But there are even larger concerns. An educated society is one where great things can happen. That does not mean that I expect everyone to go on to a great post-secondary education and a career at Super Corporation, but the opportunity should be provided for all citizens to be able to move in whatever direction they desire. Encouraging intellect to grow is a positive for society, and leads to a more competent and capable work force. This is a good thing. Our country is made up of people, and the more well rounded those people are, the better off our society is.
The corporation of the province has a vested interest and an obligation to ensure that each student gets the best possible education. All of the parties tell you that, but I want to look at their actual policies and pick them apart. Again, I?m biased here. My dog in the fight is the Alberta Party, and I do not pretend to be unbiased. Still, my intention is to look objectively at the various policies and figure out what I think works and what doesn?t.
The Current Situation
40 years of Conservative rule have definitely left a mark on the education system. When Ralph Klein was elected Premier, one of his first acts was to slash the hell out of public education. I remember my mother, a music teacher at a poor school, being told that the school had to choose between her music program and the phys ed program. Personally, I was disgusted. Music is such an important part of rounding out students, giving them pride of performance, and helping their minds develop properly, but phys ed is an integral part of the school as well, ensuring both that kids are challenged and tested physically, and that they burn off energy in a positive way. That?s like being asked which of your testicles you don?t want anymore.
Things haven?t gotten better. The school boards have responded by encouraging early retirement. Teachers with experience cost too much, and new teachers fresh out of college are cheap. Of course, this totally devalues the importance of teaching experience, and teachers are left with a knowledge vacuum. Any successful business knows the value of its experienced workers, and a corporation should be smart enough to try to balance cost and experience. Of course, it?s cheaper to run a business with fresh-out-of-the-blocks college graduates, but without more senior staff to watch out for the pitfalls, push the best practices, and share the wealth of knowledge they have accumulated, such a company is doomed to make the same mistakes over and over again. And that?s just bad business.
Today, we are left with massive class sizes and limited resources. Classes with special needs students are at an immediate disadvantage, because getting the appropriate resources for special needs children is difficult. I know this, as both my own and my friends? children have encountered the difficulties inherent in gaining understanding from teachers and access to learning resources.
There are other issues, but these ones are the ones that are front-and-center in my mind. So shall we begin?
Conservatives
Once again, I?m not going to waste my time looking. I don?t care how revolutionary their educational policies may or may not be, they?re the reason that education is in the position it is right now. To assume that as of election day they?re going to change 40 years worth of hacking and slashing is just ridiculous.
Liberals
The first thing I?m reading is that the Liberals want to end school fees. I?m not sure I entirely agree with that. I believe that school fees amongst the poor and working poor are a nightmare, and I would know, but to simply suggest that the government shell out another 40 million dollars (I?m basing this number on the NDP?s figure taken from this page from 2005) when those with money could take on some of that seems like an unnecessary burden to be dropped on the taxpayer. $40 million isn?t actually a lot of money in the provincial budget, but if it could be at least partially handled by the more wealthy parents, so much the better. I?m certainly not advocating dividing $40 million by how many rich kids there are, but if everyone over a certain earning level can spend their current fees, that will help.
Their next main point is to create a school lunch program. I honestly can?t comment on this, because I don?t know how many students in Alberta are going to school hungry. If it is a sizable number, then a school lunch program absolutely makes sense for the reasons they have said. If it isn?t, then it is a waste of money.
Then they suggest a $500 tax credit for teachers. I?m not against this per se, but I?m not for it. The argument is that teachers put a certain amount of their paycheck into the job. I know this to be true, but I?m not sure I agree with giving them a tax credit for it. In a normal job, any expenses you incur become tax deductible expenses. Would that replace the ability for teachers to keep their receipts and be remunerated for them? Are teachers not presently allowed to submit these receipts? To me, a $500 tax credit either overcompensates something that is already being taken care of or doesn?t solve the problem properly.
Their next point is to expand registered apprenticeship programs for students who want to learn a trade. I have no problem with this. Their last point, however, is stupid. They want provincial policy to denote that there is a zero tolerance policy on bullying. I personally hate bullies and would love to see the behavior quickly and efficiently rooted out of schools, but a provincial policy means nothing. Are they going to require schools to react to bullying in a specific way? How is the provincial government going to enforce this policy? To me, this stinks of currying favor with parents. Bullying is very topical right now due to a few high profile incidents, and I see no way for the provincial government to in any way impact this. It?s not like there are schools who have a ?Bullying is cool? policy that would need to be overturned. Unless this policy specifically addresses bullying behaviors with direct ramifications, then this whole point means absolutely nothing.
NDP
Now, this is nitpicky of me, and I get that, but the language on their page is awful. It actually should be read as ?Alberta?s NDP would the lack of appropriate funding has led to class sizes larger than recommended by the Alberta Commission on Learning?. Now, most people suck at working bullet points, but that?s just awful, and it makes me highly dubious of anyone who can?t get their official web site to read correctly. But again, that?s my grammar freakout, and doesn?t reflect the strength or weakness of the policy. Actually, as I read further down the page, this is just bad HTML. That?s still bad form, and just makes you wonder how they can run a province if they can?t proof-read a web page, but again, semantics.
