Make the case for continued support of the separate school system

136 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lord Palmerston
Make the case for continued support of the separate school system

I'd like to think that supporters of one school system made their case in the last thread.  So I'd like to hear a justification for continued support of the following:

Quote:
Canada ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on May 19th, 1976, with the consent of all provinces, including Ontario.  In November 1999, the United Nations Human Rights Committee found Canada in violation of the equality provisions of that Covenant by virtue of Ontario's discriminatory school system (see Waldman v. Canada).  That discrimination remains without remedy to this day, a situation that in November 2005 led the same Committee to censure Canada again for failing to "adopt steps in order to eliminate discrimination on the basis of religion in the funding of schools in Ontario." (see Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee : Canada. 02/11/2005).  The same day, an Iranian human rights envoy brushed off a Canadian sponsored UN resolution concerning human rights violations in Iran by wondering:  "Being charged itself with human rights violations, is Ottawa competent enough to initiate a human rights resolution in the UN against another country?"  The incident poignantly underscored the importance of living up to our human rights obligations.

Or

Quote:
One-third of the province's publicly-funded teaching positions are effectively closed to non-Catholic teachers.
 
Most teaching positions in the separate school system require that applicants submit documentary proof that they are not only Catholic, but that they are practicing Catholics. This proof usually consists of a pastoral reference letter from a priest, but a “faith portfolio” may also be required in some separate school boards.
 
The right of separate school boards to discriminate in favour of Catholic teachers in employment, advancement, and promotion is absolute and was confirmed in Re Daly et al. and Attorney General of Ontario; Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association et al. December 17, 1997. This case struck down Section 136 of the Education Act, which forbade such discrimination, as unconstitutional (offending denominational rights under Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867

 

 

 

Unionist

I think we should keep funding the separate school system because change is a bad thing.

How am I doing?

Lord Palmerston

If the NDP takes the same stance as the Liberals and the Tories on separate school funding - supporters of one school system will have nowhere to go (the so-called Green Party doesn't count because they can't win a seat and it's a wasted vote).  This way, we can neutralize the issue and take support from both supporters of the separate school system and those who support one school system who find the NDP the best of the three major parties on other issues - even though a majority of Ontarians support this democratic reform.

wage zombie

I don't think we should keep funding the separate school system either.  What's the best way to get rid of it?

saga saga's picture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ontario#Religious_groups

I don't think we should fund just one type of religious school: Either none or all. If we go 'none', then the public system will lose a lot of students. I'm in favour of having as many students as possible in the public system.

I don't think teachers should be discriminated against, except for religious classes.

I know that the argument of Catholic educators is that religion is not just a 'class' but it is integrated throughout the curriculum.

 

Lord Palmerston

saga wrote:
I'm in favour of having as many students as possible in the public system.

But wasn't that John Tory's argument for extending funding to non-Catholic parochial schools...we're bringing these 50,000 students in religious schools into the public system.

saga saga's picture

Lord Palmerston wrote:

saga wrote:
I'm in favour of having as many students as possible in the public system.

But wasn't that John Tory's argument for extending funding to non-Catholic parochial schools...we're bringing these 50,000 students in religious schools into the public system.

Yeah, and look where it got him! lol

I don't like the inequity of funding one religion and not others.

I don't like the idea of forcing Catholics out of the publicly funded system either. I don't like the idea of forcing any students out of the public system. I'd rather bring more in, preferably all children.

However, I don't think any changes are politically possible right now.

 

Unionist

saga wrote:

If we go 'none', then the public system will lose a lot of students.

Nonsense. Idle speculation.

Quote:
I'm in favour of having as many students as possible in the public system.

Even at the price of segregating them from kids of other backgrounds? Not worth it.

Quote:
I don't think teachers should be discriminated against, except for religious classes.

You mean, you have to believe the stuff in order to teach it? Why is that? How about not allowing anyone to teach civics unless they pass a loyalty test to the Canadian state? Or science, unless they take an oath that they believe in the theory of evolution and have no doubts about climate change? Excuse me, saga, but what utter sectarian and parochial nonsense that is.

