The Alberta Teachers’ Association

David Flower

The following historical overview of education in Alberta looks specifically at two issues: class size and working conditions. Next to salaries, these two issues are the most contentious facing Alberta¹s teachers in 2002. As this review shows, these issues have remained unresolved for almost half a century, despite commissions, reports and studies. The studies referred to in this report are far ranging and cover the whole gamut of public education issues. Brevity has necessitated limiting the review.

A notable phenomenon of recent years in this province and elsewhere is the unprecedented publicity given to matters of public education. The degree to which this publicity arises from general public interest and concern is, of course, arguable. It is certainly true that influential persons and tightly organized groups often speak with an impact that is out of all proportion to public recognition and support. It is also true that many individuals tend simply to parrot the statements of critics.

Nevertheless there are some very real reasons for enlarged public attention at this time. One of these is the virtually complete implementation of a policy of general education for all. Parents are genuinely concerned for their children because they perceive the dividends paid by education in vocational choice and success. Business and industrial groups are concerned because of the close relationship between certain aspects of the curriculum and the competency of employees. Professional and university groups are concerned because of the nature of the high school program as prerequisite to further professional or academic study. Religious groups are concerned because of the degree to which variously approved credal or moral concepts are or are not represented in the philosophy and curriculum of the schools. Needless to say, some of the interests suggested above are altruistic and public-spirited; some may be selfish and sectional.

Further causes are not far to seek: the rapid growth and shift of populations, increasing industrialization and job specialization, changing social patterns, mounting costs of school buildings, equipment, and teaching services. These and other developments have inevitably challenged various kinds of public interest and criticism.

These opening three paragraphs might as easily refer to the education scene in Alberta in 2002 as they did in 1959. They are from Chapter 1, "Origin and operation of the Commission," of the Report of the Royal Commission on Education, 1959 (a.k.a. The Cameron Commission, named after its chairman, Senator Donald Cameron). The problems that teachers face in 2002 are not new. Even those external forces are the same although they have intensified.

In an era of affluence, rapid transportation, limitless communication, entertainment and material advances, individuals have become enamored of immediate personal benefits and self-interests. To the same degree, long range considerations of the future have diminished in favor of preoccupation with the present.¹

The Cameron Commission was established in December 1957 and given two years to examine every aspect of education: curriculum, pupil achievement, special needs, school organization, physical facilities, quality and supply of teachers, school-industry and school-community relations and the economics of education.²

One chapter deals with areas of public concern. The Commission attempted to summarize and organize into categories the more than 5,000 proposals that it received. Submissions dealt with the purpose of education, public attitudes toward education, equality of opportunity for all children, curriculum, exams, teachers, centralized control and centralized schools. Under the heading "teachers" are three paragraphs dealing with qualifications, salaries and working conditions:

It was also contended that living and working conditions for teachers would still bear substantial improvement. The lack of clerical aid to relieve teachers of time-consuming non-professional tasks, the overcrowding of many classrooms, the absence of adequate teaching materials and aids, were deplored.³

Under the chapter entitled "The supply of teachers," the report includes two recommendations, (two of the 280 recommendations). The two recommendations related specifically to the areas that are the primary subjects of this report. Recommendation 137 states:

That working conditions be so improved that the benefits of professional preparation can be fully realized: for example
(a) a lower pupil-teacher ratio, and a reasonable teaching load,
(b) non-professional assistance for routine duties,
(c) more clerical and stenographic help,
(d) non-professional supervision of cafeterias, study halls etc.

Recommendation 138 proposes promoting public support for public education:

That a suitable public relations program be developed in order to:
(a) create public awareness of the importance of education,
(b) develop public understanding of educational problems,
(c) convey to potential recruiters the opportunities and rewards of teaching⁴

Finally, within the narrow scope of this report, The Cameron Commission also included five recommendations that dealt with continuing education for teachers, refresher courses, study leaves and in-service education during and outside school time.

These recommendations reflected proposals submitted in the Alberta Teachers' Association's (ATA) brief to the Commission. The ATA's brief contained 164 recommendations, two recommendations (numbers 73 and 74) dealt specifically with class size (several other recommendations referred directly or obliquely to working and living conditions of teachers, particularly those in rural areas).

Recommendation 73:

School systems should reduce the size of classes in grade one and subsequent grades wherever possible in order to permit more individualized instruction.⁵

Recommendation 74:

Differences in student achievement should be dealt with by measures such as small classes, grouping, remedial work, individualized instruction, and moderate acceleration rather than by widespread failing of low achievers. In the broader area of working and living conditions, two examples of recommendations were

Recommendation 32:

In areas and at grade levels where school boards are experiencing difficulty in staffing Alberta's schools, the boards should examine the conditions of work with a view to making them more attractive to teachers.

