Make the case for continued support of the separate school system 2

110 posts / 0 new
Last post
janfromthebruce
Make the case for continued support of the separate school system 2

Continuation from other threads as questions were posed but left unanswered.

janfromthebruce

Wage Zombie asked janfromthebruce the following questions:

 Thanks for that info.  It's a bit confusing since elementary and secondary systems seem to have different rules.  I was under the impression that any student could attend a Catholic school but i guess that's technically true only for high schools.

Are there any stats on the number of non-Catholic kids refused entry to elementary schools?  You say that elementary schools "may" refuse children based on baptism but i'm not really sure how to take that.  Also if schools aren't required to let them in then many will not even try so the numbers will be skewed in any case.  

Wage Zombie: there are no stats taken just people who try to enrol there children and refused. 

The Key is that Catholic elementary schools "have the right" to refuse a student who is NOT CATHOLIC That is discrimination based on creed.

What is interesting is that in areas of declining enrolment, particularly outside of Peel and Durham boards, or inside core city areas, Catholic schools try to attract "non Catholic students" to keep their schools open. In areas of increased enrolment, where their schools are full, they deny enrolment because the student is not catholic.

On the other hand, public schools must welcome all students.

Quote:

In terms of hiring practices though, Separate School Boards may discriminate in their hiring practices based on Catholic baptism and a letter from their parish. Thus they can discriminate in hiring only "catholic" teachers, and other employees who may have all the other necessary pertinent qualifications to fulfill a job with their education system, except they are not catholic.

 

Again, i see there is a "may" in here.  Does this vary by board?  Do some Catholic boards hire non-Catholic teachers while others do not?  Are there some non-Catholic teachers working in Catholic elementary schools across the province?  Has anyone tried to bring a lawsuit forward after not being hired?  Would such a lawsuit go anywhere?

Catholic boards have the right to discriminate - based on creed - in their hiring practices. Therefore, their hiring practices are discriminatory and legal, but morally wrong.

From your post it seems like the discrimination is limited to elementary aged non-baptised children and non-baptised applicants looking for teaching positions (with some grey area as to how this works for both cases).

Are there any others being discriminated against in the current system as it stands?  By asking i don't mean to minimize the discrimination to the above groups--it certainly needs to be addressed and rectified--i'm just trying to help get a more complete view of what we're looking at.

 Discrimination against non-catholics for elementary students and their hiring practices for teachers in both elementary and secondary catholic schools are allowed based on old legal law when Catholic schools were created. I am sure that they hire non-catholics if there really is no suitable catholic teacher who can do the job, but the bottom line is that Catholic schools receive public funds for a discriminatory system of education. 

 

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

saga saga's picture

St. Paul's Progressive wrote:Catholic school funding is archaic and discriminatory.  Supporting one secular system is a better way to go than funding all religions to solve this problem, as it unites rather than divides the children of Ontario.----

Saga:

Private religious schools would still exist, so kids would still be divided.

----

Wage zombie:

That's a pretty poor argument saga.

----

It's not an argument, just a statement of fact: We would not have "one secular system" as was proposed. We would have a public secular system and private religious schools. No doubt many Catholic students would go to private schools.

Those who propose "one secular system" seem to think that the parents and students who want religious education will just magically 'disappear', but that won't happen. Either we provide options for religious education and observance in the public system, or they will be in private schools.

A secular school system, thus, does not unite all students.

 

janfromthebruce

Sage, considering that most parents are not demonstratively churchgoings and attenders your suggestion is far fetched. But more to the point, considering that religious classes could be offered outside of the regular school day, and provided by their religious organization, I doubt one would see any significant jump in private schools. Private schools are about 3% of all schools in Ontario. I don't think that one will see any increase especially when one is provided for accomodation outside of the school day.  

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

janfromthebruce

Saga, I came across this article in the US which backs up the decline in Tuition paying Catholic schools in the US. Catholic schools trying to survive.

Imagine how small Ontario Catholic schools would be if parents had to pay like parents of any other faith group do who wish that their children have religion instruction. Catholics wouldn't stop going because they couldn't afford it. Most Catholic parents wouldn't continue to send their kids there if they had to pay a mere 10%, as most are not terribly religious and hardly ever attend Church. Americans are a lot more religious than their Canadian neighbours. If Catholic schools are fading away there, you can bet there would be little left of them in the Canadian educational landscape sans funding (even partial, never mind full).

