Even though I'm opposed to privatization, the idea of parents paying extra for school supplies sort of appeals to me. It's a "user pay" arrangement, in a way, and as a childless person, that suits me (just as toll highways do; I don't drive, so why should I pay tax dollars for a highway?). My spouse and I like children, but chose not to have them ourselves, in large part because our incomes were so low. Now I look at the effects of over-population (even just here in Vancouver), and am doubly pleased with our decision. Too many people have children without regard for whether they will have enough money to provide for them, not to mention whether they're emotionally healthy enough, or will have enough time to spare. So their shortage of money means the rest of society has to pitch in, and their inadequate emotional health and lack of time for their kids means society is burdened with maladjusted youngsters. That's just my take on this.

There are about 4 million people living in bc Jimmy and i just want to be clear: do you think that each tax paying citizen should have their own tax plan. That's one of the many problems of populist thinking, and a concept printed daily in the local rags. That is the idea that "i don't use such and such service; therefore, why should i pay for it". Half of the simplistic complaints on the canada.com soundoffs are along those lines - more often than not (it seems) they are attacks on the poor, but nevertheless, it's one contradiction after another: i don't drive, why should i pay for roads; i don't use transit, why should i subsidize bus passes; i'm healthy, why shouldn't i have private health care. it goes on and on. but this issue is a catch-22 now isn't. we all want best for our children, particularly when it comes to education, but i must say, Bikerstaff's views are quite disconcerting and very naive (as Colin said). I don't think that his children are really seeing a cross-section of society in a Point Grey school (even if it is public).

His campaign is all well and good in Point Grey, but it allows funding cuts for ALL schools, which means Britannia and others in poorer neighbourhoods will suffer. Nobody is denying the rich their ability to sed their kids to a private school. This is about denying the poor the ability to go to an adequate school, by underfunding all of them.

In contrast to the PAC in the story, the results of a PAC-led survey at Gladstone Secondary School show only 10% of parents naming fundraising as an important role for the PAC. At the top of the list was 'promoting social responsibility' and 'taking my ideas to the school'. Personally, I want my GOVERNMENT, not Jeff, to make sure public schools have the funds they need for libraries, basic supplies and whatever else they need to educate all BC youth.

Very interesting article & comments, thank you. Permit me to add three points 1) To Jimmy: please consider reading the goals underlying Canada's public education system--which John Raulston Saul reminded us about during his recent visit. Please also consider a) the many childless adults who helped our parents finance our great education and b) who will pay for your healthcare, etc when we retire? Our kids. Let's hope they ALL have a great education & earn good incomes, because aging baby boomers and declining birthrates means each kid will support more seniors via their taxes than we are today. This concern underlies Canada's efforts to attract new immigrants -- as it is we can't sustain healthcare etc without them. 2)As a PAC member and former PAC Chair, my understanding is that PACs are statutory bodies that by definition consist of and represent ALL parents whose kids attend the school. Shutting out some parents and/or their concerns would certainly contravene the spirit, and perhaps the letter, of the School Act. In this and other respects, PACs are VERY different from hospitals, businesses or non-profit foundations. As the name implies, Parent Advisory Councils are not simply the school's fundraising arm; their main purpose is to provide an interface for dialogue between school staff and ALL parents in the interests of enhancing their students' education. Queen Mary seems to have totally lost sight of that. They should consider creating a separate non-profit foundation for Mr. Bickerstaff's prodigious efforts, and allow their PAC to do what it's supposed to do. While it's a legitimate PAC activity, fundraising shouldn't be the sole focus or the cause of such division among parents. Our PAC operates by consensus -- it's never been a problem. How can we represent all parents if some bitterly oppose what we're doing? And our fundraising efforts are guided by larger (shared) goals: beverage container recycling teaches important values (and keeps our streets clean, Jimmy!), multicultural night attracts ESL parents into the PAC fold & helps our kids appreciate each other's cultures (think safer neighbourhoods, Jimmy!). Queen Mary's PAC is teaching its kids to value nothing but money (which makes me wonder how generous they'll be about keeping us in our old age, Jim!). 3) The whole point of the article--i.e. that this sort of intense fundraising creates inequities between schools, is a very valid one (and I'm not just saying that because our PAC's best efforts rarely raise more than $6,000/year!). The relationship between funding and results, and the inequities facing kids who happen to live in the wrong neighbourhood, is clearly reflected in B.C.'s recent FSA test results. Dismissing the complaints as political also ignores that the provincial PAC umbrella body BCCPAC (and parents like myself) have been urging successive provincial governments to address underfunding since the mid-1990s, with the chorus growing louder since cuts accelerated in 2002. Queen Mary may succeed in addressing the problem for 300 or so of BC's half a million students, but in doing so it threatens most other schools, like ours, that don't have retired CEOs and wealthy, well-connected neighbours who can emulate their success. This undermines the fundamental goal of public education -- providing a level playing field that allows each child to achieve their full potential, regardless of where they come from. The implications for the wider society are far reaching, as Raulston Saul reminded us when he quoted Tory and future Father of Confederation R.D. Wilmot, who argued in 1852 that public education "promotes the peace and preserves the well-being of society..."

