Education
Solar eclipse school closures underscore impact of learning loss
From the Fraser Institute
Instead of making every effort to protect instructional time and ensure that schools remain open, students are being sent home for ever more dubious reasons.
Schools are closed out of an “abundance of caution.” No doubt you’ve heard this phrase many times over the last few years. It was commonly used during the pandemic when provincial governments closed schools for months on end—even after it was widely known that COVID-19 posed little risk to most children.
Ontario schools were closed for 135 days during the pandemic, more than any other province. Parents and teachers are still trying to recover from this enormous learning loss. Clearly, this was one situation where an abundance of caution caused more harm than it prevented.
Sadly, it appears that provincial officials and school board administrators haven’t learned from their mistakes. Instead of making every effort to protect instructional time and ensure that schools remain open, students are being sent home for ever more dubious reasons.
For example, school boards across Ontario cancelled classes on April 8, the day of the solar eclipse. Apparently administrators felt there was too great a risk that students might look at the sun during the eclipse and damage their eyes. No doubt more than a few of them glanced at the sun while sitting at home that day. However, there was no need for the school closures to be as total as the eclipse. If they were really that concerned, school officials could have kept students indoors or simply altered the dismissal times.
Initially, the Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB) took a common sense approach by stating that schools would remain open and teachers would use the eclipse as a learning opportunity for students. Then, only days before the eclipse, the WRDSB suddenly reversed itself and said their schools would indeed close on April 8, and students would have the opportunity to engage in “asynchronous remote learning” instead.
This decision sent the unfortunate message that WRDSB trustees are incapable of standing up to pressure from people who think that schools must close at the slightest sign of real or presumed danger. As for the notion that remote learning was an adequate substitute, our experience during the pandemic showed that for most parents and students, remote learning was thin gruel indeed.
As a further sign of how far paranoia has crept into the education system, some teacher unions demanded they too should be able to work from home during the eclipse. For example, Jeff Sorensen, president of the Hamilton local teacher union, said, “If it’s not safe for children [to be at school], then it’s not safe for adults.”
The union representing Toronto’s Catholic teachers made a similar request. In a memo to its members, local union president Deborah Karam said the union was “intensifying our efforts” to ensure that teachers be allowed to complete their professional development activities at home that day. Surprisingly, no union leader has yet explained why teachers would be less likely to look at the sun while at home than at school.
Of course, school boards must focus on education while also looking out for the wellbeing of students. But there’s more to student wellbeing than simply shielding them from all perceived risks. Extended school closures cause considerable harm to students because they lead to significant learning loss.
By normalizing the practise of closing schools at the slightest sign of danger, real or perceived, we risk raising a generation of young people who lack the ability to do a proper risk assessment. Life itself comes with risk and if we all took the same approach to driving a car that school boards take to school closures, would never set foot in a vehicle again.
Ontario students had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to experience a solar eclipse in an educational environment, guided by their teachers. While some parents no doubt taught their children about the eclipse, many others had to be at work.
By closing schools out of an “abundance of caution,” school boards sent the message that school is not a place where unique educational events can be experienced together. Students should be in school during events such as the eclipse, not sitting at home.
If we’re going to exercise an abundance of caution, let’s be a lot more cautious about the risks of closing schools at the drop of a hat.
Author:
Alberta
Province orders School Boards to gather data on class sizes and complexity by Nov 24
Better data, better outcomes for Alberta students |
To help schools address classroom complexity, Alberta’s government will begin collecting annual data on class size and composition.
Over the past three years, Alberta has welcomed more than 80,000 new students. With this unprecedented growth, classroom complexity and class sizes are among the biggest issues facing schools and teachers across the province.
To meet this challenge head on, Alberta’s government will work with school boards to gather yearly data on class sizes and composition. This information will be used to better understand staffing, student needs and classroom complexity. School boards will be required to submit data on Alberta classrooms by Nov. 24, and by January, this data will be made publicly available and will then be released annually.
Data collected on classroom complexity will help the province understand and address issues in schools, including class sizes, and support strategic investments in classrooms. Over the next three years, school boards will be provided with funding to hire 3,000 teachers and 1,500 new education assistants to support students with complex needs.
“We are ready to work with school boards and teachers to address classroom complexity and class sizes. We have heard them loud and clear and we are taking bold action to address these issues.”
Alberta’s government is establishing a Class Size and Complexity Task Force to begin work immediately on identifying solutions to the challenges facing Alberta classrooms. Alongside new annual data collection, the task force will ensure every student gets the attention and support they need to succeed. Details about the task force will be shared in the coming weeks.
“This data will provide essential insight into classroom realities, guiding evidence-based decisions and advocating for sustainable funding to address complexity, ensuring every student and educator in Alberta has the support to thrive.”
