The following is Freedom Party's official submission to the Royal Commission on Learning as it was delivered by Fp leader Robert Metz on October 18, 1993, in London. The submission was heard by Commissioners Avis E. Glaze and Monsignor Dennis J. Murphy.

In a quoted comment in the London Free Press (Sept 1, 1993), Commission chairperson Monique Begin stressed that this $3 million Royal Commission on Learning wants to hear from "the so-called silent majority ... people who think their opinion doesn't count."

Well, I already happen to know that my opinion doesn't count - and won't ever count under any govemment-run education system - because if I don't like how my education tax dollars are being spent, or if I don't like the curriculum being taught, or if I don't like the philosophy being taught, my government will nevertheless continue to force me to fund its system. Sad to say, every other Ontarian is in the same situation.

That the gathering of public opinion should even have any bearing whatsoever on the process of learning is evidence that those in charge of our so-called public education system do not know what the learning process requires.

I say "so-called" public education system because what we're really talking about is a govemment-run education system, a concept quite alien to and the opposite of a public education system.

In today's London Free Press (October 18, 1993), Commission co-chairperson Gerald Caplan wonders how this Commission will pull all the conflicting ideas it hears together into a final report. This merely emphasizes once again that this Royal Commission is committed to a state-run, state-financed education system, which is the source of all the problems and complaints about our education system. Otherwise, "conflicting ideas" would not be an issue.

If we really want the public's opinion to count, then we must let the members of that public have a choice; we must let them direct their education tax dollars to the school(s) of their choice; we must lot them choose alternative forms of schooling and of funding; and we must lot the marketplace choose its own curricula.

But instead of offering the public any of these choices, this government instead grants them a limited ten-minute appearance before a Royal Commission to voice their "concerns," as if that could possibly do justice to people who are paying thousands and thousands of tax dollars towards a monolithic, bureaucratic education system that increasingly teaches values with which they do not agree and which no longer even seems able to offer the most basic education and skills training.

Common complaints about government run-schools argue:

• that school trustees seldom set foot in the schools to see first hand what is going on and seldom approach students or their families for their input. Nor would it make much difference if they did, because their trusteeship carries little real power. The schools are governed by hundreds of clauses in provincial law, which stifle innovation at every turn, while course content is dictated by a huge Queen's Park bureaucracy;

• that the curricula are more the result of political pressure than of market feedback resulting from consumer preference for objective standards and objective measurements of those standards. It may surprise most people to learn that the motivation behind the creation of "official" schooling in Canada was for the very purpose of state indoctrination, not education. Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe, as far back as 1791, wanted to establish state-run schools to counter the teachings of "enthusiastic and fanatic Teachers" whom he blamed for the conspiracy leading to the American revolution. (Loyal She Remains, pg. 376, United Empire Loyalists' Association of Canada, 1984)

• that the demand for school funding is becoming a battleground for competing groups, each claiming "equal benefits of the law," in practice meaning equal access to OTHER people's tax dollars for THEIR schools;

• that heavy unionization of the teaching profession has fostered a system which rewards seniority more than ability, and which is therefore not results-oriented:

• that school costs and education taxes are rising faster than enrolment and continue to rise even in the face of declining enrolment;

• That too much (or too little!) emphasis is placed on a piece of paper called a "diploma," implying that the paper is not worth what it ought to be worth;

• that high school graduates lack basic skills such as literacy, numerical ability, and acceptable workplace ethics and attitudes;

• that students have a lack of respect for schools and for their own education, since neither they nor their families must directly pay for the costs of that education;

• that compulsory schooling and the philosophy that justifies it nourishes a coercive mind which, in later years, may result in coercive behaviour;

• that state schools serve only the median level of intelligence; slow learners get left behind (or are advanced despite their difficulties) and fast learners get fed up with boredom.

I have pondered for many years why a supposedly free country would not allow its citizens the right of choice when it comes to their choice in education. If we were talking about the books we read, the neighbourhoods we live in, the religion or philosophies we practise, the food we eat, the people we associate with - in fact in most areas of our lives, we would highly value our freedom of choice and would resent it if governments were to make those choices for us.

Yet, when it comes to our most precious resources - our children - parents and taxpayers are not permitted to exercise this necessary freedom. State schooling constitutes a monopoly on education that must be broken if the public can ever expect to have a say in education.

The choice of an education may be the most important choice a person can make in his or her lifetime. But for most people, less attention is given to this choice than the attention given to the purchase of a new car. Why?

Because - when it comes to education - we haven't got a choice.

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

Since its official registration in 1984, Freedom Party has been actively campaigning for freedom of choice in education on every possible front:

• We have, in door-to-door campaigns, criticized the labour monopoly under which our education system operates;

• We have protested and fought the ever-increasing high taxes that are being paid towards an ever-decreasing quality of education;

• We have publicly condemned the "whole language" approach to teaching basic literacy skills and fought for the right of parents and taxpayers to avoid this method; and,

• We have consistently advocated that parents and taxpayers have the right to direct their education taxes to the school(s) of their choice - and most importantly, that those taxes be ultimately limited by the amount of expense incurred to the education system by that particular taxpayer or taxpayers.

We do not advocate a "rob Peter to pay Paul" approach to funding education. Ultimately, we think that "Peter" should be responsible for Peter's education and that "Paul" should be responsible for Paul's education.

I have included copies of various publications and press reproductions relating to our above-mentioned activities, and which expand on some of the ideas I have touched upon here today.

Using the principle of freedom of choice as your guide, this Commission could therefore easily reconcile and accommodate the "widely different ideas" that are being presented before it. When it comes to offering the "silent majority" an opinion that "counts", this Commission really has only one choice to present in its final recommendations: freedom of choice in education for each and every individual student parent, and taxpayer.

To do otherwise would constitute an infringement on this Commission's mandate to give Ontarians a say in their education system.

GET THE DETAILS! Background information accompanying Freedom Party's submission to the Royal Commission on Learning is available to Fp members and supporters on request.

e-mail

Page last updated on April 28, 2002