Decision on school options should rest with parents
Every now and then one of our elected officials unleashes a truth bomb, some pointed statement that cuts through all self-serving nonsense in a particular debate.
This brings me to Orville Chubb, the publisher of Avenue magazine and an Edmonton public school board trustee who is passionate about the need to partially fund private school students.
For the last two decades, the provincial government has given partial funding to schools for private students, around 60 to 70 per cent of what each public school gets per student. Right now, however, the Edmonton public school board is teaming up with the teachers’ union and other school unions to try to chop this funding.
Such a move would see the province refuse to pay to educate more than 20,000 Alberta children. Education Minister David Eggen is considering this notion.
Michael Janz, an Edmonton public school trustee who was board chairman until the end of February, has helped lead the charge to defend children at private schools, with Chubb leading the opposition.
Chubb has first-hand experience with the private system. In the late 1990s, one of his five children was struggling in school. Chubb and his wife feared their son was going to drop out. They searched for options inside the public system. They agonized over the matter, but finally decided that, as costly as it was, a private school that included rigid discipline and faith-based instruction was the best bet.
So, years later, when Janz started to push this defending campaign, Chubb spoke up, pointing out at the board debate on the issue earlier this year that private schools teach the provincial curriculum and provide a sound education to students. He also noted that if partial funding is cut off, it will force many children out of the private system for economic reasons and the public system will have to pay in full for their education.
Government money follows students to whatever school they choose, as is only right, Chubb argued. “Some characterized this debate as, ‘Those (private) schools are taking money away from our students.’ But those are also students, they are citizens of the province.”
Parents were skeptical of the motives behind the push for a public-education monopoly, Chubb said. “This seemed to them to be an empire-building exercise rather than true interest in educating citizens in our province.”
And right then is when Chubb dropped the truth bomb on his own board: “To presume we are the only ones that can do a good job of that, I think it the definition of arrogance.”
Chubb is right. It is the parent, not a board trustee or union official, who knows best what their child needs — and it’s arrogant to presume otherwise.
The defending movement’s main proponents argue they’ll take the $100 million that would have gone to these 20,000-plus children and use it to pay for things like public school fees. But these school fees are growing so fast mainly because of a public school policy decision — at many schools, teachers and parent volunteers no longer supervise lunches for free; it’s become a paid position, and parents have been asked to foot the bill. But in no way are children at private schools responsible for this added expense. It’s shameful to suggest private school families should be defended to pay for a problem they didn’t create.
I’ll make one final argument, that the partial funding of private school students is essential to the health of the public system.
Indeed, the push to create so much excellent school choice and dynamic alternative programs within Edmonton Public was driven by competition from private and charter schools and by the desire of public school administrators to provide students with numerous choices, says Emery Dosdall, superintendent of Edmonton Public Schools from 1996 to 2001, when school choice exploded here.
I reached Dosdall in Vancouver, where he’s now retired.
“I believe we should have as much choice as possible within a public system,” he says, noting such programs entice students who might otherwise lose interest in schooling.
For example, if a teenager is a keen hockey player or an aspiring actor, if they can go to a school where they can follow their passion so long as they continue their studies, they’re much more likely to continue those studies.
As for the matter of private student funding, Dosdall buys into the notion that having competition from partially funded private schools helps drive the public school system to be better.
“Whether we like to say that publicly or not, we all need competition,” he says.
“It keeps you accountable, it keeps you focused, and that’s good stuff.”
Some characterized this debate as, ‘Those (private) schools are taking money away from our students.’ But those are also students, they are citizens of the province.