Page Content
Shelley Svidal
The fall sitting of the Alberta legislature, which began on November 15, continues. While the RCMP investigation into alleged irregularities at the Alberta Securities Commission dominated the agenda for oral question period, MLAs also raised many education-related issues. Below are highlights of the proceedings of interest to the Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA):
Education Fundraising
November 23—Jack Flaherty (LIB—St. Albert) asked Education Minister Gene Zwozdesky to commit to eliminating fees and fundraising for basic educational services. Zwozdesky replied that, under the School Act, school boards are allowed to collect fees for "non-essential items such as consumables or other instructional materials and supplies." He added that boards have told him "they don’t feel any tremendous amount of discomfort yet with respect to the fact that some of the fundraising that is going on may be creeping over into the basic area." Flaherty asked Zwozdesky to admit that fundraising creates have and have-not schools. After touting the $23 million the government spends on the education system every school day, Zwozdesky noted that he had promised to provide a detailed response to the recommendation of Alberta’s Commission on Learning to establish province-wide policy on what is considered basic and extras in relation to fees.
English as a Second Language Programs
November 22—Citing Statistics Canada figures indicating that the percentage of Albertans for whom English is not a first language will rise from 17 per cent to 25 per cent over the next 10 years, Wayne Cao (PC—Calgary-Fort) asked Zwozdesky what the government is doing to address English as a second language (ESL) issues. Zwozdesky replied that he had recently appointed a ministerial advisory committee to examine the renewed funding framework, including its ESL components, and that he expects to receive the results of the review by the end of February 2006.
Learning Assessment
November 22—Citing concerns expressed by teachers in his constituency about grade level of achievement (GLA) reporting and computer-adaptive assessment (CAA), George Rogers (PC—Leduc–Beaumont–Devon) asked Zwozdesky to define the terms and explain the difference between them. Zwozdesky defined GLA reporting as "a method by which a teacher will indicate to a parent whether or not that child is performing at grade level standard" and CAA as "a computerized assessment vehicle that will be available for teachers to use with students on an optional basis if they wish." Rogers asked Zwozdesky to explain why his ministry is pursuing the initiatives. Zwozdesky replied that GLA reporting will let parents know whether their children are performing at grade level while CAA will provide teachers with another tool for assessing students. Rogers asked Zwozdesky to identify the implementation timeline for and costs of the two initiatives. Zwozdesky replied that his ministry hopes to implement GLA reporting province-wide within a few years at negligible cost while CAA will cost the government about $1 million a year over the next three years.
Teachers’ Unfunded Pension Liability
November 17—Tony Abbott (PC—Drayton Valley–Calmar) reported that teachers in his constituency, especially those who began teaching after 1992/93, are concerned about their $6 billion unfunded pension liability. He asked Zwozdesky what the government is doing to address the issue. Zwozdesky indicated that he hoped to visit the issue within the next several months, with an eye to possibly reopening negotiations. Abbott asked Zwozdesky whether any negotiations had taken place, given that, in 2004, the government had almost achieved an agreement. Zwozdesky acknowledged that his predecessor, Lyle Oberg, had made a verbal offer in 2004 to both the ATA and the Alberta School Boards Association that would have seen the government assuming responsibility for teachers’ portion of the unfunded liability, valued at $1.9 billion, in exchange for 10 years of labour peace. While the parties were unable to consummate the agreement, government had covered teachers’ portion of the unfunded liability in 2002/03 at a cost of approximately $60 million. He added that it was unfortunate teachers had not been allowed to vote on the verbal offer as teachers had told him they may well have voted in favour of it. Abbott asked Zwozdesky whether the government would consider buying down teachers’ portion of the unfunded liability. Zwozdesky replied that government had three options: (1) do nothing, (2) take over teachers’ portion of the unfunded liability at a cost of approximately $2 billion or (3) consider a partial buydown or buyout of teachers’ portion of the unfunded liability. He stressed that the issue must be dealt with in a sensitive manner and reiterated that he would open discussions at an appropriate time. Unfortunately, he said, he could not do so "right now."
November 28—Describing the 1992 agreement as a bad deal for teachers, Rick Miller (LIB—Edmonton-Rutherford) noted that, on November 17, Zwozdesky had told the legislative assembly that he could not open discussions regarding the unfunded liability "right now." Miller asked Zwozdesky what he was waiting for. Zwozdesky replied that, by "right now," he had meant at that specific moment in debate. He said that he has talked openly about the unfunded liability with school trustees, both at the Alberta School Boards Association’s Fall General Meeting and in his recent meetings with school boards across the province. He outlined the 1992 agreement, stressed the consequences of the unfunded liability for teacher recruitment and retention and indicated that he hoped to open discussions in the new year. Miller asked Finance Minister Shirley McClellan why she considers the 1992 agreement a good deal when it will see the government paying $30 billion over the life of the agreement rather than $4 billion today. McClellan replied that she has never described the 1992 agreement as a good deal. She added that she is not averse to talking with teachers about the unfunded liability and indeed, like many MLAs, she has talked about it with ATA representatives in her constituency. Miller asked McClellan why teachers should have to make the equivalent of a new car payment every month for the rest of their lives to cover an unfunded liability they did not create. McClellan replied that two parties had assumed responsibility for the unfunded liability in 1992, that the same two parties would be party to any future discussions and that Zwozdesky had indicated his intention to engage one of those parties in discussions.
Also In the News
