Tag Archive

You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Narrative Warfare’ tag.

The Issue Is Never the Issue: The Alberta Teachers’ Strike as NDP Revolution

October 29, 2025 in Alberta, Education, Politics | Tags: ATA, Call to Action, Narrative Warfare, The Issue is Never the Issue, UCP Government, Union | by The Arbourist | Leave a comment

“The issue is never the issue; the issue is always the revolution.” This maxim, drawn from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, exposes a tactical pattern: a left-wing movement cloaks a raw power-grab in moral-righteous language. Nowhere is that clearer than in the 2025 teachers’ strike in Alberta.

On the surface, the Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA) insists the fight centres on a “funding crisis” harming students—demanding an additional C$2.6 billion plus large wage increases and stricter class-size caps. Yet the empirical record undermines the narrative that Alberta is desperately under-funded, and it raises the question: is this truly about pedagogy or about politics?

Funding vs Outcomes: The Data

In high-income countries, higher spending per pupil does not reliably produce higher student achievement. For example, U.S. elementary/secondary expenditure was about $15,500 USD per Full-Time Equivalent in 2019, compared with the OECD average of $11,300. (National Center for Education Statistics) A detailed Canadian analysis by the Fraser Institute found that spending fails to correlate strongly with performance on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) tests. (Fraser Institute)

In Canada, real (inflation-adjusted) per-student spending on public schools increased only modestly from 2012/13 to 2021/22—5.1 % nationally—per the Fraser Institute. (Fraser Institute) More relevant: Alberta’s spending dropped 17.2 % in the same period. (Education News Canada) Hence the claim that Alberta’s education system is starving for funds is misleading.

Teacher Compensation & Relative Position

If wage deprivation were the core issue, one would expect Alberta teachers to be significantly out-of-line with their peers. But data show Alberta is not vastly behind. While the ATA asserts salary stagnation, the context is more nuanced: overall compensation is competitive at the national level. That suggests bargaining is less about emergency pay than about positioning. This implies the strike rhetoric—“kids first,” “funding crisis,” “education collapse”—acts as cover for political mobilization.

From Bargaining to Politics

The strike began October 6, 2025, involving some 51,000 teachers across the province and impacting hundreds of thousands of students. (Wikipedia) On October 28 the United Conservative Party (UCP) government invoked the notwithstanding clause through Bill 2—forcing teachers back and imposing a contract. (Alberta Teachers’ Association) That is a dramatic escalation for what many would expect to be a wage-and-conditions dispute.

The Broader Labour Mobilisation

But the strike did not remain isolated. The Alberta Federation of Labour (AFL) president called an “emergency meeting” of public and private-sector union leaders, demanding the government rescind Bill 2 or face “unprecedented collective action.” (Alberta Federation of Labour) Other unions—nurses, custodians, public-sector workers—were implicitly or explicitly aligned. This is no narrower labour stand-off. It is a broad labour front coalescing around a political narrative.

The Political Narrative: NDP Strategy

Enter the Alberta New Democratic Party (NDP). Its leadership framed the battle as existential for the UCP, calling Premier Danielle Smith “coward” and declaring the strike “the beginning of the end” for the ruling party. Polls report the UCP’s approval tumbling.
The symbiosis is clear: union mobilisation, educational disruption, and political leverage combine. The “funding for students” narrative appears to morph quickly into a power-battle for political realignment.

When the “Kids First” Slogan Masks a Revolutionary Agenda

Framing the strike as entirely student-centric hides the political logic. By shutting schools and generating parental strain, the strike creates electoral pressure. The rhetoric of “for the kids” serves as a Trojan Horse. Unions and the NDP do not merely seek more money—they seek to reshape fiscal policy, entrench union influence, and weaken the standing party. As the Fraser Institute reminds us, simply throwing more money at K-12 education rarely produces measurable gains; the real levers lie in teacher-quality, accountability, curriculum rigour—not just budgets. (Todayville)
In Alberta the material case for emergency action is thin: if funding and compensation are already broadly in line, the crisis rhetoric becomes suspect.

What Should Parents & Taxpayers Do?

