You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Alberta’ category.
In the context of Alberta’s recent teacher strike, which began on October 6, 2025, following the rejection of a government contract offer, a pertinent question arises. The offer included a 12 percent wage increase for teachers over four years. Rather than applying this raise, what if the equivalent funds were allocated to hire additional educational assistants? Such a reallocation could address classroom support needs directly. This analysis relies on publicly available data to compute the potential impact, prioritizing transparency in figures and assumptions.
Alberta’s education system employs 51,000 teachers under the Alberta Teachers’ Association. Their average annual salary is $85,523. This results in a total annual payroll of approximately $4.36 billion. Implementing a 12 percent increase would add roughly $523 million to this payroll each year, once fully phased in, based on the offer’s structure.
Educational assistants in Alberta earn an average of $33,811 per year. If the $523 million earmarked for the teacher raise were instead used for hiring these support staff, it could fund approximately 15,480 new positions. This figure assumes full-time roles with comparable benefits and no significant overhead variances, focusing on direct salary costs.
This hypothetical redirection highlights trade-offs in education funding. While teachers seek compensation adjustments amid rising class sizes and workloads, bolstering assistant roles could alleviate immediate pressures in classrooms. The calculation underscores the scale of resources involved, inviting scrutiny of priorities in public spending.
Sources and Methodology
To ensure reproducibility, below are the key sources and the step-by-step mathematics used. All data points are drawn from recent, credible reports as of October 2025, with links provided for verification.
Key Data Sources
– Number of teachers: 51,000, from CBC News coverage of the strike (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-alberta-teacher-labour-strike-monday-1.7650856). Corroborated by Human Capital Magazine (https://www.hcamag.com/ca/specialization/industrial-relations/largest-labour-walkout-ever-51000-alberta-teachers-hold-strike/552206) and Calgary Herald (https://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/potential-teacher-strike-results-vote-tentative-deal-province).
– Average teacher salary: $85,523 annually, from Alberta’s Labour Information Service (ALIS) wage survey (https://alis.alberta.ca/occinfo/wages-and-salaries-in-alberta/elementary-school-and-kindergarten-teachers/41221/). Supported by Statistics Canada data (https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3710024301).
– Wage increase details: 12 percent over four years (structured as 3 percent annual), from CBC News (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-teachers-strike-lockout-questions-9.6934129) and Alberta Teachers’ Association announcement (https://teachers.ab.ca/news/teacher-strike-imminent). Additional context from Canadian Taxpayers Federation (https://www.taxpayer.com/newsroom/alberta-teachers-should-be-ready-for-a-long-strike).
– Average educational assistant salary: $33,811 annually, from ALIS (https://alis.alberta.ca/occinfo/occupations-in-alberta/occupation-profiles/educational-assistant/). Hourly equivalent of $24.53 from the same source (https://alis.alberta.ca/occinfo/wages-and-salaries-in-alberta/elementary-and-secondary-school-teacher-assistants/43100/).
Step-by-Step Calculations
1. Total teacher payroll: Number of teachers × Average salary = 51,000 × $85,523 = $4,361,673,000.
2. Cost of 12 percent increase: 0.12 × $4,361,673,000 = $523,400,760 (annualized, post-phasing).
3. Number of educational assistants fundable: Increase amount ÷ Average EA salary = $523,400,760 ÷ $33,811 ≈ 15,480 (rounded to nearest 10 for practicality).
These steps assume the increase represents a permanent uplift in payroll costs. Variations could occur if considering phased implementation or additional factors like benefits (typically 20-30 percent of salary), but the core estimate holds for illustrative purposes. Readers are encouraged to cross-check with primary sources for any updates.
The Alberta government’s proposed deal to the Alberta Teachers’ Association included a 12% wage increase over four years plus a pledge to hire 3,000 new teachers over three years — a headline framework intended to relieve classroom strain and show fiscal generosity. However, the ATA and its membership balked. In their view, the offer fails to guarantee what matters most: enforceable class-size caps, protections against classroom complexity, and compensation that truly restores lost purchasing power. The tentative agreement was rejected overwhelmingly, with 89.5% voting against it, triggering an imminent strike.
The core of the disagreement lies not only in dollars, but in mechanism versus promise. The government’s hiring numbers are political commitments that can be undermined by retirements, attrition, or enrollment growth — they are not a contractually binding solution to class overload. Meanwhile, teachers argue that compensation must do more than rise nominally; it must reverse years of wage erosion and inflationary decline in real earnings. Without structural reforms baked into the contract, the 12% headline looks insufficient to many in the profession.
