Catholic school funding - continued

107 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist
Catholic school funding - continued

ElizaQ, you said the economy was more important than this issue. I replied:

Quote:
If the so-called "ECONOMY" is so all-fired important that it displaces
basic democratic fundamentals (like education and its future), what
exactly (if anything) do you have to say about it?

Still waiting for your response.

While pondering that, ponder this:

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081113.wtrustee1113...

Audit confirms spending abuse by Toronto Catholic school trustees[/url]

Quote:

While the audit found most expenses were consistent with board
policy, nearly $30,000 was either ineligible or potentially ineligible.

That includes spending on such personal items as jewellery, vehicle licence plates, and mini-bar and cable TV charges.

Maybe they can abscond with enough to fund the schools themselves?

 

 

Lord Palmerston

Unionist, we can either end child poverty in Ontario or end public funding for separate schools.   We cannot do both.

Unionist

Lord Palmerston wrote:
Unionist, we can either end child poverty in Ontario or end public funding for separate schools.   We cannot do both.

Smile

Put differently:

We can either speak the truth, or get elected. We cannot do both.

Left J.A.B.

Of course there is no history of a public school trustee having ever allegedly used funds wrongly.  Get a grip

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

 Unionist,

 I did reply.  

Lord Palmerston

Quote:
And thanks for showing why the 'progressives' who want to take away my
rights, fought for by generations before this one, will lose the debate
because they have nothing to offer by thinly vieled prejudice of anyone
with a religious background and name calling those who disagree with
them

So Left J.A.B., do you support extending funding to Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and Protestant religious schools?  Or do you believe you have "special rights" as a Catholic?

Left J.A.B.

Protestant isn't a religion.  We have a protestant school system we just call it the 'public' system, but historically that is what it was and vestigages of it remain in place.

 

Unionist

ElizaQ wrote:

Unionist,

I did reply.  

You wrote at length, ElizaQ, vulgarizing my position as being, "I don't care about the economy". But when I asked you (and Fidel and others) what exactly the ONDP should say about the economy, you have, to date, said absolutely nothing. If the economy is so important, what do you have to say about it - other than just reiterating the word?

Unionist

Left J.A.B. wrote:

Protestant isn't a religion.  We have a protestant school system we just call it the 'public' system, but historically that is what it was and vestigages of it remain in place.

If that were true, my solution would be to expunge all traces of religious influence.

Your solution is to leave it alone and fund Catholics as well.

Others want to fund everyone who hangs up a God-Yahweh-Allah shingle.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Québec allowed purely optional Catholic or Protestant courses (couple hours a week) to continue in public schools for several years after abolishing religious public schools in 1998. In September 2008, those courses were eliminated. So far, only the Catholic bishops and some medieval thugs like Mario Dumont have objected. In the society and media as a whole, there is no controversy.

It can be done in Ontario as well. It will be done. The only question is whether the ONDP will lead the movement for democratization and secularization, or will be dragged along kicking and screaming.

Lord Palmerston

Left J.A.B. wrote:

Protestant isn't a religion.  We have a protestant school system we just call it the 'public' system, but historically that is what it was and vestigages of it remain in place.

 And where is the "Protestantism" in the public school system today?

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Left J.A.B. wrote:

Protestant isn't a religion.  We have a protestant school system we just call it the 'public' system, but historically that is what it was and vestigages of it remain in place. 

Protestant isn't a single denomination, but it most certainly designates a family of Christian religious affiliation. And while the public system did serve as the protestant system 50 years ago (from the morning prayer on the announcements through to the distribution of Gideon's bibles), that has not been true since at least the early Seventies.

The public system has evolved into a modern secular system suited to our multicultural society. The Catholic system is an antiquated anomaly.

 

Left J.A.B.

Lard Tunderin' Jeezus wrote:

Left J.A.B. wrote:

Protestant isn't a religion.  We have a protestant school system we just call it the 'public' system, but historically that is what it was and vestigages of it remain in place. 

 

Protestant isn't a single denomination, but it most certainly designates a family of Christian religious affiliation. And while the public system did serve as the protestant system 50 years ago (from the morning prayer on the announcements through to the distribution of Gideon's bibles), that has not been true since at least the early Seventies.