Quote:
I know that the argument of Catholic educators is that religion is not just a 'class' but it is integrated throughout the curriculum.

Apparently from the way you talk, you don't agree with that. Well, then, have one secular system for all, and let the kids who want come in on their own time and study about God or Allah or whatever.

But if you do agree that Catholicism infuses all the curriculum (science, art, literature, math) - then all the more important to cut it off from public money now, isn't it?

 

Unionist

skarredmunkey wrote:

It's not the best argument in the world, but I'd certainly appreciate anyone, socialist or otherwise, who makes the argument that the transition to a unified school system would just be a way for McGuinty to cut corners and divest the provincial government from many of its responsibilities in education by using school board/system unification as a catalyst.

Let's fund all religious schools. Then McGuinty will really be shafted, because he'll have to spend tonnes more money on education and duplicated resources.

Sorry, you did mention that it's not the best argument in the world. I think you were right.

skarredmunkey

From one of the previous threads:

M. Spector wrote:
Actually, the big school issue in Ontario is funding for the public system. And when you're looking at where you can get more money for the public system, the obvious place to look is at the public money wasted on funding separate schools. Especially since the additional funding allocated for separate schools to the end of high school came out of the pockets of the public schools in the first place... To return to the topic, I am delighted to see that nobody in this thread has attempted to make a case for separate school funding based on socialist principles.

There is no socialist case for school segregation, IMO. But if one could be made it would be based on exactly what you just mentioned: the funding crisis. Unifying the school system would almost certainly give the provincial government a great smokescreen through which to defund education more broadly.

I'm 100% in favour of unified secular school systems, but school modernization happened in periods of retrenchment in Quebec and Newfoundland & Labrador, and in the latter Brian Tobin and the Liberals framed the issue entirely in terms of cost rather than religion. The effect was that even years after the 1997 referendum, after the school amalgamations had taken place, and even in well-populated areas, schools were shut down or staff were laid off. By then people were used to it because the government had done such a wonderful job of convincing everyone that cost-cutting is the kind of thing that should happen on the backs of students and teachers.

It's not the best argument in the world, but I'd certainly appreciate anyone, socialist or otherwise, who makes the argument that the transition to a unified school system would just be a way for McGuinty to cut corners and divest the provincial government from many of its responsibilities in education by using school board/system unification as a catalyst.

janfromthebruce

Well, in the last election, Green support went up provincially because of their position on one school system. So I would not be so sure that NDP supporters wouldn't move their vote if they thought it was an important issue. Don't be so sure that NDPers would just remain so committed to the provincial NDP. Some just might sit on their hands or use the election as an opportunity to act as a very vocal interest group advocating for one school system. You know, putting there interest, time, resources, and money towards that group rather than stomping for the provincial NDP. Rule in politics - never take your grassroot supporters and best volunteer workers for granted. 

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

Lord Palmerston

Unionist wrote:

I think we should keep funding the separate school system because change is a bad thing.

Here we are yammering away about this "divisive" and "unimportant" issue, allegedly at the expense of "the economy."  Meanwhile I started a thread about what kind of "bold" economic policies the ONDP needs and supposedly the only thing the voters want to hear (except working class Catholics who will reject the ONDP en masse even if there's one paragraph in their platform about ending separate school funding and the rest of it is made up of the boldest, most progressive and dynamic economic policies you can imagine) - so far nobody has responded. 

saga saga's picture

Unionist wrote:
skarredmunkey wrote:

It's not the best argument in the world, but I'd certainly appreciate anyone, socialist or otherwise, who makes the argument that the transition to a unified school system would just be a way for McGuinty to cut corners and divest the provincial government from many of its responsibilities in education by using school board/system unification as a catalyst.

Let's fund all religious schools. Then McGuinty will really be shafted, because he'll have to spend tonnes more money on education and duplicated resources.

Sorry, you did mention that it's not the best argument in the world. I think you were right.

 So ... is this about kids ... ???

or just another stupid friggen thread about stupid dirty politics tricks? Yell

 

Unionist  ... no Catholic person has come forward in this thread, an issue of comfort here on babble, and that's a concern. 

