What is the argument in favour of minority control of a school?

In dealing with the argument in favour of governance, Kerans J.A. in Mahé v. Alberta, supra, had this to say at p. 537: ... the first guarantees instruction, the second governance. I accept the argument of the appellants that under the most effective guarantee to prevent assimilation is a facility under the exclusive control of that group. Any diminution in that power inevitably dilutes the uniqueness of the school and opens it to the influence of an insensitive if not hostile majority. No doubt some elements of control must be yielded, as we will see, but each measure of control lost represents a potential weakening of the decision-making power, and opens the door to an undermining of the difficult role of the facility. In my view, s. 23(3)(b) guarantees to s. 23 students, where numbers warrant, an educational system (with all its complexity and cost) that not only offers the same quality of education as other systems but is run by the minority language group or its representatives. To that extent, I disagree with the learned trial judge. I agree with Kerans J.A. that the most effective guarantee to prevent assimilation lies in governance in the hands of the minority. Where we differ is that I cannot find it implied in the wording of s. 23.