Because it?s jumbled, I?m going to have to jumble a bit on how I deal with each point. It starts out with a good evaluation of the current state of things, including some points I hadn?t brought to light earlier. One of the stand-outs is that some schools are considering arrangements with private corporations. I?ve heard of this, and it freaks me right out. I thought calling it the Pengrowth Saddledome was tacky until I found out about Providence, RI?s Dunkin Donuts Center. How would you like Dunkin Donuts Elementary? How comfortable would you feel in saying that the landlords wouldn?t be willing to use their ownership of the building as a means to impact curriculum? That?s a yucky concept to say the least.
The first thing they want to do is implement caps on class sizes. I agree. I?m not sure what the Learning Commission targeted as right class size, but caps are important. There are just too many students in a typical Alberta classroom, and the mandatory decrease in class size means an increase in the number of teachers, which means a direct increase in cost. I?m all for this. That increase in cost is simply the cost of doing business for the education system. Health care would be remarkably cheap if you didn?t have to pay health care workers, but we accept that we do. It?s the same with teachers. Teachers are probably the most maligned public servants, and the notion that they are making the Big Bucks is just ridiculous.
Next up is ensuring that there are enough support staff for schools. Duh. I mean, I hate to say it, but how is this even a question? If you?re running a business and you want it to be successful, you assume that there are certain overhead positions that are going to be required to keep the ship running smoothly. And while having an office manager does not contribute to the income of a company, not having one directly diminishes the income as those duties take away from the time that others can spend actually working.
Funding full day kindergarten I?m good with. Funding half-day junior kindergarten I?m definitely not behind. This sounds to me too much like government-funded babysitting, and is that really what we want to do? I?d be all for offering to help with the cost of funding day care for the poor, but to make that a burden for the education system just seems pointless.
Their next point is weak. ?Make high school completion a priority by providing students with the support they need to stay in school and reach their educational potential.? That doesn?t really say how you are going to do it, and to me, this just comes across like the kind of statement that is made by someone running for Class President. Saying that you?re going to encourage something and saying how you?re going to encourage it are two different things.
Next, we?re eliminating fees and fundraising for learning essentials. I agree with this. If a computer is required for a classroom, it shouldn?t come down to the schools to find a way to jury-rig it in.
One of the things I haven?t touched on yet, but that I truly am appalled about is the fact that private schools are receiving public funding. I absolutely agree that this should be stopped immediately. If you as a parent have the means and the desire to send your child to private school, the public system should not be contributing a dime. As for charter schools, my understanding is that they are already under the jurisdiction of school boards, but if they aren?t, they should be.
Again with the healthy and nutritious food options. The NDPs are taking it one step further and making it breakfast and lunch. I still really don?t know if I agree with this concept, and would have to see how common the problem of children not having food at home is. The idea of the school system stepping in and feeding my kids just doesn?t seem right.
Lastly, they want to ensure that parents of students from 6-12 years old have access to after school care. Again, I agree with the concept of the government assisting with day care and after school care, but to me this isn?t educational policy. I would not be comfortable with the Calgary Board of Education deciding who was going to look after my kid between 3:00 and 5:00.
Wild Rose Party
Their main points start with putting the decision making into the locally elected school boards again, instead of largely coming from a centralized body in Edmonton. I agree with this. I also find it uproariously funny when a political party refers to the public servants as ?government bureaucrats?, both because it sounds like some cartoon character blaming ?those doggone bums in Warshingtin? and because they?re ACTIVELY TRYING TO BECOME GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS. That?d be like me saying how much I hate Business Analysts because they?re always over-thinking and never bloody well doing during a job interview to become a Business Analyst. Stupid!
In the Freedom To Choose section, they say they want funding for the student to follow the student to the school they attend, which makes sense. I thought it already did. They also want schools to be accountable by posting graduation rates and subject-by-subject assessment rates. This seems to me to be a great model for teaching to the test. Lastly, they?re perfectly fine with maintaining the 70% funding for private school students. SAY WHAT?
The Respecting Individuality section kinda gives me the creeps. It?s good that they realize that students aren?t all identical, and that tailoring learning is important, but statements like ?Students won?t be moved on to more advanced material until they demonstrate a strong understanding of the subject matter? leave me a little frosty. What happens if a student simply doesn?t understand a topic? Do we just keep hammering them with it day after day? And then they say that they want to get rid of the stupid old standardized tests with brand new standardized tests. Yay! Something new to teach to!
In their final section, Support For Special Needs Students, they talk about how special needs kids eat up resource time, and how they want to determine as early as possible that students have special needs and then find the best choice from them, be that staying the classroom or not. I?m all for that, but in my own prejudiced mind, I don?t trust the super-Conservatives not to just create some weird super soldier program where they root out the special needs kids and feed them to the strongest ones. But obviously that?s just ridiculous.
