By John M. Grondelski

A newly published book, Faith, Rights, and Choice, details the evolution of the debate over religious schools in each of Canada's provinces. Unlike the United States where, since McCollum v. Board of Education in 1948, the Supreme Court has twisted the First Amendment's protections of freedom of religion into freedom from religion (especially in schools), Canada has afforded constitutional protection (and sometimes subsidies) to religious schools without anyone suggesting Canadian "democracy" was imperiled.

The title comes from the three foci the authors identify as successive bases on which proponents of those schools argued their case over the 156 years of Canadian nationhood. The focus was first on the rights of faith communities, especially minorities in given provinces (English Protestants in Québec, French Catholics in Ontario) to religiously-informed schooling. It later moved to "rights" to education, with religion often the substitute card for language/ethnicity. In recent years, it has shifted to "choice," including both parental rights and the benefits of educational competition.

Without detracting from any of those factors, let me suggest how we should move the debate forward, at least in the United States: via persons. Specifically, I have in mind the persons of a student and his parents who, given the child's status as a minor, have a legitimate role to act on his behalf. Bottom line: whom or what is education for?

The very interrogative pronouns in that question give away the issue. Is education for persons, i.e., students and their parents, or is it for schools, i.e., the institutions where students go?

Some readers may laugh at the question. Of course, education is for kids, not schools! But, if that's so, then why are educational dollars - one of the things that makes education possible - for schools rather than kids?

Education makes no sense apart from the person educated. We can talk about what a person is taught, e.g., should faith be part of education or not? We can speak about why a person may claim an education, i.e., is it his right or privilege? We can discuss the range of educational options, i.e., school choice. But the bottom line is: it all keeps returning to the person.

So shouldn't the question be answered on the basis of what a person is due?

On Catholic grounds, the answer would be "yes." A person has a right and duty to know things, including above all, God. A person has a right to education. Persons (in the case of children those primarily charged with their interests, i.e., parents) have a right to choose the appropriate education for that child. All this also stems, in the end, from the love due to a person, including his integral development as a child of God, endowed with intellect and freedom of choice.

On secular, democratic grounds, the answer should also be "yes." Education is a good of persons and benefits society. That a government does not support a particular church's form of education does not mean that it must, can, or should withhold support from a student who wants it. Society's non-religious affiliation does not translate into an individual's. And, in a society where religiously based education fulfills minimum state requirements under compulsory education, society cannot "stack the deck" by preferring one compliant school over another without abridging the equality of persons who might prefer a different school, or the equality of institutions that otherwise meet recognized educational standards.

My argument clearly goes in the direction of promoting school choice, but not for the economic reasons offered by many of its advocates. The authors of Faith, Rights, and Choice recognize that there are two competing motivations under the rubric of "choice." One is parental choice: parents, on behalf of their children, should be able to pick the appropriate school that is otherwise educationally qualified for their child. The other is institutional and econo...