MichaelWagnerMAThesis

THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY
Private Versus Public Education: The Alberta Debate in the 1980s
By
Michael G. Wagner
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
CALGARY, ALBERTA
FEBRUARY, 1995
Copyright Michael G. Wagner 1995

2
ABSTRACT
During the 1980s Alberta experienced a significant debate about the merits of private
education. After describing the historical background of, and major episodes in, this debate,
the thesis assesses the three major arguments made against private schools: (1) that they
undermined the quality of education expected in Alberta schools; (2) that they threatened the
social cohesion of the province; and (3) that they infringed the rights of children to acquire
broader intellectual and psychological horizons than those provided by their immediate
families and communities. Finding none of these rationales to be so powerful and
unquestionable as to support the vehemence with which they were employed, the thesis
probes the deeper reasons for this vehemence. While some opponents of private education
seemed driven primarily by commitment to the social visions or ideologies summed up by
their arguments, the evidence confirms the predication of public choice theorists that the
same arguments would be little more than rationalizations of self-interest for the largest and
most powerful opponent: Alberta’s public education establishment.

3
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
For almost 20 years, i.e., since the late 1970s, there has been an ongoing and substantial
debate in Alberta about the relative merits of public and private education. The debate falls
into two distinct periods. The 1980s saw private education on the defensive against sustained
attack by advocates of public education. In the 1990s the tables have turned, and public
education has come under relatively successful attack from such "quasi-private" alternatives
as "charter schools." In effect, the current debate is an inversion of the earlier one. Thus,
when the full story of Alberta's late-twentieth-century education debates is told, it will have at
least two chapters organized around the common theme of public versus private education.
Such a full account is beyond the scope of this thesis. Among other things, the earlier chapter
of the story lends itself more readily to full analysis because it is complete, while the events
that will constitute the second chapter are still very much under way. In addition, the 1980s
debate was unique in Alberta's history for the passionate intensity with which it was
conducted, an intensity reflected in a plethora of court cases, public and private reports, and
legislative initiatives. Thus far, despite its intrinsic importance, the current debate about
charter schools has not matched the earlier debate. With limitations of space in mind, this
thesis thus supplies only the first chapter in the story of Alberta's late-twentieth-century
politics of education, analyzing the background, events, and arguments of the 1980s debate.
Supporters of the private school movement were not responsible for private education
becoming a focus of public concern in the 1980s. It was opponents of private education, or
more specifically, supporters of public education that initiated the controversy. The "public
education" defended by these critics is synonymous with "free, universal, compulsory
education." It is called "free" because it is fully funded by the government and therefore the

4
user does not have to pay for it directly. It is called "universal" because it is open and
accessible to all children. And it is "compulsory" because all children are required by law to
attend. The critics saw the growth of private schools as undermining all three components of
the public education system. The basic questions involved in the resulting controversy were:
Should private schools be allowed to operate in Alberta, or should public schools have a
complete monopoly? If private schools were allowed to operate, should the government
regulate them and to what degree? Should the government help fund private schools or not?
This thesis has two main purposes. The first is to document the major events in the
Alberta education debate of the 1980s, and to set them in their historical context; this is the
function of chapter 2. The second purpose of the thesis is to assess and evaluate the forces
underlying the debate. As in most political controversies, these forces fall into two
categories: rational arguments and interest-driven motives. The participants in almost all
political debates generally defend their positions in terms of altruistic rationales, or a greater
common good; rarely do they appeal simply to unadorned self-interest. Undoubtedly, the
altruistic rationales are sincerely held by some participants, while for others they serve
merely as rationalizations of narrow self-interest. The alternatives need not be so stark,
however. It is more likely, in fact, that opinions reflect a combination of both altruism and
interest. People are influenced by both their conceptions of what is right and their self-
interest. It is probably correct to say, then, that opinions "are a blend of justice rationally
perceived and of interest rationalized." This being so, "[t]he task of political science is to see
all important political opinion as precisely such blends and to distinguish the elements"
(Diamond 1992, 318). Distinguishing the elements, of course, is part of assessing their
reciprocal influence on each other. Does interest drive argument or does argument
subordinate interest? While interest will often drive argument, this need not always be the
case. In fact, the blend whose elements need to be distinguished is often composed of more

5
than the primary ingredients of reason and interest. Simple error in reasoning is possible and
need not always be attributable to the distorting effect of interest. Opinion can also be
affected by prior commitment to ideologies or social vision (even in apparent opposition to
one's more mundane interests). As Thomas Sowell observes, it is not uncommon to "sacrifice
for our visions and sometimes, if need be, face ruin rather than betray them" (1987, 8). It is
the task of chapters 3 and 4 to distinguish the elements of reason and unreason in the opinions
constituting Alberta's private education debate.
Chapter 3 considers the three main "altruistic" arguments used to oppose private
education. First, it was argued that private schools threatened the ideal of universal, effective
education because some children in private schools would not receive the same level of
education that was supposedly provided in public schools, and would therefore be deprived of
what was available to all other children.
Second, private education was said to pose a threat to the most important goal of public
education: the maintenance of "social cohesion." Public education was primarily initiated in
Alberta in order to ensure social harmony, and in order to achieve that it needed to be
universal. By taking children outside of the public system, private schools threatened the
social cohesion that public education promised to provide.
Third, concern was raised that private schools posed a potential threat to "children's
rights." Private school supporters claim for parents the primary right to determine the
education of children. To advocates of children's rights this poses a threat to the best interests
of children since all children should be given a "quality" education of which they might be
deprived if their parents' wishes are paramount. In effect, the "children's rights" in this
argument were the rights of children to be liberated from the values and lifestyles of their
parents.
While there is usually some merit in each of the altruistic rationales assessed in chapter 3,

6
none of them is so unquestionable on rational grounds alone as to exclude the possibility of
their being more "rationalizations" than "rationales." Indeed, a review of the evidence raises
very considerable questions about the adequacy of the altruistic rationales. Thus chapter 4
investigates the "element" of interest involved in the debate. As one might expect, this
element has its most obvious explanatory power with respect to Alberta's public education
establishment: the Alberta School Trustees' Association (ASTA), the Alberta Teachers'
Association (ATA), and the Department of Education. The chapter reviews "public choice"
theories about why the public policy "rationales" employed by such "producer" groups (and
their political allies) are likely to be "rationalizations" of their self-interest, and then assesses
the explanatory power of these theories in the Alberta context.

7
CHAPTER 2
THE DEBATE ABOUT PRIVATE SCHOOLS
Introduction
The situation of private schools in Alberta has varied greatly over the province's history.
Before the formation of the public education system, private schools were vital. Afterwards
their importance declined substantially. Naturally, the government favoured the public
schools. The situation for private schools reached a low point in the early 1920s when a court
confirmed that the government had absolute and arbitrary control over private schools,
including the power to shut them down ([1923] 19 Alta. L.R. 41-42).
Things began to improve for private schools by the late 1960s as the government adopted
a more favourable attitude towards them. This attitude was manifested in two main ways.
First, the government agreed to help certain private schools financially. Second, when a court
in the late 1970s placed restrictions on the government's control of private schools, the
government, rather than appeal the decision, accommodated it in its policy towards private
schools (Hop 1982, 134).
By the early 1980s private schools seemed again to have fallen out of favour. After
considerable controversy, some quasi-private alternative schools in the Calgary public system
were closed down. While that controversy raged, there was the scandalous revelation that
James Keegstra had been teaching about a Jewish conspiracy. Ironically, the Keegstra affair,
which took place in the public school system, led to an official report that was scathing in its
criticism of private schools. Before that was played out, court cases were initiated against
some unregistered church schools. And even as that was occurring, the government began
work on a new School Act, the first discussions of which were not favourable towards private
schools. By the mid 1980s, things looked grim for private schools in Alberta.
But then the tide turned again, this time in favour of private schools. A report that was
very favourable towards private schools -- the so-called Genesis Report -- was released, and

8
the government became more accommodating towards private schools in its work on the new
School Act. In the end, the resulting Act was widely seen as very positive for private
schools. Even those schools that remained illegal were treated generously: the government
struck a deal with a recalcitrant unregistered church school, allowing the school to remain
open. The result was that at the close of the decade private schools were in a better situation
than at any time since the emergence of the public school system.
The Government and Private Schools to the 1960s
Private schools have existed in Alberta basically since the first white settlers arrived. In
fact, "[p]rivate schools were the single source of education in the area now known as Alberta
for the first forty years of settlement. It was not until 1884 that a public school system was
established" (Hop 1982, 183). After the establishment of the public system, the relative
importance of private schools declined. But "until 1914, private schools played a major role
in education in Alberta" (Hop 1982, 65). In 1913, for example, over 10 percent of all high
school students were in private schools. This percentage declined thereafter (Chalmers 1967,
189). Between 1919 and 1981 the elementary and secondary students in Alberta's private
schools ranged between 1.2 and 2.3 percent of total school enrollments (Hop 1982, 17).
It appears that the government was not favourable towards private schools after the
creation of the public schools system. Certainly, private schools did not receive government
funding as they do today. One study claims that the government basically ignored private
schools for the first 40 years of the province's history (Hop 1982, 184). Yet the situation was
definitely worse than that, as suggested by the government's initiation of a court case against
a private religious school in 1923.
In that year a man named Jacob Ulmer was charged under The School Attendance Act
because his son attended an unapproved Lutheran School. The school had been established in
1894 and operated until 1917 when it was voluntarily closed due to World War One. It

9
reopened in 1921, but a school inspector refused to grant it the required government
certificate and gave only vague reasons for his refusal. The school continued to operate, and
Ulmer was charged ([1923] 19 Alta. L.R. 15-16). The court ruled that the inspector had the
legitimate authority to refuse a certificate to any private school and was not required to give
his reason for doing so. Justice Beck wrote a concurring opinion in this case, but he was not
at all happy with the law:
[T]he decision [to grant or refuse a certificate] is for some one of the school
inspectors -- officers appointed and subject to dismissal by the Executive and
wholly under their control, that is, under the control of the Department of
Education, without appeal. The result then is that . . . the Department of
Education has acquired absolute and arbitrary control over all private schools,
educating pupils between certain ages, and by the mere refusal of one of their
inspectors to certify that the school is giving efficient instruction to a child, the
child's parents become subject to criminal proceedings resulting in fine or
imprisonment ([1923] 19 Alta. L.R. 41-42).
Justice Beck went on to say that
[t]here is no protection for the body of people to which the defendant belongs
unless the Legislature sees fit to expunge this tyrannous provision from the
school law, or at least unless the Department adopt a less tyrannical policy of
administration of the law ([1923] 19 Alta. L.R. 43).
In short, Ulmer confirmed the provincial government's absolute power over private schools.
That power could legally be exercised in an "absolute and arbitrary" way without any appeal
for the offended party.

