Without doubt, Dr. Bernard Shapiro has correctly identified his task as Commissioner of Ontario's Commission on Private Schools in Ontario as one of dealing with "the age-old problem of freedom and responsibility." But beyond any statement of such intentions, his Commission's mandate reveals that any discussion of freedom or responsibility has already been seriously compromised.

With a government policy firmly in place that states "quality elementary and secondary education should be available to all residents without direct charge," it is blatantly obvious that the responsibility of providing education in Ontario has been assumed by the government itself. Unfortunately, whenever governments "assume responsibilities", the citizenry from whom the burden of such responsibilities is lifted also suffers a corresponding degree of loss of freedom of choice in the exercise of those responsibilities.

Freedom of choice does not exist in Ontario's educational system, despite official government proclamations to the contrary: "Individual rights are protected in that there is no limitation on the voluntary choice to be made between an education in the public system and attendance at a private school." To claim that "individual rights" have been protected by citing a single option available (only to those who can afford to financially support two educational systems) within the government's educational framework is an affront to the nature of individual rights.

Legitimate "individual rights" cannot impose obligations or restrictions upon others. Individual rights encompass all choices --- but only those choices for which individuals are willing to accept the responsibility.

It is disturbing to note that the mandate of this Commission appears to be less concerned with discovering "the one and only right position," and most concerned with finding "a public policy that responds to as many priorities as possible, maximizing the benefits and minimizing the costs." Given such priorities, it would appear that the Commission's role has less to do with the challenge of providing "quality education" than with dealing with an age-old political problem: to whom should the "benefits" accrue, and to whom should costs accrue?

Freedom and responsibility must go hand-in-hand. To claim that "quality education" should be available to all without direct charge totally violates any and all principles dealing with "responsibility."

Freedom Party contends that the current problems facing Ontario's educational system are a direct result of separating freedom of choice in education from the necessity of having to assume direct financial responsibility for that education.

Businesses and institutions that are exempted from the necessity of having to earn their revenues on a voluntary base of exchange (the free market), will as a natural consequence find themselves increasingly unable to compete with their private counterparts, either economically or in the quality of service they provide. Our public education system is no exception to this rule.

For example, even though the marketplace is glutted with unemployed and underemployed trained teachers, these teachers continue to command excessive salaries. With a public service monopoly on the services of teachers, parents and students can easily be used as pawns in labour disputes, while other students and teachers who would be willing to buy and-or offer services at market rates are effectively prevented from entering into voluntary transactions. The problem is intensified by the existence of a single monolithic government education system, leaving those affected without alternatives to turn to --- alternatives that would readily be available in an environment where private schools flourish.

The current public school system is also top-heavy with non-teaching personnel. For example, in 1984 London's Board of Education employed 1,075 non-teaching personnel and 2,070 teachers and principals - a ratio exceeding 1 non-teacher for every 2 teachers! Since 1959, the increase in non-teaching staff has outstripped the increase in teaching staff by a ratio of 2 to 1.

The lack of competition and excessive bureaucracy in the public school system has resulted in a system that has too many large schools in certain areas that can't be filled (although the taxpayer is still committed to their upkeep and maintenance), while in other areas, availability of school space comes at a premium or is non-existent, requiring bussing with its attendant increase in expense.

With a decrease in the birth rate, and with changes in the residential character of certain neighbourhoods, the public bureaucracy is sadly behind the times in reacting to market realities. Small independent schools in a competitive marketplace would be in the best position to cater to areas where larger schools find they can no longer economically exist.

If nothing is done soon, taxes will continue to increase while educational standards will continue to decline, making the possibility of students seeking afternative methods of education even more remote.

Independent schools are, as a general rule, much smaller schools than those existing within the public school system. They employ fewer staff, pay lower salaries, offer more flexible styles of teaching and are more intimately in contact with parents.

As a consequence, they are able to anticipate and react to new advances in technology, information, teaching techniques, etc., without the necessity of having to deal with the unwieldly political and bureaucratic processes that the current public system is faced with. However, because of "double taxation", these developments are generally out of the reach of the majority of parents.

Currently, parents wishing to send their children to an "independent" school must pay, in addition to the fees necessary for their children's attendance at such schools, the compulsory education tax.

Freedom Party regards this as unacceptable.

Since children should have access to the best education available, and since parents should have it available at the most affordable price, compelling these parents to contribute to an education system with whose standards and objectives they obviously do not agree, is blatantly wrong.