 

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

saga saga's picture

janfromthebruce wrote:

Sage, considering that most parents are not demonstratively churchgoings and attenders your suggestion is far fetched. But more to the point, considering that religious classes could be offered outside of the regular school day, and provided by their religious organization, I doubt one would see any significant jump in private schools. Private schools are about 3% of all schools in Ontario. I don't think that one will see any increase especially when one is provided for accomodation outside of the school day.

Quote:

Saga, I came across this article in the US which backs up the decline in Tuition paying Catholic schools in the US. Catholic schools trying to survive.

Imagine how small Ontario Catholic schools would be if parents had to pay like parents of any other faith group do who wish that their children have religion instruction. Catholics wouldn't stop going because they couldn't afford it. Most Catholic parents wouldn't continue to send their kids there if they had to pay a mere 10%, as most are not terribly religious and hardly ever attend Church. Americans are a lot more religious than their Canadian neighbours. If Catholic schools are fading away there, you can bet there would be little left of them in the Canadian educational landscape sans funding (even partial, never mind full).

You may be right, jan, but I don't think either of us is in a position to know for sure what they think or would do, and certainly not to impose our judgment on them. 

However, the public system can offer religious accommodation and see who accepts, in places where there is space available.

I think any parent can ask the neighbourhood public school to provide religious accommodation for a student. As you said, it's already happening for Muslim students. 

So if any school can offer to accommodate students from any religious schools, it doesn't have to be imposed on Catholic schools, except where it is by circumstances of enrolment perhaps?

ergo ... those who want it get it, and nobody gets offended. Wink

I'm in favour of keeping schools open in existing neighbourhoods and accommodating the religious needs of children in public schools too.

Do you know if there is a similar survey of public school parents, about whether they would want in-school religious education from private sources? I'll be there would be some support there too.

 

Fidel

janfromthebruce wrote:

Saga, I came across this article in the US which backs up the decline in Tuition paying Catholic schools in the US. Catholic schools trying to survive.

Imagine how small Ontario Catholic schools would be if parents had to pay like parents of any other faith group do who wish that their children have religion instruction. Catholics wouldn't stop going because they couldn't afford it. Most Catholic parents wouldn't continue to send their kids there if they had to pay a mere 10%, as most are not terribly religious and hardly ever attend Church. Americans are a lot more religious than their Canadian neighbours. If Catholic schools are fading away there, you can bet there would be little left of them in the Canadian educational landscape sans funding (even partial, never mind full).

 

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

But the US public school system is a mess and being prodded slowly toward privatization as per GATSification of public services. Is that what we'd be helping capitalists to do in the end by paring and trimming down public education funding in Ontario? Why have transfers and provincial funding issues only become issues since 1991-95 or so?

Neoflippin liberal capitalism doesnt bloody well work period, so what's the deal? My sister and her teacher friends arent particularly religious, but they say the public-public system in Ottawa sucks and all agreeing that they'd rather work in the separate school system for various reasons.

janfromthebruce

I'm not sure what you are saying Saga. Are you saying that because the public school system is "open to all" and thus has the ability to accomodate all that therefore, Catholic schools who receive public money should NOT HAVE TO ACCOMODATE "the others", thus keeping separate? 

Anyway, the only accomodation is space for muslims to pray 3 times a day, beyond the space allocation, there is no religion in their beliefs taught nor professed. 

And fidel, are saying that we should keep all half filled schools open, many within the same neighbourhood and community? Whatever happen to thinking about the environment? Tell me about urban sprawl and why they talk about urban intensification as good for the environment but don't think about consolidating schools in the same neighbourhood (that are half full) because we insist on "wasting" precise resources and increasing global warming.

By the way, Saga it is not opinion but actual research - based on stats Can - that combs data and shows the decline in those who identify and attend church. 

I am not aware of public school supporters wanting their religion or non-religion being taught in school. As to religion taught by private sources, last time I checked, churhes get "tax exemptions" so they are indirectly publically funded by our federal tax systems as "non-profits".

Fidel - it thus would be good to have one school system so the cream rises to the top when you put both school systems together in Ottawa, instead as you suggest, one is functionally better. Wouldn't you want all kids to get quality education instead of "some"? I always thought that was a foundational principle of New Democrats - equality and equity. 

