The latest in the long line of Ministers of Municipal Affairs is perfectly positioned politically to connect with this conservative constituency.  But it’s going to take more than announcements to truly connect.  If there is to be a redeemer for this infamous ministerial position, it might just be Danielle Larivee.

​Larivee, recently minted Minister of Municipal Affairs, becomes the sixth Minister of Municipal Affairs since the 2013 Floods, and the latest to inherit the DRP Disaster.  That is a new boss every 4.5 months, or 19 weeks.  Marginally longer than the average probationary period for a job at Tim Horton's.

Following the provincial election in the spring we were expecting the NDP to appoint a saviour for the flood victims who would oversee DRP’s repairs and the completion of mitigation projects.  Apparently the title Minister of Municipal Affairs is filled with bad joo joo, and Deron Bilous was shifted out of the job, just like his four predecessors.

It’s this premonition I am most worried about.  Thankfully Minister Larivee is actively combatting those bad omens.

Today she announced $30 million in funding for the various mitigation projects on the Highwood River, the most significant of which is the southwest berm, a project High River Mayor Craig Snodgrass has deemed of the utmost importance.  In addition, she has also committed to studying upstream and downstream mitigation to prevent further disasters.  The Deltares reports have been used to reaffirm that diversion is not the best option, and represents a good decision and initiative started by the previous PC Government.

Minister Larivee has also stated a number of fixes to the DRP program.  One of those fixes was that every file that was paid a little too much (likely from the 90% advance promised by Jim Prentice) will be able to keep that money if it was under $5000.  For those who were given over $5000 too much, other arrangements need to be made.  Larivee also said she was looking for complete closure of all DRP files by June 20, 2016.  She indicated that DRP will take “a proactive approach to establishing contact with” the people whose files have remained inactive, likely because the applicant isn’t calling the province back.  There are plenty of reasons why they wouldn’t call the province back, all of them legitimate, so it is great to hear that the government will seek them out rather than waiting for contact themselves.  This should also allay fears that DRP will close files prematurely, and show care, consideration and compassion for the remaining applicants.

Much of this is good news.  It means her hands are on the files, and she is actively seeking completion in this area of her ministry.  I feel the need to apply a bit of pressure, as she is after all the sixth person tasked with this.  To be clear, after having talked with Minister Larivee briefly, she is very aware that nobody wants yet another person in charge, and she wants to be the one to finish the job.  That in and of itself is a huge plus, and if she gets it done, she could be considered the redeemer of that infamous ministerial position's bad joo joo.

The pressure has to be on three issues.

1. Minister Larivee committed to closing files, but as she was asked by staff of the High River Times and as I have asked before, the word “closed” is not the same as “fully funded”.  She admitted today to not being briefed on the difference in definitions.  I assert that in order to be able to fulfill her June 20, 2016 deadline, she needs to know exactly what those definitions are, and not just be briefed on them.  Briefings have been shown to fall short of fact, and as a result former Ministers have had their ability to oversee the DRP limited.
2. Minister Larivee did not commit to an independent review of the DRP program, and in fact led people at the announcement today to believe that she has no intention of going down that road.  That is dangerous territory, because few Albertans are going to trust the reports she has received, as they were all commissioned by the Alberta Emergency Management Agency, the office in charge of DRP.  That would be like an employee conducting their own employee review.  In order for the recommendations to be trustworthy in the eyes of Albertans, including the 91% of Alberta Urban Municipalities who voted to call for this inquiry, such recommendations must come from a study that is entirely independent of the AEMA, and maybe even the Ministry itself.
3. Finally, today was yet another announcement.  After every shuffle, whether it is because somebody quits to run for a leadership, a Wildrose caucus defects to the PCs, or a new Ministry of Economic Development causes the shuffle, the new Minister comes out to High River with an announcement.  High Riverites cannot be faulted for demanding more than an announcement.  They want action.  $30 million for flood mitigation is action.  Helping flood victims close this chapter of their lives is action.  This was a great announcement from Minister Larivee, but now the pressure must be placed on her to ensure she converts it to action, and that she is directly involved throughout the process.