Worst affected by this policy are the children of poor-, low-, and middle-income families who are financially discouraged from seeking alternative private education by the knowledge that there is no legal escape from having to support the "public" school system. Least affected by the policy are the children of high-income families, whose parents can obviously afford the extra burden of supporting two educational systems: the one of choice, the other of compulsion.

It is no mere coincidence that from the government's perspective, when it comes to private education, "the only restriction in the exercise of choice rests in the fact that the schools are not government assisted." As a glaring example of how the government is attempting to provide "choice" without its attendant responsibilities, such statements are merely an extension of the philosophy employed in the public system. It is a philosophy that, if practised, will assure that the problems currently facing public schools will spread to the private sector as well.

Any attempt to "assess whether public funding, and its attendant obligations, would be desirable and could be compatible with the nature of their independence," is an attempt at trying to prove a contradiction. In particular, it is those "attendant obligations" that will ensure the destruction of any such independence.

As many university admissions officers will attest, high-school graduates are more than ever unable to read or write correctly. In addition, current youth unemployment statistics at the secondary school graduate level are a compelling indictment against the government's ability to train youths to be competent, independent, or versatile.

But the problem extends beyond the mere "quality" of education being offered. Because the state has "provided" them with an education at no direct cost to the parent or student, the value of that education has virtually lost all its meaning. As a result, the state has deprived individuals of the necessary incentive to seek a marketable education.

If already stretched tax-dollars are further stretched to encompass private education, fewer dollars will be left for post-secondary funding. At a time when university students have been publicly marching for increased tax support of their schools, it is most inappropriate to confront them with increased taxes in addition to increased fees.

(a) Government funding of private education will necessarily lead to government control of private education. This will result in a removal of the diversity of education now available (though limited) in the province, a diversity vital to the university environment.

(b) Public schools suffer a greater degree of severe discipline problems, drug and alchol abuse, vandalism, and other similar problems. These problems often continue after high-school into university and can be traced to a lack of respect for both education and property. Since parents do not directly pay for their children's education, such a result is not to be unexpected!

There has long been a general misconception of the meaning of the word "educate." The dictionaries have not aided in the elimination of this misunderstanding, because they have defined the word "educate" as an act of imparting knowledge.

The word "educate" has its roots in the Latin word educo, which means to develop from within, to educe; to draw out; to grow through the law of use.

An "educated" person is one who knows how to acquire everything he needs in the attainment of his main purpose in life, without violating the rights of his fellow men. It might be a surprise to many so-called men of "learning" to know that they come nowhere near qualification as men of "education." It might also be a great surprise to many who believe they suffer from a lack of "learning" to know that they are well "educated."

[Napoleon Hill- Laws of Success, Success Unlimited Inc., Chicago, Illinois, 1969]

Private funding (i.e., payment for services rendered, directly from the education recipient --- the student or parent) encourages excellence in teaching. Under our current public system, seniority, not excellence, determines employment.

Worse than that, the government-controlled education system is evolving more and more into a part of the government's political agenda rather than being an institution of education. Courses that would never be justified in an educational system geared to meeting the needs of its students are now the main staple of primary and secondary education students.

Moreover, with the two levels of government (provincial and municipal) constantly at odds over funding, affirmative action hirings, cutbacks, French instruction, etc., both the Ministry of Education and the local school boards have become highly politicized.

When a militant teacher's union finds itself in opposition to the political party in power, the political manipulations of the education system that ensue clearly indicate that "education" must be taken out of the hands of the political process as much as possible.

Freedom Party contends that the key to solving most of the problems currently facing Ontario's educational system lies in restoring freedom of choice to parents and students --- a freedom that cannot possibly exist under any system of direct "public funding." To that end, we advocate a "voucher" plan through which all education recipients could direct their education taxes to the schools of their choice, and through which their taxes would be limited by the amount of actual education expense incurred.

As a political party that advocates individual rights and responsibilities, we must insist that the beneficiaries of any service be required to bear the responsibility of paying for such services.

Freedom Party believes that the purpose of government is to protect our freedom of choice, not to restrict it.

Brief prepared and edited by: Robert Metz, President, Freedom Party of Ontario.

Additional Contributors: Marc Emery, Action Director, Freedom Party of Ontario, Mike Gillespie, President, University of Western Ontario Freedom Association

e-mail

Page last updated on April 28, 2002