 Ontario is the only Province in Canada that fully funds 4 distinct school systems. Only Alberta and Manitoba provide "limited funding" to religious schools. That is why the International Human Rights Commission has sanction Canada 2 times, in 1999 and again in 2005, because Ontario fully funds separate schools and discriminates against other religious schools in funding.

Thus we should either fund all or fund none, to be fair to all. Wink Which system do you think would build a more tolerate and accepting of "difference" society? 

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

Fidel

My sister works in the secondary school system and is not as adversely affected by the funding gap as primary schools are. But there are still cost cutters and "efficiency experts" at the school where she works and making life miserable for teachers and students with special needs all around. 

I think they want to starve it and pare it all down to one public system in order to make it easier for dismembering and tossing to salivating private enterprise jackals waiting in the wings some time down the road. And I think that even if things are pared down to the bone, they will find excuses to defund it even further. I think that a corpse can be cannibalized for only so long before we have to fight our way out of the siege. It's the most honourable thing to do.

saga saga's picture

janfromthebruce wrote:

I'm not sure what you are saying Saga. Are you saying that because the public school system is "open to all" and thus has the ability to accomodate all that therefore, Catholic schools who receive public money should NOT HAVE TO ACCOMODATE "the others", thus keeping separate? 

Anyway, the only accomodation is space for muslims to pray 3 times a day, beyond the space allocation, there is no religion in their beliefs taught nor professed. 

 And fidel, are saying that we should keep all half filled schools open, many within the same neighbourhood and community? Whatever happen to thinking about the environment? Tell me about urban sprawl and why they talk about urban intensification as good for the environment but don't think about consolidating schools in the same neighbourhood (that are half full) because we insist on "wasting" precise resources and increasing global warming.

By the way, Saga it is not opinion but actual research - based on stats Can - that combs data and shows the decline in those who identify and attend church. 

I am not aware of public school supporters wanting their religion or non-religion being taught in school. As to religion taught by private sources, last time I checked, churhes get "tax exemptions" so they are indirectly publically funded by our federal tax systems as "non-profits".

Fidel - it thus would be good to have one school system so the cream rises to the top when you put both school systems together in Ottawa, instead as you suggest, one is functionally better. Wouldn't you want all kids to get quality education instead of "some"? I always thought that was a foundational principle of New Democrats - equality and equity. 

 Ontario is the only Province in Canada that fully funds 4 distinct school systems. Only Alberta and Manitoba provide "limited funding" to religious schools. That is why the International Human Rights Commission has sanction Canada 2 times, in 1999 and again in 2005, because Ontario fully funds separate schools and discriminates against other religious schools in funding.

Thus we should either fund all or fund none, to be fair to all. Wink Which system do you think would build a more tolerate and accepting of "difference" society? 

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

 I think we have the same thoughts - ie, Catholic and other religions can be accommodated in public schools. I think it makes sense, as you said , to combine schools rather than have two half full ones, or rather than building new ones in the suburbs.

 I hope integration of religious and secular programs can happen without it being imposed on anyone. However, the public schools will have to first demonstrate that they can indeed accommodate such programs, in order  to attract those students.

As policy, mandating wholesale integration of Catholic students into public schools is not likely to be successful.

It's all a matter of how it's done.

 

Unionist

saga wrote:

 I think we have the same thoughts - ie, Catholic and other religions can be accommodated in public schools.

If I thought jan wanted to accommodate religions in public schools, I'd have to scrap everything she has said from day one.

What all enemies of separate schools want is to accommodate children of all religions and of no religion in a single secular school system.

Get it, saga?

We accommodate kids of all faiths by getting rid of religious instruction in public schools. Not by "accommodating" it!

Quote:
As policy, mandating wholesale integration of Catholic students into public schools is not likely to be successful.

You are confused. Catholic students are already integrated into public schools. The problem is that those public schools are Catholic schools. So, let those kids finish their Catholic instruction, but ban any new entries into the public Catholic program.

"Not likely to be successful?" Why is that? Kids who have never been taught about Jesus in school will suddenly miss it?

Unionist

saga wrote:
Unionist wrote:
saga wrote:

 I think we have the same thoughts - ie, Catholic and other religions can be accommodated in public schools.

If I thought jan wanted to accommodate religions in public schools, I'd have to scrap everything she has said from day one.

What all enemies of separate schools want is to accommodate children of all religions and of no religion in a single secular school system.