One point sums up this man's lack of real life experience: how can you not 'politicize' an appearance by the PREMIER whose cuts are a major part of the problem with education today?

Bickerstaff's "business model" of fundraising for schools reminds me of the well-disguised condescension that is the territory of most charitable events. Simply throwing money at things doesn't fix anything for the long term, it just keeps things afloat for awhile.

Education is the right of every child and is too important to be held hostage by the whims of the rich. It is not about money, it is about creating a society that values education. The Campbell crew's practice of giving large tax cuts to the rich and often subsidizing private enterprise with our public monies has resulted in the underfunding of our schools. The money is there for education, it's just that the present government would rather give it to the wealthy first and the schools last. If we continue to fundraise for schools we will remain victims of a system that operates at the discretionary powers of the rich. If we protest, and demand "our" money is used to adequately fund education, who knows what revolutionary acts may blossom - like the right of a student to actually be supplied with a textbook.

"Money isn't everything"... until it is the last $5 you have to feed your hungry family that month. Money is much more important to those that don't have any. Perhaps we would see Mr. Bickerstaff, supposed friend of Mr. Campbell, in a different light if he was raising money for all the Vancouver schools and not just for a school surrounded my multi-million dollar homes. No doubt he sees his PAC in direct competition with other school PACs for donated dollars (that would be a true business model). Unfortunately, schools like his will continue to buy the necessities while schools in poorer neighbourhoods will make do with whatever the teachers are willing to buy out of their own pockets. That being said, I don't begrudge the fact that his school needs the funds he is raising on behalf of its students. Maybe his fundraising efforts, and the inequity of supplies among different schools, will entice his "friend" to fund education properly. The least he could do is ask ... you know ... friend to friend.

Lynn hits it right on the head with the comment of the [thinly to me] "well-disguised condescension" of charity - especially by the ultra well-heeled. This is the same irony of crassly over-paid "athletes" of whatever "game" posing as "generous" philanthropists via "charity golf" games and similar "social" poses.

This man may be able to buy a few cheap trinkets to sell for a higher price to trinketless parents, but it is very obvious he should stay completely away from anything to do with politics, including schools, at least until he goes and takes a couple of introductory and primary politics courses. Scary, scary, scary.

I feel very sorry for the children of people like Mr. Bickerstaff, for if they follow in their parents' footsteps, they will be missing out on one of the true joys in life: the feeling one gets for simply trying to make the world a better place. Mr. Bickerstaff and other parents like him seem to be blissfully unaware of how they are training our next generation of citizens to be selfish and unconcerned about the welfare of others around them. I find this very sad, indeed.

I have an excellent solution. Perhaps it would be a good time for a two tiered school system. One school (for the wealthy) will educate its students in important things like economics, business management and the sciences - with a special focus on biological and computer sciences. These are after all, what,s truly "important" in todays socio-economic climate. The other school will teach the less wealthy kids rudimentary things like agriculture, weapons handling, simple electronics (for disabling alarm systems, say) and a variety of torture techniques. It should also include mandatory courses in knife fighting, hand to hand combat, small arms usage and guerilla tactics. At the end of the year, a live televised debate would be held and whichever group comes out of the studio is declared the winner and gets the entire provincial education budget for that year. Naturally we'd require most of the Fraser Institutes researchers to adjudicate this event and they'd be required to attend in person. For uhhhh.... "grading" purposes. I think this 'two tiered system' would help the much smaller numbered wealthier families understand that if they want to play "class war" - then the much larger number of families at the bottom can take that "war" to a whole other level. "Bring it on", Mr. Bickerstaff.

Between teachers paying for supplies out-of-pocket and the PACS being asked to work like mules selling chocolates and gift wrap we have played right into Gordon Campbell's hands. We have let the government off the hook for providing for the education of our future. The creation of a two-tiered school system will ensure a more divided province in the days to come. At least Mr. Bickerstaff can fly out to his private island when things really spin out. I also wonder when the meaning of dissent got twisted to mean "negative"? Dissent is what democracy looks like Mr. Bickerstaff. Sounds like the parents at QM need to "take back" their PAC! Is there enough community-feeling in the Point Grey area to pull out of PAC's -for-profit, or, does the "damned-be -all, my kid deserves the best and you can't tell me not to subsidize" mentality prevail? I guess time will tell.

Well, I am not too surprised that a businessman like Bickerstaff can't see the politics involved with his fundraising schemes. But for Gordo Campbell to agree to attend a fundraising gala event for a public school as a keynote speaker speaks volumes about how absolutely out of it HE is with regards to public education and the public good. Now if only the Sun's Steffenhagen could have jumped on that one, she would have had herself an interesting story.

Education is considered to be just another commodity to be bought, sold and traded. It's not a 'right', it's not even a 'privelege', it's just a product. As such it's possible to identify students and their families as 'consumers' of education. And then let the market decide.

Great irony, Dana; exactly the opposite of what you are saying is true.

Here is the CBC story on the same topic:

http://vancouver.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=b c_books20031128

Jeff provides "Marie Antoinette" style quotes which are typical of a BC Liberal supporter.

The following was extracted from the CBC article:

But Patti Bacchus who has two children at the school, says she's alarmed by the decision, calling it a "slippery slope."

