Province has three scenarios for return to school in September. Final decision by August 1. Details

From the Province of Alberta

Getting ready for 2020-21 school year

A comprehensive re-entry plan for the upcoming school year allows schools and parents to prepare for learning while putting student and staff safety first.

The plan offers guidance on a wide range of operational issues including hygiene and health requirements, student learning, transportation and diploma exams. It also addresses mental health and psychological supports for students and staff.

School authorities will plan for all three scenarios for September:

In-school classes resume (near normal operations with health measures)
In-school classes partially resume with additional health measures
At home learning continues (in-school classes are cancelled)

The preferred and likely scenario is that students will return to daily in-school classes at the beginning of the year. The government will share its final decision by Aug. 1 on which scenario will be in place at the beginning of the school year. However, school authorities are asked to prepare for implementing any of the three possibilities during the upcoming school year, including on short notice.

“We are providing clear direction and the certainty parents and the school system need to plan ahead and get ready for what the new school year may look like. We are hoping, and it is likely, students can return to daily classes at school while taking health precautions, but we have to prepare for all possibilities. I want to thank our education leaders, teachers and parents for their thoughtful contributions to this comprehensive plan.”

Adriana LaGrange, Minister of Education

“This plan puts the interests of students and staff first. Educators, administrators, families, health professionals and government all need to work together to support a safe return to in-person classes. We continue to monitor the situation closely. The reality is, we must weigh the risk of prolonged school closures against the risk of COVID-19 outbreaks in closed settings, such as schools. A safe and successful school year will only be possible if we all work together.”

Dr. Deena Hinshaw, chief medical officer of health

The re-entry plan balances the need for provincial standardized approaches in some areas while also providing flexibility and recognition of school authorities’ autonomy to address health guidelines in the most effective ways in their own communities.

Alberta Education worked closely with many education partners on the plan, including the Alberta School Boards Association, the Alberta Teachers’ Association, the College of Alberta School Superintendents, the Association of Independent Schools and Colleges in Alberta, The Association of Alberta Public Charter Schools, individual school authorities and the Alberta School Councils’ Association which compiled input from more than 66,000 parents.

“The Alberta School Councils’ Association is pleased that considerations for the safety of students and staff remain priorities throughout this detailed plan, along with the recognition that school authorities are best suited to making operational decisions directly impacting their local school communities. We look forward to ongoing work and communications with the ministry, as this is key for successful implementation and return to school.”

Brandi Rai, president, Alberta School Councils’ Association

“Alberta’s teachers are looking forward to supporting our students as we transition into the 2020-21 school year. As our recent survey indicates, teachers are concerned about the health and safety of themselves, their colleagues and their students. We expect to work with government to strengthen and improve the plans for re-entry to ensure that schools can provide healthy and safe environments for teachers and students.”

Jason Schilling, president, Alberta Teachers’ Association

“Supporting the health and safety of students and staff continues to be a top priority for the ASBA and all school boards. We appreciate government providing clarity, while ensuring flexibility and autonomy, as each of Alberta’s public, Catholic and Francophone boards face challenges within the context of their local communities. As the situation evolves, we will continue to collaborate with government and our members to adjust the plan in preparation for the upcoming school year.”

Lorrie Jess, president, Alberta School Boards Association

“The College of Alberta School Superintendents joins the province in its commitment to protecting the health and well-being of all students and staff as we transition to the 2020-21 school year. We appreciate the collaborative manner in which the re-entry plan has developed and are pleased that school divisions have been provided with the flexibility and authority to implement procedures beyond the plan that they deem necessary to ensure the safety of their learning environments.”

Bevan Daverne, president, College of Alberta School Superintendents

“We are deeply appreciative of the ongoing consultation with all educational partners by the Minister of Education and the ministry as a whole in these trying circumstances. Teachers and systems have responded to the pandemic with remarkable energy and ingenuity. The proactive, engaging leadership of our government continues to be essential for education to fulfil its vital role in Alberta through this critical time.”

Ron Koper, chair, The Association of Alberta Public Charter Schools

“Our association appreciates the government’s collaborative approach in developing this re-entry plan. We remain committed to supporting our schools so that their staff and students can experience a safe and positive learning environment in the coming academic year.”

Simon Williams, president, Association of Independent Schools and Colleges in Alberta

Public health guidance for schools

Return to in-school class learning may vary across the province and is dependent on the number of COVID-19 cases in the local area. School boards should develop their own COVID-19 plans under the applicable scenario and health guidelines prior to reopening.

Measures to reduce the risk – scenario 1 (in-school classes resume – near normal operations with health measures)

Cleaning

Enhanced cleaning and disinfecting, including daily cleaning for all areas of the school, washrooms and high-touch surfaces cleaned several times a day or more as needed.
Regularly scheduled deep cleaning when students are not present.

