JG - sarcasm is hard to read on-line. Great article. So many people do not understand the ultimate goal of the Fraser Institute or the Liberal Government. More and more public money is going to private schools. Public school that were once the envy of the nation are falling apart with lack of funding, high class sizes, reduced programs and services. The Boards are caught in the middle doing the dirty work. A recent change in the Minister of Education simply makes everyone pause to see if things will change. Not likely, it is still the Liberal government and the agenda is no different.

What else would we expect from a ‘think tank’ that sees immense social benefit in privatizing and commercializing every resource known to man: including the air we breathe. Come to think of it, is making the air we breathe a commodity a bad idea? From the Fraser Institute's stance it would be easy to get rid of the poor and others that impede the accumulation of personal wealth: let market forces (capitalist democracy in action) do it for us. Stock markets, aside from being the world’s largest Amway pyramid scheme, are institutions that let so-called market forces define commodity and resource values. And, they are also wealth-generating tools that allow investors to completely sever themselves from the global death and destruction taking place at the hands of corporations. No pain, no guilt and no remorse: kind of like murder by proxy. In this post-Nuremberg world, where Fascism seems to be making a comeback the excuses have become completely acceptable and legitimate: “I was just following orders, from the market”.

Liberal underfunding of the education system is a deliberate ploy designed to 'divide and conquer", forcing parents and programs to compete for scarce dollars. Boards should follow the Ontario example and submit needs budgets, force the Ministry to fire them and let the Liberals do their own dirty work. Or at least cancel all west side mini schools and other programs for the already priviledged and stop cutting at the bottom.

As a high school teacher in the trenches for 15 years I can definately confirm that the right-wing, neo-con agenda is in full swing in BC schools. It's amazing to see so much of the public buys into the Fraser-led myth that BC schools are not "up to snuff" and are not doing a good job teaching our children, therefore, the logicical conclusion is to privatize! Year after year, BC scores within the top 5 countries ( as BC joins on as a 'nation' as does Alberta) in reading, writing, math and science. There is some huge "cognitive dissonance" going on out there and it is the Fraser Institute and the Canwest media minions who spread the false message. The Fraser Institute is also trying to brainwash teachers with enticing free "seminars" held at fancy hotels in Banff ( free is key when talking to teachers in cash-strapped systems) I think the one I saw this year was titled something like " The Real Truth About Fish Farming"...( when you see the phrase 'the real truth' and the Fraser Institute in the same line run like hell!). There is a reason the Liberals are after the BCTF and are trying to discredit teachers as being a "special interest"...we will not stand by and let one of the finest, most accountable systems of public education get hijacked by these jackals. We plead with the public to remember what's at stake and to support public schools for all kids when teachers bargain this June.

Excellent comments. I think what we really need is an expansion of our own information system to counteract their disinformation system. Many kudos to The Tyee online newspaper, but I wish devoutly that it go offline as well, perhaps becoming a weekly, hardcopy newspaper paid for by ads like many lower mainland weeklies, and perhaps a small cover price as well. Ever since the federal liberals disgracefully removed all barriers to media monopoy the quality and the fairmindedness of bc's 3 daily newspapers has plummeted. Large opinion pieces, written by Fraser Institute flacks, regularly appear on the editorial pages, with tiny difficult to notice bylines, at the very bottom of the article, esecially in the Vancouver Sun. While criticism by the three main columnists -Smyth, Lyne, and Palmer has become more critical in the face of such blatant travesties as BC Rail, all three publications often use astonishing bias in their choice and emphasis of front page headlines, editorials and what gets highlighted and what gets buried. I contend that all three papers should be required by law to present a minimum of 40% of opposing opinions to such propaganda. I would like to reccomend Greg Palast's All the Democracy Money Can Buy which details Enron's conspiring with the World Bank and the IMF to systematically loot not just world economies but first world ones as well such as Argentina's which once had a middle class rivaling Canada's. Palast is an accredited well-thought of American journalist in the employ of the BBC, one of the few remaining nonprofit publicly-owned newspaper and television corporations. Things, I think, are worse than people realize, and in agreement with an earlier comment, I believe we are seeing a resurgence of fascism, all the more dangerous because of its ties with economic philosophy. Isn't the appeal traditionally fascist?: Everybody's stealing from you (but the rich) the poor, the old, the sick, the young, selected vulnerable minorities, etc, etc, and if we marginalize and repress these groups everything will be better, and, oh, ps, the rich are almost never guilty of anytyhing and owe nothing to all those below them who have enabled their massive accumulation of wealth...