Time will tell how serious Minister Larivee is about getting this job done.  The metric to be watching for is how hands-on she remains.  Her predecessor didn’t.  Maybe Larivee can rebuild some bridges, both literally and figuratively, and while she’s at it, make connections between the NDP Government and people out here in conservative country.

We want to trust our government.  We need a reason to.  Minister Larivee is perfectly positioned to give us that reason.  The Ministry of Municipal Affairs is in big need of redeeming.  So I’m watching.

​And I’m hoping.

Wildrose MLA Wayne Anderson, the DRP Advocacy Committee, and Alberta Party Leader Greg Clark have all been upset about the supposed progress the DRP has been making.

I don’t believe they’ve been upset enough.  I am so disappointed in this government operation that I am now calling for the resignation of the Director of the AEMA Shane Schreiber, and am joining the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association in calling for an independent review of the Disaster Recovery Program.

Minister of Municipal Affairs has shown how out-of-touch he is with the program in his latest statement to the press.  It is obvious he is being fed manipulated information from the AEMA Director, and has no clue what actual progress on the DRP files actually looks like.

Allow me to review how I came to this conclusion.

I have kept a log of the various updates to DRP statuses, particularly for High River.  Here are some strange anomalies I have found:

That wasn’t the only time that happened.  In fact, between mid-August and early-September, 4 more residential DRP files (including tenants) seem to have been found.  This makes the total “found” files since Prentice’s promise to close all files by the summer add up to 11.  Where have these files been since the deadline 22 months ago?

These are just the examples of mismanagement.  Now I get to the anomalies that show misinformation.

Up to mid-April, an application may have been considered fully-funded, and therefore in progress, but it was not considered “open”.  Yet every month following, fully-funded files were considered “open”.  I have to wonder if this was done so that the DRP office could report, during an election, that only 6% of High River files remained open, even though a month after the election that number would suddenly jump to 16% after the NDP took office.

Stranger still is Minister Bilous’s explanation of what “fully-funded” actually means.  He suggests that designation means a claimant has received all the money they are going to get.  To be clear, I don’t believe this is his own personal definition, but rather a definition that has been handed to him.  One has to wonder what the “paid” designation means, if not that the claimant has received all the money they are going to get.

“Open” doesn’t really mean requiring closure.  Based on how DRP has been run, even a closed file can be open again without entering an appeals process.  Interesting to note, while the PCs were in power, the number of “open” files got smaller more quickly.  Once the NDP came to power, the number of “open” files suddenly spiked, and the only way to close them is to force the issue, such as with the small business deadline mentioned.

“Paid” doesn’t really mean applicants have received money.  It means a cheque has been authorized.  It hasn’t necessarily been printed, and certainly doesn’t mean it’s been delivered.  I think.

I don’t believe the definition of the term “fully-funded” Mr. Bilous offered, although I suspect the definition was fed to him.  None of the statistics up to this point verify his proferred definition.  “Fully-Funded” is a particularly confusing term, because what it suggests to me is that those that are not fully-funded have no funding available for them, even though DRP currently has a surplus.  Based off information I've received from the DRP Advocacy Committee, this is not far from true.  Claimants submit their receipts, and hopefully 100% of those receipts get funded; or claimants who can't afford to pay up front submit quotes for work to be done, and hopefully 90% of these quotes get funded (matching Prentice's January Promise).  Those that are in “Administrative Processing” therefore must be files that are open and for whom DRP must lobby government to fund.  Those that are in “Eligibility Review” must be those that are being reviewed as to whether or not they are worth lobbying for.  Those that have “Action Required” must be those that are waiting to enter into either category.  I hope I’m wrong about these, but one thing is for certain; “fully-funded” cannot simply mean claimants in that category have received all they’re going to get.


