When I returned to St. John's from a sabbatical leave, I was somewhat surprised to see the resurgence of the debate on denominational education. It was the second time in two years that the government had called referendum on the same issue. This time, the question for the purpose of public consultation was bravely set as whether the government should seek the revision of Term 17, the constitutional document governing Newfoundland's schools, to omit clauses protective of denominational rights and privileges in education. The proposed Term 17 read: "The [provincial] Legislature shall have exclusive authority to make laws in relation to education, but shall provide for courses in religion that are not specific to a religious denomination,"¹ and allow religious observances "in a school where requested by parents."² As in the previous referendum, the people of Newfoundland accorded their government a consent clearly and neatly, if not overwhelmingly. They thus endorsed the policy of education reform which had led their government to call the referendum.

Some of the denominations concerned--the Roman Catholic and Pentecostal churches in particular--express a fear that the referendum result will eventually secularize schools. This fear does not seem to be unfounded. Although I am not sure whether the government intends to make schools godless, one point that is obvious to me is that the proposed Term 17 will place the denominations in an unaccustomed difficult situation in maintaining schools. For the denominations which believe only they are truly godly, this may well be seen as a move to the secularization of schools. But secularization in itself, even if the government pursues it, is not a problem at all educationally speaking. So long as the schools concerned are public schools, the problem rests, rather, with their denominational affiliation, especially the arrangement in which religious denominations operate "public schools" although they are private organizations serving private interests. The government's policy to reform the denominational system of schools is commendable, for it promises to modernize the province's public education.

Saying so, however, does not mean the referendum result guarantees a bright future for Newfoundland's public education. Actually, I have some concerns which are, in my view, far more serious.

One of my concerns is related to the fact that education reform is pursued on the basis of a generally taken for granted interpretation of the provisions in the original Term 17. It was the interpretation which has complicated the school system in Newfoundland as well as the strategy for its reform. The two referenda, as well, were called on the basis of the same interpretation. That interpretation is that the original Term 17 stipulates that Newfoundland's public schools are to remain denominational so long as the denominations concerned so wished, and that the provincial government's education funds are to be dispensed only through the denominations. From this, people often jump to the conclusion that the denominational schools are public schools, that public schools in Newfoundland have to be denominational, and that the only way in which the province can have non-denominational or secular schools is the denominations' voluntary relinquishment of their constitutionally-guaranteed rights and privileges. The state--the provincial government which is by Term 17 the exclusive authority as to schools in the province--is in this interpretation deemed to be unable to do anything about schools unless the denominations consent.

Criticisms of this constitutional document arise mainly from the economic side rather than from the legal side. A familiar example of such criticisms is that the duplication of school facilities and services based on denominational division makes it unavoidable that the poorest province in the nation will waste valuable education dollars. As if to confirm this criticism, comparisons of students' academic performances demonstrate Newfoundland students' ranking well below the national average. It is thus argued that the integration of the denominational systems of schools into a single system will maximize the use values of the province's scarce education funds. Such an argument is too familiar for us to document. Suffice it to point to the Williams report of 1992, which compared the existing denominational system with three possible models of integration to conclude that a non-denominational system was the most cost-efficient.³

Newfoundland students' poor academic performance--if that is the case--is clearly a problem. If the poorest province in Canada has to waste money due to the denominational system, that too is a problem. Such problems have got to be solved somehow. And the solution of these problems calls for the establishment of a province-wide system of non-denominational schools. But did it require the revision of the original Term 17?

My previous studies yielded a negative answer. All that the union paper provided for were that the denominations concerned would maintain their schools so long as they so desired, and that the provincial government should not discriminate against any of them in the allocation of its education funds. It did not stipulate that the provincial government shall not have its own schools, non-denominational or secular. Nor did it stipulate that all education funds available for schools shall be allocated to denominational schools only. Despite the protective provisions for the denominations, the provincial government still maintained rights to have its own schools--"public schools" in the proper sense. The available methods for this were two. One was the creation and maintenance of the government's own schools out of its education funds while continuing to offer grants to the denominations perhaps in amounts dramatically reduced but still non-discriminatory, say, from $6,000 to $6 per student.⁴ The other was to persuade the rightful and privileged denominations to voluntarily surrender their schools to the public authority.