Here's my problem with the above story. 1) Donald Gutstein is a SFU prof. I mean, come on, everyone knows the Fraser Institute and SFU are engaging in some bizarre ideological holy war. The Fraser Institute folks are as irrational on the right as the SFU guys are irrational on the left. Neither reflect the true political or social climate of British Columbia. We need more credible, street-level voices than a professor from a left-leaning university. Stories like this only undermine real-world critics of the Fraser Report Cards -- and give Fraser Insitute more cannon fodder. 2) Seems like the teachers and unions scream bloody murder every time an organization tries to rank high schools in the area. As a father of two, these report cards are useful to me. I don't want my kids being victimized by underfunded schools, schoolyard bullying, or illiteracy as an indirect result of too many "social policy" and "peace of politics" type courses. So the loonies at Fraser Institute had the balls to rank the schools in the face of hysteric criticism. All to 'em. I don't trust their rankings, but neither do I trust their ivory tower (and union) critics.

I fear for your kids, and any others that have to deal with your attitudes. The individual trolls newspost, pops an affectatious moniker and with flame in hand, mocks peace (lets teach'em war), just for starters. One small point, for your peripheral vision - as a former SFU student now SFU graduate, I was introduced to framing my arguments, and substantiating them with public, verifiable information, not "everyone knows" et al. I quite look forward to stripping of public funding for educational exclusivity. It's simply not necessary - welfare - for those who do not need a nickel (while others that need Government support, can't get it). Qualified students who have to work (many work multiple jobs) - just to get to attend classes - need that money. I happened to have been graced with a Provincial Government (at the time of my studies - certainly not now) that facilitated an opportunity for me to further my education (and, even so, I currently have a large student loan to pay off). SFU students, for instance, are now faced crippling tuition increases (some public school grade school student's parents have to subsidize this "Government’s" game show giveaway to the wealthy) by buying basic books and pencils, since the districts have no money. Published, verifiable. and avoided at all costs by the Fraser "Institute" cohort.

“I was just following orders, from the market”. Good shot. Hopefully it hit our b.s. "Skeptic". Who ain't no akeptic at all, of course, but a true believer troll dressed up as a phony one. He wants us to think he is being "objective", with a feint at a critique of "both your houses", but in substance develops no such of the Fraser Institute, only the "left" and "unions". Your troll mind games may work in some other venue, Brownshirt, but not here. (Which should serve as a warning for Tyee, that over time, these goons will zero in here and send their wrecking crews, so hopefully you are putting a plan in place to deal with these goosesteppers. They're part of the real online world, and playing the same role throughout the "left" blogs.)

To "The Skeptic" Perhaps you should re-read the article if you believe the Frazer Institute somehow "had the balls to rank the schools in the face of hysterical criticism" The author spells things out quite clearly. Mr Cowley "uses one indicator of socio-economic status -- the average number of years of education of the parents." He also relies on 1996 census data, "so the figures are eight years out of date and, "given the gentrification around Tyee, the numbers are meaningless." You go on to say that as a father of two, you don't want your kids "victimized by under-funded schools". Who exactly do you suppose is to blame for the under funding of our public school system? As far as I'm concerned, the Fraser Institute has done a lot of damage to to this country, and at the end of the day it is all in the service of the wealthiest and most powerful.

