Catholic school funding III

119 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sky Captain Sky Captain's picture

unionist wrote:

You know, LP, there's an interesting contrast between Québec and Ontario on this issue.

Québec society suffered under the dark rule of the Church for generations, until the Quiet Revolution lifted its dictate almost overnight (in historical terms). The abolishment of Catholic and Protestant public schools in 1998 met with some laments from the bishops, but no one else.

Today, not a single political party - not even the most sinister wing of Dumont's ADQ - dares call for a return to Church-run public education.

Yet, in Ontario, it seems that even some supporters of the NDP are afraid that the population would rise up in revolution if the priests were shown the door!

How would you translate "Quiet Revolution" into Ontarianese? Methinks yours is long overdue.

 

The main parties are scared of the religious right, and know it-that's why it hasn't happened yet. I suspect that they are also scared of David Mainse and his pitbull enforcer Michael Coren, but that may be my view of things.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

peterjcassidy wrote:

But make no mistake about it, the topic under discussion is rights-specifically speaking my right and the rights of others,Catholics and Protestants and others ,  in Ontario and other provinces,  to denomaintional schools - The more sophisticated, or perhaps it is better educated, of those opposed to funding for Catholic schools acknowledge that , acknowlege we are dealing with rights, rights as  found in the constitutions of Canada and adjudicated in many courts of law and parliaments..

 When  people call thiis a sect claiming privilege they are just revealing their ignorance, as you just diid.

"Catholics and Protestants and others"? The point you have ignored, quite deliberately, is that "Protestants and others" enjoy no such "rights" - therefore, said "rights" are not a right, but a unique and dubious privilege.

As for my 'ignorance' - unless you have the courtesy to address the arguments put before you, answer questions in a civilized manner, and, ideally, apologize for your behaviour, I'm done with you.

I'm coming to realize that someone with an overriding fetish about their Irish ancestry (someone who seems to count it as more important than the equality of their fellow Canadian citizens) is best ignored. Such curious views are held by very few, and add nothing to the conversation here.

Star Spangled C...

I agree completely with the idea that funding one religion only is indefensible. However, for those of you who are also opposed to the idea of also funding Jewish, Muslim, etc. schools, I am curious as to whether you are also opposed to the new Afrocentric school that will be opening in Toronto or the school for gay teens in Toronto or a number of First nations schools?

Is the objection to funding based on the idea that ALL kids no amtter what their backgrounds or lifestyles should all learn together or is it hostility towards religion?

My priority when it comes to education is that every student get the best education possible and the education that's best for them. Assuming that finances not be a burden that leaves people out, it really doesn't amtter to me whether that particular school is run by the government or by a church/synagogue/mosque or by a non-profit organization or whether it's affiliated with a university or whether it's completely privately run. And it's not necessarily that the best school is based on religion or race or sexual orientation. It could be based on different educational philosophies or learning styles or different focuses (like art or music, etc.). I think we need MORE schools and MORE options, not fewer.

Unionist

Saving money is a red herring, with all due respect to jan. Religious public schools should be abolished even if it cost more (which of course it won't). No one will ever make up their mind on this issue based on money.

As for star spangled, the issue of schools for African Canadian or queer or Aboriginal kids is also a red herring. People can be for or against any of these for very debatable reasons while still insisting on no segregation of public schools based on religion.

And this has nothing to do with "quality" either. Private schools may be 10 times better on the score sheet. That doesn't mean we should fully fund private schools.

This is about not raising kids in religious ghettoes.

George Victor

SSC: 

My priority when it comes to education is that every student get the best education possible and the education that's best for them. Assuming that finances not be a burden that leaves people out, it really doesn't amtter to me whether that particular school is run by the government or by a church/synagogue/mosque or by a non-profit organization or whether it's affiliated with a university or whether it's completely privately run. And it's not necessarily that the best school is based on religion or race or sexual orientation. It could be based on different educational philosophies or learning styles or different focuses (like art or music, etc.). I think we need MORE schools and MORE options, not fewer.

_______________________________________________________

But what is it about the American school situation today that suggests this is the route to take? The kids going to something called school up in the hills above your urban perspective, come away unable to understand the world they live in except that they are getting screwed.

And their inability to reason along the lines of their betters leaves them open to all kinds of racist thoughts.

You really should read more about the life of folks up in the hills above you to understand the social ramifications of what you propose. Goes beyond the great myth of equality of opportunity (as thouth that ever existed) that keeps you city folk with your own belief system intact.