The public system has evolved into a modern secular system suited to our multicultural society. The Catholic system is an antiquated anomaly.

 

Untrue.  I went to 'public' school after that period as no Catholic school was available.  I distinctly remember getting my little red book from the Gideons, as well as getting religious eduction that did not talk about the Saints or anything else we papists did.  Hell there was even a functioning Orange Lodge not far from here up until just a couple of years ago. 

News Flash, my friend was talking about the Gideons sending home a Bible this year from their public school.  They could send it back if they didn't want it, but home it came.

 

 

Left J.A.B.

Lord Palmerston wrote:
Left J.A.B. wrote:

Protestant isn't a religion.  We have a protestant school system we just call it the 'public' system, but historically that is what it was and vestigages of it remain in place.

 And where is the "Protestantism" in the public school system today?

In the way values education is taught, or not, depending on how you want to look at it.  I don't mean same sex issues, I mean values like respect, compassion and others.  (And yes the Catholic system fails misserably on issues like same sex relationships and marriage)

In the teachers life experiences which are going to come through in the classroom

In the assumptions of the system as to what is most or least important in what is taught.

 Yes the 'public' system is much more open and less Protestant that when I attended school.  It has evolved.  However, denying that our 'public' system was run by and for Protestants up until very recent history is denying a historical fact and denying why this is a sensitive topic for many who fought for the current seperate school system. 

If you want to make change, you have to come to terms with the bigotry of the past and stop pretending there is some massive, long history of tolerant, open public education in Ontario.

janfromthebruce

We do not have a protestant school system in Ontario.

Over time, the originally Protestant school boards of English Canada
evolved into the secular public system, and the provinces were forced
to decide how to handle the remaining religious schools.

Currently, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Quebec (until the end of this year where they will not be funding any partial funding)
provide at least partial funding to independent, mostly religious
schools, while New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and
Newfoundland and Labrador do not.

In the public school system in Ontario all children are welcome and the hiring practices are non-discriminatory.

kids live and play together, let's let them learn together too!

janfromthebruce

All children in the province of Ontario must receive character education in all 4 systems. Gideons may not hand out bibles in our schools, and a note goes home to the parents and returned to the school with their permission. If a bible went home, it was a mistake. There is a school board policy about this.

Perhaps one could consider support of one publicly funded system of education for each of Canada's official languages that included inclusive of academic studies in world relations as an official component of the Ontario curriculum; and support for the existence of permissive legislation which would permit publicly funded school boards the flexibility, where local community support exists, to offer religious programming either during or outside of the school day.

Left J.A.B.

But it was not that long ago that as a Catholic kid it was very clear to me I was attending a Protestant school system.  We just called it 'public'

Yes the modern school system has become much more secular in the last 20 years, but vestiges of the old still remain. 

And until supporters of closing the school system think about and acknowledge WHY we fought for public funding you will never get it.

While the hiring practices are non-distriminatory a certain standard is expected of teachers, if only in the community, so there has been pressure on staff to 'hide' certain things about themselves too. even in the public board 

Unionist

Left J.A.B. wrote:

But it was not that long ago that as a Catholic kid it was very clear to me I was attending a Protestant school system.  We just called it 'public'

Yeah, well I was a Jewish kid who chose to stand outside the room while they recited the "Lord's Prayer". The ultimate solution was to have the Lord stand outside the room instead of the kid. That's the right solution, isn't it?

Quote:
And until supporters of closing the school system think about and acknowledge WHY we fought for public funding you will never get it.

Why the public should finance your particular little religion, and no others? Right on, I will never get that. 

Quote:
While the hiring practices are non-distriminatory a certain standard is expected of teachers, if only in the community, so there has been pressure on staff to 'hide' certain things about themselves too. even in the public board.

No kidding, like what do the public school teachers have to "hide"? That they are atheist? or Muslim? or female? or queer? or communists? I kinda doubt it, but I await enlightenment.

How's your Catholic board when it comes to employment equity for queer atheist teachers of Muslim background who like to teach sex ed?

Left J.A.B.