Yes, I'm in favour of extending public funding to all religions, and sharing facilities, activities, etc.

However, politically it's a dead issue for a while thanks to John Tory. 

Reality sucks sometimes, but this thread is beating a dead horse.

 

 

skarredmunkey

Unionist wrote:

Sorry, you did mention that it's not the best argument in the world. I think you were right.

Yes, and your counter argument is exactly why I said it wasn't the best argument in the world. But the initial question was what would be the progressive/socialist case for separate school systems? Would you prefer I say "This issue is too divisive and might take votes away from the NDP"?

And what about the rest of the argument I posed? Isn't the fact that provinces have turned issues like this into a buck-passing, cost-cutting art form since the 1990s at least a valid concern for education advocates?

Unionist

saga wrote:

Unionist  ... no Catholic person has come forward in this thread, an issue of comfort here on babble, and that's a concern.

You can tell people's religion by... their syntax?

Quote:
Yes, I'm in favour of extending public funding to all religions, and sharing facilities, activities, etc.

That's a legitimate point of view. My view is that religious belief should be vigorously protected by the Constitution and that religious activity should receive not one penny from the state.

Quote:
However, politically it's a dead issue for a while thanks to John Tory.

It's dead thanks to the good sense of Ontarians. It was alive for a while thanks to the misguided opportunism of yet another neo-conservative masquerading as a red tory.

Quote:
Reality sucks sometimes, but this thread is beating a dead horse.

I disagree. Reality is all we have. Philosophers have complained about reality. The point, however, is to change it.

 

 

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

I think we should keep funding the separate school system because change is a bad thing.

How am I doing? . . . Reality is all we have. Philosophers have complained about reality. The point, however, is to change it.

And the reality for the last 30 years has been second-hand neoliberal ideology for everything from private money creation to so-called free trade with the elephant next door.

Canadian William Krehm on the outrageous accrual of post-secondary student loan and total debt by compounding interest owed to private sources since Milton Friedman conquered Canada:

Quote:

These huge interest payments have resulted in large part from a change in Bank of Canada ideology in 1974 at which time the free-market ideas of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics were adopted in Canada and in many other countries. These ideas promote the view that it is good to borrow from the private sector while reducing the government's use of the Bank of Canada to carry public debt. Unfortunately, however, this practice resulted in an unnecessary increase in the federal debt of over 3000%, from $18-billion in 1974 to $588-billion in 1997, with a corresponding increase in provincial and municipal debt.

And how is neoliberal ideology doing so far? Is it time for real change? 

genstrike

Fidel, no one is saying that this is all you need to do to fix the education system.  Probably everyone on this thread agrees that education is underfunded in this country.  And everyone else posting hates neoliberalism just as much as you do.  But if it can save some money, it will help a little bit (although it won't fix everything).  And even if you just break even, there are non-economic justifications for moving to one secular school system.

Ghislaine

Fidel, what does your comment have to do with creating a completely secular and PUBLIC system in Ontario?

I (who will finish paying my student loan in 2022) wholeheartedly agree with you about the scandel of the student loan system in this country. There have been many threads on that topic, which is seperate and different from this one. Perhaps you should start a thread on turning our universities completely public? Would this thread theorize that there should be many public religious universities or would they be secular?

I cannot understand the desire to fund extend funding to all religious schools, rather than have one secular system, with private religious ones for others.  What a slope this would be! which religions would get school status?

Fidel

That's okay, because I was just making sure that no one was hiding behind neoliberal doctrinaire as an excuse to cannibalize the corpse of social democracy in general in this country for the sake of a dead rightwing economic philosopher.

Fidel

Ghislaine wrote:

I cannot understand the desire to fund extend funding to all religious schools, rather than have one secular system, with private religious ones for others.  What a slope this would be! which religions would get school status?

Because one of the most compelling arguments for voters to support an all-secular public school system is that it's more efficient and less costly. You cant deny that this is part of their argument and not just that it's "the right thing to do" This is a trend with public services in general since 30 years ago - to run public sector economy more efficiently according to a neoliberal business model.

