There was no consensus as to how the preference for a uni-denominational school should be expressed. There was disagreement on who should state a preference, how that preference should be stated and what number of students was required before a school board established a uni-denominational school.
Some suggestions as to who should state a preference included: all parents of children attending the school, all parents of school age children living in the community or school attendance zone, all taxpayers in the community or school attendance zone and all registered voters.
Suggestions on how preference would be stated included: indicating a preference on a school registration form, a secret ballot, using a 1 (800) call-in line and written indication of support for a uni-denominational designation to the school board.
Suggestions as to the proportion of students that would be required for a school board to establish a uni-denominational school in a single school community ranged from 37% to 100%.
There was almost complete agreement that regardless of the method used for expressing the preference for a uni-denominational school, the process must provide stability. Schools cannot function if they are constantly changing designations.
All guidelines must be applied equally and fairly.
There was considerable discussion about the creation of a uni-denominational school being linked to the viability of nearby interdenominational schools. Again, there was no consensus. Some people agreed with the statement while others said that this would set a higher standard for uni-denominational schools than for interdenominational schools thus violating the constitutional rights of the classes.
There was considerable resentment by supporters of uni-denominational schools that all schools would start out with an automatic interdenominational designation. Many supported the approach that current uni-denominational schools remain as they are until preference was stated for an interdenominational school.
There was consensus that the government must fully explain the designation process to the public and ensure that parents understand the consequences of choosing each option.
Many presenters indicated that they were very confused about the results of the Referendum and were not at all clear as to what they had voted for. Several thought that they had voted to eliminate uni-denominational schools.
Representatives of the NLTA and of many other groups expressed strong disapproval with the creation of denominational committees which have the power to assign and dismiss teachers in uni-denominational schools.
Some presenters defended this role of the denominational committees saying that it was important to have teachers that reflect the beliefs and world view of the denomination.