Get it, saga?

We accommodate kids of all faiths by getting rid of religious instruction in public schools. Not by "accommodating" it!

Quote:
As policy, mandating wholesale integration of Catholic students into public schools is not likely to be successful.

You are confused. Catholic students are already integrated into public schools. The problem is that those public schools are Catholic schools. So, let those kids finish their Catholic instruction, but ban any new entries into the public Catholic program.

"Not likely to be successful?" Why is that? Kids who have never been taught about Jesus in school will suddenly miss it?

You missed some of the discussion.

I am saying that

- imposing secular schools won't work, imo - too much resistance. (A policy that generates too much resistance will not be a successful policy.)

- Muslim students prayer times are accommodated in public schools now.

- Other religious observance/instruction could likewise be requested and  accommodated in public schools, 'after school', though staffed and funded privately/by churches.

Ergo ... public system could attract students from Catholic and private schools, eventually doing away with the need for those schools.

 

So you are saying you would set up religious after-school and similar facilities in existing secular schools; leave the publicly-funded Catholic schools intact; and hope to "attract" kids away from the Catholic schools to a secular school where their parents would pay for after-hours religious instruction??

Great solution. Religion in all the schools, including those where there now is none. Lovely. The Church will bless you.

saga saga's picture

Unionist wrote:
saga wrote:

 I think we have the same thoughts - ie, Catholic and other religions can be accommodated in public schools.

If I thought jan wanted to accommodate religions in public schools, I'd have to scrap everything she has said from day one.

What all enemies of separate schools want is to accommodate children of all religions and of no religion in a single secular school system.

Get it, saga?

We accommodate kids of all faiths by getting rid of religious instruction in public schools. Not by "accommodating" it!

Quote:
As policy, mandating wholesale integration of Catholic students into public schools is not likely to be successful.

You are confused. Catholic students are already integrated into public schools. The problem is that those public schools are Catholic schools. So, let those kids finish their Catholic instruction, but ban any new entries into the public Catholic program.

"Not likely to be successful?" Why is that? Kids who have never been taught about Jesus in school will suddenly miss it?

You missed some of the discussion.

I am saying that

- imposing secular schools won't work, imo - too much resistance. (A policy that generates too much resistance will not be a successful policy.)

- Muslim students prayer times are accommodated in public schools now.

- Other religious observance/instruction could likewise be requested and  accommodated in public schools, 'after school', though staffed and funded privately/by churches.

Ergo ... public system could attract students from Catholic and private schools, eventually doing away with the need for those schools.

 Yes, I know you won't agree, but I think this is what's doable.

Yanking funding from Catholic schools is not doable.

Refusing to allow Muslim students their prayers is not doable, and thus refusing other students religious observance in schools is also not doable.

We can mandate our own children's exposure (or lack of) to religion. However, we cannot presume to impose our own decisions on other parents, imo.

saga saga's picture

Unionist wrote:
saga wrote:
Unionist wrote:
saga wrote:

 I think we have the same thoughts - ie, Catholic and other religions can be accommodated in public schools.

If I thought jan wanted to accommodate religions in public schools, I'd have to scrap everything she has said from day one.

What all enemies of separate schools want is to accommodate children of all religions and of no religion in a single secular school system.

Get it, saga?

We accommodate kids of all faiths by getting rid of religious instruction in public schools. Not by "accommodating" it!

Quote:
As policy, mandating wholesale integration of Catholic students into public schools is not likely to be successful.

You are confused. Catholic students are already integrated into public schools. The problem is that those public schools are Catholic schools. So, let those kids finish their Catholic instruction, but ban any new entries into the public Catholic program.

"Not likely to be successful?" Why is that? Kids who have never been taught about Jesus in school will suddenly miss it?

You missed some of the discussion.

I am saying that

- imposing secular schools won't work, imo - too much resistance. (A policy that generates too much resistance will not be a successful policy.)

- Muslim students prayer times are accommodated in public schools now.

- Other religious observance/instruction could likewise be requested and  accommodated in public schools, 'after school', though staffed and funded privately/by churches.

Ergo ... public system could attract students from Catholic and private schools, eventually doing away with the need for those schools.

 

So you are saying you would set up religious after-school and similar facilities in existing secular schools; leave the publicly-funded Catholic schools intact; and hope to "attract" kids away from the Catholic schools to a secular school where their parents would pay for after-hours religious instruction??