Donald Gutstein makes a number of sobering coments: 1)It will cost you in the vicinity of $11,000+ to get your child educated at a school like St. Georges. If parents can afford it that is great. What is the issue is not whether private schools should exist-they should-but what is being done for those students whose parents do not have $11,000( before tax), much less enough money to feed the family. If a great education such as the one at St. Georges costs almost double what the BC Government currently spends on one student, why have we not made that kind of money available to those who would benefit the most? Because, I suspect, as a community we are not willing to help those less fortunate than ourselves. 2) The cost for private school education skewers the argument of efficient private enterprise. It costs more-it also offers more-but is it more efficient? Would the money spent in recruiting students, gardening the grounds, capital expenditure, purchase of the latest education materials and eqipment be seen as effective expenditure? Would the Fraser Institute be game to analyse the efficiency of schools with respect to money received and results gotten? Would this show a different picture. Some Boarding schools charge in the range of $21-35,000 per annum. what would be the criteria for efficiency here. What would be the criteria for effectiveness? 3) I havetaught in Western Australia-I now teach on Vancouver Island-and the education Department in 1992-94 used a common test the SAT to create a baseline by which schools and their students could be compared. A student who scored 7 out of 10 in the SAT was deemed to have had value added to their education for a subject taken,if they scored 7.5+ out of 10 in the exam and school results. If a student performed below his SAT score then the school was certainly not adding value to that student's education. So, the performance in each subject could be analysed, and a school could see if the University entrance examinable(TEE) subject was taught well. The school(public), I taught Physical Education there-had managed to top this analysis one year and was in the top ten the year after. This school counselled its non-university bound student to take courses which prepared them for trades, and remove the issue of students attempting inappropriate subjects. It also had very good teachers who taught well those students wanting to get to university. This analysis however led to political pressure from many7 private schools to drop this analysis, because the so called top private schools in WA did not fare so well in this comparison, despite a selection policy and many above average students attending. If this type of analysis was conducted, we would likely see which schools teach their students effectively, and those which don't. In other words, we would see which schools add value to our kids education and those which fail to do so. Moreover, schools which do not address those issues either through effective trecher training or better management will need to change. Finally, the often touted reason for the report card-better informed school choice- is a smokescreen. Parents who have financial means to send their kid to private school have choices, those that do not have the money, do not. So Peter Cowley ought to separate the public schools from the private schools and then apply my above mentioned method of analysis to see if schools add value or just add cost to your child's education. I know if I had $11,000, my son would travel and learn more about our planet and its people.

Can someone explain to me the reason the Fraser Institute has the influence it does? While they have every right to spend their money on this kind of research, why is it news? By the way, it is their money, right? I assume that their political stance would keep them from accepting taxpayer funding, like some tawdry womwn's shelter or arts organization.

A 10 year old book, called, "Class Warfare"' by Maude Barlow and Heather Jane Robertson spells all this out. This issue is not new, though I hope more people are now sitting up and taking notice. It would be nice to be able to stop the pendulum before it swings so far to the right that permanent damage is inevitable.

Have you ever noticed how many "Liberals" are recycled Socreds? Depending on what the day's issues are, as I read the newspaper I sometimes feel as if I'm back in the rosy days of Bill Vander Zalm and Fantasy Gardens. (I must admit I miss Fay Leung's hats.) Victoria, BC: political entertainment capital of the world.

On the whole, Gutstein's article is excellent, I think. However, he says, "No one can deny public education's serious problems." As someone who has retired from teaching after 38 years, and a parent of two children who have gone through the public schoo system, I think the system has been functioning rather well, though revent cost-cutting is not helping. What are the serious problems that are so obvious they do not even have to be stated?

Stephen, the provincial Liberal party has been shamelessly hijacked by the right-wingers in this province (as is happening federally). They will do whatever they think it will take to get into power and, if it means taking over a party they perceive as having a good chance at winning, and they can get away with it, they will certainly do it. And by the time we wake up to the fact that we could counter their moves by getting involved in the political process ourselves and voting down their candidates at the nomination meetings, it may be too late.

This is a particularly selective piece of writing in which the author tells one side of a story but conspicuously ignores another. I began teaching in the late 1980s as an enthusiastic educator, then walked away from the conventional system in abject frustration with its systemic limitations by 1992. I then co-founded 'Virtual High' an innovative and independent learning 'choice' for teens in Vancouver, for which myself and my partner, national award-winning educator Brent Cameron received not a penny from the NDP government despite our enrollment and endorsements from every kind of community and business leader. And what was our 'choice' that was so odious? Well, for starters, we enfranchised our teens to review and hire their own instructors, something our community of teens and parents considered quite aligned with democratic principles. Did it matter that our students and families yearned for an alternative to the 'public' system? Not to successive BCTF presidents who repeatedly slandered us, as did UBC Education professor Charles Ungerleider, though not one of them ever actually accepted an invitation to visit our learning centre. No, I'm sorry Mr. Gutstein, I attended several 'choice' and charter school rallies during the 1990s and they were mainly attended by rank-and-file families that wanted something different than the monolithic offerings of the public system. As a parent of a 10-year old, I can assure you that many still do. And such a desire need not not anti-democratic though you have selectively built your case upon such a premise. Please park your dogma somewhere else. - Michael Maser, Gibsons

As opposed to the dogma of the Fraser Institute? People with money have always had a choice about the quality of their children's education. The great mass of people are not so fortunate. Guttting of funds for public education has led in many American states to twenty year-old textbooks, teacher salaries on a par with dogcatcher's, and the basic disaster that is American public education. Your project sounds worthwhile, but do you reall think Gordon Campbell would fund it? Not unless it makes money for his friends. In my opinion the neoliberal agenda is to gut public education, first because the last thing they want is an articulate, aware, and critical underclass, and because corporations can then loot money meant for public education. As to getting these parasites out of power the best activism is growing the voter's list and demanding an end to ballot box stuffing from all parties on every level of government.