Below is a snapshot of key terms and where the parties diverge:
| Item | Government Offer (Reported) | ATA Position / Counter-Priority |
|---|---|---|
| Wage increase | 12% over 4 years | Restoration of lost purchasing power; 12% deemed insufficient |
| Staffing | Hire 3,000 new teachers over 3 years | Enforceable class-size caps / meaningful workload limits |
| Other supports | Strike supports (childcare, tutoring), minor add-ons | Retention incentives, support for complex classrooms, early career retention |
Sources:
- ATA press: Teacher strike imminent; tentative agreement rejected (teachers.ab.ca)
- Global News: analysis of government offer and ATA reaction (globalnews.ca)
- Calgary CityNews: reporting on strike mitigation measures and negotiation context (calgary.citynews.ca)
The Parkland Institute’s report on “parental rights” is heavily ideologically slanted. It repeatedly frames parental involvement as a threat to children’s well-being, assumes bad faith on the part of parents and policymakers, and cherry-picks anecdotes—often from the U.S.—while ignoring Canadian legal frameworks that balance children’s rights with parental guidance. It conflates routine educational transparency with medical care access, overstating risks to vulnerable youth. Below, we break down the report’s claims and set the record straight.
1. Claim: “‘Parental rights’ is being deployed to justify legislative changes that restrict inclusive practices…” (p. 4)
Refutation: Alberta’s amendments require parental notification and opt-in consent only for instruction mainly and explicitly about gender identity, sexual orientation, or human sexuality. Incidental references are not covered, maintaining inclusivity while respecting parental involvement.
2. Claim: “These measures… often override children’s rights and ignore the perspectives of supportive parents…” (p. 5)
Refutation: Canadian law balances children’s rights with parental guidance. Alberta’s policy aligns with this principle, ensuring parental engagement without undermining children’s rights.
3. Claim: “Conservatives generally disagree… that children may have rights independent of what their parents may decide is best for them.” (p. 7)
Refutation: This overgeneralizes. Canadian legal frameworks, including the mature minor doctrine, recognize children’s rights independent of parental decisions.
4. Claim: “Such framing of parental rights… is a clear threat to the rights of vulnerable children.” (p. 6)
Refutation: The policy actually protects children by ensuring parents are informed and involved. Presenting it as a “clear threat” ignores the benefits of parental engagement and legal safeguards.
5. Claim: “Parental opt-in for instruction on gender and sexuality… curtailing access to gender-affirming care for transgender children and youth.” (p. 8)
Refutation: Educational policies do not regulate medical care. Access to gender-affirming care is governed by healthcare policy, not school curricula.
6. Claim: “Conservative governments… moved to enshrine a conservative view of ‘parental rights’ in law.” (p. 9)
Refutation: Alberta’s changes are procedural—requiring notice and opt-in—not ideological. The policy simply formalizes parental involvement in education.
7. Claim: “Parents angered by the government overriding their right to support their children’s access to gender-affirming health care.” (p. 8)
Refutation: This conflates education with healthcare. Alberta’s educational policy does not interfere with parental involvement in medical decisions.
8. Claim: “Complaints [about school library materials] actually came from [advocacy groups]… familiar to anyone who has been following… Moms for Liberty’s attacks on books.” (p. 10)
Refutation: Advocacy group involvement doesn’t negate the legitimacy of parental concerns about content. The policy ensures parents are informed, regardless of who raises issues.
9. Claim: “The law… does not give parents the right to override their children’s rights.” (p. 11)
Refutation: True, but incomplete. Canadian law emphasizes balance. Parents still play a key role in guiding their children, especially regarding sensitive educational content.
10. Claim: “Public education… beset by moral panics and wedge issues.” (p. 12)
Refutation: Labeling legitimate parental concerns as “moral panic” is dismissive. The policy simply promotes transparency and communication between schools and families.
Bottom line: The Parkland report is ideologically driven, cherry-picks anecdotes, and overstates risks while ignoring Canadian law and the benefits of parental engagement. Alberta’s policy seeks balance, transparency, and respect for both parental and children’s rights—exactly what a fair, neutral approach should do.
References
- Parkland Institute Report: Challenging ‘Parental Rights’: A Primer for Parents, Students, Educators, and Advocates
- Alberta Education Act Amendments: Supporting Alberta Students and Families
- Parental Rights in Education: What are the legal rights of parents to be notified and opt-in for instruction?
- Children’s Rights in Canada: Rights of children
- Children’s Participation Rights: Review of Children’s Participatory Rights in Canada
On September 1, Alberta’s Fairness and Safety in Sport Act came into force, marking a decisive step in a global debate over equity in athletics. The law—formerly Bill 29—requires athletes aged 12 and older to compete in categories aligned with their sex as recorded at birth. Out-of-province visitors remain exempt, and younger children are unaffected. The aim is not blanket exclusion, but to preserve a level playing field for female competitors.
The rationale rests on clear evidence: even after hormone therapy, biological males often retain advantages in strength, speed, and endurance. A 2021 study in the British Journal of Sports Medicine found that transgender women maintained a measurable edge in running times even after two years of testosterone suppression. High-profile cases—from swimmer Lia Thomas in the NCAA to weightlifter Laurel Hubbard at the Olympics—have underscored how even rare instances can shape competition outcomes and displace female athletes.
Opposition has been swift. Groups like Egale and Skipping Stone argue the Act is discriminatory, casting it as a rollback of human rights protections. Their concern is not trivial: trans youth already face higher rates of marginalization, and exclusion from sport can exacerbate social isolation. For activists, the law sends a stigmatizing signal that identity is secondary to biology, undermining inclusion.
But here the clash of principles becomes unavoidable. Protecting the integrity of women’s sports means acknowledging physiological differences that identity alone cannot erase. Alberta’s law draws that boundary: co-ed and male divisions remain open to all, while female categories are safeguarded for those born female. Critics frame this as erasure; supporters see it as necessary equity.
The deeper problem lies in public discourse. Too often, debate polarizes into caricatures—claims of “rights apocalypse” on one side, or blanket dismissal of trans athletes on the other. Alberta’s legislation is imperfect but pragmatic: it carves out space for participation without sacrificing fairness. Future court challenges will test whether the balance holds, but the principle is clear. True progress in sport must protect all athletes’ opportunities, not just the loudest voices in the debate.
The Edmonton Public School Board’s (EPSB) sweeping book ban has erupted into a quintessential Alberta debacle: a government directive mangled by overzealous implementation, corroding trust in educational oversight.
In July, the UCP government under Premier Danielle Smith ordered schools to remove “inappropriate” materials from libraries, targeting explicit sexual content to protect children. Instead of applying a common-sense filter, EPSB produced a blacklist of more than 200 titles—including The Handmaid’s Tale, The Color Purple, and The Godfather. Even Jaws and works by George R.R. Martin didn’t escape the purge. Critics dubbed it “vicious compliance”: technically following the order, but in a way designed to spark outrage.
Smith quickly condemned the overreach, pausing the ban and pledging clarifications so that classics remain available. The government’s vagueness deserves criticism, but EPSB’s reaction exposed something deeper: Alberta’s educational establishment either failed to grasp the policy’s intent—or chose to deliberately misapply it, then leak the story to embarrass the UCP. In either case, it is professional negligence.
The fallout has been swift. Margaret Atwood ridiculed the move, bookstores report surging sales of “banned” books, and the episode has reinforced suspicions that education officials are more interested in scoring political points than serving students.
Irony abounds: in trying to shield children from explicit content, the government gave its critics ammunition; in trying to follow the directive to the letter, EPSB managed to turn itself into the villain. What should have been a straightforward matter of removing genuinely pornographic material has spiraled into a culture-war sideshow, eroding public confidence in both policymakers and educational leaders.
The lesson is plain: sloppy governance is bad—but bad-faith compliance from those entrusted with education is worse.
In the machinery of modern media, false narratives do not emerge spontaneously. They are the product of deliberate groundwork: the careful shaping of public perception before an event occurs. Borrowing from military doctrine this tactic is called operational preparation of the environment (OPE) which are defined as activities that enhance situational awareness and set conditions for future operations.1 When adapted to the information domain, OPE becomes narrative control: seeding frames, priming audiences, and conditioning reflexive responses that can be triggered later for maximum effect.
Adversaries whether geopolitical rivals, activist networks, or opportunistic elites exploit this tactic by sowing division. The result is a public primed for outrage, where engineered crises and isolated incidents ignite prearranged narratives. Spotting these patterns is the first step toward resisting them.