Great solution. Religion in all the schools, including those where there now is none. Lovely. The Church will bless you.

The religious element of Catholic schools (supplies, staffing) is supposed to be privately funded now, so that is no change.

As noted ... we already have some religious observance in public schools and other parents can request the same. ie, we cannot stop it from being in the public schools, but we can refuse to fund it.

We are talking about religion by choice, outside of regular classes, of course, not imposed on students.

This may not be what you wanted, but it is what is doable, if the goal is to integrate all schools/students into the public system.

But I'm not setting up anything! Wink

 

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

I don't think Saga means keeping the Catholic school board or schools but I could be wrong.  All schools would be secular.  There is some miscommunication or Saga is off base because currently, religious funding of Catholic schools is NOT privately funded.

Unionist

So the public Catholic schools, meanwhile, would allow Muslim classes after hours and Jewish kids to take off on their holidays, right? And atheist kids could proselytize during recess?

Quote:
The religious element of Catholic schools (supplies, staffing) is supposed to be privately funded now, so that is no change.

Could you explain that? I thought separate schools were publicly funded in Ontario, but I admit I'm no expert. Which parts of those schools are privately funded?

Unionist

Oh no, RP. Saga has said nothing about the Catholic schools. They carry on, with public funds, doing whatever the Church and its faithful desire. Saga wants to introduce RELIGION into secular public schools, so that:

Quote:
... public system could attract students from Catholic and private schools, eventually doing away with the need for those schools.

I know, it's hard to believe, but we don't want to trigger an insurgency by armed Catholics, do we now?

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Guess I was kind of hoping she didn't because I think that could be the best compromise for the short term.  All secular, faith-after-hours-fully private funded, 100% of Ontario children must attend.(not the faith stuff)

Is that compromisable Unionist?  Like you, I'd prefer no religion whatsoever but how about this?  Seems to respect everybody really.

Unionist

RP, it's not my province - but I see no problem whatsoever with public school boards renting out space to religious organizations for such purposes.

Bubbles

RevolutionPlease wrote:

   All secular, faith-after-hours-fully private funded, 100% of Ontario children must attend.(not the faith stuff)

 

Is this not the equivalent of mono-culture? When a climate , environmental, social or economic crisis happens we all react in the same way.

Unionist

Bubbles says that as if it's a bad thing. Laughing

Ever hear of solidarity?

 

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Thanks Unionist, my apologies Saga.(called you "he")  Embarassed

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

There's still your out of school environment.  And don't we all kind of react in the same way already?  How does religion help us react to climate, environmental, social or economic crises.  If we all learned together, like Unionist said, might there not be more solidarity?  I think likely.

Bubbles

Like those Disney lemmings jumping of a cliff to drown. Or like the proverbial buffalo being guided to the abatoir by the 'industrialists'.

Solidarity, as in mono-culture, is not the kind of solidarity that survives for long.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

There's way more mono-culture in any religious school than there is in a public secular one. 

Unionist

Bubbles wrote:

Like those Disney lemmings jumping of a cliff to drown. Or like the proverbial buffalo being guided to the abatoir by the 'industrialists'.

Solidarity, as in mono-culture, is not the kind of solidarity that survives for long.

Quite the image - lemmings - buffalo - is that why you sent your kids to private school? So they could be individualists, not like the rest of the mob in public school?

Your posts, Bubbles, are a powerful testament to the urgent need to get rid of segregation in the public school system. All kids were created equal.

Bubbles

RevolutionPlease wrote:
There's still your out of school environment.  And don't we all kind of react in the same way already?  How does religion help us react to climate, environmental, social or economic crises.  If we all learned together, like Unionist said, might there not be more solidarity?  I think likely.

 

RP, I am not so much talking about religion. As far as I am concerned there is little difference between the Catholic and the public schools around here. I am indifferent also regarding the building. to me the educators are the important item. I like to see educators being able to teach in a variety of systems.  And parents being able to select what is best in their opinion. The state can support each student with an equal amount.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

So, you're only against my no private or home school part?  I'd love to see all children have the best educators too.  But an equal secular system will lead to that being more likely for all rather than those that can afford to siphon those educators away for themselves.

Bubbles

Unionist wrote:

 Quite the image - lemmings - buffalo - is that why you sent your kids to private school? So they could be individualists, not like the rest of the mob in public school?