10
A More Supportive Government and Climbing Enrollments: 1967-1982
The kind of public sector hostility to private schools demonstrated by the Ulmer case had
abated by the 1960s and 1970s. This is reflected in three major developments: (1) the public
funding of "regular private schools"; (2) the legalization of private schools that did not have
to use certified teachers and that could depart to some extent from the Alberta curriculum;
and (3), the emergence of "quasi-private" alternative schools within the Calgary public
system.
Funding
Before the 1960s, only one of three types of recognized private schools in Alberta
received any government money. The three types were (1) "regular" private schools (which
used government-approved curriculum and employed certified teachers); (2) private schools
set up exclusively to teach handicapped students; and (3), private language schools which
operated outside of regular school hours, but which had to use certified teachers and approved
curriculum to receive government accreditation. Only the second type -- schools for the
handicapped -- received government funding as a matter of course, and had done so since the
first one opened in the 1920s. Within the "regular" category, private mission schools in
"unorganized territories" had been eligible for grants since 1946, but this was a minor
exception from the general "no-funding" rule within this category (Hop 1982, 104, 134).
Outside the realm of private "schools" (i.e., institutions serving a number of children from
different families), it was also possible to home school in Alberta. In order to legally home
school, parents had to receive permission from the local superintendent. However,
superintendents were reluctant to grant that permission and very few families engaged in
home schooling. Those that did usually had bedridden children or lived in geographic
isolation. As well, those families used government correspondence courses as the curriculum
(Wilford 1982, 39). Home schooling also took place without government funding.

11
In March 1967 the government decided to grant direct financial aid to regular private
schools. Originally the grants were a fixed amount, but this was changed so that beginning in
1974 the grants to private schools were a percentage of the provincial per- pupil grant to
public schools. In 1974 the percentage was 33 1/3, but the government increased the
percentage each year until 1982 when it reached 75 percent of the per- pupil grant. Thus the
amount of provincial aid to private schools increased significantly from 1967 to 1982 (Hop
1982, 112-115).
The Holdeman Case and the Establishment of Category 4 Private Schools
That the government was increasingly favourable towards private schools can also be seen
from its reaction to the Holdeman Mennonite private school case of 1978. This was basically
a replay of the Ulmer case with the government refusing to grant permission for a religious
private school to operate. However, this time the government lost. Instead of appealing the
decision, the government initiated policy changes that led to the creation of a new category of
private schools that could operate with little government control. The private school debate
of the 1980s can probably be said to have begun with this case. As Treleaven noted in 1981,
after the Holdeman court decision "the question of private schools in the Province of Alberta
[began] receiving attention" (Treleaven 1981, 2).
Until 1977 the Holdeman Mennonite Community of Linden, Alberta had sent their
children to the local public school. They had comprised a majority of the population of
Linden for a number of years, and as a result the public school accommodated their values
and lifestyle. However, by the mid-1970s they were no longer a majority and so the school
was less accommodating to them. Thereafter the public school was seen as having a bad
influence on the Holdeman children, and the parents resolved to create a private school to
ensure that their children would not be corrupted (Levy 1979, 120).
The Kneehill Christian School began to operate in 1977. There were seven other

12
Holdeman communities in Alberta at that time, each of which also operated its own private
school. In spite of attempts to obtain the necessary approval to operate private schools from
the Minister of Education, none of the schools had actually been approved. Two main
reasons appear to have led to legal action. First, the withdrawal of the Holdeman children
from the local public school created a substantial financial hardship for that school (Bergen
1981, 75-76). And second, most of the teachers employed by the Holdeman school were not
certified (Levy 1979, 122).
At first all of the parents whose children attended the Holdeman school were charged with
violating the School Act. But the Attorney General intervened and ordered a test case of only
one parent, Elmer Wiebe (Bergen 1981, 76).
In the ensuing trial, there was no dispute regarding the "facts" of the case. The Holdemans
had attempted to get approval for their school, but had been rejected even though the building
and curriculum met the official standards. The remaining obstacle, the fact that the school
had uncertified teachers, should not have been a problem because the Minister of Education
has the discretionary power to authorize uncertified teachers. There was no outstanding
problem to prevent the Minister from approving the school. Yet given the Ulmer precedent,
the Minister held all authority for the approval or disapproval of private schools and could
exercise that authority with relatively unfettered discretion (Bergen 1978, 33-34).
The Holdemans claimed that they had a special right to educate their children based on a
promise made to Mennonites by the Government of Canada in 1873 when that government
was trying to attract immigrants to the prairies. The government had indeed promised the
Mennonites freedom to educate their children. But the judge ruled that this promise applied
only to Manitoba, not to Alberta (Bergen 1978, 34).
The Holdemans also argued that compelling their children to attend public schools
violated their freedom of religion as guaranteed by the Alberta Bill of Rights, which had been

13
enacted in 1972. Their claim was that religious freedom included the freedom to educate
their children in the context of their religious beliefs (Bergen 1981, 79-80). On the basis of
this argument, the Holdemans won their case. "It marked the first time a provincial Bill of
Rights had been used to override part of another provincial statute" (Levy 1979, 116). Judge
Oliver ruled as follows:
The accused in this case has committed no real crime. He has not refused to
send his child to school, only to a particular school where, among other factors
that are abhorrent to his religious beliefs, he says, the teachers are indoctrinated
in a liberal value system unacceptable to him or his Church ([1978] 3 W.W.R.
61).
He went on to say:
[W]here it can be shown in a particular case that religious beliefs are irrefutably
and irrevocably linked to education, a foundation has been laid for the
application of the Alberta Bill of Rights where freedom to educate children in
conformity with those beliefs is infringed upon ([1978] 3 W.W.R. 62).
In this case, it was held that the school attendance provisions of the School Act, which
required attendance at a government-approved school, did infringe the accused's freedom of
religion and were therefore "rendered inoperative" ([1978] 3 W.W.R. 62).
The provincial government did not appeal the decision even though it was urged to do so
by opposition politicians as well as by the ATA and ASTA. It did not believe that the
decision would lead to a proliferation of other private schools, and it did not want to be seen
to be opposing a decision based on its own Bill of Rights (Levy 1979, 127). Instead of
appealing the decision, the government revised private school regulations to allow a new type
of private school, "Category 4," to operate legally within Alberta. Up to this time, there had
only been the three previously mentioned categories of private schools. "Regular" private
schools became "Category 1" private schools (with teachers who were certified but did not
have to belong to the ATA [Woods Gordon 1984, 25]), private schools for handicapped
students became "Category 2" private schools, and the private language schools became
"Category 3" private schools. The new "Category 4" enabled the Minister "to approve

14
regular private schools without certified teaching staff using curriculum which might differ
somewhat from the curriculum set forth by Alberta Education" (Hop 1982, 134). Thus in
creating the fourth category of private schools the government changed its policy in order to
accommodate the Holdeman schools.
Yet another indication of the government's more favourable attitude to private schools
came with its proposal in 1982 to revise the School Act. At that time the Minister of
Education, David King, mentioned the possibility of removing the compulsory school
attendance provision of the School Act. He believed that it had become unnecessary since
most parents would still see to it that their children got an education. Interestingly, King had
told Dennis Hop that he favoured eliminating the compulsory attendance provision as a way
of making unlicensed private schools legal in Alberta (Hop 1982, 165). Had the idea been
accepted, it would also have made home schooling considerably easier. However, it received
a very negative reaction, especially from school board officials, and was not mentioned again
(Sheppard 1982, 41).
Quasi-private Alternative "Public" Schools
The private school movement also benefited from initiatives at the local government level.
The most notable occurrence of this was the emergence of quasi-private alternative public
schools in Calgary. During the late 1970s and into the early 1980s the Calgary Board of
Education had a policy whereby groups of parents could form schools with a specific cultural
or religious basis and have them incorporated into the public school system. They were
funded as part of the public system, and followed the public system's curriculum
requirements, but were able to maintain their distinct cultural or religious aspects. Only five
alternative schools were ultimately formed: two Jewish, two Protestant, and one Indian
cultural school. These alternative schools can easily be seen as a type of publicly funded
private school. This is how they were seen by William Baergen, who noted at the time that