"It concerns me that we are now going to have a system where there are schools, if you're parents can afford to do it, your kids are going to have textbooks.

"If you're in a community where that isn't the case, I don't know what those kids are going to be doing.

"I'm sure there are many schools that aren't getting new books this year," says Bachus.

Parent Advisory Committee chair Jeff Bickerstaff says there is a school board policy discouraging parents from buying textbooks – but says his group doesn't care.

"Quite frankly they can think whatever they like, " he says. "We're independent.

"If we wanted to buy tiddlywinks, as I often say, that's what the PAC would do, " he says.

Bickerstaff says most of the parents were in favour of the initiative.

Mr. Bickerstaff is such a generous and broad-minded person, I am sure that he would be willing to distribute his raised funds equitably amongst all Vancouver schools. How about it Mr. Bickerstaff?

Thankyou, Sue, thankyou. Irony is my life.

Although, for the consumers of the BC Liberal koolaid, like Mr. Bickerstaff (marverlous name for a corporate apologist, isn't it?), it isn't irony at all. It's orthodoxy. By and large, everything is seen as a commodity in that worldview. It's one of the reasons why it's so easy for them to denigrate government delivery of services in favour of private delivery models.

They actually believe it's unfair for government to tend to the needs of it's citizens because that tends to disallow competition in the market place of citizens needs. The have a simpleminded belief that the market place will generate public good like universal education or universal healthcare.

It is interesting that Mr. Bickerstaff recognizes that public funds should adequately support public education and recognizes that it doesn't. Rather than spend his energy on addressing the root of the problem he has co-opted his talents to provide the band-aide solution. The inequalities that result in continuation of his kind of effort are already being seen in other areas. How many have seen a BCTF research poll into the effectiveness of the district level fundraising efforts that are being encouraged by the BC 'Liberal' government? West Vancouver nows sells enough seats to (mostly) the Asian market to generate 17% of its budget. While the government funds the average student to the tune of about $6500, West Van has an extra $1131/student to spend because they have been attracting foreign students into their schools. The disparities generated by Mr. Bickerstaff are dwarfed compared to this kind of fundraising, and it too is heavily weighted in favor of those who are already advantaged.

wow. i grew up in a fabulous West Van neighborhood and was bullied at their fabulous schools. My school experience was 'it's not who you are but what you have that counts'. Any way i learned the hard way that some wealthy neighborhoods do not do a very good job of creating community and supporting children and families who are less well off. Despite the fundraising abilities of wealthier communities there are people who believe that children deserve a good education and access to the basic tools they need to acheive that. I hope that people will continue to do that...in the meantime my child is attending a community school with children from a variety of backgrounds with a variety of abilities. I hope that it prepares her for life in the same way being bullied by materially well off but emotionally deprived children taught me where to go and whom to avoid.

Congratulations to Judith Ince for using the Queen Mary situation to explore a number of complex issues. In my experience, many Vancouver PACs are now involved in fundraising -- some for more than Queen Mary is aiming for -- and so although Mr. Bickerstaff is a very colourful personality, his position is not as unusual as it might seem. Now is a good time for us to step back and ask ourselves what is the purpose of a parent advisory council? Should elected PACs be involved in fundraising? In political advocacy? PACs are quite different, school by school. I have been a member of a PAC that determined by a vote that it was not political" and could not be involved in political things like lobbying the government for money. That PAC sees its main job as fundraising (albeit in a much lower-key way than QM). I've also been involved in a PAC that made political advocay its main goal, with fundraising left to committees at the initiative of parents who had an interest in doing that. Whether or not the PAC executive is involved in fundraising, many parents contribute a great deal of time (and money) to fundraisers for the athletic program, the music program, playground equipment, earthquake preparedness equipment, etc. As Patti Bacchus points out, "All the parent fundraising in the world won't reduce waiting lists for psycho-educational assessments, increase support for special needs kids, increase library staffing or reduce class sizes." Fundraisers can't be used to provide staffing (at least not yet). However, in many schools they are very quietly being used to provide basic supplies, like sheet music for a highschool band program. Mr. Bickerstaff is obviously putting his heart and soul into doing what he thinks is best for his school community. It's probably the saddest comment yet on the state that our schools have come to, that a retired parent would feel the need to work fulltime raising money for a school in one of the wealthiest neighbourhoods in the province. However, a lot of us who are not retired are putting in long hours on fundraising campaigns, for much less money, and that is a hidden tax on our children. We're paying for their education by giving away the time that we would have spent with them, listening to their stories of how they spent their day. We're attending fundraising meetings instead of reading to them at bedtime. I know, because I'm currently participating (to varying degrees) in 4 separate fundraisers at one school!

Now all you wonderful people who understand the need for funding in education, write to Mr. Collins and tell him where to put his excess wealth. Back where he and others have taken it from, health care and education. I sure will. Oh, in case he and his other liberals don't listen, or are too stupid to understand..make sure you vote. As for this wealthy retired dad, why don't you direct your energy, talent and money towards running in the next election and supporting the right cause..just remember though that power corrupts and stay the course..children first, politics second!