You need to get out into the real world more and talk with real people about how things really work. 

I have acknowledged that there are problems with the Catholic Church, the Catholic School system and I have struggled within the system for a lot of years to change them.  I really don't need a lecture from someone who has zero experience with the Ontario education system or understands the unique nature of our fight to have a system promised us by government and frankly from someone who hasn't got a frigging clue what they are talking about.

What I am trying to point out that until supporters of one school system acknowledge and try to understand what drove many Catholics to be so strongly supportive of a seperate system you will only meet strong opposition.

 

And just so we are clear where we stand.  You are a bigot who wraps his words around a progressive thread to hid it.  You clear intolerance towards anyone with a religious background, particularly Catholics becomes clear every time you step into one of these threads.

Lord Palmerston

So Left J.A.B., did you support John Tory's plan to extend funding to other religious schools as well?

Unionist

Everyone please read the last post by Left J.A.B. to see clearly what religious poison does to people who otherwise have healthy and progressive stands in their lives.

Another pressing reason why the funding must stop. Kids sitting together and playing together will never grow up writing posts like the one by LJ above.

Unionist

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Actually unionist whether you like it or not; given comments you both have made in this and other threads I would say you are two sides of the same coin.  That clearly has nothing to do with religion but personality.

Just a note to explain the difference between debating an issue, and frantic namecalling.

You call me "intolerant" and Left J.A.B. accuses me of "bigotry". Yet you can strive in vain to find any such personal accusations in my posts.

I hate religion (as everyone here knows); I despise and condemn any discrimination against any individual because of their religion; and I oppose any support by the state for any religion.

You can participate in the discussion, or not, according to your whim. But if you don't support a single secular public educational system (think of our single secular public health care system, if you need an analogy), you and Left J.A.B. will be left wondering one day how your party ended up in 7th place.

Oh, and namecalling won't win you votes either.

Bookish Agrarian

Actually unionist whether you like it or not and to be brutely honest -given comments you both have made in this and other threads I would say you are two sides of the same coin.  That clearly has nothing to do with religion but personality.

In fact it is why I have given up even discussing this issue, since you glossed over your intolerance and others in the previous thread and why, with this one exception I will no longer participate.  I must say reading these threads makes me less and less likely to think a discussion on this could even be remotely fruitful.  I also have to wonder why the real defenders of the status quo, with a Premier that made speeches about public education from seperate schools in the last election are not the focus of yours and others outrage too.

Bookish Agrarian

In all honesty unionist I think it is time you take a little look in the mirror, or at the very least the language and rhetoric you use. 

I called you both intolerant if you want to bother to read what I actually said.  That is what two sides of the same coin means.

 

Unionist

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

I called you both intolerant if you want to bother to read what I actually said.  That is what two sides of the same coin mean.

I honestly don't understand what you mean. Explain to me how I am "intolerant". But please do so in the context of this thread. Publicly funded religious schools are as tolerable in our Canadian society as publicly funded religious hospitals. Is that intolerance? Then I plead guilty.

Left J.A.B.: I'd love to hear your answer to LP's question. Do you support publicly funded Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Christian Evangelical, and Buddhist schools?

 

ETA: Oh wait, I thought up a really good one! How about separate subway cars for Jews - so that they can sing Hebrew and Yiddish songs and dance the Hora without disturbing other passengers? Publicly funded, of course - although I'd be prepared to pay a small premium in order to avoid undue strain on the public purse.

Separate highways for the Amish?

C'mon gang, let's get creative here!

Bookish Agrarian

I don't know how to quote so these are just in text

 

Trouble is, one expects a little better of progressive people than to proclaim their "constitutional right" to espouse medievalism. One expects a formula for change, for progress. One also does not expect cowardice - the kind of cowardice that always assumes that the "voters" are more backward than one is oneself. That's never the case. 

 We prepared at least one step going forward into the 21st century. 

Generations "fought" for public funding of Catholic instruction? They fought in vain. You will lose it. And guess what - no one will miss it - especially your offspring.  

 

Which "issue" is safe enough for those backward voters to understand - with no risk that they'll get angry and pull out their pitchforks?