15
"[t]he alternate school movement has been added to the private school movement" (Baergen
1982, 158). Similarly, Harvey Treleaven commented that the issues associated with the
alternative schools "are frequently associated with the private school question" (Treleaven
1981, 16).
When the Calgary Public School Board introduced the alternative schools policy in 1976,
two previously existing Jewish private schools, the Calgary Hebrew School and the I.L.
Peretz School, were quickly reorganized to fit the school board requirements and became
alternative public schools (Calgary Hebrew and I.L. Peretz Schools 1984, 3-4). A group of
Protestant parents who wanted an alternative school soon began organizing, and in July 1977
the Logos Education Society of Alberta became a registered organization. In December of
that same year the Calgary Board of Education approved the Society's proposal for an
alternative school (Logos Christian School 1984, 6). Parents of school-age children who
lived near Sunalta Elementary School suggested that that school be used for the Logos
school. Sunalta was facing imminent closure due to a dwindling student population and the
local parents knew that by housing an alternative school it would remain open. However, a
dispute arose over the choice of a principal. The Logos Society insisted that the school have
a Christian principal who agreed with their program. In the end the dispute was resolved, the
school got a Christian principal, W.E. Shoults, and the Logos school began operations in
September 1979 with 300 students and a waiting list of 80 more (Saint John's Report 1979,
23).
The Plains Indian Cultural Survival School also opened in 1979. It was a high school
established by a group of Indian parents who were concerned about the low grades and high
dropout rates of Indian students in regular public schools. Its curriculum mixed academic
subjects with traditional Indian values (Orr and Weatherbe 1983, 32).
Parents created the four religiously oriented alternative schools because they wanted their

16
children to receive education from a particular religious or cultural perspective and did not
believe that the regular public schools could fulfill this function. The Jewish alternative
schools were
dedicated to the beliefs that education is the foundation of a child's life and that
Jewish education is the cornerstone for a Jewish child. . . . The main purpose of
a Jewish education is to teach the child about his background and to prepare
him for his place in Canadian society as a Jew, with an understanding of himself
and his heritage (Calgary Hebrew and I.L. Peretz Schools 1984, 3).
Similarly, the Logos School had a specifically Protestant Christian emphasis.
While teaching curricular areas the Minister of Education and Calgary Board of
Education require, the Logos School endeavours to teach this curriculum from a
Christian perspective of the human race, its moral and social functions, and its
relationship with God. Since the School is set up to complement the teachings
of home and church rather than replace them, a Christian lifestyle receives
emphasis over Christian indoctrination (Fiordo 1981, 73).
The alternative schools, then, had very clear and distinct educational philosophies and goals.
There were clear limits, however, to how unique the schools could be. They had to admit
students regardless of their religious background. That is, the Jewish schools were required
to admit non-Jews and the Logos school was required to admit non-Christians. As well,
specifically religious instruction could not be compulsory, and was limited to a certain
amount of time (Miller 1982, 113). Nevertheless, the schools were distinctively religious and
appealed to specific communities.
Controversy and Declining Support for Private Schools
By the early 1980s, then, the situation for private schools looked rather good. Many of
them were receiving government funding. Those that weren't had considerable freedom in
the operation of their schools. It was in this environment that an increase in enrollments in
private schools occurred. From the 1974/75 school year until the 1979/80 school year private
school enrollments accounted for 1.3 percent of all students in Alberta. The subsequent
increase in private school enrollments was so drastic that by the 1985/86 school year 2.8
percent of all Alberta students were in private schools, more than doubling their percentage of

17
the total student population in only six years. Later increases in private school enrollments
were considerably slower, so by the end of the decade they accounted for 3.1 percent of the
total (Statistics Canada 1991-1992, 32-34). Enrollments in the alternative public schools
were also increasing in the early 1980s (McKinley 1983a, 30). This was particularly true of
the Logos School. Its enrollment increased to 375 by the beginning of its second year, and
within a few months it had a waiting list of 550 more children (Fiordo 1981, 74). (No one
knows the comparable figures for home schooling because many home schooling parents
wanted to remain hidden from the government and therefore are not accounted for in any
official figures (Wilford 1982, 39)). It was these private school enrollment increases that
raised concerns among some people and triggered the debate about private and quasi-private
schooling in Alberta.
William Baergen claimed that the dramatic increase in the private school sector was due to
the increase in the government financial aid to private schools (1982, 25). However, Dennis
Hop quotes a study which points out that there had also been dramatic growth in the private
school sector in Ontario even though there is no government funding for private schools there
(1982, 27-28). The implication is that the growth in Alberta may have very well occurred
even without the financial aid from the government. While critics claimed the growth was
due to government funding, private school supporters said it was due to disenchantment with
the public schools (Byfield 1981, 52). The main group of schools that did receive
government funding, Category 1 schools, increased in total enrollment by over 1200 students
from 1978-79 to 1981-82 (from 6666 to 7882)(Hop 1982, 143). The schools that did not
receive funding, Category 4 schools, increased their enrollment in the same period by 231
(from 334 to 565) (Hop 1982, 161). On a percentage basis the Category 4 schools
experienced greater growth, but in absolute terms the Category 1 increase was much more
substantial. Whatever the cause of the increase, it occurred at a time when the government

18
appeared to have a more favourable attitude towards private schools than it had had in the
past.
It is interesting to note that at about this time the issue of private schools in Alberta was
beginning to receive attention in academic circles. Four theses were written by graduate
students researching this issue. In 1980 Norbert Wolfe wrote a study of the Holdeman court
case and its implications entitled A Case Study of the Historical and Contemporary Events
and Forces Leading to the Establishment of a Fourth Category of Private Schools in Alberta.
Harvey Treleaven wrote Private Schools in Alberta: A Delphi Study in 1981. The
Development of Private Schools in Alberta by Dennis Hop and Public Support of Private
Secondary Schools in Alberta, Canada: An Analysis of Relevant Policy Issues by William
Baergen came out in 1982. The controversy about private schools in Alberta had obviously
triggered the interest of the academic community.
In sum, private schools in Alberta entered the 1980s in a very positive position. They
were receiving increasing amounts of government funding, and the government had acted to
create a new category of private schools to accommodate those who wanted little government
interference. As well, quasi-private alternative schools were allowed to operate within the
Calgary public education system. However, shortly after the decade began, rising private
school enrollments triggered a series of controversies -- six in all -- that seemed to threaten
the position of private schools. By the middle of the decade, the situation did not look very
good at all.
Controversy I: Alternative Public Schools
The first significant controversy involved not private schools strictly speaking, but the
quasi-private alternative public schools in Calgary. The alternative school set up by the
Logos society was becoming increasingly popular and the waiting list of students was
growing. As a result, the Logos Society wanted to open another school to accommodate the

19
demand (Fiordo 1981, 74). Paradoxically, it was precisely because the Logos School was so
popular and needed to expand that opposition arose to the whole alternative school concept.
The school board decided to allow Logos to expand, and in April 1981 organized a
meeting for residents in the area of the new school being considered, Briar Hill Elementary
School. "Some 350 concerned residents showed up to take turns blasting not only the idea of
Logos moving in, but the fact of its existence anywhere in the public system" (Hopkins and
Dolphin 1981, 58). This meeting signaled the beginning of the battle over whether there
should even be alternative schools within the public system. Critics raised four main issues.
For one, they claimed that the alternative schools were elitist and amounted to publicly
funded superior education for upper middle class children. Second, they claimed that the
Logos Society was trying to force its religious values on their neighborhood. Third, it was
feared that money going to the alternative schools was siphoned off from the money available
to the students in the regular public schools (Hopkins and Dolphin 1981, 58). And finally,
some feared that the existence of alternative schools was setting a precedent for weird groups
to demand their own schools (Weatherbe and Geddes 1982, 29-30). To make matters trickier,
three of the seven school board members had children in the Logos School. Due to perceived
conflict of interest, the three decided to abstain from any votes dealing with the Logos
School. Needless to say, after the showdown at Briar Hill, the Logos Society decided to look
elsewhere for another school building (Hopkins and Dolphin 1981, 60).
The Logos School did actually cause extra costs for the public system. Logos children
who lived outside the Sunalta district were bused in at the school board's expense. As well,
children who lived in the Sunalta district but did not want to attend the Logos School were
bused elsewhere, also at the board's expense. Those who worried that weird groups would try
to set up alternative schools had their fears confirmed when a group of parents applied to set
up a school based on Transcendental Meditation. The application was denied (due to lack of

