Though I am not a member of the Freedom Party of Ontario, I am sympathetic to many of its objectives. Having read the first issue of Freedom Flyer, I felt called upon to give its author, Mr. Emery, certain criticisms in regard to his article Local "Elections: First Avenue to Success".

It is the usual fate of those who criticize that they are challenged to offer concrete support for those criticisms; this article is my response to that challenge. While I admired Emery's realism in relation to the municipal councillor's role, I felt that the article, when it got to the subject of school boards, suffered all the sins that he warned against. In particular, I would like to note a number of the specifics that he indicated a Freedom Party candidate must be either for or against.

For example, Emery indicated that a school board candidate must be against teachers having the right to unionize. If teachers in fact had the right to unionize, this would be a step towards freedom because it automatically implies that they would also have the right not to unionize. As it stands under provincial law, teachers must be members of their particular federation (or union) and further, the law indicates in which federation they must be members. Such federations are divided by panel, religion, national language and sex, and are somewhat reminiscent of the Indian caste system which we denigrate so loudly these days.

Emery indicated that a school board candidate must be against increasing the non-teaching staff. One of the silliest things in regard to our education system is that often there is a requirement for teachers where non-teachers would be either more effective or cheaper, and that many teachers are either over-qualified or qualified in the wrong areas of expertise to properly carry out their role.

Emery suggested that candidates must be in favour of municipal tax credits for parents sending their children to a school of their choice. He further indicated that it has not been tested. However, it is very clear that the school board cannot be granting authorities except in the most limited circumstances, and that such would clearly be beyond their authority. This is an issue that must be dealt with in either the provincial or federal parliament.

There are certain basic premises that a candidate for a school board must accept and with which members of Freedom Party may be uncomfortable.

If you intend to run for a public school board, you must accept the basic principle of tax-paid education for all. No electorate will support you unless your highest consideration is the quality of education being supplied by that public system.

Similarly, if you run for a separate school board, you must accept the same principle in regard to Catholic students and must further accept that a prime goal of tax-paid education is to inculcate the Catholic religion.

If you cannot accept the goals of the appropriate school board at least to this extent, then electoral success will not lie before you and your efforts are best expended in another forum.

Emery indicated that candidates must be against special privilege classes designed for minorities of any kind. At best, his statement is ambiguous. It may be misunderstood as a stand against providing education according to the needs of individual students. It is a matter of law that those students who are identified as exceptional (either through some handicap or some extra gift) must be given special programs. In addition, one obviously has to provide extra support in English, for example, to immigrant children who have not yet mastered the language. Though this may not be the intention of Emery's prohibition, his words certainly could bear that interpretation. It would come as a surprise to me that the treatment of people as individuals is contrary to the spirit of Freedom Party.

There are some very basic approaches that a trustee can take to hold down the size and extent of government intervention and to approximate the impact of market forces on the educational side of government.

The trustee can and should attempt to restrict the role of public education authority to the basic statutory duty of providing an education for those eligible to receive it, and not to masquerade as a granting body, a welfare source, or a day-care centre. For instance, a trustee can oppose allowing the use of school property to 'public or charitable' bodies outside the school system at rates that do not recover the costs of that use.

A trustee can and should oppose the growth of unrealistic overhead not related to the primary goal.

School boards are continuously influenced by 'painless' funding. It is not unusual for payback periods (the time during which savings are expected to repay costs) to be calculated as if special funds from provincial and federal governments were not expended and without concern for realistic interest rates. A trustee should insist that expenditure be justified with regard to the goal and to the cost benefits.

A trustee must continually insist that a dollar is a dollar, no matter which taxpayer's pocket it arrives from.

A trustee can and should insist that where the interests of the goal and the system conflict, the system loses.

A trustee has an invaluable springboard for enunciating and highlighting the idiocies of governmental structures, especially in regard to questions relating to funding, bargaining format, provincial responsibility and property standards. A trustee should use his position to clearly point out these problems. I must warn you that angry reactions without proper homework will swiftly destroy credibility.

A final word to anyone seeking the office of trustee. A very simple and possibly effective technique to get attention is to 'teacher-bash' (although it is important to note that teachers probably have the highest turn-out rate of any group in our society, especially when it comes to school board elections). While teachers do enjoy many protections and benefits under our laws, it is important to note that the basic goal that must be accepted cannot be carried out without competent and dedicated teachers. The task that they have is both difficult and important. Teacher-bashing is not only shortsighted from a morale and employee situation, but I consider it to be a collectivist attack on a single class.

A trustee or trustee candidate must be firm on his objectives, indicating to both the public and teachers where he or she is unhappy with the structure. But the person who cares about freedom must be committed to the dignity of individuals.

e-mail

Page last updated on April 28, 2002