Student/staff hygiene and illness

Routine screening for all staff and students.
Strict stay-at-home policy for any students or staff exhibiting symptoms of COVID-19.
Hand hygiene expectations when entering and exiting the school and classrooms, before and after eating.
Continual reminders of the importance of respiratory etiquette (e.g., cover coughs and sneezes, avoid touching the face and disposal of used tissues promptly, followed by hand hygiene).
Students who develop symptoms at school may be asked to wear a mask and isolate in a separate room until a parent arrives for pickup. If a separate room is not available, the student must be kept at least two metres away from other individuals.

Physical distancing and grouping

When possible, practise some physical distancing as a good precaution to prevent the spread of disease.
In classrooms, buses and during activities when physical distancing may not be possible, extra emphasis is put on other hygiene practices.
Reorganization of rooms to allow for more physical space.
Cohorting of students by class where possible.
Guiding foot traffic flow through entrances and hallways by using markers on the floor or pylons/barriers.
Avoiding large gatherings such as assemblies.

Masks

Staff and students will not be mandated to wear masks.
Masks may be considered in circumstances where there is prolonged close contact (greater than 15 minutes) and distance of two metres cannot be maintained.
Masking is generally not recommended for younger students.

Shared items

A no-sharing policy – all students should have their own supplies.
Where sharing of equipment is required, the equipment should be cleaned between uses.

Cases of COVID-19 in a school

The zone medical officer of health will work with school authorities on the rapid identification of cases through easily accessible testing, rapid close contact identification, and isolation measures when needed.
The zone medical officer of health will also work with school authorities to provide follow-up recommendations and messaging for staff, parents and students.
Alberta Health Services may request the school to close in-person classes to allow the public health investigation to take place.
Each school authority will support students and staff to learn or work at home if they are required to self-isolate.

Measures to reduce the risk – scenario 2 (in-school classes partially resume with additional health measures)

The same considerations as scenario 1, with the following differences:

A recommended maximum of 15 people in a classroom to allow for more consistent physical distancing.
Students will attend school less regularly as school authorities will need to adjust their class schedule and configuration to meet the physical distancing requirement.

Non-COVID-19 operational highlights

Any summer programming will follow scenario 2 of the re-entry plan and the associated public health measures.
August diploma exams will proceed for students taking diploma courses this summer.
For the 2020-21 school year, diploma exams will be held if the first or second scenarios are in place. In scenario 3, exams may be cancelled.
Provincial achievement tests (PATs) for Grades 6 and 9 can be held in the first and second scenarios, but will be optional for school authorities to participate.
If scenario 3 is in place at the beginning of the school year, the January PATs will be cancelled. May/June PATs may be cancelled based on the duration of at-home learning.

School authorities can, as deemed appropriate at the local level, reduce time spent teaching non-core subjects to allow for additional instruction time on core subjects.
School authorities must enable the full participation and inclusion of students with disabilities under each scenario and address any learning gaps from the 2019-20 school year.
Mental health supports should be in place for students and staff.

This plan is part Alberta’s Relaunch Strategy to safely begin removing public health restrictions and reopen our economy. For more information, visit alberta.ca/RelaunchStrategy.

Up Next

Pierre Poilievre asks Finance Minister Bill Morneau how much money the Trudeau government owes China on our national debt

Don't Miss

Alberta relaunch moves into Stage Two on Friday

Duane Rolheiser

After 15 years as a TV reporter with Global and CBC and as news director of RDTV in Red Deer, Duane set out on his own 2008 as a visual storyteller. During this period, he became fascinated with a burgeoning online world and how it could better serve local communities. This fascination led to Todayville, launched in 2016.

Follow Author

The “Disruptor-in-Chief” places Canada in the crosshairs

Environment / 3 days ago

Canada’s river water quality strong overall although some localized issues persist

International / 7 days ago

DOJ fails to fully comply with Friday deadline for Epstein files release

Alberta

Alberta Next Panel calls for less Ottawa—and it could pay off

Published on December 26, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

Last Friday, less than a week before Christmas, the Smith government quietly released the final report from its Alberta Next Panel, which assessed Alberta’s role in Canada. Among other things, the panel recommends that the federal government transfer some of its tax revenue to provincial governments so they can assume more control over the delivery of provincial services. Based on Canada’s experience in the 1990s, this plan could deliver real benefits for Albertans and all Canadians.

Federations such as Canada typically work best when governments stick to their constitutional lanes. Indeed, one of the benefits of being a federalist country is that different levels of government assume responsibility for programs they’re best suited to deliver. For example, it’s logical that the federal government handle national defence, while provincial governments are typically best positioned to understand and address the unique health-care and education needs of their citizens.

But there’s currently a mismatch between the share of taxes the provinces collect and the cost of delivering provincial responsibilities (e.g. health care, education, childcare, and social services). As such, Ottawa uses transfers—including the Canada Health Transfer (CHT)—to financially support the provinces in their areas of responsibility. But these funds come with conditions.