And as I was saying before, I dont think socialists should be promising to fire administrators and those working in the separate school system at this particular point in time ie. another neoliberal policy-induced economic downturn. Those who have jobs right now probably want to keep them for as long as possible. 

Lord Palmerston

The (non-Catholic) public education system in Ontario is severely underfunded.  Separate schools don't deserve a dime of underfunding so they can't be "underfunded."  It's quite annoying to hear Horwath peddle this nonsense:

Quote:

Horwath boldly added that “[separate vs. one public system?] education is not the most important issue.” She pointed out that we need to first deal with the under-funding of public schools in general. “We need to look at schools that do not have enough resources to provide education for kids whose second language is English,” she explained. “Even children with special needs do not receive enough funding…and some schools are physically falling apart.”

Horwath suggested that Ontarians need to find a common ground and build upon that instead of having separate religious schools, since this “erodes money away from the public system.”

I agree with genstrike (and everyone else) that this is NOT the only thing needed, far from it.  Other jurisdictions with one system also grossly underfund them.  I for one don't argue for it on the grounds of "efficiency" - although it is important to stress, as Jan has shown, that separate schools (that only hire Catholics and require baptismal certificates for elementary students to enroll) get more funding per capita.

 

Lord Palmerston

Well then why not support John Tory's "Inclusive Public Education" which would bring 50,000 students in religious schools into the public system? 

Fidel

FPTP and "strategic voting" rules again. Why is the ONDP obligated to shoot itself in the foot over 1.2 million Catholic voters for the sake of winning one four-year term provincially? With the national economy shit-canned the way it is, I'm not sure the ONDP would be able to do much better than the Rae government of the 90s. Maybe we should actually cross our fingers and hope McGuinty wins another 22% phony majority for all it would matter for social democracy in Ontario.

Lord Palmerston

You're right - electoral reform is a crucial issue for the ONDP.  It's more popular than the 9 percent of eligible Ontario voters who voted NDP last time. 

But wait - wouldn't it tick off NDPers in Northern Ontario, where MMP was massively rejected (the highest no vote I believe was Hampton's riding!)?  Isn't that kind of "divisive"?

saga saga's picture

Unfortunately, because it is tainted by being 'John Tory's famous failure.

By trying to introduce it in an election campaign with no a priori education or public debate, Tory made it an untouchable policy that won't come back for a while.

In the meantime, forcing Catholic education out of the public system ... ain't gonna happen, given political realities.

 So ... what was the point of this thread again ...?

 

Unionist

Fidel wrote:

And as I was saying before, I dont think socialists should be promising to fire administrators and those working in the separate school system at this particular point in time ie. another neoliberal policy-induced economic downturn. Those who have jobs right now probably want to keep them for as long as possible. 

LOL!! That was Bob Rae's cowardly excuse for breaking his promise on public auto insurance: "Think of the poor workers who will lose their jobs!"

Brilliant job of recycling, Fidel. But with my proposal - NO NEW STUDENTS IN THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM - LET THE CURRENT ONES FINISH - not one single teacher will lose a job. The money saved on duplicated infrastructure will permit smaller class sizes and more teachers, in fact. Unless we have more Bob Rae neo-liberal governments in power, that is...

Quote:
Maybe we should actually cross our fingers...

Do it while you can. We don't allow that in secular school.

Fidel

That and the fact there probably would have been a NAFTA challenge over public auto.

I know you think FTA and NAFTA were wonderful neoliberal trade deals, unionist, but they werent. NAFTA was actually the stupidest trade deal in history, and the Liberals and dozens of Ottawa lawyers allowed the Yanks to take us for a big ride.  I cant laugh out loud, because it's really very sad.

Lord Palmerston

So Fidel why are publicly funded Catholic schools good but publicly funded schools of other religions bad?

Fidel

Lord Palmerston wrote:
So Fidel why are publicly funded Catholic schools good but publicly funded schools of other religions bad?

You'd have to ask the old time conservatives who ran this province for 42 consecutive years in a row. Because the NDP didnt have anything to do with it during that time.

And now we want the NDP to forget about "strategic voting" and phony majorities, and "stubborn" rates of child poverty and soaring unemployment and all the rest, and promise to clean up the legacy funding issues leftover by the bozos who ran this province into the ground over the last 50 years. Would we like the ONDP to promise to cure the lame and lepers, too?