Star Spangled C...

unionist wrote:
This is about not raising kids in religious ghettoes.

Are "religious ghettos" inherently worse than ethnic ghettos or sexuality ghettos?

What about class ghettos? Given that, for the most part, people attend the closest school to them, they tend to be in schools with people of similar socio-economic conditions. A school in Forest Hill and a school in Jane and Finch may both be "public" but the makeup is likely to be very different - often in terms of race and religion as well.

George Victor

 

Social ghettos are bad.

Wilf Day

unionist wrote:
This is about not raising kids in religious ghettoes.

Actually it isn't, or you would propose outlawing private schools that apply religious entry criteria and feature compulsory religious practices or religion classes. (Whereas I would propose merely ending their municipal tax exemption -- is that something we might agree on?)

No, this is about you being a conscientious objector to any of your taxes going to a religious school.

George Victor

 

Ya see, SSC, THE weakness in Bageant's reasoning is his avoidance of practical ways by which the education system there in the American Heartland can be made whole, turn out educated, rounded people who can distinguish bullshit from  truth, and even go on to make a living somewhere.  Join the great meritocratic scramble for a life .

Pleading for yet more outlets for a diverse population to be educated in their own beliefs is not going to do that.

It is avoiding the real danger - that the great unread will descend from the hills and level the field in another fashion - maybe headed up by a modern day  Joan of Arc Palin. She was only a few months late in coming on the scene - a world recession away from  power.  C'est possible? (excuse the french, u, I was not educated, like my daughter, in classics and languages. But I keep trying, by golly ).

Star Spangled C...

I tend to agree with you, Wilf Day.

When people oppose a policy, there are two generact tacts that they take. One is to acknowledge that the policy would be good but say that it's impractical or unaffordable. "Sure, we'd love to hire thousands more doctors and nurses and get more MRI machines and cut wait times for treatment but we just can't afford it right now." The other is to say that the policy, itself, is wrong and harmful. THAT is the position that most, including McGUinty, took agaisnt the idea of funding faith-based schools. None did so because of teh cost. I agree that it is a red ehrring. They said it's harmful to kids to be put in religious schools (unless those schools are catholic, apparently). So, if it IS, in fact, so harmful, what about the fact that RIGHT NOW, thousands of students are already enrolled in private, faith-based schools? If it's so harmful, they should be shut down, right? It's not a question of funding, it's a question of what's best for kids. I mean, when the government bans heroin, for example, tehy don't say that government won't fund heroin but if people want to pay for it, themselves, then it's okay. They say that heroin is sufficiently harmful that it needs to be banned for everyone, rich and poor alike.

Star Spangled C...

George Victor wrote:

Ya see, SSC, THE weakness in Bageant's reasoning is his avoidance of practical ways by which the education system there in the American Heartland can be made whole, turn out educated, rounded people who can distinguish bullshit from  truth, and even go on to make a living somewhere.  Join the great meritocratic scramble for a life .

No doubt the current American system is severely deficient...at least in many places. The focus there ahs been on turning out worker drones...and not even doing a good job of that based on changes to the economy. There have been many developments that are really encouraging, which when I've got a little time to dig, I can pull up some great articles on truly heroic teachers and administrators who had the balls to push things. The issue is that everything else in the world has changed dramatically over the alst several decades and education ahsn't caught up with innovation. Again, it's not a matter of religious or secular or public or private. It's good and bad. There are great public schools in Virginia and ones that no child should ever ahve to attend. There are wonderful private and religious schools and there are terrible ones. That's why I don't care who runs the school or how it's offended; I care about the educational approach and the results it gets. If someoneone would give me an option of schools and show me that a private religious school were undoubtedly the ebst option in terms of the quality of teachers and the curriculum, in terms of the success the students go on to achieve, the fact that it's religious wouldn't be a barrier to me sending my (fictional and hypothetical) kids there. My only goal as a (hypothetical) parent is to get them teh ebst education possible. if that means they're in a school with all Jews or all gays or all boys or all girls or all children of rich people, so be it.

George Victor

All retired from the field, have we?

I must say, SSC, your persistence in ignoring the old gauntlet-in-the-face challenge to comment on the redneck culture in your new home is impressive.  The mark of a scholar who can shut out interruptions to the subject at hand.

Your choice, of course, in a society that positively idolizes individuality ... and choice . Whether it exists for all, or not. It's "what's best for kids,", right?

George Victor

 

But don't you think that American educators - and parents, hypothetical and in the flesh - should begin to  suggest ways in which a great Dewian levelling can be started, by interrupting the oh so comfortable rut into which a disappearing middle and upper middle class  have found functions for them?

