Make the case for continued support of the separate school system

136 posts / 0 new
Last post
Fidel

Lord Palmerston wrote:
I think I get it: nobody cares about school funding - except Catholics who will all massively reject the NDP if they call for one school system.

No, but the Liberals would like to appear to be doing something progressive while they continue shortchanging public schools overall. And they dont want to risk losing any votes to the still neutral NDP.

saga saga's picture

Unionist wrote:

saga wrote:
We are talking about dismissing (from babble) the views of a very substantial portion of the population, though, and I don't see how beneficial changes can be entertained without engaging them too.

Bullshit. I said if someone can't stand to read anti-Catholic funding posts or anti-Catholic Church posts, they are welcome to change the channel. I never said we should "dismiss" anyone's views here. That's your apparent aim, and you will fail.

If this said ... 

Bullshit. I said if someone can't stand to read anti-Muslim funding posts or anti-Muslim Church posts, they are welcome to change the channel. I never said we should "dismiss" anyone's views here. That's your apparent aim, and you will fail.

 ... would it be acceptable on babble?

Just asking. I don't know. I just know it makes me uncomfortable, and I am no supporter of the Catholic church!

 Now if you are all finished twisting and dismembering my posts, I think I'll cut and run to another thread of more importance! I don't really care what the NDP decides to have as its platform. I'll wait and see before I decide how to vote anyway, as usual!

 

Unionist

saga wrote:

If this said ... 

Bullshit. I said if someone can't stand to read anti-Muslim funding posts or anti-Muslim Church posts, they are welcome to change the channel. I never said we should "dismiss" anyone's views here. That's your apparent aim, and you will fail.

 ... would it be acceptable on babble?

You haven't been around very long, have you?

Any Muslims, Jews, or Zoroastrians who feel offended when their religions are ridiculed, or when babblers scorn the idea of funding their schools, are welcome to either reply with their own opinions, or get lost.

But if they ask the moderators to make them feel more "welcome" by censoring our opinions, they will get the same response you just got.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

From the [url=Green">http://www.gpo.ca/node/265][u]Green Party website[/url], September 11, 2007:

Quote:

The majority of Ontario voters agree with the Green Party [position] of funding only one public education system. A new Ipsos-Reid poll released on September 10 confirms that 53% of Ontarians agree with our position. And a minority -- less than 25% -- support either the Liberals or Progressive Conservatives' policy on this issue.

Ontario's education system is hampered by duplication and needless complexity, and our schools are struggling to make ends meet. The Green Party advocates a single publicly funded system. By contrast 62 per cent of Ontarians oppose the idea of religious-school funding, as proposed by John Tory and the Progressive Conservatives. Tory's going to have a tough time in this election because a majority of supporters in his own party oppose this policy.

Word on the street from Green Party campaigners in rural ridings is that many Conservative supporters, volunteers are not going to help the PCs this election - in fact many are coming over the Green Party to help us - because our position is just common sense. Only 21% of voters support Tory's position. The headline of the front page Globe and Mail article today (Sept 11) screams: "Disconnect with voters could leave Tory out in the cold."...

By funding only one system the Green Party policy promised to remove duplicate administrative, facility and transportation saving hundreds of millions of dollars which can be used to improve the quality of education. The Liberal Party is arguing for the status quo of continuing to fully fund catholic schools but not those of any other religion. This policy has the support of only 23% of voters.

...and those 22-23% of voters were probably the same ones that voted Liberal.

Lord Palmerston

Careful Spector...Fidel is going to accuse you of supporting neoliberalism and wanting to "fire teachers."

Lord Palmerston

Quote:
UN Declared Catholic schools discriminatory
In 1999 the United Nations Human Rights Committee declared Ontario’s policy of fully funding Roman Catholic schools, while denying full funding to other religious schools, discriminatory. In Ontario, the public school system offers free education to all Ontario residents without discrimination. Public schools may not engage in any religious indoctrination. However, Roman Catholic schools receive full and direct public funding as a distinct part of the public education system, while other religious schools must be funded through private sources. To comply with the ruling Ontario could do one of two things; extend funding to other religious schools, or end funding to Roman Catholic schools.

I'm still wondering how the social democrats for Catholic schools crowd defends the indefensible?

saga saga's picture

Unionist wrote:
saga wrote:

If this said ... 

Bullshit. I said if someone can't stand to read anti-Muslim funding posts or anti-Muslim Church posts, they are welcome to change the channel. I never said we should "dismiss" anyone's views here. That's your apparent aim, and you will fail.

 ... would it be acceptable on babble?

Quote:

You haven't been around very long, have you?

What's "very long" ?

Quote:

Any Muslims, Jews, or Zoroastrians who feel offended when their religions are ridiculed, or when babblers scorn the idea of funding their schools, are welcome to either reply with their own opinions, or get lost.

But if they ask the moderators to make them feel more "welcome" by censoring our opinions, they will get the same response you just got.

I see. Thanks for that clarification.

I guess I was looking for the part about "scorn ... funding" ( ok)

v.  "religions ... ridiculed" (not ok, imo).

I guess that's just a matter of opinion, where we can choose to disagree.