Dana - good point on " - - -Competition in the market place of citizens' needs - - -" I can think of two of many examples off hand. The liberals have been teaming up with the 'Chambers of Commerce' to lessen the exposure of our 'BC Parks', whom they see as being in competition with private owners involved in the Tourist Industry (ie.-campgrounds) In the Nelson area, BC Parks info is virtually non existent in the smaller info centres. I was only able to find a particular BC park map I was looking for in the Nelson Chamber of Commerce info centre, and only after asking for it and having it handed to me from 'behind' the counter. I'm wondering if that's the norm all over B.C.?? I've heard that some of the many low maintenance/ no frills Forestry campsites(two outhouses and firepits) have been shut down in the Kootenays due to 'budget cuts?' and competition complaints from local campground owners. I suspect that BC Parks and B.C. Forests people are running a bit scared with this government, and saying nothing. With I.C.B.C., we went through the privatization thing when Vander Zalm was in power. Vander Zalm was extremely far to the right, however at the end of that exercise he told the private sector they would have to prove they could do it cheaper - it never went any farther. This government is 'siding' with the 'private sector' and desperately trying to give them a cut of the action. It doesn't seem fair that us losers picking up a pay check every two weeks can't hold onto some involvement in free enterprise via our continuation as shareholders in ICBC. We've done very well by it over the years. Unfortuneately, we have an extremely neoconservative government supported by about 20% of the population and just as importantly Canwest media, up against their opposite on the other end of the political supported by 20% +/- of the population, and the other 60% +/-of us without a party and voting for the lesser of two evils. We are sooooooo long overdue for an open-minded middle of the road government, rather than the narrow minded two that have prevailed for too long

Why doesn't Bickerstaff fund raise on the west side & give the money to an east side school? He could choose a new east side school each year the reap the benefits of the wealthy west side. If he's really concerned about public education he and the other Queen Mary parents should share the wealth.

I served at QM's 2002-2003 PAC as Member-at-Large and learned a great deal about Public Education issues. Regarding school funds, I saw two strong currents: fundraising action led by Mr. Bickerstaff; public education advocacy led by Patti Bacchus, each very talented, skilled and dedicated in their particular approach. I see the merit in solving school needs using the fast results of the fundraising method but also its limited effect in the long term: a PAC led by a lesser equipped person will likely fail at keeping past fundraising levels, a crisis would follow, imagine the rest. The advocacy method is the only long term solution to ensure a stable, organized and, above all, official funds source: think of the concept PUBLIC in Public Education. Funds are out there. Here is how to access them: Take the Public Education side; be watchful of mismanagement of the public treasure in all its forms, demanding restitution and accountability for perpetrators of public misdeeds; apply for those funds until they come. If this comprises being "political", well, isn't man a political animal? In the end, it's the nation's future.

Privatization is a great way for friends of politicians to get rich. It works in Alberta and the population is now so dumbed down it keeps voting in the very pirates that plunder it.

Isn't the health care system also in danger from the same "back-door-privatization schemes" mentioned above? What with the lottery programs to fund everything from Children's Hospital, to whatever, in health care, by the do-gooders of the Lion's clubs, Shriners, support-your-favourite-disease etc.,ad nauseatum, this isn't new...it's been going on for over fifty years. The provincial neo-cons just love it, 'cause it lets them off the hook to provide genuine Universal Health Care that should remain in the jurisdiction of the federal central government. The transfer payment system should be repealed.

In Ince's previous article there were some comments that demonstrated that some didn't get the sarcasm which was directed specifically to this very fundraising and the used texts issue. In fact, I paraphrased a comment someone from the "West Side" said very seriously about the used texts. Really! There also was a very sad assumption made from one quote that the article and people quoted don't that poverty and lack of funding is hurting people everywhere. Of course we know that; but we were strictly discussing the numbers and circumstances at our school which we were being interviewed about. The previous article was about J.R. Saul's visit and education; they came to Strathcona where we, who live on the the "infamous" East Side receive the opposite type of bad generalizations about parents. However, as the numbers of poor stands out, we were a bad - or good - example in order to bring attention to the issue. The bottom-line painful frustration is that yes, the way things are set up right now, funding goes by numbers of children who need, rather than by following every child who needs. And, yes, that should be changed so that no child goes to school hungry. As well as all the other deficiencies that the writer mentioned. We all know that all of public education in British Columbia right now, even more so than most other provinces, is being decimated. Otherwise this whole idea of fundraising as a viable alternative for education basics would not be happening. In and of itself, that fundraising perpetuates the erroneous belief about families and conditions in "West Side" schools far more than my one sarcastic comment could. Yet here I read how sad it is that this man from one of the 'wealthiest communities' (that is a generalization, right?) feels the need to do this. But from what he says, bottom line, this appears to be more about him and the school his children attend than anything else. He is certainly does nor demonstate heart nor concern about the quality of education for all students. Now that is very sad because it sounds like he is in the position where he could exercise, if he wanted to, some of his power of personal persuasion and contacts to better public education for many children. Yet he doesn't; his route appears to be one that feeds his ego as well. This is not heart and soul at work. Yes, schools need people to do that hard-work fund-raising: but to buy what and to what extent? In some ways, in it's process, the hard work of needed fund-raising has more immediate results, appreciation and therefore satisfaction than advocacy. And an over-concentration and imbalance of parents' energies put into fund-rasing takes away from advocacy. But advocacy can be much harder and more frustrating. Not because it is more work or more worthy, but because even with strong and purposeful advocacy for change, the change takes a lot more time to manifest. Usually there are fewer satisfying results less often and the ability to hang in through everything no matter how hopeless it may seem at times is necessary. We do need both, but this over-concentration on the immediate dollars for a few students for a few needs is just putting a band-aid on a bad gash without cleaning it first with good medicine. And what will be happening underneath that band-aid is not a healing process.

