= By BETTY GRIFFIN Let’s. get the facts straight about this whole business of freedom of choice, responsibility _and accountability as it relates to ~ financing education. It is particularly important in View of the present campaign by the independent schools to pressure the government into _ Siving public funds and the recent _ about-face by the Social: Credit Party which for 20 years refused _ all assistance but is now pledged to _ 4 policy of making public monies “available for independent schools. _ All the provinces have resisted the giving of financial aid to in- _ dependent schools. As Premier William Davis of Ontario stated in 1971 ‘. . . support would fragment the present system beyond _ Yecognition and repair, and do so to _ the disadvantage ofall those who have come to want for their children a public school system _ free of a denominational or sec- tarian character.” Davis argued further that such a policy cannot be, in reason or in __ justice, limited to some faiths and denied to others. Nor can it, in . be limited to the : and academic - Secondary school systems alone. _ We would inevitably be obliged to Proceed throughout all our €ducational institutions — to fragment and divide both our _ young people and our resources, from kindergarten through ‘postgraduate university studies.” In no province is any group _ denied the right to establish its own _ School. In this province there are 70 _ Catholic schools, 29 schools of _ Other religious denominations, and _ 31 non-denominational schools. (From . latest Statistics Canada information.) Obviously these Schools have a right to exist. _ But because they have a right to €xist does not mean that they have aright to public funds. These funds - re raised solely for the purpose of B ogic,. _ B.N.A. Act and our Public Schools - Acts. School boards are held ac- Countable to the taxpayers in their districts as well as to the provincial Sovernment. The _ provincial _ §0vernment in turn, is held ac- Countable to the people of the - province, and governments have len because of their education finance policies. _ Because public schools are _ Supported by public money, every ‘Child has the right to attend. If _ Parents object to some feature in Our schools, that parent has a right to raise it with a publicly elected School board or department of: _ €ducation. If it is a vital issue and Is not resolved, then the question will be decided at the polls. ‘ On the other hand, independent = Schools can limit the entrance of | upils, get rid of them as they _ please, and are accountable to no Public body for what they: spend, how they operate, or who they hire to teach. The main point is — they are independent because they do hot have to be accountable or responsible to the public at large Cause they do not use public Money. To fully appreciate the com- - Plexity of this question requires a -, Owledge of our history and an ‘Understanding of our laws. At the time of Confederation, = Canada included Nova Scotia, New _ _Trunswick, Quebec and Ontario., The B.N.A. Act which set the. Stound rules for Confederation, reflects the historical development that eastern part of our country “ Ch was settled first by the _*tench who established Catholic Schools, and then by the English © developed Anglican or _ *Totestant schools. To protect the Tights of the founding provinces . Which they had already established by law, the writers of the B.N.A. Public education as defined by the + Act in Section 93 included the following: “I and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education, subject and according to the following provisions: “Where in any Province a- System of Separate or Dissentient Schools exists by Law at the Union or is thereafter established by the Legislature of the Province, an Appeal shall lie ‘to the Governor General in Council from any Act or Decision of any Provincial Authority affecting any Right or Privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic: Minority of the Queen’s ‘Subjects in relation to Education.” In other words, responsibility for education was given to the provinces, but — if any province joming Canada had _ previously provided by law, financial assistance to any religious school, such assistance could not be revoked. Similarly, if such financial assistance was provided after joining Canada, the province would be in trouble if it attempted to revoke it. If such a situation occurred, the federal government had, and still has the right to step in and -overrule the provincial government. This.is what the Manitoba School Act battle of 1890 was all-about, a battle that brought down the Conservative government in Ot- tawa. : : Manitoba had no public schools when it entered Confederation in 1870. The first legislature passed a school law similar to that of Quebec, providing for a board of education in which half the members were Catholic and half Protestant, each group having its own superintendent of education, and dividing the school funds between them. Ottawa, acting under the B.N.A. Act, ordered: Manitoba to restore the privileges to the Catholics. Manitoba firmly refused. The matter went to the courts, to the Privy Council, to the Cabinet, to the Supreme Court of Canada, back to the Privy Council, each in turn overruling the other. Prime Minister John Thompson, a Catholic, and naturally suspect by Protestant critics, was at a loss. Upon his sudden death, Mackenzie Bowell became head of govern- ment, but that gentleman was a past grandmaster of the Orange Protestants on his head who resented the ‘‘papal intervention.” ‘This brief -summary of the Manitoba: school question cannot describe the devastating divisions and animosities aroused throughout the country, animosities that have lasted for years. We can at least understand however, that such a question can tear a people apart. _ B.C. did not join Confederation until 1872 and its historical development was completely different from eastern Canada. Separation of church and state was one of the first principles established in our early school system and was enunciated in our first Public Schools Act prior to our entry in Canada. : In reading over the original reports of 1864 and 1865, it is in- teresting to note that the main bone of contention was whether or not our schools should be free, rather than the question of non-sectarian education which had _ over- whelming support. At a meeting called by the first mayor of Victoria, Tom Harris, in 1864, the 500 people attending voted overwhelmingly in favor of ‘a free non-sectarian-school open to all classes in the community,”’ and in 1865 the Vancouver Island Once aid is given to separate schools, an appeal may be made-to the federal government to prevent provincial decision to reduce or eliminate such aid. Thus the decisions of a province in the financing of .