AHEA Convention 2016

Go to our convention page to see our 2017 keynotes!

More information and topics to come soon!

- Learn More -

Letter to Premier and MLAs, April 27, 2012

Alberta Home Education Association (AHEA)
Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
April 27, 2012
The Honourable Alison Redford
Premier of Alberta
307 Legislature Bldg
10800-97 Avenue
Edmonton, AB
T5K 2B6
April 25, 2012
An Open Letter to the Premier of Alberta, Alison Redford, and to all of our newly-elected MLAs:
At this time, the Alberta Home Education Association congratulates the Progressive Conservative party on its election victory and we look forward, as always, to working together with the government to improve education in our great province.
Before the election, we had worked for several years with two Education Ministers – Dave Hancock and then Thomas Lukaszuk – and our efforts focused on improving education for all children through the recognition of the role of parents in that education.
To that end, we welcome the introduction and the passing of a new Education Act.
The goal of AHEA, before the election and still today, is to work with the government and all concerned parties to create an Education Act wherein the role of parents – and, indeed, the role of teachers and the Ministry of Education – continues to be respected and made clear.
The education of every child will be improved the more the parents of that child are involved in his or her education – including when that child attends a school – and so the role of parents must be recognized in any Education Act as paramount.
This is the goal of AHEA: to protect parental rights.
In order to do that, AHEA continues to ask that there be no reference to the Alberta Human Rights Act in any Education Act.
(AHEA would request several other things be made clear in the Act and we would welcome the opportunity to present those concerns at a meeting with the Premier and a meeting with the Minister of Education once that person is chosen).
The reason for requesting exclusion of the AHRA comes, in fact, from our deep concern for human rights: the AHRA is a narrowly-defined act intended to correct prejudice and inequality in the areas of employment, tenancy and public notices but not education (or, for that matter, many other areas of everyday life in Alberta).
To ask the AHRA to cover education – and, in effect, asking Human Rights commissioners to rule over education – is stretching the legislation beyond its capabilities and usefulness and would also make it the role of HR commissioners to determine the suitability of any education program.
AHEA recognizes that the government has an interest in education – not the paramount right, which lies with parents, but a ‘compelling interest’ as defined by the Supreme Court.
So AHEA does not want the Minister of Education to be removed from the supervision of education by relinquishing that supervision to commissioners.
Parents and teachers cannot negotiate with a Human Rights tribunal and so no parent – and no teacher in any school (public, Catholic, private, charter, home school, etc.) – wants to be under the microscope of such a commission, especially since commissioners are not educators.
Putting the Human Rights Act into the Education Act actually puts the Minister of Education under that same microscope too.
Currently, home educators in Alberta are respected in their role and Alberta parents enjoy freedom of choice in education, and AHEA fully expects that respect and freedom to continue.
We have worked with the government for many years to build this strong foundation and we look forward to working together again on the future review of the Home Education Regulation.
AHEA thanks the government for its consistency in the past which has led to this stability, and we look forward to collaborating in the future to make education in Alberta even better.
Thank you and best wishes for the future,
The Board of Directors of AHEA
Ted Tederoff – President,                                  Chris Rogers - Vice-President
Paul van den Bosch - AHEA Spokesperson      Patty Marler - Government Liaison
Terry Yaceyko                                                    Richard Yaceyko
Shannon Tederoff                                              Juanita Rogers

Alberta’s Political Leaders Say if they will Remove Section 16 from the Education Act

April 21, 2012
The Alberta Catholic School Trustees’ Association has asked 3 direct questions of the Alberta Provincial Leaders.  Two of these questions relate directly to Bill 2, and apply to home educators.  The two home education related questions asked of each Alberta Political leader are:
“If your party forms the next government will  you reintroduce Bill 2 in its most current amended form...?”
“If Bill 2 is reintroduced, will your party remove section 16, pertaining to the Human Rights Code from the Bill?
In their responses, The Progressive Conservative Party, Alberta Party, and The New Democratic Party have all stated they would reintroduce Bill 2 and would keep section 16 in tact as
is. The Liberal Party has not responded.
The Wildrose Party states that section 16 will definitely not be part of a Wildrose Education Act.
YOU now have the opportunity to vote in the way we were calling MLA’s to vote.  A vote for a party in this election is a clear vote for or against including section 16 in the Education Act.
Have your say. On Monday, April 23 you may vote for or against including section 16 in the Education Act.

AHEA's President's comments on Negative and Postive Laws

At the AHEA AGM, President Ted Tederoff shared a quote clarifying the difference between negative law (as we see in the old Section 16  – eg. shall not promote. . .) and positive law (shall promote. . .as seen in the recently proposed Section 16 of Bill 2).  A portion of Ted's president report follows:
Much has been done to ensure parental freedoms in our province, starting with the fact Bill 2, the proposed Education Act, was not passed prior to the election call. We must stay on guard, though. The following quote appears on page 95 in R.J. Rushdoony’s 1973 “The Institutes of Biblical Law”: “The Irish Protestant jurist, John Philpot Curran (1750-1817, said, in 1790, in a speech on ‘The Right of Election,’ ‘It is common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition, if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.’”
One item to be vigilant about is wording of government bills and act that deal with home educational and parental freedom. This ties in with the current Section16 wording which has a negative concept of  law versus the proposed Section 16 wording which has a positive concept of  law. Again quoting Rushdoony from page 101:

A negative concept of law confers a double benefit: first, it is practical, in that a negative concept of law deals realistically with a particular evil. It states, “Thou shalt not steal,” or, “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” A negative statement thus deals with a particular evil directly and plainly: it prohibits it, makes it unlawful. The law thus has a modest function; the law is limited, and therefore the State is limited. The State, as the enforcing agency, is limited to dealing with evil, not controlling all men.

Second, a negative concept of law ensures liberty. If the commandment says, “Thou shalt not steal,” it means that the law can only govern theft: it cannot govern or control honestly  acquired property. When the law prohibits blasphemy and false witness, it guarantees that all other forms of speech have their liberty. The negativity of the law is the preservation of the positive life and freedom of man.

Page 21 of 33

You are here Home