20
community support and lack of qualified teachers), but the threat of odd alternative schools
still existed (Weatherbe and Geddes 1982, 29-30).
The school board held another public meeting about alternative schools in February 1982.
Most of the 300 people who attended were opposed to the schools. At the meeting the
University of Calgary Law Dean, John McLaren, declared that religious alternative schools
might violate the Alberta Bill of Rights and the impending Canadian Charter of Rights
(Geddes and Weatherbe 1982, 35). The Calgary Civil Liberties Union prepared a brief
arguing that the schools violated human rights legislation. It claimed that parents who live
close to an alternative school are under "strong pressure" to have their children attend it even
if they don't agree with the school's religious perspective. Secondly, it claimed that people
who belong to religions that don't have enough adherents to form a school are discriminated
against. And third, "the NWT School Ordinance of 1901 gives Albertans the right to public
schools which aren't religious at all. Therefore . . . religious schools violate this ordinance"
(Weatherbe and Wilford 1982, 51). Interestingly, the Alberta Teachers' Association had no
objection to the alternative schools (Weatherbe and Wilford 1982, 52).
Later the same year, the Calgary School Board again thought that it had found a school for
Logos, this time in Brentwood. But at a meeting in May, it was again apparent that there was
a lot of opposition and the proposal was cancelled.
Around the same time, a group of parents in Airdrie tried to set up a Logos school but the
Rockyview School Division Board would not support it (McKinley and Weatherbe 1982, 38).
When the Logos Society in Calgary tried to get Balmoral Elementary School, it was met with
"organized opposition." "Anti-Logos canvassers were reportedly coming to the door and
asking, 'Do you know what kind of fanatics are trying to take over your school?'" (Hayes
1983, 38). Finally, in January 1983, the St. Andrews Heights community offered the Chief
Crowfoot Elementary School to be a new Logos school. Even then, however, the Calgary

21
School Board had an "emotional meeting" which approved this proposal by a narrow four-to-
three margin (Hayes 1983, 38).
In mid-1983 a group called Save Public Education (SPE) was formed, under the leadership
of civil rights lawyer and activist Sheldon Chumir, to help elect anti-alternative school
trustees to the Calgary School Board, and therefore ultimately to eliminate the alternative
schools themselves. The position of SPE was that the alternative schools segregate students
on the basis of religion and therefore foster division and intolerance in society. Its members
supported the view that all students should be in common schools where they mix with
children of other religions and cultures, thus fostering tolerance and reducing distinctions.
Importantly, it was the fact that the Logos school was growing so quickly that finally spurred
SPE into forming (McKinley 1983a, 30-32).
In the October 1983 school board election campaign, SPE was successful in making
alternative schools the central issue. This time the school board was to have nine members,
and SPE endorsed nine candidates who supported its position. McKinley summarizes the
SPE platform as follows:
[P]ublic schools had the noble purpose (aside from education) of bringing
together Canadians of all cultures and races and religions to teach harmony and
tolerance. Moreover, as public, tax-supported institutions, they were bound by
the new Charter of Rights and Freedoms to avoid discrimination on racial and
religious grounds. The four religious schools violated all these principles.
Worse, they endangered the whole system, because other ethnic and religious
groups would soon apply for their schools too (German, French and Muslim
groups have indeed put out feelers). Finally, SPE contended that since Logos
kept under-enrolled schools open by bussing, it was an added cost to taxpayers
(McKinley 1983b, 35).
Seven of the nine SPE candidates won, thus ensuring that the alternative schools would be
pushed out of the Calgary public system. However, the SPE trustees were not opposed to the
Plains Indian School, nor were they going to take action against it because they saw it as a
special case (McKinley 1983b, 34-35).
Not surprisingly, at "their first meeting after election in October, a seven-to-two majority

22
of Calgary trustees voted to end the public board's contracts with [the] four religious alternate
schools [i.e., the two Logos and the two Jewish schools]" (McKinley 1983c, 44). Thus, with
the exception of the Plains Indian School, the alternative school program came to an end.
The Logos Education Society took the Calgary Public School Board to court "to challenge the
board's termination of its contract on the grounds [that] it violate[d] constitutional guarantees
of religious freedom and that it [went] beyond the powers entrusted to the board by the
School Act" (Orr 1984, 42). However, the court action was unsuccessful. As a result, one of
the Logos schools was closed and the other reverted back to being a regular public school
(Fennell and Weatherbe 1984, 33). The two Jewish schools were accepted into the Calgary
Catholic school system and were therefore able to continue to operate as before (Cybulski
1986, 33).
As the 1986 school trustee elections approached there was talk that the Logos Society
would try to get favourable trustees elected and thus get some alternative schools operating
again (Bergman and Hogue 1986, 36-37). However, this did not take place and the
alternative school issue remained dead.
Controversy II: James Keegstra and the Committee on Tolerance and Understanding
While the controversy over the alternative schools raged in Calgary, another controversy
arose in a different part of the province. James Keegstra, a public school teacher, had been
teaching his views about a Jewish conspiracy, and this led the Alberta Government to
establish a "Committee on Tolerance and Understanding." In its report, the Committee was
extremely negative towards private schools and recommended to the government that they be
strictly controlled.
James Keegstra was a social studies teacher in Eckville during the 1970s and into the
1980s. He taught his students about an international Jewish conspiracy to control the world,
as well as unflattering theories about other groups. By 1978 this had generated complaints

23
against Keegstra, but little was done (Schwartz 1986, 12). By the end of 1981 the complaints
had become more severe, and early in 1982 Keegstra was called before the County of
Lacombe Board of Education and told to conform to Alberta's official social studies
curriculum. His teaching did not change, and so in December 1982 he was fired (David
1983, 19-21).
Although this entire incident occurred within the public school system, it had serious
implications for private schools in Alberta. As mentioned, this incident "prompted the
Province of Alberta in June 1983 to set up a Committee on Tolerance and Understanding"
(Hare 1990, 376). The Committee was established by the Minister of Education on June 27,
1983, and was chaired by Ron Ghitter, a former MLA from Calgary. It had eleven other
members, two of which were members of the ATA. The Committee's primary purpose was
"to review and suggest to the minister of education ways of fostering, in the school system,
greater tolerance and respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms, and the dignity and
worth of all individuals" (ATA News 1983a, 30). The Committee traveled around the
province and received numerous verbal and written submissions from individuals and
organizations that were concerned about the issues of education and tolerance.
One of the most significant submissions presented to the Committee came from the ATA.
Since the creation of Category 4 private schools (in response to the Holdeman case), the ATA
had been opposed to them. It saw the Committee as another opportunity to blast this type of
school. Arguing that "[a]ny system that allows the teaching of superiority or isolation of one
particular religion or social group is by its very nature condoning the teaching of intolerance,"
the ATA recommended that Category 4 private schools be abolished (ATA News 1983b, 1).
This recommendation did not go unheeded.
In May 1984 the Committee released a discussion paper on private schools. The paper
begins by giving the six guiding principles of the Committee. Briefly, these are (1) the

24
government should not deny any choices to its citizens "unless they run clearly contrary to
the overall public harmony"; (2) parents must ensure that their children receive the best
possible education; (3) society must provide education for its children and those children
have a right "to receive a compulsory education of no less than minimum acceptable
standards"; (4) education should instill in children self-esteem, critical thinking skills,
"tolerance, understanding and respect for others," and "an attitude of creative citizenship"; (5)
Alberta society meets its obligations to its children primarily through the public education
system; (6) shared experiences between children of different cultures, races, etc., must be
encouraged to enhance tolerance and understanding (Ghitter et al 1984a, 4-6).
From that point on, the paper is mainly an attack on private schools. It mentions that the
Committee received many submissions from people who were concerned about the existence
of private, and particularly religious, schools. According to one such submission, "The mere
existence of private schools (possibly including some separate schools) may in fact be in
direct violation of the cause (of tolerance)" (Ghitter et al 1984a, 10). The Committee clearly
accepted this line of reasoning.
It is the view of the Committee that private schools, by their very nature, do not
adequately meet the spirit of some of the principles set out by the Committee,
and particularly principles #5 and #6 (Ghitter et al 1984a, 15).
Furthermore, to the Committee private schools appeared to be a threat to
democracy.
Clearly, no society can function if any significant number of its people withdraw
into self-righteous isolation. . . . [T]he desire for narrow certainty that creates
totalitarian nations also creates intolerant individuals, hostile and frightened by
openness and uncertainty (Ghitter et al 1984a, 16).
In this view the existence of private schools is very ominous indeed.
Not surprisingly, the paper's recommendations basically call for an end to private
education in Alberta. All Category 4 schools would be abolished. Category 1 and Category
2 schools would be incorporated into their local public school board jurisdiction as "alternate

25
schools." They would have to use certified teachers, follow the government's curriculum
guidelines, and submit to the school board. Those that had been Category 1 schools would
still only receive 75% of the per student provincial grants, whereas the former Category 2
schools would receive funding above that level. Although these schools already used
certified teachers and government-approved curriculum, by placing them under school boards
they would no longer be independent. Rather than being controlled by private owners and
operators, they would be controlled by the school board. These schools could no longer be
called "private schools"; they would be public schools (Ghitter et al 1984a, 21-23). No
recommendations applied to the Category 3 schools, likely because they were specialized
language schools and operated only in addition to regular schooling.
The ATA was quite happy with this report, noting that the Committee accepted its
recommendation that Category 4 schools be abolished (ATA News 1984b, 1). The report
was also pleasing to public school board officials such as the chairman of the Calgary Board
of Education at the time, Gerry Burden. He liked it because he thought school "boards should
have more say over what goes on in the private schools in their jurisdictions” (Philip et al
1984, 24). Private school supporters, of course, were not happy with this report. After
explaining the content of the report, Ted Byfield, of Alberta Report -- a staunch supporter of
private education -- commented:
When Mr. Ghitter's committee resumes its search for intolerance and bigotry in
Alberta, we suggest they be furnished with a new item of evidence. They might
examine their own report. As a specimen of what they're looking for, it's a dandy
(Byfield 1984, 52).
Also opposed to the paper's proposals were those who had fought against alternative schools
in the Calgary public system. SPE founder Sheldon Chumir called the idea of private schools
becoming alternative public schools "a formula for the destruction of the public system"
(Bryden 1984, A1).
Alongside its paper on private education the Committee released a companion discussion