 

 

 

Those are all from the last thread that you continued alone.  All of them are intolerant.  I would never suggest bigoted in any way.  But intolerant yes.  Now maybe you just let your emotions and rhetoric get away from you, we all do that from time to time, but they come across very intolerant of anyone who might approach this issue differently than you.

 

That said I really am quiting.  On my personal top 100 list of issues I think are crucially important we deal with this ranks about 75 and is dropping fast the more I see continuing evidence that it will be a very divisive issue.  Sometimes being responsible AND progressive is picking your battles.

Fidel

n/c

Wilf Day

Lord Palmerston wrote:
Unionist, we can either end child poverty in Ontario or end public funding for separate schools.   We cannot do both.

Now that is a truly absurd statement, unless you expect Catholics to pull their kids out of the publicly-funded system and send them to private schools, enabling the publicly-funded system to lay off a lot of teachers and use the savings to end child poverty.

The myth that reducing the number of school boards will save money was surely put to rest after Mike Harris tried that in 1995 and later. The creation of the current megaboards saved nothing and created enormous dislocation.

Merging the four systems into two will save no money (they already merged the busing systems) that is not more than offset by the diseconomies of scale (commonly known as empire-building). 

unionist wrote:
The only question is whether the ONDP will lead the movement for democratization and secularization . . .

Democratization? All four systems are equally democratic, or equally undemocratic since local control over funding was ended when the province seized control over local education taxes.

 

Your objective is forced secularization. Catholics call that intolerant. Even an atheist like me can see their point.

 

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

I don't think Catholics form any monolithic voters block, out to defend their historic privileges.

 No one is talking about padlocking the doors to these schools. We are talking about how to gradually integrate them into our secular public school system.

Unionist

Wilf Day wrote:
Now that is a truly absurd statement, unless you expect Catholics to
pull their kids out of the publicly-funded system and send them to
private schools, enabling the publicly-funded system to lay off a lot
of teachers and use the savings to end child poverty.

Very amusing.

No new students in public Catholic school. Those who are there should carry on and graduate. Each new cohort will be enrolled in the single public system (yes, according to the language of the school). Catholic families wishing to start their children in a Catholic school would be free to do so in the same way as Baptist or Jewish or Muslim families.

No closures, no forced evictions, no trauma. And it's got nothing to do with "savings". It's about democracy.

What's wrong with this picture, Wilf?

Quote:
Your objective is forced secularization. Catholics call that intolerant. Even an atheist like me can see their point.

It's not "forced secularization" - it's no more free ride for some at the expense of others. And please don't generalize about "Catholics". Millions of Catholics in this country support an end to religious indoctrination in public schools. Have a look at almost all the other provinces if you need evidence. Catholics are not separatists and segregationists - they are Canadians who share the same basic values as you and I. Next you'll tell me Jews consider failure to publicly fund Jewish schools as "intolerant"?? I don't think so.

 

Fidel

Personally, I thought we were inundated with enough of this baloney during the election in Ontario last year, the same one where McGuinty won 22 percent of eligible voter support and 100 percent of power. That's what I call a genuine crisis of democracy. There are real issues out there that need politicizing.

Unionist

Fidel wrote:

Personally, I thought we were inundated with enough of this baloney...

Foot in mouth

janfromthebruce

"The myth that reducing the number of school boards will save money was
surely put to rest after Mike Harris tried that in 1995 and later. The
creation of the current megaboards saved nothing and created enormous
dislocation."

Wiff, in fact you are incorrect on two accounts. First, when education was uploaded to the provincial level and other services were downloaded to the municipal level, millions of dollars was removed from public education through the new funding formula. Hence, the mill rate for education was lowered on individuals' tax bills.

Second, amalgamation of two different geographic areas does not necessarily induce economies of scale as one has inlarged the area they have to served. So Wilf is basically right in that regard.

But combining co-terminus boards (who serve the same geographical area) can optimize financial resources, staff expertise, and student accomodation utilization.  Of course, the benefits are subject to population and geography of the co-terminus combination. Often co-terminus boards operate in existing consortiums relating to provision of administative services and transporation.