McGuinty's Liberals certainly had no problem breaking over 50 election promises because they had no idea what they were promising the 22% of registered voters propping them up today. I just dont think the ONDP should be similarly ambitious for lack of a better term.

The ONDP will have four years not six or eight, if elected, to impress the hell out of voters in a province who voted conservative for 50 years provincially and are still trying to warm-up to the OLiberals since 2003. Rae's government won by a fluke and lack of voter interest then and very close to the situation with lethargic voter turnouts today. The next government, like 1990, will not be handed an "unforseen" Liberal budget deficit but an obvious multibillion dollar one. And the bills for what is going to be another Darlington-like nuclear power megafiasco will become due and payable at some point. Ontarians are going to be plenty irritable when they see their light bills soar.

Lord Palmerston

The 58 percent of Ontarians who support one school system greatly outnumber McGuinty's "22 percent phony majority" and the NDP's 9 percent of the electorate.

Fidel

Lord Palmerston wrote:
The 58 percent of Ontarians who support one school system greatly outnumber McGuinty's "22 percent phony majority" and the NDP's 9 percent of the electorate.

60-66% of Canadians surveyed did not support the war in Afghanistan leading up to the election. Why didnt more people vote NDP?

And if Ontarians are thinking about equitable funding of public schools or fairness in public services spending in general, then why did so many vote for Harper and his promise to fritter away billions on US-style military buildup?

I've come to the conclusion that party platforms matter very little to voters. I think that some large percentage of Ontarians who dont vote realize from experience that the two old line parties' election promises are strewn with a pack of lies anyway. I think voting Ontarians for a long time are like British voters who search high and low for reasons to vote Tory or anything other than labour. I think we have a solid core of Tory support in Ontario who, some of now are voting Liberal and back and forth. Switching to the NDP would be sacriligious for this large minority of relentless voters. And I think there would have to be a really good reason for voter turnout to scoot upward in the next election.

Fidel

Lord Palmerston wrote:
Fidel wrote:

And now we want the NDP to forget about "strategic voting" and phony majorities, and "stubborn" rates of child poverty and soaring unemployment and all the rest

Not at all.  Nobody wants the NDP to be a one-issue party.

And yet certain babblers seem to to want to dwell on public school funding like it's all that matters and holding Ontario back from competing with Nordic countries for economic competitive growth index, or something. 

Why not pledge to deal with the broken funding formula and promise to increase per pupil funding where necessary?

[url=Teacher">http://www2.canada.com/windsorstar/news/letters/story.html?id=89130908-b...'s dispute with board isnt/wasnt about money[/url]

Quote:
The Windsor Star appears perplexed as to why the province's elementary teachers turned down the government's recent offer when there are difficult economic realities in the province today. Teachers were not asking for more pay."

The Windsor Star appears perplexed as to why the province's elementary teachers turned down the government's recent offer when there are difficult economic realities in the province today. Teachers were not asking for more pay.

Elementary teachers want equal funding for elementary students to match high school funding. It would improve working conditions in the schools.

At the bottom of this issue is systemic underfunding. Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty said he would redress inequities of the funding formula but has failed to fully do so. 

Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario

Quote:

ETFO is still concerned about two major aspects of education funding in

  • - The total funding available for elementary and secondary education; and
  • - The gap in funding between elementary and secondary students.

Lord Palmerston

Fidel wrote:

And now we want the NDP to forget about "strategic voting" and phony majorities, and "stubborn" rates of child poverty and soaring unemployment and all the rest

Not at all.  Nobody wants the NDP to be a one-issue party.

I'm curious if Tabuns, Bisson and Horwath have contemptuously dismissed other issues they were asked about as "not the most pressing issue" - or do they only say it for separate school funding?

Unionist

Fidel wrote:

That and the fact there probably would have been a NAFTA challenge over public auto.

You crack me up.

Quote:
I know you think FTA and NAFTA were wonderful neoliberal trade deals, unionist, but they werent.

Can I get some of that stuff?