26
paper on public education in September 1984. Although this paper did not deal with private
education, some of its comments about public education confirm the fears about public
education that private school supporters frequently have. For one thing, this report refers to
the "major stakeholders in the field of public education -- the Alberta Teachers' Association,
the School Board Trustees, the Department of Education and parents" (Ghitter et al 1984b, 6).
The parents, who bore the children, raised them, fed and clothed them, etc., are seen as only
one of four major stakeholders, the other three being part of the public sector. This
demonstrates a perspective quite different from that held by parents of private school children
who would see themselves and their children as by far the major stakeholders.
Finally, in December 1984, the Committee released its final report. The section of the
report that dealt with private schools was moderate compared to the earlier discussion paper.
Indeed, the final report says that "[t]he issue is not whether or not private schools should be
permitted in the Province of Alberta. They must be permitted. That is a parent's right in a
democratic, pluralist society" (Ghitter et at 1984c, 111). So the Committee had changed its
tune to some degree with regard to private schools. Although it still wanted Category 4
schools abolished, it would allow for private schools that would be similar to Category 1
schools. That is, the teachers, curriculum, etc., would all have to be approved by the
government, and the schools would receive the 75% per pupil grant (Ghitter et al 1984c,
115). However, they would not be incorporated into the public school system as previously
proposed.
The final report contains a brief section on curriculum used in private schools. Earlier in
the year, the Committee had persuaded Dave King to commission An Audit of Selected
Private School Programs (Alberta Education 1985a, i). Ghitter had requested the audit after
finding evidence that, in his opinion, some private school curriculum promoted intolerance.
The results of the audit were unfavourable to the examined curriculum, which was used in

27
both Category 1 and Category 4 private schools (Cohen and Weatherbe 1985, 30). Since the
private school curriculum was so different from the government's curriculum, it fell short of
the government's requirements. The report basically recommended, then, that private school
curriculum be made to conform to the government's requirements. This would require
substantial changes to the private school curriculum. The Committee report echoed the audit.
The Committee has also examined curriculum being utilized in some private
schools in the Province which is, in the view of the Committee, intolerant and
unacceptable in Alberta society. Such curriculum refers to Islam, Buddhism and
Hinduism as "false transcendent" religions, and implies that those who follow
those religions or those who may be humanistic in their philosophy of life are
"godless, wicked and satanical". In the view of the Committee, there is no place
for curriculum of this kind in the schools of Alberta (Ghitter et al 1984c, 111).
The Committee wanted strict government oversight of private school curriculum to ensure
that nothing it considered to be intolerant would be taught.
The ATA was happy with many of the report's proposals such as its recommendation to
abolish Category 4 schools (Luna 1985, 7). However, in spite of the fact that the Committee
moderated its views and recommendations about private schools, many private school
supporters were still strongly opposed to it.
[T]he report does recommend that all independent schools meet the standards
of what are now called "category one" private schools, by using curriculum and
teachers approved by the Department of Education. That proposal has been
branded as "totalitarian" by some private school advocates. It gives the
government "absolute power of what is taught and who can teach it," charges
Stockwell Day, secretary-treasurer of the Alberta Association of Independent
Church Schools (Weatherbe 1985, 40).
Comparisons were made between the report's recommendations and the policies of
other jurisdictions.
[I]f the committee's proposals for independent education were enacted, they
would represent the most oppressive educational legislation ever introduced in
English-speaking Canada. . . . We have the proposal that the ultimate
responsibility for the education of children be formally removed from parents and
vested wholly in government, a violation, incidentally, of the United Nations
Charter. We have the proposal -- unparalleled in the English-speaking world --
that the idea of an independent school, unsubsidized and largely uncontrolled by

28
government, be forbidden by law in Alberta. We have, in sum, propositions of
totalitarian implication (Byfield 1985a, 84).
Clearly, then, even the watered down recommendations of the Committee proposed a
dramatic increase in state control over private education.
Controversy III: Court Cases Against Unregistered Church Schools
Shortly after the beginning of the Keegstra affair, and still before the alternative school
controversy was played out, another controversy arose involving court action against two
unregistered church schools. In both cases the schools lost, and this contributed towards the
negative atmosphere for private schools in Alberta.
The most significant case, and also the initial one, was against Pastor Larry Jones of
Western Baptist Church. His church began operating an unlicensed Christian school in 1980.
Originally Jones had his children in a public school. However, the introduction of a new sex
education program in the public schools in the late 1970s alerted him to problems in the
public system. Upon looking further into the issue he became convinced of the necessity of
starting a Christian school, and did so in conjunction with his church (Jones 1987, 1, 9). The
School Act required that all private schools be licensed by the government. But Jones was
not willing to receive a license.
I cannot receive a license -- a license is permission by a higher authority to a
lesser authority. There is no higher authority than God -- by His Word [i.e., the
Bible] He commanded me to teach my children just as clearly as He
commanded me to preach and witness for Him. To accept a license would be a
compromise of a Bible principle (Jones 1987, 11).
Jones was adamant on this point. He received his mandate to educate his children from God,
not the state. He did not need "permission" from the state to do what God already required
him to do. To accept a government license would be to declare theologically that the state
was superior to God. Therefore he would not take a license.
"For three years Western Baptist Academy operated unmolested; then in January 1983, the
Calgary Board of Education laid charges under the School Act against Pastor Jones (but no

29
others)" (McCarthy et al 1984, 28). All children who were not in a public school, registered
private school, or government-approved home school situation, were legally considered
truant. As a result of keeping his children in a school that did not meet these criteria, the
charge against him was that of aiding truancy. It took a few years to get the charges laid,
apparently because there was a dispute between the Board of Education and Department of
Education over which should initiate the charges (McCarthy et al 1984, 28). The Board was
technically responsible for this action and so ultimately carried it out.
Jones won his case at trial. Justice Fitch held that the School Act violated the
"fundamental justice" guarantee in s. 7 of the Charter of Rights because the same state agency
was responsible for both determining whether a school met the standard of efficient
instruction and prosecuting for truancy when efficient instruction was lacking. .
Section 143(1)(a) of the School Act says that proof of efficient instruction can
only be made by written certification of either an inspector from the Department
of education or the superintendant of a school board. Under s. 180 of the
School Act the prosecutor in a truancy proceeding is either an employee of a
school board or the Minister of Education or his designate. Limiting evidence of
efficient instruction to persons associated with the prosecutor is the equivalent of
saying the defence not guilty by reason of insanity can only be established by
evidence of a Crown psychiatrist. Such a provision would surely contravene s. 7
of the Charter -- it is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice
([1983] 25 Alta. L.R. (2d) 367-368).
Fitch did not deal with the argument made by Jones that the requirement to receive
government certification violated his freedom of religion.
The Crown appealed the decision, and the case was referred back to Justice Fitch for
technical reasons: his decision had been reached on the basis of a constitutional argument of
which the Attorney General of Alberta claimed to have not been properly notified (29 Alta.
L.R. (2d) 354). In this second trial Fitch dealt with Jones' argument based on religious
freedom and dismissed it. He did not believe Jones' religious freedom would be violated by
the requirement of accepting certification of efficient instruction. However, he acquitted
Jones for the same fundamental-justice reason as in the previous case.

30
Giving an arbitrary power to grant or withold certification to the superintendant of
the public school system, the chief competitor of the private tutor and the private
school, offends the notion of fundamental justice whether or not there is a
religious element involved in the dispute as to what is efficient instruction ([1983]
29 Alta. L.R. (2d) 366).
Again the Crown appealed the decision.
The Alberta Court of Appeal ruled against Jones. Its reasoning was as follows:
The respondent is not an aggrieved person in the sense that he has been
refused a certificate. He attacks the prohibitions in the School Act in the
abstract. With the exceptions of constitutional references and some applications
for declaratory judgement, this court declines to consider questions in the
abstract. If the respondent had requested a certificate and had been refused, he
could then attack such refusal by way of prerogative writ ([1984] 33 Alta. L.R.
(2d) 283).
Jones' lawyer was unconvinced by this decision.
It is respectfully submitted that the Court's reasoning in this regard is incorrect,
for Pastor Jones' whole complaint is that he should not be required to apply for a
license, not that he has been unfairly denied such a license (Carr 1987, 10).
Jones appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Shortly after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Jones case, his legal situation was
complicated by the Ghitter Committee's discussion paper on private education. "As a result
of the concern expressed by the Committee and the ensuing public debate, the Minister of
Education sent letters to each of the unauthorized schools, indicating that they must meet
basic Department standards" (Ghitter et al 1984c, 104). In May 1984 the government sent a
letter to 26 illegal church schools indicating that they had 90 days to apply for certification or
else the government would take action against them. All except three schools (Western
Baptist Academy run by Larry Jones, Community Church Christian School run by Kenneth
Bienert, and the Duchess Christian School) chose either to get the government approval or to
close down. Subsequently all three of the "intransigents" were charged under the Department
of Education Act with operating illegal schools (Elash 1984, 42). This charge of operating an
illegal school was distinct from Jones's previous charge under the School Act of aiding the

31
truancy of his children. In July 1985 Jones was convicted and fined $20.00. He refused to
pay the fine, but also decided not to appeal the decision (Carr 1987, 11).
It was also because of his refusal to obey the government's letter that Kenneth Bienert was
charged. Bienert was the principal of the Community Church Christian School in Fox Creek,
Alberta. He also lost his case. Like Jones, Bienert believed that the parents of the children in
the school had received the responsibility to educate their children from God. "Since the
education of their children is being conducted by their church, they feel that by applying for
approval of the school operation of the church, they would be admitting that the government
and not God has dominion over their church" ([1985] 39 Alta L.R. (2d) 201). The defense,
then, was that the government demand for the school to be licensed violated the freedom of
religion provisions of the Alberta Bill of Rights and the Charter of Rights.
Justice Patterson ruled in Bienert's case that the freedom of religion provision of the
Alberta Bill of Rights was not violated. He said the Bill of Rights had to be interpreted in
light of the understanding of freedom of religion as it related to education at the time that the
Bill of Rights was enacted, 1972. Since at that time there was considerable government
regulation of private schools, it was reasonable to conclude that freedom of religion as
covered by the Bill of Rights allowed for government regulation of private schools. This case
was different from the Holdeman case, he noted, because the Holdemans had been denied
government approval whereas Bienert had refused to seek government approval ([1985] 39
Alta. L.R. (2d) 202-205).
As far as the Charter of Rights was concerned, however, Patterson found that "the
religious freedoms of the defendent are indeed constrained, and there has been a prima facie
violation of s. 2(a) of the Charter" ([1985] 39 Alta. L.R. (2d) 209). Nevertheless, he was
satisfied that the requirement to get a license "is a reasonable limitation prescribed by law
demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society" ([1985] 39 Alta L.R. (2d) 210).

