“It’s not going to be a disaster in education”—Hancock
Education funding moved to the front of the daily agenda as the spring sitting of the legislative assembly drew to a close May 12. MLAs from all parties peppered Minister of Education Dave Hancock with questions about anticipated staff reductions. Below are highlights of some of the proceedings between April 26 and May 12.
April 26—Kent Hehr (LIB—Calgary-Buffalo) asked Minister of Education Dave Hancock to tell the legislative assembly how many teachers and support staff school boards would be forced to lay off as a result of the provincial education budget. Hancock replied that he could not tell the assembly how many teachers would be laid off or how many would not be hired. “It would be depending on how many retirements there might be in particular jurisdictions, how many people choose to leave for maternity leave and various other things that go into the makeup of the teacher force every given year,” he said. Hehr asked Hancock to stop the last day of school for students from becoming the last day of teaching for hundreds of teachers. “The hundreds of teachers who have put in their 35 and 40 years of service to this province and are looking forward to retirement should not be stopped from having that last day if that was their choice,” Hancock replied. “I’m not going to say that nobody is going to have a last day this year. Of course, people are going to have last days. Some are going to choose to have it and some may not, depending on what a school board has to do.”
April 27—New Democrat Leader Brian Mason asked Hancock why government had failed children by forcing school boards to lay off hundreds of teachers and other staff. Hancock replied that government had not failed students. Rather, during government’s tenure, the province’s education system has become one of the best in the world. Suggesting that class sizes would increase and the basic needs of students with special needs would not be met, Mason asked Hancock to explain why government had let students down. Hancock replied that the needs of students with special needs and class size guidelines were being met with the exception of guidelines for kindergarten to Grade 3. Mason asked Hancock why he was making children pay the price for government’s fiscal mismanagement. Hancock replied that there was no danger one of the best education systems in the world would collapse overnight due to tough fiscal times.
April 28—Reporting that Calgary School District would lay off hundreds of teachers and that Fort McMurray Roman Catholic Separate School District would cut one day of instruction per week, Mason asked Hancock why his priority was the Education Act rather than ensuring enough teachers in Alberta classrooms. “In the end there will be enough teachers in the classroom because it’s the quality of teachers we have in this province which makes a difference, not the time in front of the students and not the number of students in front of the teacher,” Hancock replied. Reporting that Edmonton School District could lose hundreds of teachers and that Prairie Rose School Division No. 8 would offer half-day rather than full-day kindergarten, Mason asked Hancock to admit that the real problem with education is “the shameful PC budget cuts.” Replied Hancock, “There may be some job loss, but it’s not going to be a catastrophic disaster for one of the strongest educational systems in the world.”
April 28—Manmeet Bhullar (PC—Calgary-Montrose) asked Hancock whether he had considered reducing the cap on headquarter and school trustee expenses from four per cent to three per cent. Replied Hancock, “We haven’t at a provincial level considered changing the guidelines which provide for up to four per cent for urban boards and up to six per cent for rural boards.” He added that government would expect that each board would look at its administrative expenditures.
May 10—Kent Hehr (LIB—Calgary-Buffalo) asked Minister of Advanced Education and Technology Greg Weadick why government was cutting job opportunities for new teachers when Alberta would need more teachers in the future. Acknowledging that 2011/12 would be a tough year for education, Weadick noted that some teachers who were eligible to retire this year have chosen not to retire, removing some of the potential for new jobs. Hehr asked Weadick why government could not see the need for sustainable, predictable education funding. Weadick replied that his ministry is working closely with regional colleges to create new degree opportunities. “One of the degrees that they most want to deliver locally is education degrees for new teachers for their communities,” he said. Reporting that Hancock had been advising new teachers to wait until next year, Hehr asked Weadick whether he could offer better advice. “We’re already starting to see some openings,” Weadick replied. “Unfortunately, some teachers will be working within the subbing system this year, but over the course of the year we hope to continue to integrate our new teachers into the system and create opportunities for young teachers as they come out. Our young teachers are very energetic and well trained, and we want to work them into the system as quickly as we can.”
May 11—Kent Hehr (LIB—Calgary-Buffalo) asked Minister of Finance and Enterprise Lloyd Snelgrove why government was refusing to make hard decisions to protect children’s futures. Snelgrove replied that government has to make hard decisions regarding seniors, children in care, health care and education. “On the other end is the taxpayer, and we balance those judgments,” he said. Hehr asked Snelgrove why government does not allocate $110 million from the Sustainability Fund to cover the shortfall in education funding. Snelgrove reiterated that government has to balance sometimes conflicting demands. Hehr asked Snelgrove why government does not reintroduce a liquor tax, access the Sustainability Fund or cut expenditures in ministries other than Education to cover the shortfall in education funding. “We’re moving forward with a well-funded, very balanced approach to educating not only our young students but our advanced education needs as well,” Snelgrove replied.
May 11—Rachel Notley (NDP—Edmonton-Strathcona) asked Hancock to justify government’s failure to ensure children’s future through the provision of adequate, stable and predictable education funding. Hancock replied that the province’s education system—one of the top five in the world—is not struggling. Suggesting that Alberta would lose 1,000 teaching positions, Notley asked Hancock to admit that government had sold him out and left him holding the bag for an impending crisis in education. Hancock replied that there is no impending crisis in education. Describing the estimate of 1,000 lost teaching positions as “a very, very significantly escalated estimate,” he suggested that most positions would be lost through attrition. Noting that funding for students with special needs has been frozen for three years, Notley asked Hancock whether the impact of staff reductions on those students was a legacy he and government were proud of. “To suggest that school boards across this province would target the most needy and the most difficult students is absolutely ridiculous,” Hancock replied “No cuts have been made in spending for special needs students.”
May 12—Art Johnston (PC—Calgary-Hays) asked Hancock what he was doing to ensure that Alberta’s education system provides children with the essential skills and learning opportunities they need to contribute to the province and a knowledge-based economy when they graduate. Hancock replied that, under Premier Ed Stelmach, government had “resolved a long-standing unfunded pension liability, which led to a five-year agreement and the best relations with teachers and the best relations with school boards that this province has ever had so that we can spend the time talking about the future of education, which we’ve done and we’re implementing.”