There is also another designation that hasn't made it to the statistics reports, and that is the term "Complete".  At one point in time "Complete" meant everything that could be done with a file was done, the only thing missing was the issuance of a closure letter.  Why have this designation if not to delay sending closure letters so as to delay potential appeals?

But that's not even the best part; the term "Complete" has also changed as well, the biggest change surrounding then-Minister of Municipal Affairs Ken Hughes.  At one point in time we thought he'd be running for the PC Leadership, and his announcement that all DRP files would be 90% "Complete" by March 31, 2014.  When he realized that wasn't possible, he changed what the word meant; "Complete" now meant that DRP had sent out cheques for 90% of receipts received.  Suddenly lots of small cheques backlog the system, and claimants get confused when they are told their file is "Complete" yet they haven't handed in all their receipts yet.

This is similar to the current issue around the term "Fully-Funded", it is a term that confuses claimants into thinking they've got all the money they're going to get, so why bother continuing on?

All of this results in the steady, albeit slow, increase in the number of “closed” files (to the tune of two or three files each week).  At least that is true in High River, where the DRP Advocacy Committee continues to raise a stink.  If you live anywhere else, your number of “closed” files are actually decreasing.

Meanwhile 2014 DRP files (for the floods that happened in southwestern Alberta) have been delayed by the 2013 backlog, and Calgary has been denied DRP funds to deal with “Snowtember”, yet DRP money is not being completely spent.  I can only conclude one rationale for all these things.

Someone is trying to save their own skin.

If the 2013 DRP files appear to be closing, and the program manages to turn a surplus, your boss, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, is likely to let you to do your work.  He might even give you some leniency for your high rate of staff turnover, the apparently complicated files being closed slowly, and the fact that almost 20% of files go to appeals (much higher than the 10% norm).

Frankly, I might be willing to do the same.  Until I see how I’ve been manipulated.

And make no mistake, Mr. Bilous has been manipulated. I would bet certain staff are counting on the fact that Mr. Bilous may not fully understand the definitions of each category of claim, which is why those definitions keep shifting.  He may agree with a staff member who says “snow is not an abnormal event in Alberta”, despite “Snowtember 2014” being the heaviest snowfall any September has ever seen in the past 130 years.  But the fact is definitions are being manipulated, facts are being blurred, and staff members are keeping their jobs by doing it.

And through it all, somehow one extremely important fact has been lost in the reporting of statistics.  At the end of each statistic is a human being.

A human being who has watched their file move from open to fully-funded to administrative processing to fully-funded to closed and paid back to open again to closed and finally to appeals.  For over 2 full years.

I personally have lost patience, and I don’t even have a DRP claim.  The Disaster Recovery Program is a Disaster in need of Recovery.

The lowest common denominator is not the government; it has changed and DRP has not improved.  The lowest common denominator is not the advocates; they too have changed not only their personnel but their approach.  It's also not the front-lines staff trying to process the claims, as even the Municipal Affairs Report to Legislature said that staff has had a high rate of turnover.  The lowest common denominator is the staff leading the program.  Only they could lose files, redefine categories, and manipulate data to make it look like work was getting done when in fact it hasn’t.  The goal of a good DRP manager should be to work themselves out of a job.  It seems managerial staff in this case are preventing their jobs from being lost, and they’ve managed to do so across a government change through confoundery.

Mr. Bilous must recognize that he has been played, and ask the AEMA Director Shane Schreiber to step aside.  Even he named Mr. Schreiber as the individual who has been the main communicator, so therefore the main manipulator of facts.

91% of Alberta Urban Municipalities don't trust DRP.  This is why they have called for an independent review.  An independent review will allow the rest of the staff to continue working on open files (preferably in a case-management format), and not interrupt their work too much.  But more importantly, it will clarify what exactly is going on in those offices, where data has been manipulated, and what must improve so that those who suffer disasters in the future do not have to contend with a governmental disaster as well.