32
The requirement was therefore saved under s. 1 of the Charter, and Bienert lost his case.
Not long thereafter Larry Jones lost his Supreme Court decision on similar grounds:
[T]he province, and indeed the nation, has a compelling interest in the "efficient
instruction" of the young. A requirement that a person who gives instruction at
home or elsewhere have that instruction certified as being efficient is, in my view,
demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. So too, I would think, is
a subsidiary requirement that those who wish to give such instruction make
application to the appropriate authorities for certification that such instruction
complies with provincial standards of efficiency. Such a requirement constitutes
a minimal, or as the trial judge put it, peripheral intrusion on religion ([1986]
2 S.C.R. 299, per LaForest J.).
The legal avenues of such dissidents as Jones and Bienert were closed.
After the decision was announced, Alberta's Minister of Education, Nancy Betkowski,
gave Jones one week to comply with the law and register his school. During that week Jones
and his lawyer met with Department of Education officials to try to reach an agreement, but
to no avail. Therefore Betkowski asked the Attorney General to take action to close Jones'
school (Brennan 1986c, 1).
The Attorney General subsequently applied to compel Jones to produce most, if not all, of
Western Baptist Church's school, membership, and financial records. The judge ordered that
the records be produced, but Jones refused, "fearing that the real purpose of obtaining the
documents was to obtain the names of parents for future School Act prosecutions" (Carr
1987, 11-12). As a result, Jones was found to be in civil contempt and was given until
October 2, 1987 to get a license for the school (Carr 1987, 12). Refusing to back down, Jones
was sent to jail for 10 days.
Controversy IV: The Powell Case and Home Schooling
Some home schooling parents were also having problems with the government. One such
family, the Kraemers, moved to Montana because they were refused permission to home
school their children (Orr 1983, 32). Another family, the Powells, ended up being taken to
court.

33
Doug and Anne Powell were the parents of two children. Concerned by what they
perceived to be the promotion of materialistic values in the public schools, the Powells
withdrew their children from the public system in Calgary and began to teach them at home.
Their conflict with the values taught in the public system stemmed from the fact that they
were Rastafarians (Fennell 1985, 21).
An official of the Calgary Board of Education requested that the Powells submit an outline
of their home education program for approval. However, the program was not acceptable to
the Board due to certain deficiencies. Since the Powells refused to send their children back to
public school, they, like Jones, were charged with aiding the truancy of their children
(Fennell 1985, 21).
The Powell's defense was based on their contention that the compulsory attendance
provisions of the School Act violated their freedom of religion as guaranteed by the Charter
of Rights and the Alberta Bill of Rights. They also invoked the s. 7 Charter argument on the
basis of which Jones had won his first two cases -- that only by obtaining a government
certificate could they prove that they were providing efficient instruction to their children,
and were thereby unable to make a full answer in their own defense by demonstrating that
their children were, in fact, being educated. Justice Litsky rejected this latter defense outright
since the Powells did not even try to prove that they were providing efficient instruction.
As Litsky saw it, the freedom of religion issue was "the pith and substance of this case"
([1985] 39 Alta. L.R. (2d) 133). However, Litsky rejected the freedom of religion defense.
I believe the home study proposal of the Powell's is mere puffery and is in reality
a smokescreen for teaching only religious philosophy and hardly anything else.
The court cannot accept convoluted curricula which fall far below a recognized
standard. It cannot be condoned as a rationale for religious freedom. If this
court accepted such a standard as set out by the Powells it would amount to the
approval of a kind of academic anarchy within the province of Alberta without
form or substance. In essence the Powells are practising intellectual nihilism
which is antithetical to any organized educational system. The court cannot
allow a proliferation and acceleration of unapproved substandard home study
espoused by splintered religious factions ([1985] 39 Alta. L.R. (2d) 130-131).

34
Thus the Powells lost their case.
Home schooling was beginning to receive more attention. The ASTA created a task force
on home schooling. A number of school trustees were concerned because they did not think
home schooled children would be receiving an adequate education, and also because rural
schools could be jeopardized if a large number of people in rural areas began home schooling
(Owen 1986, 25-26). They wanted strict controls. As one trustee said, home schooling "must
not become a whim of families who haven't got reason to keep their children out of the school
system" (Owen 1986, 27).
Controversy V: The Woods Gordon Report
In the midst of the court battles against unregistered church schools and home schooling,
another government report about private schools was released. "[P]artly in response to
resolutions of the Alberta School Trustees' Association that a thorough examination of private
schools in the province be undertaken, in July 1983 the Minister of Education called for bids
on a proposal for a study of private schools in Alberta. . . . [T]he contract was awarded to
Woods Gordon Management Consultants" (Bergen 1987, 295). The report, called A Study of
Private Schools in Alberta, was released to the public in March 1985. It noted problems with
some of the curriculum used by private schools, especially Category 4 private schools. In
particular, students in schools that used Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) curriculum
scored below public school students in some areas (Cohen and Weatherbe 1985, 30-31).
The Woods Gordon report mentions that private schools probably have a right to exist
under the freedom of religion provision in section 2 of the Charter of Rights, and possibly
even under the freedom of conscience, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of
association provisions. However, the report cautions that that right is not "exclusive" and that
the courts would undoubtedly also recognize the authority of the provincial government to
ensure that private schools meet certain standards. As well, it mentions provisions in both the

35
Charter of Rights and Alberta Bill of Rights that would allow the provincial government to
override certain sections in those documents. By overriding the sections that are construed to
protect private schools, the government could deprive the schools of their right to exist
(Woods Gordon 1984, 13-14).
The report briefly points out the basic conflict in the area of private education, the rights
of parents versus the rights of the state in the control of the education of children. Mentioned
is the fact that at the time when universal public education was implemented, "[i]t was felt
that the state owes it to a child to provide some view of the world other than that which may
be limited by the child's parents" (Woods Gordon 1984, 1). This conflict is perhaps most
acute when dealing with the issue of home schooling. A Gallup poll conducted in Alberta in
May 1984 revealed that whereas 93 percent of respondents believed that parents have the
right to choose a private school for their children, fully 65 percent opposed the right of
parents to teach their children at home (Woods Gordon 1985, 16, 56).
The report recommended that private schools continue to be allowed to operate
in Alberta. However, they would be strictly controlled. Basically, all private schools would
be Category 1 schools subject to the curriculum and teacher-certification restrictions of that
category (but continuing to receive substantial government funding in return for living within
those restrictions). Category 4 schools would be given time to make changes in order to
comply with the standards necessary for Category 1, but if they did not make the necessary
changes, they would be closed down. As well, home schooling would only be allowed in
exceptional circumstances such as geographic isolation, in the case of a physically or
mentally disabled student, or where the religious convictions of parents can in "absolutely no
way" be accommodated in the other school systems (Woods Gordon 1985, 18, 22, 31-33, 43,
44, 53, 57).
Although the report did recommend that private schools should be allowed to

36
continue to exist, its emphasis on the authority of the state is quite obvious.
[A]n independent school would be allowed to exist in Alberta only if: (a) it taught
virtually the same curriculum that the government schools teach, (b) it added to
that curriculum only what the government allowed it to add, (c) it appointed only
teachers the government approved of, (d) its buildings and facilities met
standards the government laid down, though the government would provide no
financial assistance in the construction of those facilities, (e) its students met
standards of performance that the government set, (f) its timetables and the
teaching year were subject to government approval. . . . If such conformity were
required by independent schools, then the obvious question would be, why
bother starting one? (Byfield 1985b, 52).
Clearly, then, the recommendations of the Woods Gordon report would not allow much
liberty to private schools. Thus the negative atmosphere for private schools in Alberta
continued to build.
Controversy VI: Moves to Create a New School Act
As noted earlier, the government had signaled its intention to revise the School Act in
1982. At that time it appeared that the proposed revision might enhance private education by
removing the compulsory attendance requirement. It was not until February 1984 that the
actual revision process began, however, and by then the tide had turned against private
schools. The government plan was to form a committee of PC MLAs who would consult
extensively with the public, rewrite the legislation, and then have the new Act passed in the
fall of 1985 (ATA News 1984a, 1). After receiving numerous submissions and meeting with
a number of interest groups, including the ATA, the committee put together a document
entitled Partners in Education which articulated the principles upon which the government
wanted to rewrite the Act. Although the Minister of Education, David King, continued to
speak in terms of giving more choices to parents about the education of their children -- when
releasing it, for example, he stated that "[i]n education we believe that choice is as important
as it is in the aisles of Safeway" (ATA News 1985a, 1) -- the report actually recommended
less choice. In particular it recommended abolishing Category 4 private schools, and
requiring all private schools to follow a government approved "program of studies," and have