Your posts, Bubbles, are a powerful testament to the urgent need to get rid of segregation in the public school system. All kids were created equal.

 

Unionist, you can do better then that.

...mob... Laughing

 

Kids might be created equal, but do they all have to travel the same road too?

Bubbles

RevolutionPlease wrote:
So, you're only against my no private or home school part?  I'd love to see all children have the best educators too.  But an equal secular system will lead to that being more likely for all rather than those that can afford to siphon those educators away for themselves.

 

RP, I am not sure who the best educators are. I just know that educators have different opinions/ aproaches on how to educate kids. It has nothing to do with siphoning off the best educators.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Could you clarify your position Bubbles?  You want grants for private school?  I think that ship sailed for Tory last election.

Unionist

Bubbles wrote:

As far as I am concerned there is little difference between the Catholic and the public schools around here. I am indifferent also regarding the building. to me the educators are the important item.

Not sure how that connects with what you told us [url=before[/url]:">http://rabble.ca/babble/central-canada/make-case-continued-support-separ...

Quote:
My kids always went to a private primary school. Not for religious reasons, but for reasons of parental involvemnt and school size. The local public primary school has something like 600 kids, has a bad reputation. To the point that some of the teachers there sent their kids to small private schools.

 

Michelle

I wouldn't agree with saying no homeschooling - many people who homeschool don't do it for religious reasons.  I've known parents who have homeschooled because they believe in "unschooling", and others who have seen it as a solution to bullying issues or refusal to accommodate certain learning styles, etc. 

Most parents won't choose homeschooling because most parents are not up to the challenge of being a full-time teacher.  But for those who feel that taking their child out of school and teaching him or her at home is what their child needs at the moment, I think they should be able to do that.  For many kids, school is a misery, but for a critical, small percentage of those kids, school is more than just misery - it's unbearable.

I am lucky - my son likes school for the most part and he responds not to badly to the methods used there.  But I would definitely reserve my right to take him out of school and teach him at home if I found that he were being bullied and unable to cope, or had a learning style that they couldn't accommodate and it was killing his confidence and making his life a misery.  I reserve my right, as his parent and one of the two people in the world who know him inside out, and love him the most, to make informed decisions about his education, and to protect him from harmful situations.  Unfortunately, for some kids, standard schooling is harmful to them.

Unionist

Michelle wrote:

I wouldn't agree with saying no homeschooling - many people who homeschool don't do it for religious reasons.  I've known parents who have homeschooled because they believe in "unschooling", and others who have seen it as a solution to bullying issues or refusal to accommodate certain learning styles, etc. 

Homeschooling!?

Talk about segregating kids. Public education as optional.

How about home-healing for sick kids?

I'd rather see publicly-funded Catholic schools than homeschooling. At least society can set some standards and kids can be together. You seem to suggest that homeschooling is for very sensitive parents with very particular individual children's learning issues? That must be the exception that proves the rule.

Guess we'll have to agree to radically disagree on this one.

It's Me D

unionist wrote:

Homeschooling!?

Talk about segregating kids. Public education as optional.

How about home-healing for sick kids?

I'd rather see publicly-funded Catholic schools than homeschooling. At least society can set some standards and kids can be together. You seem to suggest that homeschooling is for very sensitive parents with very particular individual children's learning issues? That must be the exception that proves the rule.

Guess we'll have to agree to radically disagree on this one.

Well I will agree to agree then! Homeschooling is the most dangerous option.

Bubbles

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Could you clarify your position Bubbles?  You want grants for private school?  I think that ship sailed for Tory last election.

 

Yes. Idealy I like to see the government set fairly wide education paramaters as to when, how and what kids are to be educated and when the school, be it private, public, community or sectarian operates within that range then they should have the right to their share of our education fund.

Funny, Tory is currently running in the riding I live in.  Can not see myself voting for him, but his idea on supporting alternative schools I can agree with. His backing out gave away his over riding motive.

Unionist

I like to read at home. I don't use the public library. Plus, I get a better selection of books. this way. Could I get a grant for my book collection - my share of the government "library fund"? In fact, who needs a public library system anyway?

You know, I'm a big believer in acunaturohomeoaromareflexology. I've got three like-minded friends, and we've hired a specialist in the field from Ft Frauderdale, FL. I'm sick (er...) and tired of Big Government trying to regiment us all into the same health care system - same hospitals, same single-payer physician network, hell, in Québec we even have public health centres!