Recommendation 134:

Recognizing that in certain isolated areas there will probably always be small high schools, school board of such areas are urged to make living and working conditions attractive for their teachers in order to secure and hold teachers capable of giving excellent and stable service.

Nothing much changed with regard to class sizes and working conditions for almost a decade after The Cameron Commission, though further studies appeared that related to both issues. In 1961, the ATA established a Professional Load Committee. One question sought teachers' opinions as to what constitutes a proper professional load in a teacher's particular teaching task.⁶ The committee presented its recommendations in the form of a research monograph to the 1963 Annual General Meeting. The recommendations were made in terms of hour load and were in three parts:

They suggest a weekly maximum hour load beyond which the teacher does not go without the grave danger of invoking the law of diminishing returns in the effectiveness that he brings to his task. They suggest a reasonable time load for those functions assigned to the teacher by the administration. They make recommendations about a time load for those functions, which the teacher undertakes voluntarily as a professional person.

In April 1963, the ATA produced a research monograph. In the foreword, the authors stated that the study was attempting to account for an observed difference in student achievement in departmental examinations. The study centred on the results of the 1961 Department of Education Grade 9 exams. The monograph concluded:

that a combination of smaller classes and better qualified teachers produces better results on Grade 9 examinations, or conversely, that larger classes and more poorly qualified teachers produce poorer results on the Grade 9 examinations.

The last three years of the Social Credit government in the province saw three initiatives in education. The first was the establishment in June 1969 of a Commission on Education Planning (a.k.a. The Worth Commission, named after its chairman Walter Worth). The second involved changes to education finance resulting from the recommendations made by the Minister's Committee on School Finance. The third was the introduction in 1969 of a Revised School Act. Two of the nine terms of reference of the Worth Commission were to "enquire into current social and economic trends within the province to determine the nature of Alberta society during the next two decades" and to "establish bases for the priority judgments of Government with respect to the course of public education in Alberta for the next decade."⁷

However, of more immediate significance to teachers were changes to the two pieces of proposed legislation introduced by the Social Credit government in 1969. So serious were these proposals that the ATA convened an Emergent Representative Assembly (ERA) in Edmonton on January 10, 1970, to debate them. The first piece of legislation involved proposals to change the provincial/local funding of education under the foundation program resulting from recommendations of the Minister's Committee on School Finance. The committee proposed two specific recommendations to which the ATA took exception. The first, claimed the ATA, discriminated against the employment of better qualified teachers by stating that "the support provided for each teacher be arrived at by striking an average salary for teachers with at least three years of teacher education." The second set funding increase limitations that did not recognize the costs of inflation.⁸

In a letter to school boards in December 1969, the deputy minister of education requested "careful control of expenditures in the next budget year." The letter went on to explain that the escalation in school costs can be attributed substantially to four factors: (1) increasing enrolments, requiring additional staff, (2) inflationary pressures as reflected in rising salary scales and other costs, (3) improvement through the introduction of new programs or the expansion of current services, and (4) excess costs in school construction.⁹

Responding to the letter, the ATA¹s executive secretary listed a number of concerns including the following:

a major lack in the recommendations of the Committee was in the areas of No 3 and No 4 in Dr Byrne's letter, both of which have to do with offering better education. There was provision for provincial support for pilot projects, but no provision for general improvement.

The Minister's Committee was also recommending certain components that would form the basis of the provincial funding program, including the number of teachers in relation to students (25 to 1), their qualifications and the number of support staff (eight) per 1,000 students providing services to teachers and students such as administrators, psychological and guidance personnel, librarians and other instructional personnel.¹⁰

The frustration for teachers over the changes to education financing was compounded by the second piece of legislation, namely revisions to the School Act. As well as proposing regional bargaining, giving limited guidance to Boards of Reference and expanding the powers of the minister to make regulations, the changes to the School Act also gave the boards broad rights. It proposed that boards should have the right to "unilaterally make regulations which affect the working conditions of teachers" and even went so far as to allow individual bargaining between teachers and boards over and above the collective agreement. The ATA argued that such powers should be "restricted by a clear-cut right on the part of teachers to negotiate about them [working conditions] before they are formulated and to share in their formulation."¹¹

The fact that 20 specific items relating to working conditions disappeared¹² when the old School Act was replaced by the new one on May 29, 1970, resulted in a number of working conditions motions being brought to the 1970 Annual representative Assembly (ARA). Many of these motions were approved and nine still appeared in the 2001 ATA Members' Handbook under long range policy.¹³ The fact that these policies are still outstanding indicates that despite the best attempts of the ATA to bring them to the notice of government, the latter has chosen to ignore them.