Lord Palmerston

Again I ask - what other issues raised by ONDP members have Tabuns, Bisson and Horwath outright dismissed as "unimportant"?  

 

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Fidel wrote:

Maybe we should actually cross our fingers and hope McGuinty wins another 22% phony majority for all it would matter for social democracy in Ontario.

Just off topic for a minute, why do you keep reciting a "22% phony majority"? Didn't the Liberals win 42% of the vote in the last election? 

Unionist

Here we go. Fidel counts no-shows.

Fidel

M. Spector wrote:
Fidel wrote:

Maybe we should actually cross our fingers and hope McGuinty wins another 22% phony majority for all it would matter for social democracy in Ontario.

Just off topic for a minute, why do you keep reciting a "22% phony majority"? Didn't the Liberals win 42% of the vote in the last election? 

22 percent of the eligible voters in Ontario voted for McGuinty's Liberals. That's a fact, Jack. And the Harpers are those other 22 percenters in Ottawa. It's the democracy gap.

Lord Palmerston

Using that logic of course, a whopping 9% of Ontarians decided to "Get Orange" in 2007...but we know it would have been a lot higher if Howard was drowned out by McGuinty and Tory spatting it over the "distractive" issue of school funding.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Fidel wrote:

60-66% of Canadians surveyed did not support the war in Afghanistan leading up to the election. Why didnt more people vote NDP?

If you were paying attention, you would have noticed that Afghanistan was not the only issue in the last election. You would also notice that the people who told pollsters they opposed the war were supporters of the Green, Liberal, and BQ parties, as well as the NDP.

Anyway, what makes you think you can have it both ways? You want to argue that the NDP would lose support if it campaigned for a single secular system because the voters want to keep funding separate schools, but just in case you're wrong, you want to argue the opposite - that even if the majority of the voters oppose the funding of separate schools they wouldn't vote NDP anyway.

Of course, if your only goal is to get elected, and principles don't matter, you can tailor your election campaign solely according to opinion polls. Instead of taking principled positions and defending them to the voters, you just promise to do whatever the opinion polls tell you the majority of the voters want. Instead of leading, you follow. And you end up being just another opportunistic capitalist party with no principles.

Fidel

Unionist wrote:
Here we go. Fidel counts no-shows.

Okay then, can you explain why you apparently support FTA-NAFTA?

And since you apparently support an electoral system invented before electricity, do you also support the senate, that expensive shady pines for old line party hacks who moonlight as corporate board members, corporate and banking lobbyists, and full-time party fundraisers?   

genstrike

M. Spector wrote:
Fidel wrote:

60-66% of Canadians surveyed did not support the war in Afghanistan leading up to the election. Why didnt more people vote NDP?

If you were paying attention, you would have noticed that Afghanistan was not the only issue in the last election. You would also notice that the people who told pollsters they opposed the war were supporters of the Green, Liberal, and BQ parties, as well as the NDP.

Anyway, what makes you think you can have it both ways? You want to argue that the NDP would lose support if it campaigned for a single secular system because the voters want to keep funding separate schools, but just in case you're wrong, you want to argue the opposite - that even if the majority of the voters oppose the funding of separate schools they wouldn't vote NDP anyway.

Of course, if your only goal is to get elected, and principles don't matter, you can tailor your election campaign solely according to opinion polls. Instead of taking principled positions and defending them to the voters, you just promise to do whatever the opinion polls tell you the majority of the voters want. Instead of leading, you follow. And you end up being just another opportunistic capitalist party with no principles.

I agree with everything you wrote here except for two words.  "End up" in the last sentence should be replaced with "are"

Lord Palmerston

So who of the ONDP leadership candidates makes the most sophisticated argument for the continued support of Catholic schools?

Bisson says it's the "third rail of Ontario politics", that the party already debated the issue 20 years ago and it's hypocritical/inconsistent to oppose the amalgamation of cities and then support the amalgamation of school boards (yes, he seriously said that).

Tabuns says these issues are too close to the heart, too emotional or something like that.

And Horwath says instead of pitting separate schools against public schools, we should find common ground over lack of funding for ESL programs, crumbling infrastructure, etc.