Demand transparency: If the ATA or any union claims a “funding crisis,” ask for hard numbers—what line-items, what enrolment ratios, what outcome improvements are promised?
Insist on measurable results: Additional spending should come paired with accountability—higher literacy scores, lower drop-out rates.
Consider union-monopoly reform: If classrooms become battlegrounds for ideological or political conflict rather than learning, the monopoly model must be questioned.
Focus on high-leverage reform, not just dollars: Empirical studies suggest teacher quality and delivery matter far more than marginal increases in spending.
Recognise tactics: If a labour dispute evolves suddenly into broad political mobilisation, parents must ask: am I seeing advocacy for children or agitation for power?

The Stakes

If the revolution behind the strike succeeds, classrooms become pawns in a much larger game: the transformation of Alberta’s political economy, the elevation of public-sector unions as political actors, the weakening of fiscal restraint.
Parents may believe they support “kids first,” but without scrutiny they might end up supporting ideological conquest. The issue is never merely education—it is power. The question isn’t only “will teachers get more pay?” but “who gets to control the education agenda?”
Let classrooms remain places of learning, not battlegrounds for political realignment.

Bibliography

Fraser Institute. Education Spending in Public Schools in Canada, 2024 Edition. Vancouver: Fraser Institute. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/education-spending-in-public-schools-in-canada-2024.pdf (Fraser Institute)
Fraser Institute. School Spending and Performance in Canada and Other High-Income Countries. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/school-spending-and-performance-in-canada-and-other-countries.pdf (Fraser Institute)
Fraser Institute. “Six out of 10 provinces increased per-student spending on public schools, even after adjusting for inflation.” Education News Canada, August 23 2024. https://educationnewscanada.com/article/education/level/k12/3/1097267/six-out-of-10-provinces-increased-per-student-spending-on-public-schools-even-after-adjusting-for-inflation.html (Education News Canada)
ATA. “ATA to Challenge Bill 2.” Alberta Teachers’ Association News Release, October 27 2025. https://teachers.ab.ca/news/ata-challenge-bill-2 (Alberta Teachers’ Association)
Amnesty International Canada. “Alberta’s use of notwithstanding clause in Bill 2.” Press Release, October 28 2025. https://amnesty.ca/press-releases/alberta-notwithstanding-clause-bill-2/ (Amnesty International Canada)
Discover Airdrie. Anna Ferensowicz, “Where Alberta stands in national school spending: Fraser study.” September 12 2025. https://www.discoverairdrie.com/articles/where-alberta-stands-in-national-school-spending-fraser-study (Discover Airdrie)
Todayville. “Spending per K-12 student in Canada ranged from …” (2022-23 data summary) https://www.todayville.com/spending-per-k-12-student-in-canada-ranged-from-13494-in-alberta-to-19484-in-quebec-in-2022-23/ (Todayville)
Global News. “Alberta teachers say fight just begun but will follow the law …” October 2025. https://globalnews.ca/news/11497853/alberta-teachers-strike-will-follow-law-back-to-work-bill/ (Global News)
Wikipedia. “2025 Alberta teachers’ strike.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Alberta_teachers%27_strike (Wikipedia)

Alberta Teachers’ Strike and the Funding Myth: When Data Defies the Narrative

October 26, 2025 in Alberta, Education, Politics | Tags: Alberta, ATA, Education, Narrative Warfare | by The Arbourist | Leave a comment

As Alberta’s teachers’ strike enters its fourth week, the Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA) continues to frame its demands as a crusade for student welfare. Yet the claim that “more money equals better outcomes” collapses under scrutiny. From OECD comparisons to provincial spending data, the evidence shows that educational achievement depends far more on teaching quality, curriculum, and social factors than raw dollars. The strike, for all its moral packaging, reveals a deeper struggle over power, perception, and the limits of evidence-based policy.

The Alberta Teachers’ Association claims more funding will improve student outcomes—but decades of Canadian and international data show little correlation between spending and achievement. Here’s what the evidence actually says.

The Illusion of “Funding Equals Outcomes”

The ATA has justified its province-wide strike—launched on October 6, 2025—as a moral stand for students, demanding over $2.6 billion in new funding, along with wage hikes and class-size caps. This narrative, however, fails the empirical test. International and domestic data demonstrate no consistent correlation between per-student spending and academic performance in either Canada or the United States.