Ah yes how terrible it is for an individual to show individual and even entrepreneurial initiative in order to better the local public education system when our nanny state should be taking care of everything. The fact that edcuation funding has been increasing every year even while enrollments have been declining is of course not mentioned.

Yes ... you are right Ms. Parker. Let people take care of themselves. This "nanny state" you mention is obviously an evil thing. Why should we collectively take responsibility in educating youth? Who needs a level playing field. Obviously it is just laziness why PACs in the poorer parts of the province cannot raise the same funds for their public schools. Shame on them! It is also great to hear that students are so much better off then they were before the Liberals came to power. Obviously the increased funding and lower student enrollment has allowed lots of incredible things to happen in BC schools. It's not like the provincial government downloaded costs to boards or anything.

As present PAC chair at Queen Mary I feel compelled to respomnd to the tone of the above article. While the subject matter is perhaps of general interest, the slant given by the the author turns the piece into the lowest form of journalism. With respect to the comments regarding Jeff Bickerestaff I would like to point out that over the past 2 years as chair and into this year as past chair he has provided countless hours of time and energy to the running of the PAC and improving of our school's resources. Every child attending Queen Mary has benefited in some way from Jeff's volunteer activities in fundraising and other PAC events. The vast majority of parents at the school support Jeff and the direct drive campaign. He has set a great example of commitment and involvement no matter how one may feel about various details. Sadly, articles such as this one, which try to broaden the relevant "issues" to include ones choice of clothing, or cars or where one plays hockey, contain such obvious personal biases and attacks that parents in general get frustrated and dissuaded from becoming personally involved. With resppect to fundraising...schools are under funded. That's not news. Although I have not contacted other elementary school PAC's I suspect most, if not all, will say the same thing. This and preceding governments, as well as, the school boards have not provided schools with adequate funding to the point where funding is done out of necessity now more than ever. Also, our school does not receive additional funding that comes with being included in specific classifications. Nor do we seek or receive large corporate sponsorship. So, yes, we raise money for our school. But.... --- We also donate money to other schools. --- We were not the first school to fundraise. --- We are not the only school to use direct drive. --- We do not raise the most money of all schools --- We did not reach anywhere near our target for the direct drive this year. --- We are not the most agressive school in our fundraising tactics. --- We also advocate for public education, as well as, supporting groups such as the Greening Committee, Let's Walk, Safe Arrival, Teacher Appreciation and Queen Mary Shares. Despite insinuations in this and other articles, ours is not a homogeneous population of high income earners. We are mixed bag with different lifestyles, opinion, abilities, and challenges. The $100 donation is not perceived as throw-away money. It is not demanded that everyone give. The request for money is politely suggested and gratefully accepted if given. The decision not to give is equally respectfully understood. We are not all in the position to make the donation or of the opinion that this is the manner in which we wish to support the school. Fair enough. 1. So, why then has Queen Mary become the target of so much negativity in this and other articles? 2. Do all PAC's need to provide a media relations person or is it just Queen Mary? 3. Would journalists who want to address this matter of fundraising for education not be doing the issue and their public better justice by researching their subject matter and sources more carefully? 4. Would the time and energy spent criticizing PAC's and individuals who expend great effort to improve the educational options for all the children at our schools, not be better utilized by lobbying the provincial government and school boards to provide more funding to the schools.

Sara Parker, who paid for your education? Were you home schooled? Did you go to a private school, most of which receive 50% of the public school funding?

Go try living in the woods or on a deserted island if you do not like living in a "nanny state".

Check the facts: In Canada as whole, education funding has gone up only because it has gone for post-secondary schools; in BC especially it has gone down greatly for everything else, even more so when one considers the rising cost-of-living (which also affects the costs of running schools amazingly enough!) As someone else mentioned, all of the things that I took for granted when I went to school are no longer a part of my son's education: things like up-to-date books and good research help with a school librarian for example. When I went there was no large need for hot-lunch and breakfast programs. Now more and more parents are poorer than ever, and not because they're lazyor need "nannies" as the inexperienced may believe. The bottom line is what kind of society do you want? If you feel safe and comfortable sliding back to times like Victorian England, OK. If not, then work on OUR government, no matter how elitist the people in it want to imagine they are. Work on them to create, as one person said, a level playing field for ALL Canadian children. Over and over again we have to repeat, no matter how hard the work is or how sincere and well-meaning the people doing it may be, the greater the amount of fundraising done, the less our government will heed it's responsibility and MANDATE to create good education opportuniteis for all Canadian citizens regardless of income. In closing, don't forgot, charitable donations look good, but they are also tax-deductible.