Thanks to the DRP Advocacy Committee, Mr. Clark, and most recently Mr. Anderson and their colleagues for never giving up.  While we hope every Albertan never needs to use the Disaster Recovery Program, we must feel as though we can count on it if we do need it.

Alberta Urban Municipalities can't.  Neither can I.

Mr. Bilous, fix the DRP.

I had the pleasure of watching a forum on education last night.

Scratch that.  There was no forum.  There was a discussion.  Punctuated with humour.

We had to laugh.  It was the only way to look passed the fact that two potential Premiers of Alberta skipped it.

Thomas Lukaszuk, Ric McIver and Jim Prentice are all running for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta, and therefore our next Premier.

But Lukaszuk was the only one who showed up for a forum focussing on education at the Alberta Teachers' Association Summer Conference.

Prentice and McIver were given the opportunity to come long in advance.  They were given significant encouragements to come.  But they didn't.

You see, they don't care about education.  Not that they don't care about teachers ... they don't care about education.

You know, the second largest, and arguably the most tumultuous, portfolio in the Alberta Government? Yeah, that one.  They don't care about it.

So Prentice and McIver chose to let preconceptions about their positions speak for them.  So Prentice is seen as a Jeff Johnson supporter, which is not a friendly position for education.  McIver is seen as a tiny Wildroser in training, with a policy on education that is very similar to theirs.

These preconceptions could be totally wrong.  But we have no way of knowing.

Lukaszuk was up front and honest with me after the forum; he pandered to his audience.  He mentioned how he would have preferred to have been held more to account for what he was saying (moderator Ken Chapman did a great job trying to do that, but he was a moderator, and so couldn't firmly hold his feet to the fire).  A good public forum would have done that.

That being said, if he felt like he had to pander to teachers, good.  Because obviously Prentice and McIver provide no hope for Alberta Education's future whatsoever.

He didn't pander enough.  He didn't lay all concerns about the Taskforce on Education to rest.  He didn't commit fully to public education above all else.  He didn't provide actionable ways of improving revenues for the province.  So while he pandered well with what his platform and party would allow, he didn't pander well enough to convince me to lend even a single red cent to his party.

Thankfully the Alberta Teachers' Association, in the absence of the other PC leadership candidates, were able to bump the opposition Education critics in their place.  Kent Hehr (Liberals), Bruce McAllister (Wildrose) and Deron Bilous (NDP) all were going to come on Tuesday, but came on Monday instead.  It was truly an incredible opportunity for delegates to get a clearer understanding of the differences between the parties.

Well, at least the elected ones.

If we are having so many problems with the elected parties, then we should be made aware of actionable policies of other, not-yet-elected parties.  I would have liked to have seen the Alberta Party and Green Party leaders have an opportunity to share their policies.

Nonetheless, we heard from four oppositions last night.  Yes, Lukaszuk is in opposition.  With two PC leadership contenders who do not value education, Lukaszuk is in the minority.

When are we going to hear from a government?

To see the live tweeting from the forum at the ATA Summer Conference, check out the hashtag #atasc on Monday, August 11, 2014.

For those of you who don't know, "tatlo" is the number 3 in Tagalog.

Parents should be freaking out right about now.  Even though we’ve had issues including Jeff Johnson’s insertion into Alberta Education, and the calculated release of the grossly uninformed Task Force on Teacher Excellence, the reason parents should have first started freaking out was introduced to us even earlier.  As one very prolific Edmonton Journal columnist calls it, this reason is/was the “Great Canadian Math Debate”.

Since Ralph Klein was Premier, every four years Education, and particularly Teachers, get attacked.  Interestingly enough, it always happens to land at exactly the halfway point between elections.  Two years after the 2008 election, teachers were in a battle to get the raise they were guaranteed in a province-wide agreement led by the Premier Ed Stelmach.  Then as they approached election season, the government offered some concessions to Teachers in hopes that they have a short memory.  Unfortunately, Teachers do.  Two years after the 2012 election, again Teachers are in a battle against the government, and now the battle even includes the Official Opposition.  What concessions should we expect from the government during the 2016 election that they won’t claw back in 2018?  Is the Wildrose, widely viewed as the next government, any different when they have joined in the attack themselves?