Working conditions certainly dominated negotiations after the passage of the School Act. Presaging the turbulent year, an editorial in The ATA News pronounced: "Working conditions are negotiable."¹⁴ The editorial stated that "many board negotiators have been stalling in negotiations with teachers because they are unwilling to have working conditions covered in the collective agreement." In regards to working conditions for professional service, ATA Teacher Welfare Coordinator Joe Berlando stated that "Alberta teachers are convinced that there must be very marked improvement . . ."¹⁵ Subsequent teachers' strikes that year in Calgary Public and North Central West, and the threat of strikes in other areas emphasized the growing frustration with the unwillingness of school boards to deal with working conditions issues. Class size continued to be an issue. ATA Executive Secretary Bernie Keeler reported that "for many years, teachers, not only in Alberta but throughout the world, have been telling the public that one of the best ways of improving education is to reduce class size." Keeler pointed out that there was evidence that class sizes in the province had been reduced somewhat. However, the impact of smaller classes on the intellectual and emotional needs of the students was not fully understood or accepted by those controlling the purse-strings.¹⁶

The Worth report, A Choice of Futures, was released in June 1972. The report reflects the expansiveness of the 1960s and argues that "we must find a place in our institutions of schooling for the expression and development of the social conscience, and of the human instinct, as well as the rational mind."¹⁷ The report provided a view of the future of education in the province. Various governments have, over time, adopted several of the Worth Commission's proposals. The report discussed how the role of teachers was changing from a role "of explaining" to a role "of evoking," and how technology would play a key part. The ATA expressed its concern over the report's top-10 proposals that were based on the implication that "our present public education system is on the verge of catastrophe and that teachers are primarily to blame for this."¹⁸ The ATA argued that many desirable changes that teachers viewed as improvements had long been advocated but not implemented, including improvements in staffing ratios and other learning conditions. Those issues were not addressed in the Worth report.

Much of what the Worth report saw as the future of education, however, was overtaken by the reaction in the 1970s that demanded a more prescribed role for schools. In 1977, a paper prepared by J. Harder talked about the demand for "an increased specificity of knowledge and more concentration on skill development in both academic and career areas" in response to a "general dissatisfaction . . . with . . . the short falls in the education system and the high costs of . . . mediocrity."¹⁹

The continuing concern with working conditions and class sizes shows in the results of a three-year survey conducted by the ATA (1970-72). Eighty percent of the province's schools responded to the survey. Some of the significant patterns reported in The ATA News included the following:

1. pupil-teacher ratios increased in a major proportion of schools over the period;
2. the amount of time spent by the average teacher in teaching increased consistently over the period;
3. total assigned time per teacher steadily increased;
4. more schools reported decreases in preparation time allowed to teachers.²⁰

During the 1970s, there were some legislative gains for teachers under the progressive Conservative governments of the 1970s. However, most were in the areas of tenure and transfers. The issues of working conditions and class sizes were simply not considered by government, indeed, it seemed, on occasion, that any excuse was used by government to avoid such discussion. The debate in the mid- to late 1970s was over what should be taught in schools. There was a demand for improved literacy and a return to basics. Teachers were blamed for supposedly declining education standards. Thora Miessener, a Calgary City ATA district representative, described teachers' frustration and outrage.

[Teachers] have very little final say in the overall educational scene. Teachers are aware of the short comings in the schools and voice their opinions for reduced class load, better working conditions, adequate supplies and more facilities for students requiring special attention yet their pleas for improvement are often ignored by politicians and administrators.²¹

The existence of these concerns surfaces elsewhere. In 1975/76, Edward Holdaway of the University of Alberta, conducted a study that included the issue of class size. His study found that the issue of smaller classes was mentioned with equal frequency by male and female teachers. The highest mention was among elementary teachers (51 percent) and the lowest among special education teachers (36 percent).²² Holdaway also conducted a study that was released in 1978 on teacher satisfaction/dissatisfaction. One section of his report lists changes sought be teachers:

Of those respondents who identified changes that they would like to see made in the working conditions of teachers by 1980, 46 percent named "smaller classes," 41 percent "more preparation time," 12 percent "increased paraprofessional help," 9 percent "decreased supervision duties," 7 percent "high salaries," 7 percent "improved physical plan," and 5 percent "increased involvement in decision making."²³

No one seemed to be listening. In 1978, the provincial government ordered Edmonton Public School teachers back to work after a 10-day strike. The teachers walked out on September 7 claiming "they were on strike, as was the case in 1921, not for money but for working conditions."²⁴ When the arbitrator delivered his award in November, he failed to deal with any matters other than salary and threw out a seven-point memorandum of intent dealing with working conditions items.