I wonder how many people know that private schools get considerable provincial funding each year in BC. What a double standard. What a mis-nomer -- private schools, indeed. Why are middle and lower class taxpayers helping to pay the rich to educate their children in splendid circumstance?

Interesting commentary above. As a working class father of 2 who has voted for the NDP in the past, I'm disturbed by where the BCTF/SFU/UBC cartel is taking us on this subject. I dare say... they have HIJACKED the issue for their own personal agenda, which is to fatten their wallets and their bureaucracy. What about the kids? Why are they ignored at the expense of the teachers? Why should't they have a choice? Why shouldn't they be aware of lists gathered by the likes of the Fraser Institute who dare inform them that their teachers and principals and administrators are delivering sub-par education, government funding notwithstanding. Why should schools be exempt from scrutiny while we ranks cities, universities, governments institutions, etc? People on this board are painting this as a class issue, which it's not. It's a PERFORMANCE issue. And if you don't perform, YOU'RE FIRED!

Shouldn't you be much more concerned about the fraser institute, bc liberal, vancouver board of trade cartel? If you give Jack $10,000 to build a house and John $100,000 is it fair to judge Jack for not having as good a house? If Jack has only half as nice a house, he still did five times as good a job with the resources he had available. But you, and the fraser institute want to say, "oh, look! John's house is twice as good as Jack's, so let's only give Jack $2000 next time. But then, misleading statistics are a cornerstone of the neoliberal agenda ...and if you don't perform, you get promoted....

Interesting story about Jack and John. Thing is, Jack (Poole) turned his $10,000 into Vancouver hosting the 2010 Olympic Games, while John (Furlong) turned his $100,000 into all of the infrastructure (RAV, Sea2Sky Upgrade, Convention Centre, etc) that will benefit all British Columbians.

Judging by the tone of the story and subsequent discussion, it appears that ALL British Columbians support MY policy on education. Keep in mind that I single-handedly turned this province around, and thanks to my expertise in economics and flight instruction, have brought peace and prosperity to the stretch of land between Victoria and Cranbrook, Osoyoos and Fort St. John. Thank you Tyee for raising awareness of education in BC, and thank you BC for re-electing me in 2005!

The earlier comment by Jerry (Jerry, 3/14/2004 8:39:55 PM) really hit the mark about the need for Tyee administration to consider purging of fake-speak from trollers and identity posers who carry on for the sake of vanity. Registering valid addresses could help address this. Though it's good to have the immediacy of posting without registering (and helps the majority of credible people to more easily participate at one level), it also opens the door to the brazenly disingenuous, that mock and undermine the exchange of ideas.

..For starters (Tee website admin), check the IP address of the 3/16/2004 5:41:35 PM and the 3/16/2004 5:44:44 PM posts.

skeptic: LARRY CAMPBELL had the most to do with Vancouver getting the Olympics. Your jack and john are grossly overpaid execs who get paid no matter what, LARRY WON the mayorality of Vancouver, maybe he'll be premier of bc after CAROL JAMES, who will make the benefits from whatever wealth available to other British Columbians besides your jack's and john's friends and owners. I imagine very few grossly underpaid imported American laborers will be included, but then, America needs to deal with its own problems rather exporting them to us via the national post as cheerleader, don't you think...er..you DO think don't you?????youtr story also reminds me of Gordon Campbell who magically took a billion dollar surplus and magically transformed it into six billion dollars of new debt, but in exchange, we got the gordon campell economic miracle....the worst provincial economy with the highest growth in debt in the country......

The Gary Collins posting is so far beneath contempt that it would need the hubble telescope to look up to see the gutter. Therefore, I'm convinced that it might be Gary Collins...how sad for both you and all those that know you Gary, perhaps the prison time from the coming class action lawsuits will improve your character...oh that's RIGHT, you dont any character...perhaps if you just always carry a bar of soap and lots of cigarettes.... MY APOLOGIES TO ALL SERIOUS POSTERS BUT I ABHOR INSINCERITY LS

The article is interesting -- as are the response articles from Charles Ungerleider, and also the reasoned responses above here -- but really people are getting all excited, and just taking their dogma for walkies. There is one simple way to get rid of private schools (and I speak as a 10-year veteran of private school teaching) and that is: make the public schools good. When the free service rivals the expensive service in quality, who will pay?