Repetition and Priming
Narrative preparation often begins with repetition. Specific terms are echoed across platforms until they seem self-evident. Phrases like “stochastic terrorism” or “rising anti-LGBTQ hate” do not spread organically; they are priming devices. For instance, drag events framed as battlegrounds for “bigotry” and “inclusion” gain prominence not because of isolated incidents alone, but because media amplification primes audiences to see a pattern of systemic oppression.2
Consider also the long arc of the “racist policing” narrative. From Ferguson in 2014, through the cases of Michael Brown and Breonna Taylor, to the killing of George Floyd in 2020, framing evolved but the groundwork ensured predictable outrage.3 Media studies confirm that such coverage often prioritizes framing over fact, shaping reflexive responses rather than reasoned analysis.4
Selective Amplification
Once the ground is prepared, selective amplification takes over. An isolated incident for instance, graffiti on a council office, a slur at a rally—balloons into emblematic proof of a “hate wave.” Counter-evidence, such as a shooter’s non-binary identity, often disappears from coverage because it disrupts the narrative arc.5
This is not journalism as truth-seeking; it is journalism as engineering. Narrative amplification corrodes credibility, manufacturing crises that serve political and cultural goals. International rivals such as Russia and China employ similar techniques, weaponizing narrative dominance in conflicts and domestic politics alike.6
Case Study: Edmonton Public Schools
A recent example illustrates how this process operates in Canada. In 2025, the Edmonton Public School Board (EPSB) was accused of “book banning” after it questioned the suitability of certain titles with explicit sexual themes. Activist networks and sympathetic media framed the issue as a matter of “queer affirmation” and censorship. Yet, as I argued in a prior essay, this was not about censorship at all but about narrative warfare; casting parental concerns as bigotry while advancing a predetermined ideological script.7 The case demonstrates how operational preparation of the environment works at the local level: emotional language, repetition of “book ban” rhetoric, and selective omission of context primed audiences for outrage.
Building Inoculation
What does media literacy look like in this landscape? It means detecting the telltale signs of OPE:
- Uniform Surges: Are identical phrases appearing simultaneously across news outlets and social media?
- Emotive Frames: Does coverage push outrage before evidence is fully presented?
- Suppressed Counterpoints: Are inconvenient facts downplayed or omitted?
- Pre-seeded Narratives: Does the framing seem rehearsed, echoing earlier campaigns?
The solution is not paranoia but discipline. Verify facts independently, resist outrage cycles, and name the tactic when you see it—“this is OPE unfolding.” Exposing the method robs it of its power. In the contested terrain of fifth-generation warfare, awareness is both shield and sword.
End Notes
- U.S. Department of Defense, Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, s.v. “Operational Preparation of the Environment.”
- Britannica, “Stochastic Terrorism,” and GLAAD, “Accelerated Rhetoric and Anti-LGBTQ Incidents” (2023).
- The Conversation, “Media Narratives and the George Floyd Protests” (2020).
- Reny, T. & Newman, B. (2021). “The Opinion-Mobilizing Effect of Frames: Media Narratives in the Black Lives Matter Movement.” American Political Science Review.
- NBC News, “Nonbinary Identity of Colorado Springs Shooting Suspect Raises Questions” (2022).
- Canadian International Governance Innovation (CIGI), “Narrative Dominance in the Information Age” (2021); Army University Press, “Information Operations and the Modern Battlespace” (2020).
- The Arbourist, “Book Bans and Narrative Warfare: How the Edmonton Public School Board Plays the Queer Pedagogy Script,” Dead Wild Roses (August 30, 2025).
Picture a library, its shelves stripped of Orwell and Atwood, replaced by outrage: this is the activist’s trap. Critical social constructivism—commonly branded as “woke ideology”—does not depend on truth-seeking but on the imposition of narrative, luring well-meaning observers into excusing captured institutions as merely inept (Kincheloe, 2005). To extend such charity is to enable agendas that corrode trust in public institutions and divide communities.
The Edmonton Public School Board’s (EPSB) recent book removal controversy exemplifies this dynamic. In late August 2025, a leaked list of more than 200 titles slated for removal from K–12 school libraries ignited national outrage. The list included canonical works such as Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Media coverage swiftly framed the list as a right-wing purge: a literary witch-hunt torching academic freedom and signaling Alberta’s dystopian slide.
Yet this spectacle obscures the actual policy. In July 2025, Education Minister Demetrios Nicolaides issued a directive requiring school boards to remove sexually explicit materials by October 1, 2025, to ensure age-appropriate resources in K–12 libraries (Alberta Ministry of Education, 2025). The directive does not ban classics nor prohibit parents from providing controversial works privately. Its scope is limited: public schools, funded by taxpayers, must not circulate sexually explicit material to children.