However, the culmination of the increasing frustration came with the strike by Calgary Public School teachers on May 27, 1980. In a memorandum of agreement, teachers had been offered a 9.5 percent pay increase and a slight reduction in instruction time. However, the main issues for teachers were increased preparation time and a limit on average class sizes.²⁵ The strike lasted 41 teaching days. On September 26, the labour minister ordered teachers to return to their schools. (Earlier in the negotiations, August 7, after meetings between the school board, the teachers" negotiators and the labour minister signed a memorandum of agreement that included establishing a fact-finding commission. On August 15, before teachers voted on the memorandum, the minister announced the members of the commission, which was to be headed by Arthur Kratzmann of the University of Victoria. The task of the commission was to report on working conditions and make recommendations to the minister of labour before December 15, 1980.²⁶)

The terms of reference of the commission were to enquire into and provide a report on:

1. determinants of the quality of education for students;
2. variables in working conditions in organizing and providing for the instruction of students;
3. relationships between those determinants and variables;
4. district and provincial facts, past and projected, concerning variables at issues and their potential impact upon the quality of education, for students; and,
5. relevance of #4 to statutory, curricular and financial provisions.²⁷

Whether deliberate or coincidental, the month prior to the release of the commission¹s report was filled with proposed government changes to education and labour that would have a direct influence on the lives of teachers and might, therefore, divert their attention from the report itself.

Kratzmann released the report, A System in Conflict, in Calgary on December 19. It contained 17 recommendations, five of which were aimed specifically at the Calgary Public School system. Among other things, the recommendations suggested lessening each teacher¹s instructional load to an average of 20 hours per week and reducing the average class size to 20 pupils per teacher. The changes are to be financed by the provincial government over a three-year phasing-in period, from its School Foundation Program Fund grants and will require 4,600 additional teachers throughout Alberta. Other suggestions call for establishing a committee on the quality of work life in each school in the province and an advisory committee on the quality of work life for professionals in each school system.²⁸

Teacher representatives praised the report as providing "an excellent-even eloquent-summary of the conditions and pressures faced by teachers every day in the classroom."²⁹

Early on, it appeared that the government was not prepared to act on the commission¹s recommendations. One of the commissioners, Tim Byrne, reminded teachers that "the report was a detour by the provincial government around the issue of instructional time. It is not binding on the government, board or teachers."³⁰ The government believed that not only had the commission "gone too far" in its recommendations "labour minister"³¹ but also that "the effective impact of some of these recommendations on the education of children is less evident, and therefore will be less immediate" (education minister).³²

More government trial balloons were flown in 1981 to divert teachers' attention away from the report. The minister of education proposed changes to the Teaching Profession Act in February and proposed creating an internship program for teachers. However, by the 1981 ARA, the minister made it clear that the Kratzmann recommendations would be ignored. In his address to ARA delegates, the education minister commented:

I really wish the Kratzmann commission had done a different job than they did. The commission¹s findings could not be used to make decisions for all Alberta because it did not look at other jurisdictions.³³

Nonetheless, ARA delegates debated and passed five emergent resolutions endorsing the report and asked both school boards and the government to support and fund the commission¹s recommendations. Hope for any action by the government on the recommendations was quashed when the minister of education told the Calgary Public ATA local executive that the 20-hour per week and 20 students per classroom recommendations would be taken up by the Task Force on Financing K-12 Schooling in Alberta, due to report in 1983. An editorial in The ATA News suggested that if "teachers were to accept this handling of the issue, they could easily find themselves waiting patiently in the front room while the government sneaked out the back door."³⁴ Once again it appeared to teachers that their concerns about working conditions and class sizes, though apparently supported by the government¹s own task force, were being ignored by the government.

The Summary Report of the Minister's Task Force on School Finance finally surfaced on September 15, 1983, almost nine months after it was received by the minister of education.³⁵ The report recommended increased funding to schools but the recommendations were shelved. The minister claimed that the report was commissioned when the province was on an economic high and that what was proposed was both inappropriate and impossible during an economic downturn.

The Kratzmann Report remains important to teachers. In an attempt to raise the profile of class size again, ATA President Arthur Cowley raised the issue at the 1984 ARA. The president challenged Alberta's Department of Education to undertake a three-year study on class size in a small jurisdiction and proposed that the ATA would pay the bill for the extra teachers if there was "no appreciable improvement in the quality of education." The challenge, of course, was rejected.³⁶

The issues related to the 1980 Calgary Public Teachers' strike and the resulting Kratzmann Report began to emerge once again in 1987. In the provincial budget of that year, the treasurer announced a three percent cutback in education funding. The reason for the cutback, planned as one of three consecutive ones, was the growing provincial deficit. The reaction from school jurisdictions was to cut positions at all levels: full-time teachers, intern teachers, support staff and maintenance staff. In addition, some jurisdictions decided to implement additional user fees and to eliminate various school programs. A survey conducted early in the 1987/88 school year found the following in the 807 schools that responded:

1. student enrolment had increased by 0.42 percent while certificated staffing had decreased by 3.89 percent,
2. pupil/teacher ratios had grown by 4.5% in a single year,
3. split or combined grades at elementary levels had increased by 26%,
4. the use of non-teaching staff had declined by 47.6%, and
5. the number of teacher aides had declined by 39%.³⁷

It was these initial provincial funding cuts that led to renewed concerns about class size and teaching/working conditions.