I thought these people were supposed to be Conservatives? but the idea of funding private school with government money, of supporting special needs students, and respecting ANYTHING simply don?t jive with that. That is a concern to me. Is this a party that isn?t as Conservative as they let on, or are they a party that lies to get elected?
Alberta Party
And again, we save the best for last. The Alberta Party policy is what I would consider most in line with what I as a typical Albertan would want to see. There are a lot of points in it that are brought up that the others haven?t touched on, and what I would consider largely the best of the other plans. Read the policies of all the parties, and see if you don?t agree?
For starters, we?re back to taking the control of local education out of the hands of the regional body. Things ranging from where schools are built to decision making for those schools should see more involvement from the regions affected.
This is the only plan that talks about teacher professional development. I have always been amazed at the general lack of professional development available to teachers. In any field I?ve ever encountered, employers pay for training courses, encourage professional growth, and feel the need to challenge employees. That is tragically not the case for public education, and it is a shortcoming the Alberta Party seeks to resolve.
Another first is the plan to remove the ridiculous age limit on coverage for completing high school. A high school diploma is a major prerequisite for so much opportunity, and until the age of 21, the government will pay for it. But what about those who wish to get it later in life? Well, the present system says that they can pay for it at a cost of around $350 per course. I?m guessing here, but I?d imagine that most people who don?t have and eagerly want a high school education would find it awfully difficult to find an extra $350 per course lying around the house. It becomes yet another barrier to success, and for what benefit?
And then the topic of Bill 44 comes up. I had trouble with this bill when I first read it because it seems innocent enough. It means that parents are to be warned whenever the topic of religion, sex, or sexual identity is planned to be brought up in class, and they have the option of having their children opt out of the lecture without penalty. Now, on the surface that doesn?t seem to be a big deal. If parents want their children to be ignorant about sex, sexuality, and religion, so be it. But there are things wrong with this. For starters, what happens if students turn discussion in that direction? For example, let?s say a teacher is lecturing about evolution. This is not a religious topic, it?s a scientific topic, but what happens if students actively lead the conversation into a discussion on evolution vs. creationism? In this, the student is the one who has created the issue, but any attempt to discuss it with the class has not been previously cleared with parents, and the teacher might be considered in violation of this law? What about teaching history without reference to religious impacts on war? How many topics have the potential to spill into violations of the law? Let?s say the topic of Artificial Intelligence (or code breaking, or World War II) brings mention of Alan Turing, and students wish to comment on his humiliation and suicide? It might be easier to find topics that could not possibly link through legitimate discussion to religion, sex, or sexual identity. The Alberta Party?s plan to remove this section of the law seems to me to be a protection of both teachers and free debate.
A common theme with several of the policies is about the damage that standardized testing like the Provincial Achievement Testing does to education. Teachers are teaching to the test, and that has a long history of blowing up in our faces. They plan to remove this testing and replace it with a better solution. As well, they want to reduce the weighting of diploma exams. I wholly agree. Why does a single test constitute half of the student?s mark? One bad day (at a time when the student is under maximum stress and fatigue) and their mark tanks hardly seems a fair notion. When I taught college, my mid-term and final exams were typically worth something like 25%, because exams are hardly the only evaluation of a student?s competency in a topic.
And throughout the whole document are a few constants that I think are imperative, and are generally lacking in the other party policies. Words like accountability and transparency as it pertains to what we?re paying for and how our investment is faring are important to me. I am a believer in public spending, but I am against blind public spending. The money exists in this province to properly fund an incredible system, but it has been diverted into middle management and bad decision-making. We give too little to the public education system and are given too little information on how that money is spent, and that is a failure.
(My) Conclusion
I can?t help but feel, after having read all of the educational policies (save the Conservatives) that the only one that is thorough, reasonable, and matches what I think are the priorities of the majority of Albertans with regards to education is the Alberta Party platform. Again, I?m biased. I have a dog in this race, and I encourage you to look at the policies and make up your own mind.
Education in Alberta needs to change. It needs more funding, smaller classes, better measures, better support for different types of learning and abilities to learn, better treatment of teachers, better treatment of students, and a general increase in the importance we place on this service. All of the platforms that I have read speak to this in different ways, but the Alberta Party does so thoroughly and thoughtfully, much more so than any of the others.
Once again, the Liberal policy comes across (at least to me) like empty promises by people who know they haven?t a hope in hell of having to back up their words. The NDP would be a cost mistake as leaders of the province. The Conservatives have proven that they have what it takes to cause problems, but not what it takes to fix them. The Wild Rose Party are clearly of the rich, for the rich, and by the rich. I mean, come on. You?re supposed to be Conservatives and you support the public system giving public money to private schools? Oh, right. Your kids go there. Any cost savings they see go directly to you. Right. Way to look out for everyone, guys.
When you look at the various policies, try to think about things from that corporation perspective. They are the leaders of the corporation. We are both their customers and their staff. We expect a certain level of quality when it comes to all of the services we utilize. We have services that require retooling. Who do you think has the best plan for that retooling to best his
Jim
dale george will obama birth certificate nick cannon celebrity apprentice tornadoes rajon rondo
কোন মন্তব্য নেই:
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন