Changing Times and the In Between Time

People are clearly confused. They want certainty but live in uncertainty. They want to know that patterns they are familiar with will not change, but they will. They want to have a sense that the future is a straight line from the past, but it isn’t.

We are living in an “in-between time” – a time between one model of the way in which the world works and another. A time of rapid, frequent and complex change. A time when decisions made in one place – China, Washington, London – have an impact on us all, even though we didn’t “have our say”. It is a messy, confusing, disturbing time.

Five things are changing quickly:

1.    The United States is changing its place in the world. Whether intentionally or not, the US is no longer seen as a source of truth, certainty or trust. Its former strength – strong diplomacy, a superior military and a rational government – are all no longer self-evident. Its military are struggling even though its budget ($730 billion) is the largest in the world (though not the largest in terms of spend as a percentage of GDP – that would be Saudi Arabia). It is struggling in Afghanistan and in its roles elsewhere in the world. Its diplomats spend their time explaining Trump’s tweets and appeasing the Whitehouse sensitivities and allies are losing faith. As for rational government, look at simple things like gun control, democratic rights, economic policy and ask “is the US a beacon in the way in which it approaches these issues?”. This opens up the space of shaper of global relations – Russia, China and EU now compete.

2.    The global economy is on the edge of recession. The yield curve (difference between short and long term interest rates on bonds) is reversed and debts are rising quickly - $247 trillion needs funding globally and this debt is growing at $2 billion a day.

3.    The nature of work and organizations around the world is changing. Technologies of various kinds (but especially 3d printing, AI, blockchain, stem-cell based manufacturing, robotics, augmented and virtual reality) are changing the relationship between people and machines and impacting job and organizational design.  Companies are making money from intangibles (IP and business processes) rather than tangible goods and services. Some 30-40% of all Canadian jobs will be impacted by technology and it is anticipated that 2.4 million new jobs will be created by 2030.

4.    Family and community dynamics are changing. More single parent families, more single gender families, more divorces and more common-law unions. More complex communities as a result of immigration – leading to issues of multicultural respect, racism and understanding.

5.    Politics are changing. There has always been “party politics” but, until recently, there has also been cross-party collaboration. But wherever you look, we now have very divisive tribal politics. You are either for or against. It is also very personal. If you are for X then you hate Y with a passion. There is a lot at stake – look at Brexit, the Amazon Rainforest, Climate Change, World Trade, relations with Russia and China. At the very moment we need diplomacy and inspired conversation, we have antagonistic and vitriolic shouting.

One instinct people use is called “wishing back to the future” – wishing the future was more like a past they want to recollect (a past which was rarely as they describe it). We have this now in Alberta – people wishing we could go back to when oil and gas was king and cash flowed into and out of the oil and gas sector and created jobs and a vibrant economy. Not going to happen. Too many aspects of the global energy system have changed and too many companies have shifted their understanding of the business that they are in for this to be a viable. In addition, global energy prices will not return to the heady days of oil at $100+ a barrel. Think about it: Shell used to be an oil and gas company and now they are an energy and ecosystems management company; Weyerhaeuser used to be a forest company, now they are a land management and eco-system services company

People want to “blame” someone for the change – the government (either the previous Alberta government or the current Trudeau government), but their role in this is just one cog on a very complex wheel. True – their actions can have an impact, but in the scheme of things the role of a specific individual actor is minor.

Another instinct is to “fight against it all” – to rail against change. The Yellow Vest campaign in France was an attempt to stop sensible reform of working conditions; the “Trumpistas” in the US support a President who wants to roll back environmental regulations, bring back coal and denies climate change. Voting against and campaigning for “a return” to basics in education or for “free speech on campus” or for anything which makes people feel like they can go back in time is what this looks like.

And then we have the “who gives a crap” silent minority who don’t vote, don’t get involved and are then surprised when their world changes and feel depressed, angry, ignored, hard done to and alone. They don’t see voting as helping, but equally they don’t see being an engaged, active citizen as helping either. They expect others to do things for them.

Alberta Curriculum Challenges: Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

In Alberta, our UCP ideologically driven government has appointed a panel of people who have not been inside a classroom in this millennium to review the proposed school curriculum over the next twelve to sixteen weeks. Not one current classroom teacher, student, specialist in students with disabilities, unemployed graduate of media studies, LGTBQ2+ advocate, entrepreneur, expert in literacy, champion of non-profits or person with experience of online learning is on the panel. Naturally, many teachers and school-based administrators are upset.

We should not expect any better from the UCP. This is their modus operandi – create a panel or task force to provide cover for what they are going to do anyway.  Their theory of change is that anything started by the UCP is a mistake that needs to be revised and corrected and that they need “cover to do it”.

But this misunderstands this curriculum change journey. In 2009 the former conservative government engaged a very significant number of Albertan’s in a conversation about schools and curriculum – the largest ever public consultation about education in the province’s history. This led to the publication of Inspiring Education, championed by then Minister of Education Dave Hancock (later Premier) and widely welcomed by teachers, educators and industry. One outcome of this work was the recognition that the province needed a major investment in curriculum redesign.

Former conservative Minister of Education, Jeff Johnson, signed a Ministerial order on 6^th May 2013 which essentially set the curriculum change journey in motion. The next step in 2014 was a series of competitive bids by school jurisdictions to prototype the curriculum indicated explicitly in this Ministerial order. Significant funds were allocated to teams across Alberta to prototype the curriculum and to engage with industry and community partners in doing so. Amongst those asked to be involved in this work were Syncrude, Suncor, Cenovus, Microsoft, Apple, PCL, Safeway and Stantec (some later withdrew after a public uproar over their involvement).

Materials were developed, tested and shared. It is important to note that it was not just teachers engaged in this work – it involved significant consultation. The 203-15 process was estimated to have cost $30 million.

Prototyping took time, but substantial resources were collaboratively developed. And shared Meantime, a change of government occurred but the curriculum work continued. In 2017 the Guiding Framework for Curriculum Redesign K-12 was published and made widely available (drafts of this were circulated to stakeholders throughout 2016). This followed significant new consultation with the public – part of the 2016 announcement of the $64 million, six-year curriculum change journey. An additional $4 million was provided for consultation and engagement with indigenous people focused on ensuring that indigenous ways of knowing and truth and reconciliation were represented across the curriculum in appropriate ways.

In 2016 a major survey focused on specifics of curriculum redesign was launched by the Ministry of Education. 32,391 people answered this – 47% parents, 10% general public, 31% teachers, 9% K-12 students and 3% post-secondary students. The results are available for all to see.

The new NDP government announced in 2016 a six-year time-table for curriculum development and engaged in an active partnership with the Alberta Teachers’ Association, the professional body for teachers, and seconded a great many teachers to work on the new curriculum building on past work (including the prototyping).  This is how curriculum is normally developed around the world: professionals design, test and deploy.

As a result of PISA 2015, some parents expressed concern about mathematics education and began a campaign, supported by some in the media, to “return to basics” in mathematics. The argument is basically this: (a) students are not doing as well on tests of mathematics such as the provincial achievement tests (PATs) or PISA – app. one third of students failed Grade 9 PAT’s in 2018; (b) many students cannot complete simple mathematical problems.  This is the “crisis”. To blame, according to the critics, is the mathematics curriculum which gives emphasis to mathematical ways of thinking and problem solving rather than memorizing times-tables and learning math routines. It is worth noting that, on PISA 2015, Alberta scored 511 in mathematics – the OECD average was 490 and the Canadian average 516.

In both Ontario and Alberta, conservative politicians have vowed to “fix math” by returning to “common sense” and basic math education. Yet many countries who practice this kind of mathematics learning do worse than Alberta on PISA. Part of the concern of the new UCP government in Alberta is to live-up to its election promises with respect to this particular issue.

The pause in implementing the curriculum change – the K-4 new curriculum was to be field tested in the 2019-2020 school year (which starts in September) – is not necessarily a bad thing. Teachers need professional development and support to launch a new program of study and the time between now and the 2020-2021 new school year could be wisely used to support this work if it becomes clear just what the curriculum might be. But after announcing the pause and the flawed review panel, Minister of Education Adriana LeGrange cannot be certain either what the curriculum will be or when it will be available. Given that there is no budget for the education system until October, school boards also have no idea what resources will be available for professional development and needed materials to support the “new” “new” curriculum.

One beam of light came out of Ontario, which did something similar. Premier Ford huffed and puffed about the Health and Physical Education curriculum for elementary students. Ford paused the curriculum change because of its “ideological” bias from the former Liberal government, especially as it related to sex ed. The curriculum then in use was written in 1998 before changes in our understanding and acceptance of gender identity, LGBTQ2+ and sexual orientation. Ford’s team spent over $1 million on consultation and released the new, revised curriculum this week which is largely unchanged from that developed by the Liberal government. While Ford claims that the ability of parents to remove their children from sex ed classes is new, in fact this has been the practice in a great many school boards in Ontario for some time.

Maybe patience is the lesson here. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Jason Kenny and the Test of Time

The early signs from Jason Kenny are clear. He has an agenda. The agenda is a list of classical neo-liberal moves which have yet to produce the outcomes promised anywhere in the world. These agenda items include, but are not limited to:

• Tax cuts for corporations and high wealth individuals. The claim: this will stimulate job growth and economic investments. The facts: this leads to higher pay for executives, share-buybacks, cash hoarding and the movement of money offshore.
• The laying off of teachers, nurses and others in health, education and social service professionals. The claim: this will have no impact on front-line services and is necessary to bring government spending into line with revenues so as to balance the budget. The facts: this has a major impact on health, education and social wellbeing outcomes, creates unemployment and damages the long-term future of the Province.
• The ending of certain taxes, like the Carbon tax. The claim: this is necessary to stimulate the economy and, in any case, there is no evidence that a carbon tax is good for the environment. The facts: (a) this reduces government revenues and increases deficits; (b) it has a direct negative impact on emerging sectors of the economy (so-called green jobs), and (c) the evidence is clear that a CO2 tax is good for the environment. Further, in our case in Alberta, this will lead to the imposition of a worse tax from the Federal Government which, though Jason will challenge, the courts will support. 
• The increased use of public-private partnerships for public works -  building schools, roads, hospitals, etc. The claim: the public sector is “better” and “more efficient” at managing such projects and this will save money. The facts: There is no foundation to the claim that the private sector is better at managing risk than the public sector. Virtually all P3s in Canada have been justified on the basis that they transfer large amounts of risk to the private sector. But a growing list shows that P3s are both riskier and more costly for the public, as the auditors general of Ontario and Quebec has shown. In general, P3’s are more expensive both directly and in the long term for the public than if the public sector built them.

What we will see, as we saw with Harper as PM, is increased debt, higher levels of unemployment and the growth of Government “managerialism” and intervention (we are already seeing this in Ontario) and a lot of nonsense talk ("bringing back the Alberta advantage" and "being open for business" as if we were ever not open for business and as if the advantage was about taxation rather than the abilities of our people and world-class education and health systems).

Deficits are no bad thing if they are within reason and Alberta's debt-deficit is within reason - indeed, many jurisdictions are envious of our strong position. The "blue-ribbon" panel appointed to find opportunities for spending reduction (never a good thing when we go "outside" for this kind of advice - they have little local context) will suggest significant savings so as to bring down the per capita costs of Alberta's public service nearer to that in BC (e,g a cut of app. $1.2 billion in K-12 school spending) without seeing the nuanced differences between BC and Alberta (look at taxation, for example). 

So, after just a few days in office, Kenny is off to the races - largesse everywhere (you can now drink beer and wine in public parks), but favours for a few and misery for the masses.