Fidel

M. Spector wrote:
Fidel wrote:

60-66% of Canadians surveyed did not support the war in Afghanistan leading up to the election. Why didnt more people vote NDP?

If you were paying attention, you would have noticed that Afghanistan was not the only issue in the last election. You would also notice that the people who told pollsters they opposed the war were supporters of the Green, Liberal, and BQ parties, as well as the NDP.

But Lord was telling me that since separate school funding is supported by the overwhelming majority of Ontarians polled, then the NDP should be chomping at the bit and pledge to deal with this old line party legacy issue. And then I explained that due to a dated electoral system and the realities of "strategic voting" in what was until fairly recently a traditionally conservative province, the ONDP should probably play cards close to their chests just as the two dated and obsolete old line parties do every election campaign before winning phony-baloney majorities. 

Quote:
Anyway, what makes you think you can have it both ways? You want to argue that the NDP would lose support if it campaigned for a single secular system because the voters want to keep funding separate schools, but just in case you're wrong, you want to argue the opposite - that even if the majority of the voters oppose the funding of separate schools they wouldn't vote NDP anyway.

No, it's an old line party legacy issue, and they dont want to deal with it, because Bay Streeters are funding their 22 percent phony-baloney majorities these days. They basically do what it takes to win and no more. 

And the ONDP realizes this is a third rail issue leftover from the old line party hay-days. The ONDP has always campaigned on fundamental social democratic issues, like dealing with child poverty, homelessness, unemployment etc. And now with unemployment soaring and province bleeding good-paying full-time jobs, and still "stubborn" child poverty, the ONDP needs to focus on these same issues more than ever.

This issue is not an ONDP "principle" issue or anything else you claim it is. The two old line parties dont want to own up to this issue, and the ONDP is not going to promise to layoff workers in the separate school system in what is now another economic downturn due to the bad economic policies of federal and provincial governments, those phony-majority governments of the recent past which glommed onto neoliberal voodoo 30 years ago. 

 

Lord Palmerston

Fidel wrote:
This issue is not an ONDP "principle" issue or anything else you claim it is.

It certainly isn't.  Tabuns told me that his opposition to having a debate on separate schools was "entirely strategic."

Lord Palmerston

Separate schools are not underfunded or shortchanged.  As long as they are CATHOLIC institutions they shouldn't get a dime of public funding.

Fidel

So if you know the NDP's opinion of the this old line party legacy issue, why are babblers obssessed with it?

Why are Ontario's federation of elementary school teachers more concerned with the inequitable funding formula and gap between secondary and primary schools per pupil funding?

Why doesnt that organization representing tens of thousands of elementary school teachers drone on endlessly over separate school students, about a third of total, receiving about a third of public school funding? Because they seem to be more concerned about the overall funding formula that still needs fixing, a broken promise of the McGuinty Liberals since 2003.

That election promise still flapping in the breeze apparently went some way toward McGuilty's Liberals being elected to 100% majority power by 22% of registered voters, or 42% of the actual vote, which newspapers described as a landslide victory. Meanwhile, MMP suffered a "resounding defeat" with just 37% of voter support. 

Because some of us said afterwards that what Ontarians should have done was ditch the Liberals and went with MMP instead. Venezuela is more democratic than Liberal Ontario.

Fidel

Dalton McGuilty = Mike Harris part deux, or III or IV or whatever the count is now

Lord Palmerston

OK, I get it, so that means we can't talk about separate school funding. 

Fidel

So you admit there is an overall funding problem for public schools in Ontario, and that Dalton McGuinty has renegged on an election promise to fix it?

Why doesnt the Federation of Elementary School Teachers point to  separate schools on their web site as the primary reason for a funding gap?

Or is Dalton McGuinty's outstanding broken election promise since 2003 off limits in this thread which, apparently, is a concerted effort to foist blame for this old line party legacy issue squarely on the ONDP?

Lord Palmerston

Nobody is blaming the NDP for the existence of the separate school system.   Supporting such an archaic, reactionary and discriminatory system however totally goes against socialist, social democratic and progressive principles.

Pages

Topic locked