In 1992, the ATA's Committee on Public Education and Professional Practice sought teacher reaction to current educational developments. In March 1993, the ATA released Trying to Teach. The report summarized the combined effects of the increasing demands that were being made on Alberta's teachers as a result of fiscal restraint and imposed educational change. The report received nation-wide notice and acclaim but once again teachers felt ignored and under attack. A second publication, Trying to Teach: Necessary Conditions, was released in March 1994.

This report was a statement of "what needs to be if schools are to achieve society's legitimate goal of public education for all children."³⁸ What these reports pointed out was that the increasing demands on teachers resulting from reorganization and budget restraints left them feeling overwhelmed, pressured, stressed, powerless and unheard. In addition, they were dealing with changes and innovations that were, in some cases, of dubious value, had a negative influence on some students, were contradictory and lacked research support to show their effectiveness.³⁹

A plethora of criticisms of the public education system emerged in the early 1990s. An editorial in The ATA News attempted to list some of these criticisms:

Southam Press began reporting that many Canadians were illiterate; Maclean's carried articles claiming that schools were doing a poor job of educating; and academic articles suggested that the school system across North America was failing to do the job . . .⁴⁰

The editorial also listed Canadian publications arguing for changes to public education, for example, People and Skills in the New Global Economy by the Ontario Premier's Council (1990), To Be Our Best: Learning for the Future by the Corporate Higher-Education Forum (1990), A Lot to Learn: Education and Training in Canada by the Economic Council of Canada (1992) and International Comparisons of Education by the Alberta Chamber of Resources (1992). It was this latter publication that caused much discussion among those in education in Alberta. It confirmed, according to an Alberta Education news release, that "although Alberta has one of the strongest education systems in the country, things are not all well."⁴¹ Comparing the math and science curricula in Alberta, Japan, West Germany and Hungary, the study produced many of the same concerns that were also raised by University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, professor of psychology, Harold W. Stevenson. He studied schools and students in the U.S., China, Taiwan and Japan. Stevenson found a number of problems with the U.S. system compared to those in Asia, but the synopsis of the article suggested that "Asians excel because school is enjoyable, parents expect performance [from their children], and professionalism in teaching is fostered." On this latter point Stevenson commented:

One of the biggest differences we found was the amount of time teachers had, Beijing teachers were incredulous after we described a typical day in American schools. When, they asked, did the teachers prepare their lessons, consult with one another about teaching techniques, grade the students' papers and work with individual students who were having difficulties? Beijing teachers, they explained, were responsible for classes for no more than three hours a day; for those with homeroom duties, the total is four hours. The situation is similar in Japan and Taiwan, where, according to our estimates, teachers are in charge of classes only 60 percent of the time they are at school.⁴²

Stevenson was invited by Alberta Education to speak at the University of Alberta in fall 1993. Headlines in the local papers indicated that much of Stevenson's message was ignored. The Edmonton Sun's coverage was headed: "Students outclassed at math."⁴³ The Red Deer Advocate stated: "Alberta students rank worst in math, attendance."⁴⁴

The "teacher bashing" and "public education criticism" were sufficient justification for a political claim that the system in Alberta was in need of reform.

The process started with carefully structured government-organized education roundtables in Edmonton and Calgary in October 1993. The reforms processed by the government, however, tended to be economic, not educational. The government had proposed that in an effort to control the provincial financial deficit funding, cuts were necessary. Initially, each government department was requested to plan for a 20 percent reduction in funding. The cut to the provincial education budget proved to be only 12.6 percent over a three-year period. The reforms introduced by government included reducing the number of school boards, reducing the costs of administration, increasing the role of the parent councils, moving to school-based decision making and rolling back teachers' salaries by five percent. It was particularly frustrating that once again teachers were not consulted on the necessity for, or appropriateness of, the changes. The so-called reforms were very much top-down and similar reforms in other countries had "not worked effectively [because] the government failed to involve teachers from the start, failed to consult the frontline workers and their unions."⁴⁵