First, Dr. Nhung Tran-Davies expressed a concern in a poorly-worded change.org petition (I originally dismissed it based on this very issue).  It was rooted in the idea that Alberta students perform poorly on international tests in mathematics.  It got a little attention.  Then the Wildrose adopted it for talking points, Dr. Tran-Davies got an editor to correct (although not completely) the petition, and it developed into a “debate” pressed by the Official Opposition and a couple of very outspoken media personalities.  The points of the "debate"; that the Alberta Government is trying to shift all of Education to an unproven “discovery” approach and is forcing instruction to ignore “basics” in math.

"Discovery" and "debate" are in quotation marks, because in actual fact both terms are misleading.  The term "discovery" means to learn something for the first time.  At which point, all learning is "discovery" learning.  The term we should be using is "inquiry", which is more about investigating for understanding.  The term "debate" connotes dialogue.  There isn't much of that happening, mostly it's just a bunch of announcements of opinions.  I should note that this blog does not constitute a dialogue, and therefore doesn't contribute much to the idea of "debate" either, but when in Rome...

The myths involved in this “debate” are plentiful.  The problem is, nobody is debunking them completely (although some have approached it).  So here is my attempt, finally, at doing just that.

Myth: 
The title of “Dr.” means that you are an expert in everything.
Fact:
Dr. Nhung Tran-Davies is up-front about pointing out that she is no mathematician nor teacher.  I give her kudos for that.  However, other mathematics professors who have joined the “debate” seem to have forgotten that they profess (which largely means research) advanced math, and are not trained in Education.  That unfortunately limits the value of their input (but to be clear, does not discount their concerns).  Such individuals who can be considered experts of both math and education, such as Dr. Craig Loewen of the University of Lethbridge, have had constructive input into the curriculum.

Myth:
Curriculum determines the approach used to instruct math concepts.
Fact:
Teachers determine the approach used to instruct math concepts.  Teachers are expected to use methods that are best for the students.  There is no one-size-fits-all method to teaching math, but mastery is still expected nonetheless.  Curriculum only informs what is to be taught.

Myth:
Teachers are being forced to ignore "the basics".
Fact:
Teachers are autonomous professionals.  If a teacher feels as though they are not permitted to teach the basics, they should take their issue up with Member Services at the Alberta Teachers' Association.  It is up to teachers how they feel it is best to deliver the curriculum to their unique and varied students, and oftentimes this requires a differentiated approach.  To say that teachers are being force to ignore the "basics" is to say teachers are not autonomous professionals.  If you fear that teachers are not given that autonomy, take your issue up with the Education Minister.

Myth:
PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment), carried out by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, is a reliable measurement tool for the efficacy of a region’s math instruction.
Fact:
Firstly, the OECD is for Economic, not Educational Cooperation and Development.  This should be our first indicator that something is rotten in the state of ... well in this case, France.
Secondly, PISA is a measurement tool that uses data from different tests in different countries, and different countries report their results differently, almost in a self-selected manner.  Certainly they’ll tell you it’s all the same test, but what they don’t advertise is that regions can also pick and choose various questions to be included in the test.  If a country wants to improve their PISA scores, they simply need to make their math tests easier, or only have the best regions of their country participate.  In Alberta’s case, our PISA score can drop simply because of the increase in our expectations of our math students, or because other countries pick only their best jurisdictions to report.  Using PISA as a standardized test has the same problem as using Provincial Achievement Tests; a standardized test can't work if there are too many variables making each test subject different before you even test them.  China reports only a few jurisdictions, Alberta reports the whole province.  A student who grew up learning Isa, Dalawa, Tatlo writes the same Provincial Achievement Test as a student who grew up learning One, Two, Three.  See the problem here?

