WAGNER: You can't brainwash kids in private schools... and the left hates that

In the late 1960s, Alberta’s Social Credit government began providing public funding for private schools. The amount was only $100 per student, but it was a start.Naturally, the Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA) and the public school boards opposed this move, but since the amount was small, it didn’t lead to much controversy.That changed under Peter Lougheed’s Progressive Conservative government. Throughout the 1970s, Lougheed ramped up public funding for private schools considerably. By the early 1980s, private school students were receiving 75% of the per-pupil grant given to public schools.Alberta’s public education establishment — led by the ATA — was infuriated. Clearly, such government funding would encourage enrolment in private schools, which in turn would undermine the monopoly position — and funding priority — of public education.So, why does the educational establishment and political left hate private schools so much?One answer is provided by William Baergen in his 1982 University of Oregon doctoral dissertation entitled Public Support of Private Secondary Schools in Alberta, Canada: An Analysis of Relevant Policy Issues.Baergen’s main argument against government funding for private schools is that private schools cannot perform the key function of public schools, also known as “common schools.” He recognizes that private schools can impart the knowledge and skills children need to be successful in life. That is, private schools can provide the necessary academic training.So, what’s the problem, then? The problem is that academic training is not the key function of public schools.The key function of public education, as Baergen describes it, is to shape students to fit into society. He writes, “the overriding mission of the public school is not academic but social; it is to be a symbol of cohesion in society, an instrument of community and to this end it seeks to make all students publicly useful by socializing them.”Baergen was a full-throttled supporter of the social mission of public education, so he considered private schools to be a sinister influence on society. To him, parents who exercise their right to select private alternatives to the public school were in some sense undermining the government’s goals.As he put it, “the emphasis on family control prevalent among private school supporters denies the state’s established right to regulate children’s lives, particularly for those whose parents would otherwise deny them their right to schooling.”As one can see, he refers to what he calls “the state’s established right to regulate children’s lives.” That is, at best, a wildly exaggerated claim to make on behalf of the state. Historically in Canada and the other English-speaking democracies, parents have had the established right to regulate children’s lives, not the state.He also refers to parents who would “deny” their children the “right to schooling.” Are there really parents who want to deprive their children of receiving any education? The existence of such parents is probably so rare as to be negligible. Using the hypothetical existence of parents who oppose education is a poor excuse to justify any government policy.Baergen describes the development of public education in the US because Alberta’s public system was, in a general sense, modelled on the American system.During the nineteenth century, millions of immigrants poured into the US and the public schools were seen as the way to assimilate and Americanize these newcomers. It was in this context that the social purpose of public education developed.The primary purpose of public schooling was determined to be creating social cohesion out of a body of people with widely varying ethnic, religious and class backgrounds. As Baergen puts it, “the original ideology of the common school evolved from broad social needs in the United States.”The founders of Alberta’s public education system basically copied the American model. Referring to the creation of our public school system Baergen states, “the ideology Alberta originally set out to implement was identical to the prototype developed in the United States.”A central feature in the implementation of the social mission of public education was the enactment of compulsory schooling laws. Laws were passed in every American state and every Canadian province that required children between certain ages to attend public schools.Baergen writes, “Clearly, education came to be considered a common good, not to be left to the discretion of parents. It was not a private matter.” In Baergen’s view, education is too important to be left to parents — that’s why we have a public education system. The government must be in charge of educating children and compulsory education laws reflect the central role of the state in the lives of children.As he puts it, “A significant result of the compulsory schooling movement was the eventual acceptance of the transfer of sovereignty in family matters from parents to the state and parents were no longer in control of their own children.”For many Albertans, that would be a good reason to opt for private education because they don’t want such government interference in their families. Instead, parental influence should be preeminent in the lives of children.But as the education establishment sees things, public funding for private education undermines the social purpose of public education by making it easier for parents to send their children to private schools. Therefore, such funding is always bad, regardless of any benefits to families or children. The ideological contrast on this issue is very clear, and since the late 1960s Alberta has favoured parental choice in education by providing funding for private alternatives.