Consider health care. To receive CHT payments from Ottawa, provinces must abide by the Canada Health Act, which effectively prevents the provinces from experimenting with new ways of delivering and financing health care—including policies that are successful in other universal health-care countries. Given Canada’s health-care system is one of the developed world’s most expensive universal systems, yet Canadians face some of the longest wait times for physicians and worst access to medical technology (e.g. MRIs) and hospital beds, these restrictions limit badly needed innovation and hurt patients.

To give the provinces more flexibility, the Alberta Next Panel suggests the federal government shift tax points (and transfer GST) to the provinces to better align provincial revenues with provincial responsibilities while eliminating “strings” attached to such federal transfers. In other words, Ottawa would transfer a portion of its tax revenues from the federal income tax and federal sales tax to the provincial government so they have funds to experiment with what works best for their citizens, without conditions on how that money can be used.

According to the Alberta Next Panel poll, at least in Alberta, a majority of citizens support this type of provincial autonomy in delivering provincial programs—and again, it’s paid off before.

In the 1990s, amid a fiscal crisis (greater in scale, but not dissimilar to the one Ottawa faces today), the federal government reduced welfare and social assistance transfers to the provinces while simultaneously removing most of the “strings” attached to these dollars. These reforms allowed the provinces to introduce work incentives, for example, which would have previously triggered a reduction in federal transfers. The change to federal transfers sparked a wave of reforms as the provinces experimented with new ways to improve their welfare programs, and ultimately led to significant innovation that reduced welfare dependency from a high of 3.1 million in 1994 to a low of 1.6 million in 2008, while also reducing government spending on social assistance.

The Smith government’s Alberta Next Panel wants the federal government to transfer some of its tax revenues to the provinces and reduce restrictions on provincial program delivery. As Canada’s experience in the 1990s shows, this could spur real innovation that ultimately improves services for Albertans and all Canadians.

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Alberta

Ottawa-Alberta agreement may produce oligopoly in the oilsands

Published on December 24, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jason Clemens and Elmira Aliakbari

The federal and Alberta governments recently jointly released the details of a memorandum of understanding (MOU), which lays the groundwork for potentially significant energy infrastructure including an oil pipeline from Alberta to the west coast that would provide access to Asia and other international markets. While an improvement on the status quo, the MOU’s ambiguity risks creating an oligopoly.

An oligopoly is basically a monopoly but with multiple firms instead of a single firm. It’s a market with limited competition where a few firms dominate the entire market, and it’s something economists and policymakers worry about because it results in higher prices, less innovation, lower investment and/or less quality. Indeed, the federal government has an entire agency charged with worrying about limits to competition.

There are a number of aspects of the MOU where it’s not sufficiently clear what Ottawa and Alberta are agreeing to, so it’s easy to envision a situation where a few large firms come to dominate the oilsands.

Consider the clear connection in the MOU between the development and progress of Pathways, which is a large-scale carbon capture project, and the development of a bitumen pipeline to the west coast. The MOU explicitly links increased production of both oil and gas (“while simultaneously reaching carbon neutrality”) with projects such as Pathways. Currently, Pathways involves five of Canada’s largest oilsands producers: Canadian Natural, Cenovus, ConocoPhillips Canada, Imperial and Suncor.

What’s not clear is whether only these firms, or perhaps companies linked with Pathways in the future, will have access to the new pipeline. Similarly, only the firms with access to the new west coast pipeline would have access to the new proposed deep-water port, allowing access to Asian markets and likely higher prices for exports. Ottawa went so far as to open the door to “appropriate adjustment(s)” to the oil tanker ban (C-48), which prevents oil tankers from docking at Canadian ports on the west coast.

One of the many challenges with an oligopoly is that it prevents new entrants and entrepreneurs from challenging the existing firms with new technologies, new approaches and new techniques. This entrepreneurial process, rooted in innovation, is at the core of our economic growth and progress over time. The MOU, though not designed to do this, could prevent such startups from challenging the existing big players because they could face a litany of restrictive anti-development regulations introduced during the Trudeau era that have not been reformed or changed since the new Carney government took office.

And this is not to criticize or blame the companies involved in Pathways. They’re acting in the interests of their customers, staff, investors and local communities by finding a way to expand their production and sales. The fault lies with governments that were not sufficiently clear in the MOU on issues such as access to the new pipeline.

And it’s also worth noting that all of this is predicated on an assumption that Alberta can achieve the many conditions included in the MOU, some of which are fairly difficult. Indeed, the nature of the MOU’s conditions has already led some to suggest that it’s window dressing for the federal government to avoid outright denying a west coast pipeline and instead shift the blame for failure to the Smith government.

Assuming Alberta can clear the MOU’s various hurdles and achieve the development of a west coast pipeline, it will certainly benefit the province and the country more broadly to diversify the export markets for one of our most important export products. However, the agreement is far from ideal and could impose much larger-than-needed costs on the economy if it leads to an oligopoly. At the very least we should be aware of these risks as we progress.