we urge you to listen to the over 5,600 Albertans who have written letters to you through our letter-writing campaign. The vast majority have not heard a response from you or their MLA’s. Many have requested meetings to no avail; those few who have met with MLA’s have been met with indifference. We yield to them, Minister. 

10 Strategies to Achieve Equitable Public Education

• We would like the Alberta Government to redefine and recommit the government’s responsibility to a more equitable public education system for all Alberta students.
• Make high quality early childhood education universal and accessible, levelling the playing field and closing the achievement gap for underprivileged children.
• Build schools as community engagement centres, comprehensive facilities where children and citizens can participate physically, intellectually and civically.
• Eliminate ALL barriers including all school-related fees (including, but not limited to, instructional materials, bussing, lunch supervision) and application procedures.
• All schools should have a full, inclusive, and balanced curriculum including but not limited to arts, music, science, history, language arts, additional languages, mathematics, and physical education.
• Reduce class sizes to bring them in line with the recommendations in the Alberta Learning Commission report of 2003 & provide adequate supports for classroom complexity.
• Integrate charter schools into the public system, eliminating all fees and ability to deny access.
• Provide integrated services for students, including medical and social services that help children keep up with advantaged peers.  One in six Alberta children live in poverty.
• Reduce emphasis on high stakes standardized testing. Provide alternative and more comprehensive criteria for measuring student success.
• Return to specialization for teachers at all grade levels.
• Recognize that public education is a public responsibility not a consumer good.  Its quality and accessibility should be equitable across the province.

If you require further information please do not hesitate to reach out to us. 
In the meantime, we will continue our work equipping Albertans and advocating for public education.

Team SOS Alberta

Good afternoon, 
My name is Barbara Silva and I am with Support Our Students Alberta, a public education advocacy organization! We are a citizen’s action group committed to fighting for a universal, accessible and well funded public education system. 

Something this government is not interested in. 

The other day, in an interview a journalist asked me if we are mad at this government - I'm here today to say that we are not mad.

We are furious.

We are furious on behalf of the child who wakes up sick every morning - worried about navigating a school where lack of support makes them feel unseen, and unheard. 

We are enraged for parents who depend on transportation, hour long bus rides in lieu of costly before/after school care, whose costs have just doubled.

We are shocked that families are expected to fundraise for basic resources, like books, furniture, technology, playgrounds.

We are outraged that music teachers, phys ed teachers, art teachers, language teachers are now considered educational luxuries.

We are fuming, that part way through the school year, children who have built trusting relationships with their teachers will have those relationships broken in January due to cruel cuts.

We are furious that in the last 4 years, over 1 billion taxpayer dollars have left the public system to subsidize the private one, and that this party,  right now, is  debating that that funding should actually increase.

These are immoral decisions made by this government - 

This is now a question of educational justice.

So don't ask us to compromise with Jason Kenney. 

Don't ask us to negotiate at the expense of Alberta’s children

We see his plan

We know where he is taking public education.

We know Kenney wants to break unions, weaken public service and divide communities.
We know that while they debate a 100% voucher right now, we already have a 70% voucher system in Alberta.

We know he wants you to think about teacher's two months off, instead of the 10 months of dedicated, committed work they put in year over year.

Kenney thinks teaching is a vocation.  
We know it is a calling. 

Kenney wants you to see education as an individual commodity.  
We know it is a common public good.

He wants to attack public education at every opportunity.
We will meet him there every time, to defend it. 

We are here to say we are public education proud. 
We are community builders, not breakers.
We support students,
We support teachers.
We support public education and we will not stand by and let this government sell it to the highest bidder.

This is the moral issue of our generation - how we stand up for children’s right to public education. 

Today is just the beginning, join us. 
Choose public education.