By invoking student welfare while halting instruction for hundreds of thousands of children, the ATA’s rhetoric converts a standard labor dispute into a manipulative moral appeal. The union’s campaign, in effect, weaponizes classrooms to secure greater compensation—substituting sentiment for substantiation.¹²

International Comparisons: Money Doesn’t Buy Results

Cross-national data dispels the myth outright. In 2021–22, the United States spent an inflation-adjusted $15,500 per K–12 student, compared to $12,229 in Canada.³ Yet on the 2022 PISA assessments, Canadian students outperformed Americans across all domains—mathematics (497 vs. 465), reading (507 vs. 504), and science (515 vs. 499).⁴

Within Canada, spending disparities tell the same story. Quebec, investing roughly $11,000 per pupil, consistently ranks among the top performers in PISA literacy and numeracy, while Saskatchewan, despite a 14.8% real spending increase from 2018–2022, has seen no corresponding gains in outcomes.⁵⁶ As the Fraser Institute concludes: “Higher levels of per-student spending do not achieve higher student scores on standardized tests.”⁷

U.S. Evidence: The Plateau Effect

American data reinforces this pattern. Brookings Institution research on state-level NAEP scores finds that per-pupil expenditure is “only weakly related” to student performance, with intrastate differences far outweighing funding gaps between states.⁸ The Mountain States Policy Center adds that even after controlling for demographics, “little if any positive correlation” remains.⁹

Despite record K–12 spending of $857 billion in 2022, U.S. achievement continues to slide: 8th-grade reading scores fell three points since 2022, even after adjusting for inflation.¹⁰ Meta-analyses from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) quantify these effects precisely—every 10% increase in spending yields only a 0.05–0.09 standard deviation improvement in test performance, with benefits plateauing beyond basic adequacy.¹¹¹² In short: money matters, but only up to the point where systems are competently run.

Alberta’s Context: Selective Honesty and Strategic Obfuscation

ATA President Jason Schilling claims “chronic underfunding” drives poor outcomes. Yet Alberta’s per-student funding already aligns with or exceeds most provincial benchmarks when enrollment growth is accounted for.¹³ The union’s October 14 proposal advances structural demands unsupported by the evidence it cites, while rejecting a 12% wage offer that would make Alberta’s teachers the second-highest paid in Canada.¹⁴

This contradiction reveals intent. The ATA’s approach—threatening continued disruption and “work-to-rule” resistance post-legislation—shows the strike is less about pedagogy than about extracting concessions under moral camouflage.¹⁵ Polling confirms this miscalculation: while Albertans sympathize with smaller class sizes, they oppose protracted strikes that harm students.¹⁶

What the Evidence Actually Shows

Decades of research converge on one conclusion: achievement is driven not by spending, but by teaching quality, curriculum coherence, and socioeconomic stability.¹⁷ The global example is Estonia, which spends less than half the U.S. per pupil yet consistently ranks among the top five PISA performers due to its rigorous national curriculum and teacher accountability systems.¹⁸

The ATA’s position, by contrast, exemplifies a form of narrative warfare—a strategic fusion of moral rhetoric and material self-interest. Its funding narrative exploits public empathy while sidestepping empirical accountability. Policymakers should reject this coercive model and instead target resources toward proven reforms: effective instruction, rigorous content, and genuine equity—not symbolic spending.