Please park the "settle down" phrasing for those whom you suppose are in your "care". Perhaps better still, forget the pedantics en tous. The mechanisms of forming young individuals into so-termed "productive" citizens is where the issue begins. People are not widgets - but the corporate mechanisms would (heavily informed by underpinning, hierarchical religiosity - whatever the "order"), and the neo-liberalists mind frame that supports that type of ideology - want cogs ("ya follow [sic]") to fit their beliefs - which see the "private school" graduates agenda as destined "leaders" - and everyone else who doesn't fit that (anti-matter language warning..) "excellence" pattern - to find (be placed in) their "managed" place, as human resources, et al. With some notable exceptions (Summerhill – an English "free school" experiment, and similar others), contemporary "patterning" private schools are concerned with status and imposing heirarchical orders of belief - they do not teach status parity. Genuine "education" unfolds from mutual respect of the engaged individuals - including those who think they "have something to teach" and recipients in their immediate sphere who are certainly not empty vessels or plastecine. Education, and its "quality" (or productive "outcome" - intensely subjective as to valuation of such an idea)..is squarely tied (contemporarily) to the patterns of commerce that a society subscribes to, and represents, via its structure of governance. This (current) provincial administration, is fundamentally disrespectful - and this is why it will crash - it fears difference, and “subordinate” (the general population) direction. The Fraser "tank" dwellers are apostles of the thinking. To “improve” education, there must be concurrent change to the commercial frame – and first and foremost, there needs to be move to cooperation as compared to competition. Change is important, it fundamentally supports possibility – but the “innovators” of it, cannot succeed without seeing themselves as status equal partners to those whom their ideas affect.

A political rather than a rhetorical post for all tyee posters, especially progressives and those wondering whether the ndp can win the next provincial election, I was extremely heartened and made glad today, not only by the three point ndp lead in the polls but by reading an entire webpage of postings in the "sound-0ff" feature of the Victoria Colonist and Vancouver Sun. The postings, even in the Sun were numerically very antiCampbell, proNDP, far greater than 42%, with the gordon campbell dislike factor palpable as a stench, with above average eloquence in the get rid of Gord epigrams. Not up to the Tyee's to be sure, but above average. To return to the topic of education, this bodes well for public education in bc, especially in light of all the excellent anti-neoliberal arguments posted here.

Lewis, I too am heartened by the recent turn around in our provincial NDP's political fortunes.It is surprising that the newspapers you mentioned elected to print so many anti-Campbell/Liberal letters given their notorious pro business bias.Having said that:watch for the coming editorial attacks on Carol James and Company... Heads up folks!

Not printed letters S. Matheson, but rather "sound-off" response web postings, about whether readers interpreted ndp's lead as positive or not, as I said much higher support than just 42%. Somewhat like an instant poll, which to me suggests support for ndp is actually higher than 42%. Thanks for your comment.

I am surprised that the author of the above article missed the most critical data about Tyee School: It is a Montessori school with a largely middle and upper-middle class cohort of parents choosing it for their children and then relying on a partial lottery system to gain entry. I know a number of people who send their children to this programme. You will also find the same socio-economic background among the kids at Templeton's mini-school. Both of these programmes stand out sharply on the east side, although discreet grades for the mini kids are not included in grade 12 provincial exam results. While overall, the level of parent's education may be similar to that of private school parents, (all the parents I know at Tyee have graduate degrees) incomes are likely lower than those of westsiders. You'll find this reflected also in French Immersion programmes. In any case, the Institute's whole ranking system is absolutely no indication of the worth or effectiveness of schools. As the author claims, it's an undisguised effort to privilege an already privileged class of schools and to undermine and fragment the public system. I would direct readers to the Web site of The Charter for Public Education Network which grew out of the Charter panel that recently toured the province and has published a report on the public's desires for the public education system. I recently became a director of this newly-formed organization. Individual memberships are $20.

The public should always regard so called "research" by the Fraser Institute with suspicion. The Institute has a clear right wing agenda. The "research" is dubious and the conclusions are highly questionable. The former Premier of Ontario, Mike Harris, is a senior fellow in this Institute. The problem with this Institute is that it is a charitable organization. Taxpayers are subsidizing this propaganda. Majority of the contributors are large corporations that enjoy a tax cut for contributions. In effect, the Canadian taxpayer is paying ~38% for this nonsense. That is the problem!