Where can I apply for my share of the government's health care budget? Dr. Quackenbush doesn't come cheap.

Bubbles

You are comparing a compulsary, regimented education system to a public library? Different beasts altogether.Laughing

 

You are closer with your health care comparison. There too I like to see more available alternatives.

 

But Unionist I do not further want to contaminate this separate school system discussion with unrelated issues.

janfromthebruce

Michelle wrote:

I wouldn't agree with saying no homeschooling - many people who homeschool don't do it for religious reasons.  I've known parents who have homeschooled because they believe in "unschooling", and others who have seen it as a solution to bullying issues or refusal to accommodate certain learning styles, etc. 

Most parents won't choose homeschooling because most parents are not up to the challenge of being a full-time teacher.  But for those who feel that taking their child out of school and teaching him or her at home is what their child needs at the moment, I think they should be able to do that.  For many kids, school is a misery, but for a critical, small percentage of those kids, school is more than just misery - it's unbearable.

I am lucky - my son likes school for the most part and he responds not to badly to the methods used there.  But I would definitely reserve my right to take him out of school and teach him at home if I found that he were being bullied and unable to cope, or had a learning style that they couldn't accommodate and it was killing his confidence and making his life a misery.  I reserve my right, as his parent and one of the two people in the world who know him inside out, and love him the most, to make informed decisions about his education, and to protect him from harmful situations.  Unfortunately, for some kids, standard schooling is harmful to them.

Children who are homeschooled must follow the Ontario curriculum and are provided with resources through their local school boards. It is not a free-for-all. However, they may teach other stuff too that is outside of the curriculum. Parents are not "paid" to educate their children. They are treated like private schools, and do not receive public money, although they get access to the Ontario curriculum. 

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

saga saga's picture

Well, it looks like I finally made it clear!

Yes, accommodation of religious observance and after school privately funded religion is what I'm suggesting, to draw students from private religious schools and from public Catholic schools, so that both of those eventually cease to exist. YES!

The Ontario Curriculum and Education Act allows for education about religions in regular classes. It does not allow for indoctrination in religion, however.  Thus, currently religious indoctrination/education in Catholic schools is not publicly funded, nor should it be. They are funded for delivery of Ontario Curriculum only.

That distinction can still be mainained in public schools, with the addition of privately funded religious indoctrination classes after school. Then our public schools would be positioned to absorb public Catholic and private religious school students.

Homeschooling is a right and must continue. I'd like to see those kids with stronger social/intramural ties to their neighbourhood schools, though.

 I am strongly opposed to forcing anytpolicy on anyone. Human beings being what they are, it never works. Given where we are now - allowance for religious observance in the schools - there is a clear policy path to amalgamation of all schools along a route that involves "choices", always a better route to take, human beings being what they are, imo. 

Policy shoved down people's throats just gets vomited back at you.

Since Muslim students were allowed to do prayers in public schools - ie, the wall keeping religion out was breached - there are teachers within the system who are now lobbying for that right themselves, for students of their faith. It's only a matter of time ...

 I guess this is the wisdom you are supposed to gain with middle age. My god, I can't believe I've become such a pragmatist! Smile

And no, unionist, students would NOT be allowed to proselytize: That's religious indoctrination and it is not allowed by the education act. It's a form of buyllying, and kids will recognize that and report it.

 

 

Unionist

Saga, you post at length but don't answer questions:

1. What's wrong with "no new students in Catholic public programs" - and let all existing students finish? New ones could be accommodated by renting space in public schools and paying for religious instruction. Answer?

2. Why did you say before that:

Quote:
The religious element of Catholic schools (supplies, staffing) is supposed to be privately funded now, so that is no change.

Answer, please? By the way, in providing an answer, please refer to something that exists. The "Ontario Curriculum and Education Act" does not appear to exist.

 

wage zombie

Yeah i would also say that i think of home schooling as a parent's right.

 Just as much undesirable indoctrination happens in schools as in churches. 

Unionist

wage zombie wrote:

Yeah i would also say that i think of home schooling as a parent's right.

It's irrelevant, it's thread drift, no one is proposing ending home schooling. The proposal is to end Catholic public education.

 

Quote:
Just as much undesirable indoctrination happens in schools as in churches. 