Myth:
Teachers have had meaningful input into the curriculum redesign process.
Fact:
Even though the world’s leading regions in education (such as Finland) ask the Alberta Teachers Association for advice, curriculum redesign has kept the ATA at arm’s length.  It hasn’t been until just a few months ago (years after curriculum redevelopment started) that Minister Jeff Johnson has started listening to the ATA and considerably relaxed his deadlines and expectations for the completion of the curriculum redesign and its implementation.  Had teachers had meaningful input into the curriculum redesign process, you would have seen a much larger emphasis on professional development to prepare teachers for the new curriculum.

Myth:
The Western and Northern Canadian Protocol (WNCP) predetermines the direction education will take, so consultation with the public is merely a smoke screen.
Fact:
The WCNP is simply an organization of collaboration, not of predetermination.  For that matter, if the WNCP were in fact predetermining education, then we should also see scores from the Yukon, NWT, Saskatchewan and Manitoba plunge, and that is not the case.  There is ample evidence showing that results from public consultations have been considered in the curriculum redesign process.

Myth:
With the introduction of Student Learning Assessments (SLAs), grades will disappear, and so will accountability.
Fact:
SLAs are completed at the beginning of the year.  They are to be used by teachers to guide their instruction.  Grading strategies for the remainder of the year are determined by the School Board, various curricular departments within the board, School Administration and finally teachers, in that order.  If a school chooses not to use grades, it is not because it is mandated as such from the government.  Furthermore, any assessment strategy employed by a teacher should show that each student matches the SLA at the beginning of the year, and show a trend for the student of either maintaining or improving their understanding of the curricular concepts.  Any student who shows evidence of a reduction in performance should also have documentation to indicate what strategies were used to address that reduction, and should also show evidence of subsequent improvement following those strategies.  All this documentation exists, teachers are required to do it.  Accountability is not a concern here.

Myth:
David Staples provides no useful feedback.
Fact:
David Staples shows a bias because that is his job.  He is very good at his job, somehow finding justification for writing 42 columns on this supposed “debate”.  In fact, many people across Canada are now equating his name with this whole "debate".  This is the time of stardom a columnist dreams of, so to maintain this high-profile status that sells his column, he must write prolifically.  And write he does.  His viewpoints are based on the idea that “basic math” is needed for every child.
Personal anecdote; when I was learning math, I didn’t not learn it because I could memorize things.  My father, in fact, taught me math using a very “discovery”, or rather an "inquiry" approach.  This was 20 years ago.  So to go back to “the way we used to do it” might just mean going back to “discovery” ... *ahem* ... "inquiry".
Nonetheless, Mr. Staples does provide an insight that allows us to identify issues that require rectifying.  Taken with a grain of salt, it can be very useful.  But make sure you take it with a grain of salt, because much like the first myth debunked, a columnist does not a journalist make; see Joe Bower for more discussion on this thought.

Myth:
The Wildrose are representing the concerns of all Albertans in this "debate".
Fact:
The Wildrose, rather than representing concerns, are telling Albertans what to be concerned about.  In a telephone town hall that I can only describe as a “push poll”, the majority of individuals whose questions were aired were those that were speaking against teachers, math instruction, or curriculum redesign.  Of 15 questioners that I noted, 1 educational aide got through long enough to praise teachers on their balanced instruction, 1 parent got through to do the same, and no teachers were aired.  When I pressed them about how they chose which questions got through, it became evident that their town hall had not only self-selected data, but also inaccurate data.  They couldn’t even find the question I had asked.
That question was “Danielle, when a parent comes to you expressing concern, do you ask first if they have approached their child’s teacher, and if they haven’t, do you direct them there?”  I have never received a follow-up as they promised in the teletownpushpollhall.