Alberta Teachers’ Association, “Moving forward with bargaining,” October 15, 2025, https://teachers.ab.ca/news/moving-forward-bargaining ↩
CBC News, “Back-to-work legislation to end Alberta teachers’ strike coming Monday,” October 23, 2025, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/back-to-work-legislation-to-end-alberta-teachers-strike-coming-monday-says-premier-9.6949884 ↩
OECD, Education at a Glance 2024, Table B1.1, https://www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance/ ↩
OECD, PISA 2022 Results (Volume I), 2023, https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/pisa-2022-results.htm ↩
Statistics Canada, “Elementary-Secondary Education Expenditure,” 2023, https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/81-582-x/81-582-x2023001-eng.htm ↩
Fraser Institute, “Comparing the Provinces on Education Spending and Student Performance,” 2024, https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/comparing-provinces-education-spending-student-performance ↩
Ibid. ↩
Brookings Institution, “The Geography of Education Inequality,” 2023, https://www.brookings.edu/research/geography-education-inequality/ ↩
Mountain States Policy Center, “Education Spending and Student Outcomes,” 2024, https://mountainstatespolicy.org/education-spending-outcomes ↩
NCES, Digest of Education Statistics 2023, Table 236.10, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d23/tables/dt23_236.10.asp ↩
NBER, “The Effects of School Spending on Educational and Economic Outcomes,” Working Paper 24649, 2022, https://www.nber.org/papers/w24649 ↩
Ibid. ↩
Alberta Education, “Funding Manual 2024/25,” https://www.alberta.ca/funding-manual ↩
Nate Horner (@NateHornerAB), X posts, October 2025, https://x.com/natehornerab ↩
Alberta Teachers’ Association, “Bill 2 won’t fix the crisis,” October 24, 2025, https://teachers.ab.ca/news/bill-2-wont-fix-crisis-alberta-classrooms ↩
Angus Reid Institute, “Alberta Teachers’ Strike Poll,” October 2025 (summary via media) ↩
Hanushek, E., “The Impact of Differential Expenditures on School Performance,” Educational Researcher, 1989. ↩
OECD, PISA 2022 Results, Country Notes: Estonia. ↩

Orange Shirt Day: A Mea Culpa on the Power of Narratives

September 30, 2025 in Canada, Education, History | Tags: Narrative Warfare, Oops, Orange Shirt Day | by The Arbourist | 1 comment

In a recent post, I criticized Orange Shirt Day as a ritualized form of national self-loathing. That critique stands — but I have to admit I fell into a trap myself: I repeated elements of the story of Phyllis Webstad without checking the details.

Her now-famous account is that, as a six-year-old, she was sent to St. Joseph’s Mission, where her brand-new orange shirt was taken away on her first day. That image — the innocent child stripped of her identity by cruel authority — became the symbolic foundation of Orange Shirt Day and, in turn, the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. It is powerful. It moves people. It creates policy.

But is it literally true in every detail? The answer is murkier than most Canadians are led to believe. Critics such as Rodney Clifton, a former residential school worker and researcher, have pointed out that Webstad attended St. Joseph’s when it was functioning as a student residence — not a traditional residential school — and that she attended public school in Williams Lake. Others note that staff were often Indigenous lay workers rather than the stereotypical “nuns with scissors.” Even Webstad herself has described that year as one of her “fondest memories,” a detail that vanishes from the public retelling.

In other words: the story has been simplified, polished, and repeated until it no longer represents the whole truth. This is how narratives work. They take a fragment of reality and expand it into myth — and then the myth becomes untouchable. Questioning it, or even pointing out inconsistencies, can make one a “denier” or a “deplorable.”

That is the lesson here. I fell for the narrative too, because it was convenient. It had emotional force. It seemed to explain everything at a glance. But truth — especially historical truth — is rarely that neat.

If Canadians want real reconciliation, it has to be based on facts, not fables. We do Indigenous people no favors by sanctifying selective memories while ignoring the messy, complicated realities of reserve life, family breakdown, and the mixed legacy of institutions like St. Joseph’s. Nor do we honor our own country by allowing symbolic stories to become instruments of guilt rather than prompts for genuine understanding.

References

Orange Shirt Society: Phyllis’ Story — orangeshirtday.org
Rodney Clifton, They Would Call Me a ‘Denier’ — C2C Journal
UBC Indian Residential School History and Dialogue Centre, About Orange Shirt Day — irshdc.ubc.ca
Troy Media, Clifton & Rubenstein, The Truth behind Canada’s Indian Residential Schools — troymedia.com

Book Bans and Narrative Warfare: How the Edmonton Public School Board Plays the Queer Pedagogy Script

August 30, 2025 in Alberta, Culture, Education, Politics | Tags: Age Appropriate Materials, Alberta Education, Book Banning, Edmonton Public School Board, It's a Trap, Narrative Warfare, Queer Activism, Woke | by The Arbourist | 4 comments

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)