In fact, Canada's parliamentary proceedings at the time of union reveal this was exactly the way the officials of the Canadian government understood the original Term 17. Answering questions posed by a CCF member of the House of Commons, for instance, Louis St. Laurent, the then Deputy Prime Minister, stated that the Term was not prescribing a denominational system of schools for the new province, nor did it freeze Newfoundland schools in the existing denominational line-up. In protecting certain denominations' rights and privileges in accordance with Newfoundland's request, his government--he made it clear--assumed that there should be in the future non-denominational public schools as "majority" schools. In his understanding, the provisions for protecting denominational rights and privileges and for a share in the province's education funds had been prepared in the view that such denominations' schools would become "minority" schools similarly to the minority schools in s. 93 of the BNA Act. In his understanding, as well, the denominational schools in the new province would be publicly-funded schools but not necessarily "public schools." After all, Term 17 was not as guilty as many Newfoundlanders believed for the troublesome denominational system.

The origin of this system is not Term 17 per se but, rather, its false interpretation. And the origin of the false interpretation was Joey Smallwood himself, a key member of the Ottawa delegations and later the first premier of the province. Smallwood brought in this interpretation while entertaining questions before the National Convention. And in this interpretation, the two-decade leader of the province gave up the legitimate option of building a non-denominational system by creating "public" schools. Instead, he adhered to the tradition of giving all public education funds to the privileged denominations. The reason for this was that the politician who had established a political career by confederation did not wish to jeopardize it by provoking his opponents, particularly the Roman Catholics in the St. John's region.⁵

The 1995 referendum was conducted for the purpose of preparing a way to a single system of education by redesignating denominational schools to inter- or non-denominational schools. The subsequent revision of Term 17 in April 1997 declared that, with an exception, "schools established, maintained and operated with public funds shall be denominational schools."⁶ The exception was the schools to be created according to a newly added provision that "the Legislature may approve the establishment, maintenance and operation of a publicly funded school, whether denominational or non-denominational."⁷ It is here apparent that the provincial government, in drafting the new Term 17, embraced a double tactic. On the one hand, it chose to allay the denominations' fear of their rights and privileges being affected by making it explicit that Newfoundland's publicly-funded schools were to be denominational as a principle. On the other hand, it sought to prepare within the denominational system a niche for schools with no denominational affiliation. This double tactic was bad not only because it froze publicly-funded schools to be denominational but also because it ended up exacerbating the denominations' fear by the contradictory move to prepare non-denominational schools within the denominational system. Unless the government had committed a large sum of money to setting up new schools, the exceptional clause for non-denominational schools would suggest to the denominations only that their own schools were at risk.

As a matter of fact, the government after the 1995 referendum pushed ahead with a policy to reduce the number of school boards and redesignate denominational schools as inter-denominational. This invited denominational resistance, of which the end result was Justice Leo Barry's July 1997 decision to grant Roman Catholic and Pentecostal churches the requested court injunction to stop the redesignation process. His point was exactly what I have pointed out above, that so long as the constitution guaranteed the denominations' rights and privileges, the government could only "improperly" attempt to take away denominational schools from their denominations. Education reform came to a halt consequently.

The government's choice at this time was to revise the Term 17 which had been revised only a few months ago. It thus called another referendum. And the second referendum on 1 September 1997 was successful, as already pointed out. What implications, then, will the proposed Term 17 have for Newfoundland schools?

The proposed Term 17, as summarized at the outset, states that the provincial Legislature shall have exclusive authority to make laws in relation to education, but shall provide for non-denominational religious education and allow religious observances if parents request. According to local newspapers, both the proponents and the opponents of the denominational system seem to expect that this revision will bring an end to denominational education in the province. Since the provincial legislature has "exclusive authority" to make laws in relation to education--they seem to assume--it will be able to make any law to turn denominational schools to non-denominational schools. Furthermore, they seem to assume that the provisions for non-denominational religious education and religious observances upon parental request suggest the exclusion of denominations even from religious classrooms. The matter, however, is not that simple.

Precisely, the proposed Term 17 does not say anything specifically as to the future of denominational schools. It simply states that only the provincial Legislature shall make laws to govern education, and, it, unlike the previous versions, keeps silent on the denominations' rights and privileges in their schools. What is here to be noted is that the Legislature's "exclusive authority" to legislate in relation to education means merely that, in the province of Newfoundland, the House of Assembly in St. John's--not the House of Commons in Ottawa or the Legislature of any other province--shall be the exclusive authority to do so. And the proposed version's silence on denominational rights and privileges means merely that the constitution does not offer special protection as to such rights and privileges. This silence does not mean that such rights and privileges shall become null and void in case the Term 17 of 1997 is revised as proposed. Had the denominations rights and privileges regardless of constitutional protection, such rights and privileges should remain intact in spite of the anticipated re-revision of the constitutional document. (Furthermore, the obligation to provide non-denominational religious education does not require the change of denominational schools to non-denominational schools, for the Legislature can fulfil that obligation in the schools it newly sets up, not necessarily in the existing denominational schools. The same can said of the obligation to ensure religious observances upon parental request.)