- education could be made outside the province. . . . Lodge, and the separate school question now became a political football. Finally, half of Bowell’s ministry resigned and hehimself was forced to retire. Dr. Charles Tupper was hastily made Prime Minister. He tried to force remedial legislation through, but the Liberals carried out a filibuster, resulting in con- tinuous sessions one hundred hours long. : Finally Tupper had to dissolve Parliament and call an election. He and his Conservative govern- ment went down to defeat, and Laurier headed the new Liberal government. Seen The new prime minister finally managed a_ settlement with Manitoba, but feelings against the Liberals ran so high in Quebec that the penalties of the Church were invoked to prohibit reading certain - Liberal newspapers, and in the end he had to appeal to the Pope to quiet the clergy. This in turn brought down the wrath -of the Legislature acceded to the popular demand by passing -An Act Respecting Common Schools. Amor de Cosmos who was to become premier of this province, observed as editor of the Colonist, “We arenot disposed to cavil at the imperfections of the bill so long as .two great principles — free schools and a non-sectarian system of education are enunciated.” De Cosmos, together with John Robson, had long championed the cause- ~ The British Columbia Year Book of 1911 has this interesting com- ment: “In 1876, when the present revenue tax was introduced, a number of the Roman Catholic members of this community petitioned against the imposition of this tax for school purposes on the grounds that, for conscientious reasons, they supported schools of their own, and they should not be compelled to pay for schools they did not use. The legislature did not — ‘Public funds for public schools’ recognize the validity of the ob- jections urged, and that was the first and last effort in the direction of establishing separate schools in the province.” Little did the writer know that a hundred years later this province would again hear the same demand. : So what’s wrong with a little assistance? Well, giving a little assistance is like being a little big pregnant — it doesn’t stop at a little. John Prior, a most respected . educator in this province and a past president of the Canadian Teachers’ Federation warned before he died a few years.ago: “The problem of ‘‘creeping assistance” to parochial schools should be fully comprehended in terms of the B.N.A. Act. Once aid is given to separate (parochial) schools, an appeal may be made to the federal.government to prevent provincial decision to reduce or eliminate such aid. Thus_ the decisions of a province -in the financing of education could be decided outside the province by a federal cabinet composed of people from provinces where separate school systems are a historic fact.” This of course, is what happened in Manitoba. Finally, in response to the charge that a ‘‘two-school” system is better (why not twenty?), let’s get the facts straight once again. Our school system was organized by John Jessop, our» first Superintendent of Education, who based it on that established by. the outstanding educator of the last century, Dr. Egerton Ryerson, father of the Ontario school system.. Even today these two provinces are almost identical in their curriculum, text books and teaching methods. The Ontario Department of Education is responsible for all the public schools, which included Catholic schools (because of the B.N.A. Act). Catholic school boards must conform to the On- tario School Act just as other school boards must do. Their ‘ problem is money. It’s costly. For example, in 1968 according to their statistics, the provincial per pupil grant was $230 for public schools, but $384 for separate schools. This was to compensate for the lack of revenue raised at the local level. Even at that, the total revenue per pupil for those in separate schools has consistently lagged behind that of the public schools. Teachers are more poorly paid and strikes are not unknown. Another problem, ‘‘smallness of schools,” plays havoc’ with the future of our young people. A research report commissioned by the Alberta Trustees’ Association found they had 316 high schools enrolling fewer than 300 students each, and of. these, 92 enrolled fewer than 40 students. The report pointed out that these small schools offered grossly inadequate programs, the achievement of students was grossly inferior, and instructional supplies and equipment grossly inadequate. It concluded its fin- dings (Downey, 1965, p.57-58) by stating, ‘“‘Religion (and the legal provision for separate schools) continues to be one of the major _ factors producing smallness in schools.’’ Amalgamation was the answer. One could continue province by province — Newfoundland is another case in point — to show that where the school system is fragmented, the result is a multiplicity of small schools, staggering school costs, poor at- tandance, inadequate programs, supplies and equipment. But worst of all — the students’ performance is grossly inferior and their chances of a decent job virtually nil. It is indeed strange and terrifying to see the campaign in B.C. for us to fragment our school system, when it is the envy of the other provinces. : We must keep public funds for public education if we are to maintain a non-sectarian school system. © : The warning to the independent schools of this province should also be clear. The moment you accept public funds will be the moment you lose your independence. I for one, will demand access to your budgets and operating procedures. I will demand that you have fully qualified and certified teachers “with the right to collective bargaining. I will demand all those rights I presently exercise with our — present public school system — a system I help to pay for, but which I help to control at the polls. And finally, a warning to any government of British Columbia which threatens the basic prin- ciples upon which our school system is founded — separation of church and state— it only takesa little spark to set off a catastrophic conflagration. Betty Griffin is past president of the Burnaby Teachers Association and is currently teaching in Burnaby. PACIFIC TRIBUNE—NOVEMBER 21, 1975—Page