"Cross-cultural commun-ication is difficult, particularly when both parties believe they are speaking the same language."

Dr. David B. Shurtleff, Developmental Paediatric Neurologist, Seattle Children's Hospital.

If there are valid points to be made on any side of the Vancouver School Board-Ministry of Education-Comptroller General debate, they were hard to decipher during last week's cross-cultural discussions of the subject.

The first culture was represented by fatigued members of the Vancouver School Board who have struggled for 18 months to deliver on their election promises despite insufficient funding.

The second is that of Education Minister Margaret MacDiarmid who, nurtured in the arrogant environment of the Campbell administration, refuses to acknowledge the significant role her government has played in creating the problems.

And the third culture belongs to a broadcast media that, early last week, appeared happy enough to run vanguard for the government message -- a message that focused as much on the political sympathies of VSB chairwoman Patti Bacchus as it did on the issues.

Lost in the volcanic eruption are the voices of parents and their student offspring.

It began on CKNW radio Monday morning, during a less-than-warm Bill Good interview with Bacchus. In the following hour, the discussion continued as Good talked over journalist Frances Bula when she tried to confirm some of Bacchus' information. He then gave the same treatment to callers who disagreed with him.

At that point, it was a relief to turn off the car radio at my destination.

Next up, for me at least, was the Tuesday drive-home shout-commentary of CKNW's Gord MacDonald who, substituting for Jon McComb on The World Today, sounded like a pot calling the Bacchus kettle black for her refusal to fall silent prey to the minister's accusations of incompetence.

The show went downhill from there when MacDonald proceeded to rant through the rest of the segment, drowning out callers' comments to such an extent that one man suggested he should quit CKNW and run for the Liberals.

If the show's intent was to inform or entertain, it bombed on both counts.

On Thursday, the news carried MacDiarmid's ill-disguised threat that, if the VSB did not submit a draft balanced budget by June 18, consequences unspecified would follow. Those unfortunate enough to have heard, watched or read the discussions no doubt expect the entire board to be fired.

So much for the school board's autonomy in representing local constituents.

It was not until Friday when, after the minister had been given free rein to outline her position yet again, another member of the VSB, Mike Lombardi, called Bill Good to confirm what Bacchus had tried to say: The minister wants a draft balanced budget? We posted one online on April 27.

"In fact, if you look at the budget we presented . . . it literally addresses all the comptroller general's recommendations," he said.

And with respect to dragging their feet on school closures: "We are moving forward on that and will be speaking to the school superintendent on June 23rd about school closures for the following year," said Lombardi. "And you raised an interesting point about timelines. . . . There have been boards that have not provided an adequate timeline that are being sued by parents, . . . so we have revised our policy to fit with ministry policy and legal precedents."

Before that call, most of last week's wrangling painted a sickening picture of B.C.'s $4.55-billion education system.

As with so many of the important issues in today's British Columbia, the education of our children is not a right-wing-versus-left-wing issue; it is a collection of systemic problems in desperate need of student-friendly solutions.

Promotion of political ideology -- any stripe -- has no place in the classroom or in a discussion of administrative issues.

And the VSB is merely a poster child for all school districts in the province -- including those of North and West Vancouver.

Major disruptions occur when a school is pulled out of a community; yet, faced with declining enrolment and disappearing budgets, the trustees of North Vancouver School District 44 decided they had no other alternative but to close schools. And unless saner minds prevail across the spectrum, at least one of those closures has resulted in legal action.

Other districts are also considering school closures, or have resorted to service cutbacks and staff layoffs.

By making those otherwise-laudable choices instead of joining the VSB in its challenge of provincial underfunding, those boards are enabling the ministry to dodge its fiscal and legislated responsibilities, so the budgetary noose may be pulled even tighter.

Some of the most serious accusations outlined in the comptroller general's report and/or described by the minister were that the VSB is incompetent, has ignored students' best interests and failed to plan for the long-term.

Knowing, as I do, the angst that sincere North Vancouver school administors have faced in cooperation with parent advisory councils, I view those accusations as insults that stop barely short of defamation.

No matter her political bent, why should Ms. Bacchus sit still for that?

How can any board engage in long-term planning when they cannot even count on receiving the dollars promised by the ministry for the current fiscal period?

Or when lottery grants are cancelled without warning?

How can anyone be expected to provide a stable education program when the province refuses to fully fund contracts the province itself negotiated?

And further, why should the minister not be hoist on her own petard when it is her ministry's decision not to fund all of the necessary resources?

In a column last August, I noted that in 1997 the B.C. Supreme Court decided the School Act requires the province to provide, free of charge, all resource materials necessary for a K-12 student to graduate from the official curriculum. The Supreme Court upheld that decision in October 2006.

School boards are tasked with carrying out the terms of the legislation. Almost all of the dollars available to them are dollars the province collects from us for that purpose.

So, if the ministry itself is in compliance with the law, how is it that B.C. school boards still must charge fees to make up the provincial shortfall?

As I see it, a ministry-enforced cutback in services and spending at the school board level not only insulates the province from its legislated responsibility, it may well force boards into contravention of the act.

On May 31, North Vancouver lawyer, Jim Poyner, began a threee-day presentation of his motion for certification of a class action on behalf of British Columbians who have "paid fees to . . . the Board of Education of School District No. 39 (Vancouver) for instruction in summer school courses leading to graduation."

Poyner plans to commence similar suits against other B.C. school districts that also charged summer school fees, including those of North and West Vancouver.

That is the process which must be followed -- no matter that provincial underfunding is the root cause of the problem.

This begs the question: If, as the comptroller-general asserts, the spending of education dollars on VSB education-related committee work is inappropriate, how does she feel about wasting the education budget on legal fees?

rimco@shaw.ca