What folks seem to be missing is the huge reduction in student population that is happening across the province, resulting in half filled schools with huge surplus space. Getting rid the redundant space, redundant and duplication administration at the board levels is where the savings would be had. 

So for instance, in a medium size geographical area with two co-terminous boards, consolidation works out this way (available at the Ministry of education webpage). 

This scenerio is real and these 2 boards compete for the same student population and serve the same overlapping geographical area:

Board A has a student enrolment of 19,000 but capacity of 24,000. Board B has a student enrolment of  3,500 but capacity of 4,000. There combined student total is 22,500 and capacity of 28,000.

Combined board accomodation savings by reducing capacity (think half empty schools) by 5,500 surplus pupil spaces produces a combined savings for investment in student program, capital repairs, and mainetance of 3.3 million dollars (funding formula calculation).  

Board administration supervisory officers (superintendents) are reduced by 2  with an annual savings in salary and benefits of $350,000.

Savings in transportions would increase on the same scale. 

Overall savings for reinvestment would be 3, 650,000 dollars annually. 

Optimization of school size resulting in more resources for: diverse program offerings, school administration, student supervision, extra curricular activities, larger parent base, and student service specialization.

The above calculation was done by a finance person and not me. After these numbers were put together, this person was very surprised by the savings because that person also thought it would be small. That financial person realized that if these were the savings in this medium/small board, one can just imagine what could be saved and reinvested.

Boards would actually have the money to reinvest in retrofitting their school buildings, and making them environmentally friendly and great places for all kids to learn.  

Normal
0

false
false
false

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

Normal
0

false
false
false

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

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

Unionist

.

Unionist

.

Fidel

ya

Wilf Day

janfromthebruce wrote:

Board A has a student enrolment of 19,000 but capacity of 24,000. Board B has a student enrolment of  3,500 but capacity of 4,000. There combined student total is 22,500 and capacity of 28,000.

Combined board accomodation savings by reducing capacity (think half empty schools) by 5,500 surplus pupil spaces produces a combined savings for investment in student program, capital repairs, and mainetance of 3.3 million dollars (funding formula calculation).  

If you really believed that, you would be closing schools now. In your example, 91% of those "surplus pupil spaces" already exist, in the public board. What are you waiting for?

But of course the alleged savings of 3.3 million are based on the funding formula. In other words, your grants would drop by 3.3 million if you closed those schools. You would destroy or damage a lot of communities in order to save the province a little money, and then you would have to find equal savings in your board. The savings would be limited to heating bills and other maintenance costs for the closed schools, if all your staffing is based on staff-to-student ratios. They would not equal the 3.3 million, and you would be worse off for all that pain. That's why you aren't keen on doing it. Add another 9% surplus spaces from your amalgamation, and the picture is no different.

janfromthebruce wrote:

Board administration supervisory officers (superintendents) are reduced by 2 with an annual savings in salary and benefits of $350,000.

Savings in transportions would increase on the same scale. 

If you already have joint transportation as you should, there would be no savings. Rather, with school closings, there are fewer walkers. Transportation costs rise.

With a bigger system there are fewer superintendents? Dream on. With the mega-boards the number of Directors of Education was cut in half, the losers became Assistant Directors with no loss of pay, the winners all got big raises, and so on down the line. And then they pointed to some paper savings that did not actually exist. As you know. Why are you peddling re-cycled Mike Harris propaganda?

Fidel

I like Wilf's high road comments even better

janfromthebruce

 Whiff, I'm not sure if you are aware, but that has been going on - closing schools across Ontario (in rural, northern, and mid-sized cities) since 1999, and increased dramatically in the past 2 years. This phenomona is happening right across Canada, although I can only talk specifically to the Ontario educational scene.

In London, ON, for instance, at the Thames Valley District School Board there are 11 Accomodation Review Committees happening (dealing with surplus space) and effecting 33 neighbourhood community schools. This is  happening right across the province.

Thus, it's no surprise that the Ministry of Education setup a declining
Enrolment panel to go across the province and engage folks in this discussion.