Quick facts
To inform decisions on addressing classroom complexity, data will be collected on total numbers of:
- all staff, per school, including roles
- substitute teachers
- district staff, listed by job title
- students, per classroom, per school
- severe, mild/moderate, and gifted/talented students, per classroom, per school
- English as an additional language (EAL) students, per classroom, per school
- refugee students, per classroom, per school
- First Nations, Métis and Inuit students, per classroom, per school
- Individualized Program Plans, per classroom, per school
- students waitlisted for assessment, per classroom, per school
- incidents of aggression and violence
- $55 million was provided in Budget 2025 to address classroom complexity.
- 8.6 billion is being invested to build and renovate more than 130 schools across the province.
- Budget 2025 is investing $1.6 billion in learning support funding to help meet students’ specialized learning needs.
- Budget 2025 is investing $1.1 billion to hire more than 4,000 teachers and educational staff.
Alberta
How one major media torqued its coverage – in the take no prisoners words of a former Alberta premier
(Editor’s note: I was going to write on the media’s handling of the Alberta government’s decision to order striking teachers back to work and invoke Section 33 of the Charter in doing so. But former Alberta premier Jason Kenney provided such a fulsome dissection of an absence of balance and its consequences in terms of public trust on X that I asked him if The Rewrite could publish it. He said yes and here it is – Peter Menzies.)
By Jason Kenney
This
”story” is an object lesson for why trust in legacy media has plummeted, and alt right media audiences have grown.
Here CTV “digital news producer” @AngeMAmato (she/her) writes a story about “experts” calling the use of Sec. 33 “a threat to democracy.”
Who are the experts?
A left wing academic, and a left wing activist. The latter, Howard Sapers, is a former Liberal MLA (which the article does not mention) for a party that is so marginal, it has not elected an MLA in over a decade.
For good measure CTV goes on to quote two left wing union bosses, who of course are predictably outraged.
A more accurate headline would be “Four people on the left angry about use of Notwithstanding Clause.” Which is the opposite of news. It’s the ultimate “Dog Bites Man” non-story.
Did the CTV producer make any effort to post a balanced story by asking for comment from academics / lawyers / think tanks who support use of Sec. 33? Did she call the @CDNConstFound or the @MLInstitute’s Judicial Power Project? Did she attempt to reach any of these four scholars, who just published their views in a @nationalpost op-ed last week?
Did she have an editor who asked why her story lacked any attempt at balance?
And did anyone at CTV pause for a moment to ponder how tendentious it is to accuse a democratically elected legislature of acting “undemocratically” by invoking a power whose entire purpose is to ensure democratic accountability?
She provides some historical context about prior use of Sec. 33. Why does that context not include the fact that most democratically elected provincial governments (including Alberta under Premier Lougheed, and Saskatchewan under NDP Premier Blakeney) agreed to adopt the Charter *only if* it included the Notwithstanding Clause to allow democratically elected Legislatures to ensure a democratic check and balance against the abuse of undemocratic, unaccountable judicial power?
Why does she not mention that for the first 33 years of the Charter era, the Canadian Courts ruled that there was no constitutionally protected right to strike?
Why doesn’t she quote an expert pointing out that Allan Blakeney defended the Saskatchewan Legislature’s 1986 use of Sec. 33 to end a strike as “a legitimate use of the Clause?” Or refer to Peter Lougheed’s 1987 commitment to use Sec. 33 if the courts invented a right to strike?
Many thoughtful criticisms can be levelled against Section 33. Being undemocratic is not one of them.
So why do we see so much agitprop like this masquerading as news from so many legacy media outlets?
IMO, there are two possible answers:
1) They are blind to their own biases; and / or
2) People like @AngeMAmato believe that they have a moral imperative to be “progressive journalists” which trumps the boringly old fashioned professional imperative to be objective and balanced.
Whatever the reason, “journalists” like this have no one to blame but themselves for growing distrust of legacy media, and the consequent emergence of non traditional media platforms.
![]() |
|
Invite your friends and earn rewards
-
Alberta23 hours agoFrom Underdog to Top Broodmare
-
International1 day agoPrince Andrew banished from the British monarchy
-
Business1 day ago“We have a deal”: Trump, Xi strike breakthrough on trade and fentanyl
-
Business2 days agoCanada’s attack on religious charities makes no fiscal sense
-
Alberta1 day agoProvince orders School Boards to gather data on class sizes and complexity by Nov 24
-
National1 day agoWatchdog Presses Ottawa to Release Hidden Lobbying Rulings
-
Crime1 day agoCanada Seizes 4,300 Litres of Chinese Drug Precursors Amid Trump’s Tariff Pressure Over Fentanyl Flows
-
Alberta1 day agoHow one major media torqued its coverage – in the take no prisoners words of a former Alberta premier