It surely is not going to be found by simply flying one's whiter than white flag higher than others - claiming paramouncy as a racial and religious leveller.  What is needed is more than those scattered paragons of educational virtue whose existence somehow demonstrates that not all is rotten in the hills.

Or is Bageant not alone in not having something of a solution to propose?

Star Spangled C...

George Victor wrote:

I must say, SSC, your persistence in ignoring the old gauntlet-in-the-face challenge to comment on the redneck culture in your new home is impressive.  The mark of a scholar who can shut out interruptions to the subject at hand.

George, I'm not trying to deliberately avoid your challenge. It wasn't clear until now that you were explicitly challenging me. I'll do my best to answer but I'm not sure I really can given that in my over 10 years of living in teh U.S. South (mainly in Virginia with a few years in North Carolina), I really haven't encountered what you would characterize as "redneck culture." Now, obviously, a lot of that ahs to do with what I'm doing here and who I associate with. I moved to Virginia when I was 18 to attend University of Virginia, a top university filled with exceptional students, very few I would classify as "rednecks".  There was typical drunken frat boy culture but I imagine that's rpetty true of any university. After undergrad, I moved to Durham North Carolina to attend medical school at Duke. Again, this isn't a trailer park or snake handler meeting. You don't find a lot of "rednecks" in an elite medical school, whose student body comes from across the country and around the world. After a brief fellowship at Stanford, I returned to Virginia to practice medice at UVA medical centre. Again, amongst my colleagues in the orthopedic surgery department, there are none who I think anyone would classify as rednecks. The South is very much a changing place. Durham, NC is now one of the top high tech centres in teh coutnry. Atlanta is booming. It's no longer the stereotypical "redneck" region of guns and pickup trucks and bigotry and all the rest that gets it demonized and makes my friends back in Canada marvel at how I could live in such a "backwards" place.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Star Spangled Canadian wrote:

I agree completely with the idea that funding one religion only is indefensible. However, for those of you who are also opposed to the idea of also funding Jewish, Muslim, etc. schools, I am curious as to whether you are also opposed to the new Afrocentric school that will be opening in Toronto or the school for gay teens in Toronto or a number of First nations schools?

First Nations schools are very much a different matter. As original nations within Canada, there are indeed rights involved - rights of self-determination, and treaty rights. I endorse these rights without hesitation.

As for afrocentric and gay-focussed schools, I am of two minds. I understand the reasoning that leads to creating them; but fear them becoming ghettoized, and their existence being used to justify further balkanization. Overall, I would much prefer to push for wider acceptance, engagement and recognition of these groups in both the routines and the curriculum of all schools.

George Victor

Thank you for a fulsome reply.

It is answering a couple of questions for me. You see, I thought that it was only the folks in the hills that did not read, did not understand their "fellow Americans" in the parlance of the politician.

But I guess in the pursuit of technical skills involved in saving life, etc.,the library shelves of  today's professionals, like yourself, are not necessarily littered with tomes regarding one's fellow Americans, or anyone else.

So one of my favourite quips about "the great unread" must now be extended to those whom I had assumed read more broadly.

At the same time, of course, I'm glad that the surgeon who cut away the upper half of my colon - saving me from peritonitis brought on by the fuckup by another physician - was skilled in what she did for a living, and I have never challenged her  choice of reading (rather limited).

But now I cannot wait for your report on Deer Hunting with Jesus - when your find time - to know if his take  on things there is valid.

But I challenge you both to go back to John Dewey and explain what rotteness has descended on a society that once really believed in the opportunity provided by an ordinary public education availaable to all.

 

janfromthebruce

unionist wrote:
Saving money is a red herring, with all due respect to jan. Religious public schools should be abolished even if it cost more (which of course it won't). No one will ever make up their mind on this issue based on money.
As for star spangled, the issue of schools for African Canadian or queer or Aboriginal kids is also a red herring. People can be for or against any of these for very debatable reasons while still insisting on no segregation of public schools based on religion.
And this has nothing to do with "quality" either. Private schools may be 10 times better on the score sheet. That doesn't mean we should fully fund private schools.
This is about not raising kids in religious ghettoes.

 I brought the "economic concern" up because Fidel was erroniously making reference to 3 something million dollars. That aside, it does need to be based on principle - to me the principle is based on equity, fairness and quality education of all students. Reinvestment in student programming should be the goal.

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

Michelle

Long thread. :)

Pages

Topic locked