I think that Queen Mary raising funds by parent donations is wonderful. People who do not have the means do not need to contribute. People who do have the means but are philosophically opposed can contribute to another school. But I see no difference between volunteering to contribute time by fund-raising and cutting a cheque. Time is money and vice versa.There is no point in a neurosurgeon spending time figuring out how to sell candy bars. People can (and should) contribute by sticking to what they do best. Moreover, I do not agree with diatribes against the BC government and in particular the thinly disguised personal attacks on its members. I certainly do not agree with all the government policies, but I believe that its members are making an honest attempt to do what they believe is right. I did not agree with Glen Clark's policies either, but I did not doubt that he was honestly trying to do what he believed was right (albeit ineptly) and he did not deserve to be vilified for it. Granted, schools are "underfunded". But so what? Health care is "underfunded", welfare is "underfunded", road repair is "underfunded", mental heath is "underfunded", the police are "underfunded" etc, etc., etc., One may eagerly say:"I demand more funding for schools." But would the same person be so eager to say this: "I demand more funding for schools, so take money away from health care and I don't care whether my mother gets her hip replacement or bypass for a year or two." Of course,the standard answer is : "Its simple. If that ("well-healed", neo-con", "westsider" )Campbell had not cut taxes to the "rich", then there would be plenty of money for everything." Well, life might be simpler if the world were flat, but it isn't. First, since the feds take about twice as much of every tax dollar as the provinces, blame Paul Martin. Second, if tax rates had not been cut, we would not have an economy. The flight of capital from BC when the top tax rate was 54%*(which was like having a minority interest in oneself) wasn't pretty. Call it a race to the bottom if you want, but reality is reality. In a global economy where capital and people are mobile, its just as fanciful to think that you can have tax rates much higher than the province or country next door as it is to think that you can sell gas at your station for much more than the station across the street. Life is complicated. Governing is making choices. One may not agree with the choices that one's government is making. It is legitimate to lobby for change, and everyone is entitled to do this. But we should recognize that any additional funding that one might be able to get has to come from somewhere. Unfortunately, "somewhere" translates into "someone". And that "someone" may be equally (or even more) deserving. I would guess that many parents of most schools(not just Queen Mary) could either part with $100 ( not much more than a carton of cigarettes) or, if they couldn't, they could donate some time to fundraising. And if they do neither, that's ok too. After all, nobody is forcing anyone to do anything here. And its laughable to suggest that fundraising is somehow illegal.(its particularily scary to think that anyone might think that it should be.) I believe making some direct personal sacrifice for your child's school is a good thing.I do not buy the argument that this will necessarily result in the Government being let off the hook with respect to school funding. Its a nice philosophical argument, and making it might make one feel righteous. But in my view the chances of a cause and effect relationship are far too remote to be plausible. In fact, arguably it has an equal chance of having just the opposite effect.The same people that claim that fundraising in "westside" schools will destroy public education also contend that for the vast majority of schools, asking parents for $100 is not an option.If this is correct, presumably that vast majority (with one vote each)will be spurred on to demand more funding for their schools. Politicians fear being embarrassed and they hate losing elections. But more importantly, parents are (and they should be) much more interested in the practical realities of their child's education than they are with philosophical debates. In my view the criticisms of Mr. Bickerstaff are particularily mean spirited. Here is a self made man who is donating his time and energy to a worthwhile cause and some would vilify him for it! He could easily bail from the public school system and send his children to private schools but instead he does what he can to improve the situation. The personal criticisms directed at him are cheap shots that do nothing more than reinforce the view that Canada eats its achievers. Finally,I find references to John Ralston Saul particularily amusing. So, while we're on the subject of cheap shots, here's one. The last thing that will benefit public education is John Ralston Saul's twaddle. The only thing that he should ever be quoted on are his views on "The Modern Boondoggle."If he really cared about public education, he would extract his nose from the wasted taxpayer dollars trough and donate the savings to public schools.The excess over budget of only one trip that he took with his wife is almost half the $10 million that the cash strapped BC government recently pledged for new books. Some of the the same individuals that think that the spouse of an appointed functionary is a visionary would protest against the democratically elected Premier of our Province addressing parents of the public school that he attended as a child. This is really quite sad.

Sad that the parents would not allow the person who made drastic cutbacks to education to speak in the school? Why would this be sad?

The criticisms of a senseless fundraiser such as Jeff Bickerstaff are valid. If it is true that they have in any way contributed some of their money to other schools as a previous poster stated, then the QM PAC is to be commended. How much of their fund-raising money went to another school?

How much have other schools sent sent to Queen Mary?

Great article, Judith Ince. This is what I love about The Tyee - lots of lively discussion on important public policy issues. It's crucial to keep education underfunding and its impacts on the public agenda for discussion and debate. As we know, all public schools are feeling the effects of the funding crisis and the cracks are widening. The example in the story shows the kind of divisive pressure underfunding has caused at even this relatively affluent school (at which I am a parent). Were there not funding shortage, there would be no need for Mr. Bickerstaff's controversial campaign to raise money to buy learning resources. For me, the message in this is that we need to tackle the root problem - inadequate provincial funding to maintain and rebuild a public education system that continues to be the envy of much of the world. It's really a good system and we need to protect it. Thank you to The Tyee, Ms. Ince and everyone who has taken the time to post comments. It's an important dialogue and it needs to continue. And by the way, in spite of the fundraising kerfuffle, Queen Mary is a terrific school with amazing staff, many caring parents and wonderful kids!