Ontario Schools struggle with empty classrooms at the Catholic registry suggests this in their article:

"Annie Kidder, executive director of the independent, parent-led People
for Education, said this is part of a national trend. Meanwhile, in
Ontario, the group said in its 2008 report that about 300 schools are
under review, with close to half of all 72 Ontario boards undertaking
such reviews. More than 100,000 students are affected."

"Overall enrolment rates in the province have declined by about 90,000
students over the past six years, according to the group’s annual
report on Ontario schools. Thirty-one per cent of Ontario’s 72 school
boards have experienced enrolment declines of more than 10 per cent
over the last six years. Of the 72 boards, 29 are Catholic."

I think if you take into consideration the 11 ARCS happening in London and affecting 33 communities (1 public school board of 72 who are all doing these ARCS) in comparison to this statement in the Catholic registry, one gets a sense of the problem of who can stay open longer and thus be the "community school" in the community (town, geo area).

"So far, nine Catholic schools were reported to be closing or
recommended for closure this year, including five which have already
closed in Oshawa, east of Toronto." (that is for the whole province).

So both systems are in decline but the public school system is having to deal with it "quicker" do to having to ensure a balanced "budget." So looking at in equity of funding per student shows why and who gets to keep their half filled schools open longer, and why (even with those bussing consortiums) the Catholic boards are able to provide better transportation and shorter walking distances. 

But for me at the end of the day, it is about all kids and their education needs. It's moving to what system of delivery of education in this province would benefit all kids so all equally benefited? 

 

 

 

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

janfromthebruce

 "But of course the alleged savings of 3.3 million are based on the
funding formula. In other words, your grants would drop by 3.3 million
if you closed those schools. You would destroy or damage a lot of
communities in order to save the province a little money, and then you
would have to find equal savings in your board. The savings would be
limited to heating bills and other maintenance costs for the closed
schools, if all your staffing is based on staff-to-student ratios. They
would not equal the 3.3 million, and you would be worse off for all
that pain. That's why you aren't keen on doing it. Add another 9%
surplus spaces from your amalgamation, and the picture is no different."

Whiff, school boards are penalized with having surplus space. We are funded per student so that surplus space does hurt us all. As for hurting or damaging communities, well the prov lifted its moritoreum on school closures 2 years ago. School boards by law must balance their budgets so  one gets a certain amount of money based on enrolment mainly (but there are other funding envelopes such as rural and remote which add top-up funds). It is within these various envelopes that some boards get lots more money and thus are able to keep their half empty schools open longer and not have to address their half empty schools). Incidently my rural board does not qualify for one dime for rural and remote funding. Go to the Ministry of ed guidelines for why, as one then gets to see one board serving the same geographical area receives that funding and the other one doesn't. 

So let's take that norhtern board example, of 5 school boards with 5 schools in a community of 60,000. Which ones do you think will close first? Which ones can stay open longer cause they have more money? Where do you think those kids are going to go? Choice of get on the bus for a long bus ride to another community of like school, or just walk down the street to the "local community school" operated by a different board?

So you are right on one hand about wanting to ensure that communities should have one school in their communities. And that school should be open to all where every child feels welcome and feel they belong. Their parents should also feel welcomed too and be able to join, if they choose, to sit on their school parent council, no matter their race, gender-orientation, class, or creed. I agree with Left Jab, tolerance shouldn't be the bottomline but going for celebrating of differences and open to all.

Curious Whiff, where do you get your information from? Is this what you think or what you know based on your deep understanding and knowledge of how the funding formula actually works? Just curious.

 

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

Lord Palmerston

I'm still waiting to hear whether Left J.A.B. supports public funding for other religious schools, or just Catholics.  

TVParkdale

Okay, from experience;

Yes, the public school system WAS protestant. No doubt about it's history. Been there, done that.

However, even in the 60-70's a student could *refuse* to stay in class for the Lord's Prayer or any other religious-based activity with or without parental permission. I know because I did it and in a small, WASPy town, no less. Yes, the Gideons gave away Bibles in those days, too. I refused to stand for "God Save the Queen" too.

Tell me that would have happened in the Catholic school system back then. In fact, an atheist friend was turfed out--causing much familial dismay and causing her to be marched off to public school in disgrace-- because she refused to comply with the religious indoctrination.