Teachers' frustration with their working conditions continued to grow. In April 1996, teachers in Alberta were sent an education report card created by the ATA and were asked to fill it out the report card and return it. More than 11,000 teachers responded to the request from 71 percent of the schools in the province. The report card asked them to compare conditions in April 1996 with those in September 1993. The statements and the responses were as follows:

	Increased	Decreased	Stayed same
1. the opportunities for students to participate in extra-curricular activities has	8.4%	46.1%	45.5%
2. time available for spending with students has	3.4%	81.2%	15.4%
3. my average class size has	67.9%	4.0%	28.1%
4. the assistance available to special needs students has	7.5%	78.2%	17.3%
5. the availability of technology for students has	53.8%	16.9%	29.3%
6. the resources available to the classroom teacher have	8.6%	63.5%	27.9%

In addition the survey asked teachers to assess the overall impact of the changes to education:

	Positive	Negative	Neutral
1. on students	3.4%	82.5%	14.1%
2. on teachers	1.8%	94.6%	3.6%
3. on business	14.0%	29.2%	56.8%
4. on school councils	29.4%	35.7%	34.9%
5. on community	7.5%	47.2%	45.3%
6. on parents	10.8%	56.5%	32.7% 46

By the fall of 1997, the frustration of teachers appeared to have reached boiling point. Even Alberta's auditor general was reporting a high degree of stress among public service workers because they were overworked and underpaid. He singled out teachers in particular as under pressure. The culmination of this frustration was a rally at the Alberta Legislature in Edmonton on October 4, 1997.

Approximately 20,000 teachers and supporters converged on the legislature grounds to "celebrate the profession of teaching and to ensure that Albertans and the government "Get the message" that public education needs everyone's support."⁴⁷ No government politicians attended the rally. The minister of education had other plans. The premier "doesn't do" rallies but he did ask the teachers to "work with him." The minister of public works, a former teacher, was quoted in the Edmonton Journal as being disappointed in the turnout. He suggested that if teachers were really concerned there would have been at least 20,000 in attendance. As a result of the rally nothing changed in terms of either working conditions for teachers or class size. Education funding continued only to match the consumer price index despite increasing concerns by both teachers and by growing numbers of parents. The only planned large government expense was for the refurbishing and renovation of schools across the province.

Class size, in particular, continued to be debated. The ATA was pushing for small classes and the government continued to resist such moves claiming that "legislating class size is not the answer. Education is not one size fits all."⁴⁸ In April 1999, the ATA produced a research paper entitled A Study of Class Size and its Effect on Learning. In the executive summary to the paper it stated:

The research findings, while suggesting that teachers and parents support lower class sizes, also point to the fact that in order to achieve maximum impact "class-size reduction should be used in conjunction with other strategies." These would include a review of teaching methods, classroom management and inservice training. Simply reducing class sizes without having sufficient qualified teachers, or not reducing class sizes far enough to have a clear impact simply does not make a difference.⁴⁹

In February 2000, the ATA released A Vision and Agenda for Public Education. This document was the result of several months of consultation between representatives of the ATA, the Alberta School Boards Association (ASBA), the College of Alberta School Superintendents (CASS), the Association of School Business Officials of Alberta (ASBOA) and the Alberta Catholic School Trustees' Association (ACSTA). The document listed the basic elements for public education, the necessary conditions for an effective public education system and a list of priority initiatives on which the government and its education partners need to work together.⁵⁰ In the document, the education partners responded to the premier's call in 1997, after the teachers' rally, to "work with him" on education change.

Since no class size research had been done in Alberta, despite requests to the government to do so, in spring 2000, the minister designated $500,000 as a grant to the Edmonton Public Schools for such research. With the money,10 Grade 1 rooms in the city would have small classes. A university team headed by Dr. Fern Snart, an education faculty professor at the University of Alberta, would study the effects. The results of the study were due in November 2000. On January 16, 2001, The ATA News carried a copy of a letter sent to the Edmonton Journal and the Calgary Herald by ATA Communications Coordinator David Flower. The letter challenged the minister to release the Edmonton Public class size study that he had in the legislature on November 21, 2000. Flower concluded the letter by saying:

If you don¹t want to fund smaller classes for ideological or financial reasons, Mr. Minister, just say so. But please don't confuse the issue with dubious or discredited 'research.' Class size does make a big difference.⁵¹

There was a provincial election March 12, 2001. Prior to that election the government concluded salary agreements with the province's doctors and nurses amounting to more than 20 percent in both cases and agreed to a 13 percent increase for MLAs. On April 5, 2001, the premier, addressing the Progressive Conservative Association convention in Edmonton, made it sound like the teachers could also expect a hefty wage increase. However, despite such expectations, the 2001 provincial budget indicated, for the first time, specific provisions for a six percent increase in teachers' salaries over two years—four percent in the first year and two percent in the second.