Myth:
Being an Education Critic makes you an Education Expert.
Fact:
The Wildrose are seemingly unware of the fact that they are arguing about one thing when the issue is something completely different; similar to arguing about how clouds are formed when the discussion is actually about acid rain.  The Wildrose are caught in a problem in that they confuse the “what” of teaching with the “how” of teaching.  For example, if you need to transport oil, there are many ways you can do it.  You can pipe it, drive it, put it on a train, break it down into other products that are easier to consume like gasoline and ethanol, etc.  So if you don’t want the oil on a train, what should you do?

By Wildrose logic, don’t use oil, use canola instead.

Certainly that would change the transport options, and moving to “greener” solutions is a noble goal, but we would lose all the value that exists in oil.

Curriculum defines “what” teachers are expected to impart to students, not “how”.  Certainly “how” to teach something depends on what is being taught, but if parents are displeased with “how” teachers teach, asking them to try a different “how” makes far more sense than trying a different “what”.

In a meeting with Wildrose Education Critic Bruce McAllister and Leader Danielle Smith, I was told that they believe strongly in a “return to teaching the basics.”  At first that sounds like a “what” item.  But when they explain what they think the basics are, they suggest things like memorizing times tables, methods of long division, vertical addition and formula memorization.  These are not the “what”, but rather the “how”.  As I’ve learned, there are more than a few ways to skin a fish.

When I asked them how they know what the basics were, the response from Ms. Smith was “the easiest way for a student to learn.”  Again, a “how”.  My response and question was “what if the easiest way for a student to learn divisibility by 9 is by summing up the digits, not memorizing the times table?”

The two seconds of stunned silence was telling.  So was the response from Mr. McAllister when it finally came; “we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this.”

So we did.

I’m not saying don’t change curriculum, because in many cases a good curriculum update and overhaul is well overdue.  I’m saying if you want to change the “how”, go to the person who actually make those decisions; go to the teacher.

However, who would want to go to a teacher now to discuss their child’s successes in school?  After all, we are self-serving people who care more about our own then your children.  But don’t worry, government has your back.  They will ensure, from their offices in downtown Edmonton, that your child’s classroom is perfectly managed, and that teachers have so much oversight as to not have to think for themselves, or for your child, anymore.  The government knows best.

And just in case you thought that was only a PC government, allow me to correct that misconception.  Jeff Johnson believes the ATA cannot manage their own, which is why he has claimed himself savior of our discipline process.  However, the Wildrose’s Rob Anderson jumped on the Johnson bandwagon.  So, if the political pundits are correct and the blue and orange banners are replaced with green and pink ones in 2016, don’t expect any change to how they approach Education.

The only way to avoid that is to have an alternative.  Kent Hehr had a dream of being a teacher cut short, but his passion cannot be ignored.  Deron Bilous has been a teacher, so understands the profession.  The Alberta Party is currently working on its Education Policy among other policies, soliciting input from all stakeholders.  Ask each of these people about the Great Math "Debate", you will find a hugely different response than the one in the media.

Parents should be freaking out right about now.  Regardless of which of the conservative parties take power in 2016, it won’t be professional educators making decisions about Education.  It will be some elected official whose only adult experience in our schools was either delivering a Xerox machine, broadcasting a special interest segment on a morning news show, or spending 10 months bickering instead of running a school board.

You need to care about the Alberta Party's fortunes. Even if you don't agree with their policies, or think they're just another fringe party, the Alberta Party's viability is an indicator of the level of discourse in Alberta politics.

Let's be honest. The Alberta Party is small. It has no MLAs. If it is to be relevant, it is only because the level of discourse in Alberta politics has not improved.

Right now, the Alberta Party's fortunes are entirely dependent on the discourse in other circles of Alberta politics.  As long as the Alberta Party does not direct its own conversation and depends on others, it will be the actions of others that shape its future.

So in 2013, these are the different actions that would need to take place to make the Alberta Party irrelevant in Alberta politics, and the people who will be the biggest indicators (with links to their Twitter feeds);

7) The PCs collaborate. With anyone. The reason why "41 years is enough" is because the PCs sense of self-entitlement is so deep, it has become the culture of Alberta politics. It's a major reason why the Alberta Party started up. If the PCs start making a history of collaboration with others, that self-entitlement culture will dissipate.  The one to watch on this will be Fred Horne (@FredHorneMLA), because the Health portfolio is where the idea of collaboration is most needed, and least likely to occur.