So, we are more than a generation away from forced indoctrination--at least in standard public schools. The same can't be said for residential schools or private schools.

That said:

No religious practises should be encouraged by a school system that is publicly funded. Ever.

If some kids have certain practises, I don't see a problem in setting aside private space for that but it does not belong in a classroom except in the History of World Religions Class--which used to be [still is?] a choice to be made when choosing which history courses to complete high school. That choice used to consist of "History of Revolutions" as well.

Take a good look at the USA.

It's not just about Catholic schools, or Jewish schools or Muslim schools. That's just the wedge.

The only reason that Ontario bowed to Catholic school system was due to Mother Teresa's intervention when the Pope sent her to Parkdale as if we were the equivalent of Calcutta. There's a helluva lot of political interventionism behind that entire period when it occurred.

If you want to be secularist--pay for it yourself. I don't want to pay for someone else's child to become a fundamentalist God's Army nutbar.

There's enough of that lunacy, south of the border.

TVParkdale

unionist wrote:
Bookish Agrarian wrote:

I called you both intolerant if you want to bother to read what I actually said. That is what two sides of the same coin mean.

I honestly don't understand what you mean. Explain to me how I am "intolerant". But please do so in the context of this thread. Publicly funded religious schools are as tolerable in our Canadian society as publicly funded religious hospitals. Is that intolerance? Then I plead guilty.

Left J.A.B.: I'd love to hear your answer to LP's question. Do you support publicly funded Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Christian Evangelical, and Buddhist schools?

 

ETA: Oh wait, I thought up a really good one! How about separate subway cars for Jews - so that they can sing Hebrew and Yiddish songs and dance the Hora without disturbing other passengers? Publicly funded, of course - although I'd be prepared to pay a small premium in order to avoid undue strain on the public purse.

Separate highways for the Amish?

C'mon gang, let's get creative here!

HERE HERE!!!!!

Citizens have the right to worship as they wish or to do what they wish in their own homes without breaking the law.

Citizens DON'T have the right to expect everyone else to fund their religious practises [including church tax breaks] or pay to secularize their children.

Damn skippy. On this it isn't about "intolerance" it's about every citizen paying for some parent's choice of their child's religious indoctrination. 

 

janfromthebruce

 I would really like to see the conversation move to what is the goal of education and should be child centric. If the goal is provide quality education and provide excellence in programming for all students than what kind of system of delivery would accomplish that most effectively and efficiently? What student programs will help kids become the critical thinkers of tomorrow? What student programs will help kids become most knowledgable citizens of tomorrow, leaders, community shapers, workers? 

According to OSSTF study (link under OSSTF study for your own reference (pg. 15) using vector polling in 2006, the majority of families priorize their school choices as most important (highest to lowest): facilities (quality teaching staff), test scores, programs, location, transportation. Although the overall study many problems overall (not the survey of parents), these priorities of families has been consistent overtime, no matter which system the parents favour. These top priorities should drive the type of system would be best able to meet these priorities, identified by all families, and benefit all children. 

 

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

Wilf Day

janfromthebruce wrote:

that has been going on - closing schools across Ontario (in rural, northern, and mid-sized cities) since 1999, and increased dramatically in the past 2 years.

In Kawartha-Pine Ridge we have no accommodation reviews currently, although both Peterborough County and Northuberland County are slow-growth counties.

Our last two were: Castleton-South Cramahe, which resulted in a decision to build a single combined school at Castleton with 300 pupil places in a new building, and Newtonville, which resulted in a closure two months ago, consolidated into Newcastle and Orono. South Cramahe had virtually no walkers. Newtonville had very few, being way too small. No real community lost its school.

Partly this is because the predecessor boards closed almost all the small schools long ago, when it was to the advantage of local taxpayers to do so, but mostly because it's hard to run good schools with fewer than 200 students. Except we never did deal with the Castleton - South Cramahe problem, which we should have done 20 years ago. And North Hope has always been too small, still to be dealt with.

KPR decided a few years ago to combine two Port Hope K-6 schools into one new school, soon to be built, with 386 pupil places. Sad, but not enough students for two good schools. (Mind you, the 7-8 senior elementary model is not working the way it did 15 years ago.)