The issues promoted by the ATA during the election were class size, funding and support for teachers/students. These were in essence the same issues that had been promoted during the March 11, 1997 election. The Progressive Conservative government was returned with an increased majority.

The minister of learning released the Edmonton Public class size report on March 29, 2001, some four months after he had first referred to it in the legislature and two weeks after the provincial election. The minister claimed the findings of the study were not conclusive and his comments were echoed in the Edmonton Sun:

[it's] hardly a ringing endorsement of the merits of smaller class sizes, if barely one in two students involved actually showed some improvement. Many of the important details of the study were glossed over in the mad rush to criticize the province for not providing enough education funding.⁵²

Teacher frustration continued to mount. At the ARA in May 2001, delegates marched to the Alberta Legislature to demonstrate their dismay at the lack of government action on education funding. One teacher addressing the delegates "expressed her frustration and that of her colleagues' with unrealistic workloads, low pay, lack of mentorship and unrealistic teaching assignments"⁵³ The anger was evident and was expressed effectively by a Grade 3 teacher:

As a new teacher, it is increasingly obvious to me that there isn't enough money allocated to schools to maintain every aspect of a high quality education program. Teacher salaries are low, yet expectations are high. The hours of work are long and suck the creativity out of the teachers. Little wonder that so many teachers leave the profession in their first five years. It is all about funding, which is a government problem, not a teacher or school board problem.⁵⁴

The ATA's concerns became more specific when local negotiations between school boards and their teachers began to break down. By January 11, 2002, four bargaining units had held strike votes, seven had applied to take strike votes and 21 were in mediation. Commenting on the situation, ATA President Larry Booi stated:

Across the province, teachers are sending the clear message that they are no longer prepared to accept classroom conditions that do not allow them to meet the needs of students and salaries that do not reflect their important contribution to society.⁵⁵

The number of disputes continued to snowball. Just two weeks later there were14 bargaining units that had held strike votes, nine had applied to take strike votes and 28 were in mediation. After a press conference on January 17, the ATA president announced that teachers would commence strike action February 4. The reasons cited by the president were consistent, "the work we do is consistently undervalued and our classrooms are inadequately supported by the provincial government."⁵⁶ By February 8, 2002, 18 bargaining units were on strike and prior to the government imposed back-to-work order on February 22, 20,000 teachers were on strike. The ATA decided to challenge the back-to-work order in court while at the same time encouraging the teachers to return to the classrooms. On March 1, Alberta's chief justice supported "the ATA's contention that the government had a duty to demonstrate that a state of emergency existed in each of the jurisdictions in dispute."⁵⁷

In response to the apparent impasse on March 11, the government introduced Bill 12, the Education Services Settlement Act. This legislation was passed into law March 14. It was universally condemned by the media but supported by the ASBA. Edmonton Journal columnist Lorne Gunther summed up the concerns:

You've really got to go some to get me to side with a public sector union president. But the government of Ralph Klein has done it. Read the next eight words with care, I would never have bet I'd ever write them: Alberta Teachers' Association president Larry Booi is right. Legislating an end to the current labour dispute with teachers is bullying, it is undemocratic and does amount to a stab in the back, just as Booi charged angrily at a news conference Monday.⁵⁸

After the passage of Bill 12, the ATA advised its teachers to withdraw voluntary services and to refrain from marking diploma examinations. However, an agreement between the ATA and the Alberta government was announced on April 19, 2002. The agreement prevented the ATA from challenging Bill 12 in court. It was also agreed that the teachers would end their withdrawal of voluntary services and would participate in marking diploma examinations. In return the government agreed to modify the arbitration process, to permit the arbitrators to hear and recommend on teaching and learning conditions, to pay the teachers' portion of the unfunded liability for one year and to refrain from introducing legislation that would affect the structure of the ATA without prior consultation.

The government is to establish an Education Commission to look into the state of public education in the province. However, if the proposed commission does not have some guarantee from the government that its recommendations will be accepted and acted upon, then things will not change any more than they have over the 47 years since the Cameron Commission. Without action to improve the working and learning conditions of teachers and students, the conflict and concern will continue and all the disruption of 2001/2002 will have achieved nothing. The only outcome without some guarantee of improvement is more teacher frustration and more labour frustration.

Footnotes

¹ Cameron Commission, 1959. Page 41.

² Ibid. Pages 4-6.

³ Ibid. Page 11.

⁴ Ibid. Page 185.

⁵ Alberta Teachers' Association, Brief to Alberta Royal Commission on Education. 1958. Page 74.

⁶ Editorial, "Accent on What?," The ATA Magazine, March 1962.

⁷ A Choice of Futures, Edmonton. 1972. Page 304.