37
government approved teachers. In return, all private schools would be eligible to receive
some government money (Alberta Education 1985b, 11-12).
In public meetings that the committee held after the release of Partners in Education,
supporters of Category 4 schools, as well as supporters of the unlicensed private schools,
made their opposition to the proposals clear. Larry Jones' lawyer, Philip Carr, challenged the
idea that parents had to be in "partnership" with the government in the education of their
children.
A partnership is a relationship with a common goal, with a view to profit. I want
my child to learn about God and His world, not, as the public system teaches,
man and his world to the exclusion of God. I want my child to learn absolutes of
right and wrong, not humanistic neutrals. Therefore, we do not have a
partnership in my child. Only myself, my wife and God do (Henker and
Weatherbe 1985, 44).
Category 1 school supporters were not as opposed to the proposals as these others, but some
nevertheless were concerned that parental rights "come up short" in Partners in Education
(Henker and Weatherbe 1985, 44).
Public school supporters were also concerned about that document, but for very different
reasons. They were most concerned about the proposal that the government continue funding
approved private schools. The position of the ATA was that funding
will drain students from the public school system. This, in turn, will lead to a
further reduction of provincial government spending on public education since
provincial grants are authorized on a per pupil basis (ATA News 1985b, 1).
The Alberta School Trustees' Association (ASTA) did not like the proposals either. The
president of the ASTA accused the government of
"pandering" to the wishes of a small, "vociferous minority" who support private
schools. . . . He told [ASTA] delegates that in the public hearing preceding the
publication of Alberta Education's principles paper on a new School Act,
"Partners in Education," this minority, "representing the self-interests of less than
3 percent of Albertans, has out-shouted the silent majority" (ATA News 1985c,
3).
Save Public Education, which had played such an important role in the alternative public

38
schools controversy, was particularly opposed to continued funding of private schools. Like
the ASTA, SPE saw private school funding as the victory of special interests over the
interests of the majority. As SPE leader Sheldon Chumir put it, private school funding was
a political decision rather than one based on the public interest. It resulted from
effective lobbying of government MLAs and cabinet members by private religious
school interests who prevailed over the opposition of groups such as The Alberta
Teachers' Association, the Alberta School Trustees Association and the non-
participation of the majority of Albertans (Chumir 1986, 22).
SPE spent $20,000 on ads in eight of Alberta's daily newspapers in June 1985 demanding that
the government stop the funding which it claimed went to schools that "segregate children on
the basis of race or religion and are elitist in nature" (Bergman and Milner 1985, 28).
The SPE ad also mentioned that allowing Catholics separate schools "is not an ideal
system" because Catholics are allowed to segregate themselves, but acknowledged that
nothing could be done to change that situation due to their constitutional guarantees. In other
words, the logic of SPE leads not only to an attack on private schools, but also on separate
schools (Byfield 1985c, 44). Perhaps not surprisingly, then, "Alberta's Catholic school
boards have generally supported the right of private schools to government funding"
(Bergman and Milner 1985, 29). They had seen the logical link between their own existence
and that of the independent schools.
At its February 1986 convention in Calgary, the Alberta Liberal Party passed two
resolutions on private schools that had been introduced by Chumir. The first one
proposed that any government formed by the Alberta Liberals would end public
funding for private schools (excepting schools for special needs children), and the
second proposed that any Alberta Liberal government require all private schools to adhere to
government standards and use government-approved teachers. In other words, strict
government control but no money. The leader of the Party, Nick Taylor, said his Party "is
concerned that private schools have been growing too fast. These resolutions establish the

39
point that the growth of private schools has gotten out of hand" (Brennan 1986a, 1).
During the summer session of the Legislature in 1986, the government's policies regarding
the funding of and standards for private schools came under attack. Sheldon Chumir, now an
MLA and Liberal Party education critic, joined the NDP education critic, Marie Laing, in
criticizing government policy (Brennan 1986b, 1). In discussing the government's decision to
fund private schools Chumir said, "I believe this change is the most important change in
education policy in the history of our province" (Alberta Hansard 1986, 885). "The result of
this funding has been a tremendous growth in the number of private schools, mainly
religious-based, over the last 10 years. . . . This is a formula for future social divisions"
(Alberta Hansard 1986, 886).
Gary Duthler, the executive director of the Association of Independent Schools and
Colleges in Alberta (AISCA) challenged Chumir's arguments. Invoking the previously
mentioned comparison with Ontario, he said that government funding should not be seen as
the reason for the rapid growth of private schools. Since Ontario, "the province with the
greatest independent school growth over the last decade . . . gives no funding at all," it was
therefore likely that the growth in Alberta would also have occurred even without
government money for private schools (Duthler 1986, 19-20). In terms of the argument that
private schools are segregating children, Duthler responds:
[T]hese children come from wide geographical areas, all socio-economic levels
and normal ranges of academic abilities, while "public" schools tend to take
children only from the socio-economic neighborhood in which they are located
(Duthler 1986, 20).
And to the charge that private schools provide inferior education he says, "parents who are
paying a great deal of money for their children's education tend to be very conscious of what
they are getting for their money" (Duthler 1986, 20). In other words, it is not likely that
people who are making tremendous financial sacrifices for the education of their children are
going to allow that education to be inferior to what is available "for free" -- of course it isn't

40
free.
In sum, despite the attempts by private school supporters to defend private schools, there
was substantial opposition to private alternatives in education, including home schooling.
The quasi-private alternative schools in Calgary had been closed down after considerable
controversy. Government-sponsored reports about private schools had not been very
favourable and generally called for stricter controls on private schools. Court cases against
unlicensed private schools had been successful with all but one closing down and the
remaining one operating in defiance of the law. And initial work on the new School Act did
not provide reason for optimism since it appeared that private schools would not fare well in
the outcome.
The Situation Improves for Private Schools
Yet in the midst of this situation, the tide began to turn. Despite the opposition of public
school defenders, the government had decided by July 1985 that its new Act would allow a
category of private schools that were similar to Category 4 schools. In addition, a couple of
privately sponsored reports were released that were strongly favourable towards private
schools, although only one was really significant. As further work was done on the new
School Act it became increasingly favourable towards private schools, with the final draft
being seen as very positive for private schools. Finally, the government decided to make a
deal with Larry Jones to allow him to continue operating his school. In the end, private
schools were better off in Alberta than they had ever been before, both in terms of
government support and the freedom that they were allowed.
Reports
In August 1985 a 30-page report entitled Educational Reform for Alberta was published
by a Calgary-based conservative organization, Albertans for Less Government. This report
does not appear to have made much impact. Nevertheless, it argued strongly in favour of

41
private schools, both from the perspective of parental rights in education and the superiority
of market mechanisms in the delivery of services. The report discusses the Alberta situation
and the provincial initiatives in setting up studies that looked at private schools (Ghitter and
Woods Gordon) and proposals for changing the law regarding private schools (Partners in
Education). It mentions that
the effects of the provincial initiatives are to centralize control, eliminate family
rights, solidify the position of social engineering and end choice. Problems in
the public system resulted in an attack on private schools (Stafford 1985, 21).
Although this report was not significant in terms of its influence, it was still part of the milieu
of reports and events that constituted the debate about private schools in Alberta in the 1980s.
Much more important was The Genesis Education Report: An Independent Study of
Private/Alternative Education in Alberta. It was sponsored by the Thomas J. Ranaghan
Foundation and the National Survival Institute and released in December 1985. It was
definitely favourable towards private schools. This report recommended that Category 4
schools be allowed to continue to exist, and also that home schooling continue to be allowed
(Ranaghan and New 1985, 111-112). It pointed out that 70 percent of the families that sent
children to private schools in Alberta had incomes below the national average. Therefore the
charge that private schools are for the rich is clearly wrong. As well, it showed that the cost
to educate a child in a private school is considerably less than in a public school (Nemeth
1985, 29). In terms of school financing, the report made at least one other significant
observation.
It is a myth that private schools receive 75% of what public schools receive from
the government. . . . The 75% of government funds which we constantly read
about is in reference to the per pupil grant which made up, for example, only
40% of the total amount of government funds (provincial and municipal) that the
Calgary Board of Education received in 1984. Therefore, taking the Calgary
system as an example, the private schools' formula for the public funds is not
75% of 100%; but rather, it is 75% of 40% or 30% of what the public school
system receives from both levels of government. However, remember that this
30% is even lower when you take into account the capital cost grants for school
buildings and equipment which is not available to private schools (Ranaghan