6) The PCs finally produce a transparent, costed and complete budget with realistic projections. Borrowing for the future is not a bad idea when used sparingly, but plunging into debt because you used a pie-in-the-sky projection of revenue is unacceptable. When the PCs stop doing this, that is step 1. Watch Doug Horner (@DougHornerMLA) for this one.

5) The PCs take action on diversifying the Alberta economy. Adam Legge alluded to this need in his article about the need for the Alberta Advantage to evolve. It's something the Alberta Party has been saying for quite some time, and have even come up with some suggestions, such as the creative industries, or reinvesting in agriculture. Alison Redford has proven that she can't steer a ship, so watch the Deputy Premier Thomas Lukaszuk (@LukaszukMLA) for this, if it ever happens.

4) The Wildrose Party manages somehow to shake the chains of the "Lake of Fire" history, and actually makes measurable and progressive changes to their social policy. I have doubts about the measurable changes to their policy. I have even more doubts that, even though they may want to, they will ever shake the unfortunate comments made by a few poorly vetted candidates. Danielle Smith will not be the one to watch for on this, because if there is one person in the Wildrose who fits that bill, it is her. It will be the most conservative and vocal on the Wildrose bench to be the indicator of a shift in social policy, and that person is Rob Anderson (@RAndersonMLA).

3) The Liberal Party sorts out its mess of an organization.  It will do this by admonishing its upper brass for hanging one of its most respected Members of the Legislative Assembly out to dry (see letter written by Todd Van Vliet about Kent Hehr).  It will clear up its marketing issues by actually choosing one of its brands, and ramming it down the throats of Albertans until they know what it means to be Liberal. Interestingly, the one to watch for on this will be Kent Hehr (@kenthehr).  If he continues to fly the Liberal flag (whatever colour they end up choosing), it will either be because he really doesn't believe in collaboration amongst progressives, or because the Liberals have fixed their issues and welcomed him back into the fold.

2) The Alberta New Democrats lose the sarcasm and add a willingness to collaborate. In the last sitting of the Legislature, there were very few comments that I heard during Question Period from the Dippers that were anything different from what the Wildrose came up with, with an added turn-of-phrase or clever quip. It seems odd that with the amount they seem to agree with other opposition parties that they would flatly refuse to collaborate with anyone to make positive change happen. There is nothing wrong with their policies, they are well-formulated, but their approach to doing politics is fundamentally flawed. The guy to watch on this will be Deron Bilous (@DeronBilous), as he is the future of that party, and will be the one to set the standard of behaviour for those who follow him.

1) The Alberta Party doesn't do anything. At all. In order for it to be truly irrelevant, it must never do anything that will make itself visible to the rest of Alberta. It must never make any attempt at providing more definition to its policies. It must never try to listen to Albertans, and create innovative solutions to the problems they hear. Unfortunately, there isn't really any truly visible individual on this, as there is a group of people who will be the indicators on this.  The current board, led by William Munsey as President (@AP_President), will be the identifiers here.

If you see four of these things happen, I would suggest that the Alberta Party would no longer be relevant, and seeing as only one of them is within their own control, their fortunes are very much tied to others.

But in all honesty, I don't see the PCs collaborating, costing out their budget, nor diversifying the economy. I don't see the Wildrose shaking the chains of their past candidates (although I do see them trying). I don't see LiberAlberta sorting out their mess. I also don't see the New Democrats changing their approach.

I have a very big concern, as an Alberta Party Member, about whether or not my party will do anything. They are updating their constitution on February 23, and that will be a big indication to me of the party's directions. I do, of course, have high hopes.

However, 2013 will be the true litmus test for the Alberta Party, and Alberta politics on the whole. Let's hope it starts representing all Albertans, and soon!