Thus viewed, what is of interest is whether the denominations actually have rights and privileges regardless of constitutional protection. I think there are sufficient reasons for advancing an affirmative case. Although the denominational schools have been funded by the provincial government before and after the confederation, and although they were brought under a system of public administration in the early 1970s, the schools had been set up, maintained and developed by individual denominations . Although public funding has been so heavy that most of the spending by those schools was made out of public monies, these monies have been given as grants, that is, monies with no obligation to pay back. Traditionally, moreover, at least a fraction of the spending--up to 3% according to McCann's study of 19th-century documents--have been raised by the denominations in the forms of voluntary contributions and school fees.⁸ This tradition continued to prevail even after the introduction of public administration, in which the Department of Education exercised influence upon schools through denominational education councils (DECs). Throughout the post-confederation era--that is, throughout the reign of the original Term 17--the persisting stance of the provincial government as to denominational schools was what Smallwood established before the National Convention, that the denominations had rights and privileges not only to have their own schools but also to claim a share in public education funds. In this tradition, the denominations have been considered to own their schools.

Given this, the government may not be able to redesignate denominational schools as non-denominational schools without provoking controversy and resistance over the issue of the ownership of the schools. There are of course precedents of state take-over of private properties with or without due compensation. The normal modus operandi of a capitalist state, however, is to avoid that as far as possible. The reason is that the cost of take-over normally outweighs any resultant benefit.

Even though costly and time-consuming, the route of education reform might have been smoother if the government had pursued the reform within the framework of the original Term 17 by taking advantage of the available methods. The denominations which preferred keeping their schools should have been allowed to do so, and supported by public funding, outside the public system of schools. After all, they were private schools although they have been publicly funded. As I shall say shortly, moreover, their turning to private schools will be increasingly helpful to the financially-constrained government in the upcoming years.

Whether there will be controversy and resistance or not, it is all too clear that the provincial government will accelerate its rearranging of schools along non-denominational lines in the event Term 17 is revised as proposed. As I have stated already, such a prospect is a good one. Paradoxically, however, a concern arises out of this good prospect. In order to explain this, I wish to draw the reader's attention to a few facts about Newfoundland's schools.

The first fact is that Newfoundland has no tradition of what educators call "local control of education," that is, the practice of local residents' electing a school board as the primary authority for public schools. In the rest of Canada, the elected school board controls and operates public schools. It levies school taxes upon the residents, sets up schools, decides on the curriculum, hires teachers, and actually operates the schools. The provincial government, meanwhile, makes laws in relation to education, sets educational standards, examines the outcomes, supervises the operation of the school board, and offers financial assistance where necessary. Elsewhere in Canada, therefore, the provincial government as the "exclusive authority to make laws in relation to education" is the ultimate but indirect authority. Although the government's power has visibly grown over the years, the practice of local control has secured checks and balances between local and central interests. Recently, some local school boards managed to considerably cushion the impact of drastic governmental policy changes, such as budgetary cuts. Newfoundland, meanwhile, has a very different kind of school boards. Their role is limited to such things as keeping records of teachers and students, maintaining school buildings and facilities in order, ensuring that school operation is not disrupted, and reporting what occurs in the school to the superior office. They were the caretakers rather than the primary authorities of schools. Moreover, up until recently they were virtually appointed by DECs.

The absence of local control in Newfoundland is of course due to the denominational control of schools. Since denominations as religious organizations controlled schools, local residents as members of the denominations had little room for stepping in in matters related to their children's education.⁹ But this reason is superfluous. The real reason is that the numerous small communities in the province have--and have had--no solid local tax basis to raise funds for their children's education. Religious denominations intervened here. They set up and operated schools instead of the residents of the communities. Unless the residents are able to raise some funds for their schools their control of local schools must be either impossible or severely limited. Looking ahead, as well, the bad economy of the province and the dwindling population in rural communities do not seem to promise improvement in this regard. Thus if local control of 778schools is not likely to be in place in a near future, what is apparent is that the removal of denominations from schools will result in the concentration of power in the hands of the provincial government.