42
and New 1985, 67).
The Category 1 private schools, then, were actually receiving comparatively little government
financial help.
The Genesis report also criticized an omission on the part of the Committee on Tolerance
and Understanding.
The closing of several alternative Christian and Jewish schools by a school board
in Calgary is one more example of what an elected majority can do to a minority.
These schools were closed not because of poor teaching, not because of an
unapproved curriculum, not because the parents were dissatisfied, or the
schools were too small, but because of the intolerance of the majority of the
elected board. This matter was well within the scope of the Committee on
Tolerance and Understanding to address, but they paid little attention to it
(Ranaghan and New 1985, 77).
The Committee, in short, was accused of being selective as to where it saw
intolerance.
Sheldon Chumir, the leading opponent of private schools in Alberta during the
1980s, was not impressed by the Genesis report. He said that
. . . the report doesn't address our main argument that public money should be
used to bring children together, not to segregate them. Children can get their
religion elsewhere. We have to look at the long-term costs of segregating
children on the basis of religion. . . . [The report is] a one-sided, pro-private
document in disguise (Nemeth 1985, 29).
School Act
On the legislative front, the government's proposed new School Act, Bill 59, was not
released until June, 1987. Category 1 schools were to be termed "accredited" and still receive
money, whereas Category 4 schools were to be termed "registered" and still be able to
employ uncertified teachers. Neither supporters nor opponents of private schools were happy
with this bill. Private school supporters were concerned that it was not clear as to the place of
private schools in Alberta. Thus they would be at the mercy of the regulations that would be
drawn up within the framework of the legislation. Private school opponents thought there
was too much freedom for private schools. ATA president Nadene Thomas was afraid the

43
Act would lead to a proliferation of new private religious schools, "a prospect she dread[ed]
since ATA membership would not be a criterion for teaching in those institutions which are
merely in the unfunded 'registered' category" (Koch 1987, 43). The ASTA was also
concerned. Indeed it had launched a vigorous campaign -- under the title "Because We Care"
-- against the proposal when the government first introduced it in 1985 (The Trustee 1986,
15). Many people and organizations also opposed Bill 59 for reasons that had nothing to do
with private education. With the ATA, ASTA and AISCA (the Association of Independent
Schools and Colleges in Alberta -- the association that represented most private schools),
among other groups, all opposing the Bill, Education Minister Nancy Betkowski decided to
put it on hold until 1988 (Brennan 1987, 3).
Bill 59 continued to receive such heavy opposition that eventually Betkowski withdrew it
altogether. In May 1988 she introduced a new bill, Bill 27, as the proposed new School Act.
The government had obviously been paying more attention to those critics of Bill 59 who
supported private schools, for Bill 27 was considerably more favourable to parental rights in
education and private schools (V. Byfield 1988a, 50).
[Bill 27] is plainly oriented toward parental control, as against state control, of
what a child learns. Curricular variation, for instance, is authorized in state-
supported (i.e., parent-established) independent schools. Even in the public
system, parents and other non-professionals within a neighbourhood may form
school councils upon which the elected trustees can, if they choose, confer
extraordinary authority. More important still, the bill sets out unequivocally the
parental right to decide: "Parents have a right and responsibility to make
decisions respecting the education of their children." This is something public
educators have long been at pains to prevent. What your child does or does not
learn, as far as the "professionals" are concerned, is a matter for professionals,
not parents to determine. The Alberta act specifically repudiates this view (T.
Byfield 1988, 44).
Naturally, private school supporters such as AISCA supported this Bill.
The Liberals and NDP, of course, were strongly opposed to the Bill because of its
emphasis on parental rights. Much time was spent by the opposition parties trying to get the
government to subordinate parental rights to the authority of the state over education.

44
Sheldon Chumir unsuccessfully attempted to amend the preamble of the Bill so that parental
rights would be "subject to the best educational interests of their children and of the interests
of society" (Alberta Hansard 1988, 2109). Chumir also introduced an unsuccessful
amendment to prevent government funding of private schools (Alberta Hansard 1988, 2119).
Despite the vigorous opposition, Bill 27 was ultimately passed. The new Minister of
Education, Jim Dinning, then released proposed regulations that would be in effect under the
new School Act. The ATA was not at all happy with them. It contended that private schools
were receiving too much freedom and that therefore they would not maintain high
educational standards (Luna 1988, 3). The new regulations pertaining to home education
gave home schooling families much more liberty than they had had before. They could, if
they chose, be supervised by a "willing non-resident board." That is, if the school board of the
district in which they lived was not favourable to home schooling, home schooling parents
could register under a different board, anywhere in the province, that was favourable to home
schooling (Alberta Home Education Association 1991).
Jones Agreement
The new government attitude was also reflected in the ultimate fate of Jones' school.
After Jones had been released from jail, he continued to run his school as before, willing to
go to jail again if necessary. When a new minister, Jim Dinning, came into the Education
portfolio, he tried once again to negotiate with Jones. This time the negotiations were
successful. Jones agreed to voluntarily submit information about his students to the
Department, and in return, he was able to continue operating the school without getting a
license (Burns 1988, 38-39). Sheldon Chumir was completely opposed to this deal. He was
convinced that it violated the law, and would encourage other private schools to make similar
deals with the government (Boras 1988, B8).
Clearly, then, in terms of government support and freedom to operate, private schools in

45
Alberta were better off at the end of the 1980s than they had ever been before.
Conclusion
Before the creation of the public school system in Alberta in the late 1800s, all schools in
the province were private. Subsequently private schools were largely supplanted by the
public system. For many years the government was, at best, indifferent to private schools.
Yet it appears to have started becoming more favourable to them by the late 1960s as
evidenced by its decision to help fund them. Later, the government established Category 4
private schools rather than appealing a lost court decision. Government funding for private
schools was increasing and laws involving private schools were relaxing. It was in this
environment that the large increase in private school enrollments occurred.
At least partly in response to that rise in enrollments, private schools came under
increasing public criticism. The Jewish alternative public schools in Calgary were pushed
into the separate system and the Logos schools had to close. Two major government reports
advocated considerably more government control over private schools. And some unlicensed
schools were closed through government action. By the mid-1980s, Alberta appeared to be a
hostile environment for private schools.
At that point events began to go in favour of the private schools. A major report was
released that supported private schools. A new School Act was passed, granting private
school advocates much of what they wanted. And a deal was struck to allow for the
continued functioning of an unlicensed religious private school. As the decade closed out,
private schools were in a reasonably comfortable position in Alberta.

46
CHAPTER 3
THE ALTRUISTIC RATIONALES FOR SUPPORTING PUBLIC EDUCATION
AND OPPOSING PRIVATE EDUCATION
Having reviewed both the historical context and the detailed events of Alberta's education
debate, we now turn to the second purpose of the thesis: the attempt to "distinguish the
elements" of reason and interest in the opinions constituting the debate.
The first step in distinguishing the "elements" in Alberta's education debate is to determine
how plausible the proffered altruistic rationales are on a purely rational basis. If they are
completely convincing in their own terms, the fact that they also serve particular interests
would diminish in significance. After all, even the truth must be in someone's interest. To
the extent that the rationales turn out to be unconvincing, however, other elements (including
interest) loom larger as explanatory factors, and the likelihood of the "rationales" actually
being "rationalizations" increases. This chapter investigates the persuasiveness of the
altruistic rationales in Alberta's debate and finds them all wanting to some extent. The next
chapter considers the other main "element" of the debate, concluding that interest (and the
rationalization of interest) did indeed play a considerable role.
Public education has three main altruistic rationales. First, underprivileged individuals, as
well as society at large, are said to benefit from public education. By being available to all
and maintaining a certain minimum standard of education, it is claimed, public education
ensures universal and effective education. Second, public education is seen as an instrument
to enhance social cohesion. Children of many different races, cultures, and religions are
mixed in the public schools and all are taught the same values. This prevents the
fragmentation of society into various hostile groups. Finally, public education is said to be
necessary by those who believe "that the state owes it to a child to provide some view of the
world other than that which may be limited by the child's parents" (Woods Gordon 1984, 1).

47
In other words, children have a right to receive a type and level of education that will enable
them to make career and lifestyle choices that might not be possible for them if their
education was in the hands of their parents. Each of these rationales appeared in the Alberta
debate. Private schools were seen as undermining all three goals of public education.
Private Schools: A Threat to Universal, Effective Education
Left to the private sector, it is argued, education would be neither universal nor effective.
Only those with plenty of money would be able to send their children to school, and therefore
children of more modestly endowed families would be deprived of an education. As well,
without the benefit of central bureaucratic control and oversight, the private schools would
not maintain high academic standards, and therefore the education they provided would not
be sufficient. Indeed, due to their desire to keep costs down, private schools would hire
cheaper, less qualified teachers, and buy cheaper, lower quality materials, thus ensuring that
the educational product they provide would also be of lesser quality.
Although this critique was not central to the Alberta debate, it did play some role. For
example, the ATA opposed Bill 27 partly because it feared that private schools were given
too much freedom and would therefore not maintain high standards. As well, the Alberta
School Trustees' Association defended public education because it would ensure "guaranteed
universal access to quality education for all Alberta children" and "publicly acceptable
standards of education to be enforced in all Alberta schools" (The Trustee 1985a, 19). The
ASTA wanted to "insure that public education in Alberta does not suffer further deprivations
at the hands of private interests, so the children of Alberta will be able to face the future
properly prepared" (The Trustee 1985b, 4). Clearly, the insinuation is that children can be
"properly prepared" only through the public education system. This view was bolstered by
the Woods Gordon report which argued that students in private schools that used a certain
curriculum scored below public school students on tests in some areas (Cohen and Weatherbe

MichaelWagnerMAThesis

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to MichaelWagnerMAThesis

Similar to MichaelWagnerMAThesis (20)

MichaelWagnerMAThesis