Alberta’s teachers went on strike today and the province has been treated to the familiar theatre of outrage: anguished editorials and the Alberta Teachers’ Association declaring the system “underfunded.” But when you separate the numbers from the rhetoric, the story that emerges is less about money and more about power — who, exactly, gets to decide what Alberta children learn: the democratic government elected by their parents or the unelected monopoly that is the ATA?Let’s start with the money. There's nothing wrong with 12% over four years. However, the ATA loudly insists the Alberta education budget is starved and points to lofty targets — figures framed to make every cut look catastrophic. That argument plays well in press releases and social-media graphics.However, it assumes a straight line link between funding and educational performance. As the Fraser Institute points out, that’s not necessarily the case and the strength of high achievement/lower cost private education options helps the numbers..But, the union claim also ignores context: over the past several budgets the province has increased operational spending, offered sizeable pay improvements, and proposed thousands of new hires targeted at classroom pressures. In short, the government has made record investments and put concrete resources on the table — not the abstract promises the ATA prefers to trade in..EDITORIAL: Alberta teachers turn down a dream deal — and hold families over a barrel.Of course schools can always use more money. But in my view, the core dispute here is not a naked fight for resources. If it were, bargaining would be a technocratic exercise over wages, class size and capital — and the kids would be in school today.Instead, this disagreement keeps circling back to curricular control, hiring practices, and who sets the priorities in classrooms. That’s not incidental. It’s the point..As John Hilton-O’Brien has observed, the current strike is as much a fight over jurisdiction and values as it is about pay: “each of their [teachers] issues is caused by a different level of government,” and the union’s actions reveal an appetite to dictate policy well beyond collective bargaining..HILTON-O'BRIEN: Alberta’s teachers are striking – but against whom?.Which brings us to the ATA’s institutional role. Unions are meant to represent members’ workplace interests. But the ATA has long acted like a parallel education ministry — trying, with some success, to shape teacher training, influence curriculum choices, to defend indefensible library choices, and police classroom culture. Critics from across the education ecosystem point out that teacher-education faculties and union-driven professional norms determine what new teachers are taught about pedagogy and priorities long before bargaining tables open.Example: Caylan Ford, a prominent educator and school-founder, has repeatedly argued that what’s taught to teachers — the ideological lenses embedded in training and professional development — matters far more than the latest funding headline. When the gatekeepers of teacher preparation see their function as transmitting Marxist ideology and shares with the union the same institutional preferences, the result is an entrenched status quo that resists democratic oversight..HANNAFORD: Moral rot at the heart of Alberta's school system.The consequence? Parents and elected officials who want different priorities — whether a return to fundamentals like phonics and basic numeracy, clearer standards on civics and history, or accountability in teacher training — run up against a powerful, organized interest capable of bringing classrooms to a halt. That’s why many parents feel the debate isn’t simply “teachers versus government” but “unelected monopoly versus accountable public authority.”The ATA’s choice to frame this as an underfunding crisis is a convenient cover that shifts attention from its broader institutional ambitions..If Alberta’s education system is to improve, it needs two honest conversations happening at once.First: how to direct resources effectively so teachers have manageable classes and schools have the supports students require. Second — and just as important — who gets to decide what education is for? In a democracy that answer should default to elected representatives and engaged parents, not to a single union with outsized influence over curriculum and teacher credentialing.That doesn’t mean treating teachers as villains. Many classroom educators are stretched, dedicated professionals who want what’s best for children. It does mean recognizing that some of the ATA’s claims are strategic rather than substantive and that the strike has become a battleground over governance as much as dollars. Albertans deserve transparency about both. The public should ask hard questions: are the ATA’s demands primarily financial, or are they a bid to preserve curricular and institutional control? Are proposed funds targeted to classrooms or captured by administrative arrangements that entrench existing pedagogical orthodoxies?If we care about kids more than slogans, we ought to stop treating every disagreement as just a funding fight. We can simultaneously invest in schools but also insist that elected officials — accountable to parents and voters — have the final say on curriculum and policy.Anything less leaves the system controlled by an unelected institution that, when challenged, will default to its most powerful tool: a walkout that inconveniences families and freezes classrooms — all while recasting a governance battle as a moral emergency about funding.Albertans should be wiser than this.