Seen in this light, the EPSB’s list appears less a bureaucratic stumble than a narrative maneuver. By placing revered classics alongside contested titles such as Maia Kobabe’s Gender Queer—which contains explicit illustrations of sexual acts—and Jonathan Evison’s Lawn Boy, which describes sexual encounters between minors, the Board ensured the reaction would focus on “censorship” rather than explicit content. The outrage generated by the supposed “banning” of Atwood and Huxley distracts from the substantive question: whether K–12 libraries should carry graphic sexual material at all.
To be fair, some argue this was an honest misstep. Officials under pressure may have over-applied vague guidelines, fearing punishment if they erred on the side of permissiveness. From this perspective, the inflated list reflects incompetence, not ideology. This interpretation has surface plausibility—and acknowledging it is crucial. Yet it falters when weighed against the broader intellectual context.
The precise inclusion of classics alongside sexually explicit texts mirrors the rhetorical tactics of queer pedagogy, which openly embraces provocation as a teaching tool. In their influential article Drag Pedagogy: The Playful Practice of Queer Imagination in Early Childhood, Harper Keenan and Lil Miss Hot Mess (2021) describe initiatives such as Drag Queen Story Hour as “strategic defiance” designed to “disrupt normative understandings of childhood” (p. 433). Drawing on José Esteban Muñoz’s Cruising Utopia (2009), they frame queerness as a “future-oriented ideality” (p. 1), using performance and play to challenge authority, destabilize binary categories, and cultivate “embodied kinship” rather than passive empathy (Keenan & Lil Miss Hot Mess, 2021, pp. 434–436).
This framework is not hypothetical. It explicitly advocates the use of aesthetics, provocation, and imaginative unruliness to reshape children’s perceptions. In their words, “Drag pedagogy embraces an unruly vision of childhood as a site of potentiality” (p. 437). Texts like Gender Queer or Lawn Boy, with their focus on sexual exploration and destabilization of normative boundaries, can be read as curricular extensions of this agenda. Their presence in K–12 libraries is not incidental but reflects a coherent intellectual project to prioritize queer cultural forms over developmental appropriateness.
From this perspective, the EPSB’s list functions as a narrative cudgel. By spotlighting Orwell and Atwood, defenders can recast the government’s directive as authoritarian censorship while obscuring the ideological drive to embed queer pedagogy in public institutions. The effect is the same whether activists deliberately curated the list or whether bureaucrats, steeped in activist frameworks, reproduced them unconsciously: outrage is amplified, and the debate is reframed on activist terms.
This is the trap of charitable interpretation. To dismiss the list as simple incompetence is to ignore its functional alignment with queer pedagogy’s playbook: provoke, inflate, and obscure. Even if intent cannot be definitively proven, the effect is unmistakable—a shift of public discourse away from the legitimate question of protecting children’s developmental environments and toward a defensive posture about “book banning.”
The consequences are corrosive. Communities fracture, as defenders of childhood innocence are painted as censors, and activists wield “inclusivity” as a battering ram against parental concerns. Public trust in schools erodes further. And children—the supposed beneficiaries—are caught in the crossfire of ideological contestation.
Children deserve age-appropriate materials in their school libraries—full stop. No law prevents parents from accessing contested works privately, but schools should not be battlegrounds for ideological conquest. The EPSB controversy demonstrates how critical social constructivism (woke) thrives not on truth but on narrative imposition. To resist this, we must reject the activist trap of charitable interpretation and confront directly how such narratives are engineered. Only by doing so can we restore unity, rebuild trust, and protect the integrity of public education.
“Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without an essence.”
(Halperin, 1995, p. 62)
References
-
Alberta Ministry of Education. (2025). Ministerial Order No. 2025-07: Age-Appropriate Resources in School Libraries. Edmonton, AB: Government of Alberta. Retrieved from https://www.alberta.ca/ministerial-orders
-
Keenan, H. B., & Lil Miss Hot Mess. (2021). Drag pedagogy: The playful practice of queer imagination in early childhood. Curriculum Inquiry, 51(5), 433–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.2020.1864621
-
Kincheloe, J. L. (2005). Critical constructivism. New York: Peter Lang.
-
Muñoz, J. E. (2009). Cruising utopia: The then and there of queer futurity. New York: NYU Press.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…