You have made a really good contribution to the discussion, John. Use view source to see the HTML used to make paragraphs. (It is a letter p preceeded by a less than sign and followed by a greater than sign.)

We have been hearing a continuous litany of cheap shots from the BC Liberals for many years since Gordon Campbell's people launched the overthrow of Gordon Wilson. An overbearing "non-political" Jeff Bickerstaff is just a patsy for the BC Liberals forcing the parents of Queen Mary to not have an activist arm within its PAC just because Bickerstaff is a friend of Campbell. To me these are not in any way compassionate conservates. The impression that we get from John in his "How much have other schools sent sent to Queen Mary?" and his cheap shot at John Ralston Saul is that of people who just do not care. These are nihilists. They see no reason to care about anyone. We have John Ralston Saul to speak out against this surly unsavory trend.

We have more milionaires in BC than anywhere else in Canada. They have flocked here to drive up the price of housing and they should pay a share of taxes at a fair rate. Do we really want to be like the greedy Albertans? Who cares if we are not the province with the lowest tax rate and we lose a few gready investors? There will still be money to be made in BC without them.

We cannot afford the social chaos that will result from four more years of neo-conservative plundering. They will launch a new series of destruction if re-elected and you will not see all that is happening. Their stategy is to do as much as possible as quickly as possible so that noone will notice all that is happening.

Only 75 people complained about the P3 Ambulatory Hospital being build to replace a park at the corner of 12th and Oak. They did not bother to use the hospitals that were closed down. Their next plan will be to replace St Pauls Hospital with a P3 hospital. Are we going to elect them and wait to see what happens. P3 cost far more than they are worth. They are much more expensive than having the government build them without the private investor.

The Tyee needs more contributions similar to those of G. Matthews and John to counterbalance the overly dominant left on here, which would lead to more productive debate. The best solutions to problem issues, much more often than not, sit somewhere in the middle. This would lift the Tyee above the mainstream media such as far right Canwest and far left Georgia Strait.

The NDP is the middle of the road. BC has moved so far to the right that the NDP is the moderate party.

If a parent such as Bickerstaff can afford to make large sum donations to their school, then he really should consider private school for his children. As it is, the public system can no longer afford to educate all children. Rather than underfund education for students that have no choice, big spenders can leave the system, freeing funds for lower income families that need it. That said, private schools should operate as a business, much like Bickerstaff sees his PAC. Legitimate businesses are supposed to be self-reliant, and thus do not get hand-outs from the government. This means private-school parents can foot the FULL bill for their children's education, as Bickerstaff has made clear he and his friends are fully capable of doing.

But "Middle Road", how boring...how safe... how cowardly...how unfeisty... if The Tyee painted a yellow middle-of-the-road stripe down it's back.

Regarding private-school funding for those who don't know:

Private schools receive 50% of what public schools do for each student attending. They can then charge whatever "top-up" they need and want.

In addition, private schools have complete control over who they accept. Many - or all - do not accept any children who have special needs, are esl, etc. and so do not have the great extra costs involved with that. Public schools, on the other hand accept any and all children whatever their abilites or disabilities and therefore have much greater costs and demands on resources because of that.

At this time when public education is so greatly underfunded and unable to address the needs of its' children, no public monies should be going to private schools. Even WAC Bennett believed that.

I have great respect for WAC Bennett and what he did for BC, but removing the 50% funding from the private schools would be a false economy. There would be a flood of children back to the public school system. These parents pay the same property tax as the ones in the public schools. Compare with Ontario which fully funds a separate school board outside the public system. I believe that it just for Catholic schools?

Middle Road, please read. Surgical wait times were stable under the NDP. Contact Adrian Levy and Boris Sobilev to get their restrospective research results. There was a dip in which wait times increased in the late 90s and the NDP took care of it so that things returned to where they were the year before. The BC Liberals are nickel and diming every cent out of the system and surgery wait time have been worsening year after year. The things that I am writing are not made up like the things that you read at the BC Liberal web site.

http://vancouver.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename =bc_surgery20041014

That is Boris Sobolev at UBC.

False Economy Sue Clark? The truth of the matter is that Private schools discriminate who they let in. That's why in the Fraser Institute rankings, under the heading "special needs," whe see that Not Applicable stat next to the private schools. Hey, if you want to send your child to a private school, I think that is your right. But, I don't think taxpayers should contribute to an institution that turns kids away. Taxpayers all have different needs. What about those that don't have children? Their tax money is paying for kids to go to school. Why are we paying private schools like Mulgrave when their fees already outstrip the per student funding for the public school students by thousands of dollars.

I don't disagree with you, Chris, but it would be a false economy because the school tuitions would become unafordable for many families and they would switch to the public school where they would be 100% funded instead of 50%. Some of these schools may have to close and more kids would then have to go to the public system.

The Catholic schools do take in special needs kids too and they do not receive 100% funding like they do in Ontario. There is some reactionary things that I see in the Catholic schools that I don't agree with but that is another topic.