My point is, none of this has created any suggestion that merger with the Catholic Board would improve anything, that I've seen.

Unionist

janfromthebruce wrote:

I would really like to see the conversation move to what is the goal of education and should be child centric.

I agree with your sentiment, but it's really really a separate topic.

Even if the education system is poor, underfunded, backward, authoritarian, unfriendly to kids... there should still be only one public secular system.

This is a fundamental democratic demand. It's not about quality or cost or efficiency. It's about ending segregation and building social solidarity. You will never win the "economics" or "quality" argument with people like Wilf or others, who will haul out other studies or stats. It's like trying to argue for a single-payer health care system on the grounds that it's more efficient or higher quality. Or arguing for gender equality or freedom of speech on the grounds of economics.

Here is an apple, there is an orange.

Wilf Day

unionist wrote:
... there should still be only one public secular system. 

It's about ending segregation and building social solidarity.

It's about dogmatism, then. Is the secular dogma less dogmatic than religious dogma? Or, to paraphrase Mammy Yokum's famous observation, is secular dogma better than religious dogma because it's nicer?   

unionist wrote:
It's like . . . arguing for gender equality or freedom of speech on the grounds of economics.

Now there's an apple and orange for you. Does gender equality require desegregated hockey teams? Does linguistic equality require two-track bilingual schools?

As long as all four school systems are treated the same, and have equal funding, doesn't that satisfy the comparison with gender equality?

Unless you are saying "those nasty boys have to be made to play nicely with the girls, like those nasty Catholics have to be made to go to the same schools as the rest of us."

 

Lord Palmerston

It is no more "dogmatic" to argue for an end to separate school funding than it is to oppose extending funding to other religious schools.  It is no more anti-Catholic bigotry to oppose funding for Catholic schools than it is anti-Semitic or Islamophobic to oppose funding for Jewish and Islamic schools.

Unionist

Wilf Day wrote:
It's about dogmatism, then. Is the secular dogma less dogmatic than religious dogma?

Wilf, it's about the state not infringing on individual's freedom of conscience - which includes not funding the teaching of a religion. It's also about not creating walls between children based on their parents' ideologies. You want to call that "dogma", go ahead. I didn't complain about religious "dogma". My complaint is about division. You are pretending that some public schools spread a secular "dogma" and others a Catholic "dogma", and are putting an equal sign between them. Go ahead, if that fallacy appeals to you.

Quote:
As long as all four school systems are treated the same, and have equal funding, doesn't that satisfy the comparison with gender equality?

We're talking about funding of Catholic schools. If black diners and white diners had been equally funded in Jim Crow states, no, Wilf, no, that would not have satisfied the needs of racial equality. It was the hardened racists who invented the notorious slogan of "Separate But Equal". Why are you adopting it in 21st century Canada?

As for your "nasty Catholic" stuff, try to keep this off the level of provocation, please. Catholics and boys and girls and Jews and queers and atheists are all the same. They belong in the same classrooms, workplaces, restaurants, and hospitals. The only "nasties" are the ones trying to justify segregation.

Fidel

Don't let me stop you, you're on a roll here, uni'. Who else needs putting in their places while we're at it? Hey I know!  Just think how much  money the feds and our decentralized tax collection agencies at Queen's Parks across Canada could save if we all spoke American!!Frown Amongst our chief weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to secular socialism the kind the mujahiden, CIA, Saudis, Pakistanis, and Taliban fought against, and nice black uniforms!! 

Wilf Day

unionist wrote:

Wilf Day wrote:
It's about dogmatism, then. Is the secular dogma less dogmatic than religious dogma?

Wilf, it's about the state not infringing on individual's freedom of conscience - which includes not funding the teaching of a religion.

  

That's the secular dogmatism I refer to. Your dogmatism. Not anything taught in our schools. 

Quote:
As for your "nasty Catholic" stuff, try to keep this off the level of provocation, please.

Then explain yourself, if you can. How does this issue compare with gender equality?

 

Wilf Day

(double post.)

Pages

Topic locked