Whereas at home, no undesirable indoctrination takes place, because parents own their children and are allowed to mould them into whatever they choose.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

My bad, I suggested ending home-schooling, it's the same as religious schooling.  Children should all get the same secular education to make up their own minds not their parents' minds.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

[url=Homeschooling:">http://tinyurl.com/cjn2u6][u]Homeschooling: America's Hidden Breeding Ground for Conservative Ideology[/url]

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

I'm a bit annoyed too Saga.  Catholic education is publicly funded in Ontario.  Unless it's changed wildly since I've been there and the public system.  Don't know why you're hanging that out there.  I get your non-feasability but I don't think it rings true. 

saga saga's picture

RevolutionPlease wrote:
I'm a bit annoyed too Saga.  Catholic education is publicly funded in Ontario.  Unless it's changed wildly since I've been there and the public system.  Don't know why you're hanging that out there.  I get your non-feasability but I don't think it rings true. 

 

Please read the post carefully for the distinction. Religious indoctrination is not publicly funded. 

Catholic schools and programs following the Ontario Curriculum are publicly funded.

That portion of their programs that is religious indoctrination is not publicly funded. Thus, materials for religious (indoctrination) classes are not to be purchased from public funds. 

 As for 'non-feasibility' ... check it out for yourself. Just drop the bombshell on the Catholic school supporters. I dare ya! Wink

 

saga saga's picture

M. Spector wrote:

[url=Homeschooling:">http://tinyurl.com/cjn2u6][u]Homeschooling: America's Hidden Breeding Ground for Conservative Ideology[/url]

That doesn't make it illegal, nor is that always the case.

The battle for the right to homeschool has been fought.

 

It's a minefield. Start another thread, so I can ignore it, k?Wink

saga saga's picture

Unionist wrote:

Saga, you post at length but don't answer questions:

1. What's wrong with "no new students in Catholic public programs" - and let all existing students finish? New ones could be accommodated by renting space in public schools and paying for religious instruction. Answer?

2. Why did you say before that:

Quote:
The religious element of Catholic schools (supplies, staffing) is supposed to be privately funded now, so that is no change.

Answer, please? By the way, in providing an answer, please refer to something that exists. The "Ontario Curriculum and Education Act" does not appear to exist.

 

The answers are in the thread. Next time pls read before insulting. Tongue out

1. I think you should ask some Catholic parents that.

Think about it. Read the thread.

It won't fly.

Policy that is shoved down people's throats is vomited back.

ie, It's bad 'policy' because it will never become policy, human beings being what they are, imo.

2. I'm not sure where it's written, likely in the Education Act, but Ontario does not support, financially or otherwise, religious indoctrination.  Thus, materials for religious classes/purposes in Catholic schools is not (supposed to be) publicly funded, though otherwise the Catholic schools are publicly funded.

 I think the distinction between a) education about religions, and b) indoctrination in a religion is also likely made in the curriculum.

a) is publicly funded.

b) is not.

 This is all a rerun, unionist, so I'm feeling a bit annoyed.

 

It's Me D

saga wrote:
The battle for the right to homeschool has been fought.

Yeah, the result:

unionist wrote:
Whereas at home, no undesirable indoctrination takes place, because parents own their children and are allowed to mould them into whatever they choose.

Not a result I'm willing to ignore; seems pointless to talk about religion in schools when parents who want to ensure their kids are thoroughly brainwashed in religious doctrine can simply keep them at home; why should our property get to make up its own mind eh?

Unionist

saga wrote:
Unionist wrote:

 This is all a rerun, unionist, so I'm feeling a bit annoyed.

 

Sure it's a rerun, and sure you're annoyed. You cite statutes that don't exist for propositions which are patently false (i.e. that some part of what happens in Catholic schools is not publicly funded). You set yourself up as the champion and spokesperson for "Catholic parents" and declare, without the tiniest shred of evidence, that they will "never accept" losing public school funding - even though two provinces have fully implemented such changes without caring whether a majority of "Catholic parents" were on board or not.

You are committed to the perpetuation of Catholic school funding - but you can't explain why, other than to posit some rebellion. I have not heard one single argument from you to support your conclusion.

And if you think I don't read these threads carefully, think again - and don't cite names of laws that don't exist again, because I'll be there.

[Continued in next post...]

Pages

Topic locked