However, if anybody disses spiritual secular agnostic anti-corporate-church parapaganistic sorta earth peoples ... well ... then I'll yell discrimination! Yell !  

Wink

 

 

 

janfromthebruce

saga wrote:

Quote:
Survey results of a Vector Poll for the Canadian Opinion Coalition, conducted in June, 2001, presented a very disturbing challenge to Catholic education from within. The results stated that 56% of Catholics who responded to the poll indicated that they believed a unified school system (Catholic and Public) would cost less to run and save money, while 52% of the Catholics polled said that a unified board would be more accountable and provide better education." - from an undated document entitled "Preserve The Legacy Of The Enduring Gift Of Catholic Education", posted on a separate school board web site.
[url=Source[/url]">http://www.oneschoolsystem.org/fast_facts.html][=mediumblue][u]Sour...

That's interesting data. Perhaps it could have been presented earlier as part of the rationale for this thread? It would have made for better discussion.

However, they voted on "unified" meaning with Catholic religious education in public schools, I believe, not secular schools as I understood were being proposed here.

 I support this, as I support integration of all religious schools into the public system, with provision for religious education/observance funded by the churches, not the taxpayer.

And that is not outside the realm of "one school system." In most resolutions going to the ONDP convention, it includes a line where "religious education/instruction" may - where there is community interest be provided outside of the school instructional time. Of course, it would be paid for by the religious group and operated by them. It also means that any religous group could use school facilities in "after school hours" for that purpose. It also means that non-religious groups could too.  Schools are publically owned buildings and should be places where the community can use to provide activities/programs to others.  

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

Fidel

M. Spector wrote:

...and those 22-23% of voters were probably the same ones that voted Liberal.

Well there you go, green secular capitalism is where it's at. They just wanna do right by kids and kapitalists, for sure for sure.

 

Lord Palmerston

Quote:
Entering his last scheduled cabinet meeting today before the Oct. 10 election, McGuinty dismissed both the Conservative and Green Party proposals, and said it was important to keep building on the existing public education system.

"I don't think that Ontarians believe that improvement or progress is defined as inviting children of different faiths to leave the publicly funded system and go to their own schools," said McGuinty, who added it could well become a defining issue for the campaign.

"I think that's regressive. I think that takes us backwards. I think our responsibility is to continue to improve the publicly funded system of education."

While dismissing Tory's proposal, McGuinty had only a very brief defence of the government's policy of fully funding Roman Catholic schools but not those of any other religions.

"That's the system that we have inherited," said McGuinty.

Ontario Green Party Leader Frank de Jong said McGuinty's defence was "not a very progressive position," especially since the premier says kids from all religions but Catholics should be studying together to help create a more united society.

"It's not fair to fund only one religion and so the status quo is untenable and it has to change," said de Jong.

Yes, the eco-capitalist Greens have a more principled and progressive stance than the ONDP on funding for religious schools.

Meanwhile, Tabuns speaks for Howard's 9 percenters, echoing McGuinty's hypocritical stance.

Quote:
NDP critic Peter Tabuns said the New Democrats also support maintaining the status quo in public education, but with one key proviso.

"We need to put money back into the system to deal with the fundamental problems that teachers and students are dealing with," said Tabuns.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/248805

 

 

saga saga's picture

janfromthebruce wrote:
saga wrote:

Quote:
Survey results of a Vector Poll for the Canadian Opinion Coalition, conducted in June, 2001, presented a very disturbing challenge to Catholic education from within. The results stated that 56% of Catholics who responded to the poll indicated that they believed a unified school system (Catholic and Public) would cost less to run and save money, while 52% of the Catholics polled said that a unified board would be more accountable and provide better education." - from an undated document entitled "Preserve The Legacy Of The Enduring Gift Of Catholic Education", posted on a separate school board web site.
[url=Source[/url]">http://www.oneschoolsystem.org/fast_facts.html][=mediumblue][u]Sour...

That's interesting data. Perhaps it could have been presented earlier as part of the rationale for this thread? It would have made for better discussion.

However, they voted on "unified" meaning with Catholic religious education in public schools, I believe, not secular schools as I understood were being proposed here.

 I support this, as I support integration of all religious schools into the public system, with provision for religious education/observance funded by the churches, not the taxpayer.

And that is not outside the realm of "one school system." In most resolutions going to the ONDP convention, it includes a line where "religious education/instruction" may - where there is community interest be provided outside of the school instructional time. Of course, it would be paid for by the religious group and operated by them. It also means that any religous group could use school facilities in "after school hours" for that purpose. It also means that non-religious groups could too.  Schools are publically owned buildings and should be places where the community can use to provide activities/programs to others.  

I'd suggest the palatable starting point is religion-based programs simply sharing facilities where needed, to avoid building new schools or transporting children greater distances. It's a tweak to the new-school-construction formula.

However, there is/was in this or the previous thread a suggestion of  'eliminating' all religion from public schools, and I still sense that agenda, and I don't believe that will fly as the response is 'it's integrated in the curriculum as well as existing as a separate subject'. See?

I could see the public system offering that as an alternative - religion as 'separate' instruction supplied by the various churches - to try to draw students from public and private religious schools.