Why should wealthy parents pay for private school when they can hijack control of a public institution through the PAC? Parents who don't agree with their methods are marginalized and the purse strings are then controlled by like minded individuals. Someone above mentioned the crisis when the fundraising didn't continue at the peak level that it started with. The reliance on extra funding gives the fundraisers a lot of influence in the schools and it really is a slippery slope. I know I was fundraiser chair for 3 years in my kids school and it wasn't long before the discussion on what to do with the funds started including hiring of extra staff. The PAC didn't agree with this as we didn't feel that money raised should go for wages for school employees , but it could have gone the other way with different people on the PAC. Private schools constantly fundraise to make up the difference in funding from the public sector, imagine the school these parents can buy for their kids if the tuition is paid by the taxpayers.

To prove that it would be a false economy, sue, you would have to believe that half of all students in private schools would return to the public school system. Private schools, who receive approx. $3000 per student from provincial coffers, would no doubt reduce costs in the face of such a dilemma. I'm sure those parents that pay $10K or more for their child's private school tuition would not blink twice in the face of a couple more thousand. Undoubtedly, Catholic schools would be the hardest hit. But, they have a network of support that would likely mitigate the costs of no more public money. They have nowhere near the capital costs of the newer private schools. I don't know why religious schools receive public funds anyway. Don't we have something called "the seperation of church and state"?

On the issue of the false economy and the cost of private school kids returning the the public system, one must also consider that many private schools have rigorous entrance requirements and will not accept children with learning/behavior difficulties — and these are often the most expensive kids to teach. In effect, they can skim off the most 'teachable' (low-cost) students leaving the more challenging ones to the public schools. Having private school kids return to the public system might not be as expensive as you think.

The question of "separation of church and state" is one that I would like to look more into. We know that the Soviet Union and other communist states put severe restrictions on the church. The Americans talk about separation of church and state as if it was in their constitution. Is it in their constitution?

There are very few things that I agree that the BC Liberals do and very little about the NDP that I do not like. The NDP is more likely to reduce private school funding than the Liberals. The NDP tried to reduce the funding six years ago, but backed off. When the cost of the land, construction, and maintenance of the schools is totally taken out of the hands of the province, there are substantial savings to the government. This is why Gordon Campbell's government is pushing for more private schools. I do believe in restoring full funding to the public schools.

The only Catholic schools, that I know of, with entrence tests are Vancouver College and the Little Flower Academy. Does anyone know of others? If someone has the $200 a month to pay the tuition for the Catholic school, they will be admitted and they do not necessarily be Catholic. Some of the kids are dyslexic, some have attention deficit disorder, and I have seen some in wheel chairs and one with a brain tumor. The blanket statement that private schools only take in the best students with no problems is not true in the case of the religious schools.

Sue - Three reasons why religion and publicly funded (even partially) education do not mix: The Christian Brothers Catholic Schools, Bountiful and the United Church-run residential schools.

Religions do not have a monopoly on child molestation. These are not good reason to remove all funding from Catholic schools. I took my son out of a public school when he was being bullied on a daily basis. Things have been better, but certainly not perfect, at the Catholic school that we sent him to. My experience is that there are far worse abuses in the public school system and very little was being done about it.

It is true that many Catholic/Christian schools accept students with special needs. It is also true that many of them operate on budgets that are not even at the level of our public schools. That does not mean that Catholic/Christian schools do not discriminate. See what happens when a child whos parents practice atheism or hinduism try and enroll him/her at such a school. The school has the right to refuse their entry. Do we want public money going to an institution that can, and does, reject children from participating because of their religious beliefs? That is the true argument. Once public money is used to fund the school, it becomes a public institution. Again, if the provincial government no longer gave public money to private schools, we would see a cost savings. There is no way that half of all the children in private schools would come back to the public system. Some would pay the extra for their son or daughter to keep going to private school, and others would homeschool. You can disagree, and say that private schools should be publicly funded, but the argument about a false economy does not hold water.

Hey Sue Clark I went to a public school and since you like living in a nanny state so much why don't you move to North Korea?

I am not a communist, Sara Parker. Go live in the woods if you cannot handle paying taxes and if you cannot do anything to help the poor.

Chris H, Atheists can and do go to the Catholic elementary schools. If there was a genuine overflow of Catholics in such places as Richmond, you will not be able to get in without being a Catholic and this is not discrimination.

Most of the parents at all of these Catholic schools, who do call themselves Catholic, avoid anything to do with the actual religion. Catholics do pay property taxes just like you do, why should they not get 100% of the funding, again, like they have in Ontario? Most Catholics in BC do not want 100% funding since they think that they will lose any say in what is happening in their schools. Since I have two sons in Catholic school, there is no way that I could double the tuition from $400 per month to $800 per month. There is no way that most families could do this with the cost of housing in Vancouver. There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that there would be a flood of children back to the public system and this is why I call it a false economy. There is not much point in saying much more than that.

I went to public school from K to 13 in Ontario and then four years of public University. I will vote NDP and I believe in fully funded public school. The BC Liberals are the worst government that I have ever experienced.

So ... denying entry of a child into a publicly funded school is not discrimination? See what happens when an openly gay student tries to enroll into a Catholic school. You can argue that discrimination is not wrong in this case, but it is definitely discrimination. Check the definition in the dictionary if you doubt me.

Or try enrolling your daughter in St. Georges, or your son in Crofton House.