⁸ Executive Secretary's Report in the Minutes of the ATA's Emergent Representative Assembly, January 10, 1970. Page 4.

⁹ Letter dated December 15, 1969, from T. C. Byrne, deputy minister of education, to chairmen of school boards and school committees.

¹⁰ Abstract of the Report of the Minister¹s Committee on School Finance, "Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations," prepared for representatives to the ATA's Emergent Representative Assembly held in Edmonton January 10, 1970.

¹¹ Undated ATA document entitled "The Proposed School Act—Major issues and Association concerns about these" prepared for delegates to the ERA, Edmonton, January 10, 1970.

¹² Jo-Ann Kolmes, "Working conditions: a head-on collision," The ATA News, January 15, 1979. Page 4.

¹³ ATA Members' Handbook 2001, pages 76-78.

¹⁴ Editorial "Working conditions are negotiable," The ATA News, January 15, 1971. Page 2.

¹⁵ Report in The ATA News, March 30, 1971, of a paper presented by J. F. Berlando to the Annual Conference of the Alberta School Superintendents' and Inspectors' Association. Page 4.

¹⁶ B.T. Keeler, "Class Size: Sudden New Significance for an Old Problem," The ATA Magazine, May/June 1970. Pages 43-44.

¹⁷ The Worth Report, A Choice of Futures, Edmonton. June 16, 1972. Page 216.

¹⁸ ATA Submission to the Cabinet Committee on Education on the top-ten proposals from A Choice of Futures. Edmonton. October 12, 1972.

¹⁹ A discussion paper prepared for the Curriculum Policies Board by Dr. J. Harder, Alberta Education and Diploma Requirements. Edmonton. Fall 1977.

²⁰ "Alberta teachers pulling more than their load," The ATA News, November 15, 1973. Page 1.

²¹ "Media say teacher morale low in Calgary," The ATA News, November 30, 1977. Page 1.

²² Mary-Jo Williams and Edward Holdaway, "Class Size, a continual concern," The ATA Magazine, November 1977. Pages 18-21.

²³ The Worth Report, A Choice of Futures, Edmonton, June 16, 1972. Page 216.

²⁴ "Edmonton teachers strike," The ATA News Supplement, September 8, 1978.

²⁵ "Calgary Public decides to walk out," The ATA News, May 26, 1980. Page 1.

²⁶ Special 24 page booklet "The Calgary Strike 1980" produced by the ATA and distributed with The ATA News, October 20, 1980.

²⁷ Alberta Labour, A System in Conflict: A report to the Minister of Labour by the Fact Finding Commission. Edmonton, December 1980. Page 102.

²⁸ "'Deep seated problems' uncovered," The ATA News, January 12, 1981. Page 1.

²⁹ Editorial, "They did find the facts," The ATA News, January 12, 1981. Page 2.

³⁰ Earl Hjelter, "Calgary Public given political advice," The ATA News, February 9, 1981. Page 1.

³¹ Editorial, "If you ask for advice, listen to it," The ATA News, January 26, 1981. Page 2.

³² "King expresses doubt on Kratzmann report," The ATA News, February 9, 1981. Page 3.

³³ "King faces barrage of questions," The ATA News, April 20, 1981. Page 1.

³⁴ Editorial, "Pass the buck," The ATA News, October 19, 1981. Page 2.

³⁵ Alberta Education, Financing schooling in Alberta, Summary Report of the Minister's Task Force on School Finance. Edmonton. September 15, 1983.

³⁶ Editorial, "Class size revisited," The ATA News, August 25, 1990. Page 2.

³⁷ "Highlights of School Level Survey," The ATA News, November 23, 1987. Page 3.

³⁸ "Society's views of schools must shift," The ATA News, March 22, 1994. Page 4.

³⁹ "Trying to Teach—a profession in crisis," The ATA News, March 23, 1993. Page 4.

⁴⁰ Editorial, "Something You Need to Know," The ATA News, March 23, 1993, reproduced in Public Education: The Passion and The Politics by B.M. Mackay and David J. Flower. Published privately. Edmonton, 1999.

⁴¹ Alberta Education News Release, No title, March 16, 1992.

⁴² Harold W. Stevenson, "Learning from Asian Schools," Scientific American, December 1992. Pages 70-76.

⁴³ Tim Seefeldt, "Students outclassed at math," Edmonton Sun, October 25,1993.

⁴⁴ "Alberta students rank worst in math, attendance," Red Deer Advocate, October 25, 1993.

⁴⁵ Stuart Maclure, Education Reformed, 3^rd edition, Hodder and Stoughton. London 1992.

⁴⁶ "A Report Card on Education," Special Issue, The ATA News, September 11, 1996.

⁴⁷ "Wow," The ATA News, October 14, 1997.