In defending denominational education before the National Convention, Smallwood at one point observed that this kind of situation is apt to lead to totalitarianism. I do not very much concur with him. The concentration of power in the hands of the government is not a problem on its own account as far as education is concerned. As long as efficiency is important in expending public funds for education, a strong state power is a necessary, albeit not exclusive, condition. My concern stems from a different angle, that it can be dangerous if and when the state's political power in the field of education is not appropriately matched by its financial capacity, if--to be straightforward--the state with excessive political power has little money to spend for the people. In such cases, the power concentrated in the hands of the government may do more harm than good.

What, then, is the financial outlook of the provincial government? The northern cod fisheries remaining closed and, with the province having no significant alternative industries, the sources of governmental revenues are not likely to improve. (The oil of Hibernia and the minerals of Voisey's Bay may not as yet allow a great deal of optimism in this regard.) As well, Ottawa, another major source of money for Newfoundlanders, keeps cutting on expenditures. It will do so even after its Finance Minister has declared freedom from budgetary deficits. Every year budgetary shortfalls are a familiar topic to Newfoundlanders in spite of the highest-in-the-nation tax rates they must accept. Can we, in spite of all this, dream of a near future in which the government's financial power will dramatically increase? If not, it is obvious that the financially constrained government may have to use the power concentrated in its hands to cut into education programmes and thus make educational services no better than before.

This pessimism of mine will sound more plausible if the reader reflects briefly on the reasons why the governments of industrialized nations now undergo financial troubles. The fundamental cause of the trouble is that the economy is now losing its national character. The market becomes increasingly globalized. Consequently, the fall of stock prices in Hong Kong instantaneously call for reaction throughout the world. The reason for the globalization of the market is the fact that capitalists now leave their country for a place where the chances for profit making are greater. Unlike the old capitalists who sought their state's imperialist protection in the foreign market, the new ones abandon their nationality, acquire a new one, then jettison the latter whenever the market dictates. And when they leave for a new place, they leave behind scarce jobs and dwindling state revenues although, as a result, the state's financial burden gets heavier due to the increasing number of unemployed and other welfare recipients. If market globalization goes on--and this world-historical phenomenon will certainly go on--the state's coffer will shrink on and on in industrialized nations.

Spending the year of sabbatical leave in South Korea's major governmental think tank for economic policies, and visiting Japan where we hear money abounds, I noted that the globalizing world market was already stamping its negative impact upon those countries. Capital was already pulling out of those countries. Like Canada, therefore, those countries too were cutting governmental budgets and seeking a restructured, "smaller government" by privatization and deregulation. Their education reforms were pursued in this light.

This is, I think, the context in which to consider education reform in Newfoundland. We are heading for a non-denominational, state education while the countries with a long history of such education are now restructuring their education system to a smaller and more affordable form. We are seeking a highly centralized system of public education in which the state will bear an absolute power with all financial responsibilities. We are doing this although our government's financial outlook is not q uite good. This is a mistake.

Considered in light of the world historical trend, the principle of education reform has to be, as elsewhere, that the size of public education must be small and affordable not only in the number of offices, school buildings and facilities, but also in the numbers of students. This requires the channelling of as many students as possible from the public to the private sector. The denominational schools resisting incorporation into the public system should be allowed and encouraged to grow into self-sufficient private schools if they so desire. They should receive financial and other assistances in that direction. The major reason for this is that private schools will alleviate the financial burden of the provincial government.

1. The proposed Term 17 of Union, (2).

2. Ibid., (3).

3. Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, Our Children Our Future (St. John's: The Queen's Printer, 1992).

4. This paragraph draws upon Ki Su Kim, "Reading Term 17 Anew: What the Legislator is Not to Do about Schools," Morning Watch, 19:1-2 (1991), pp. 28-39.

5. Ki Su Kim, "J.R. Smallwood and the Negotiation of a School System for Newfoundland, 1946-1948," Newfoundland Studies, 11:1 (1995), pp. 53-74.

6. Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1997 (Newfoundland Act), Schedule, 1 (a).

7. Ibid., (b)(ii).

8. P. McCann, Schooling in a Fishing Society: Education and Economic Conditions in Newfoundland and Labrador, 1836-1986 (St. John's: Institute of Social and Economic Research, 1994), p. 94.

9. It was very different from, for instance, Alberta where denominations as a body of local residents belonging to a religious group controlled their schools.