In Ontario, in education, it still pays to be Catholic.
In Ontario, in education, it still pays to be Catholic. This situation has the explicit and public support of the ONDP brass, although most of the party membership, I'd wager, do not share their views.
The following letter was submitted to the Niagara Falls Review in response to the article Mother loses fight for kids' school bus, printed September 17, 2009.
Printed September 25, 2009:
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Little sympathy for family with busing problems
I CANNOT BRING MYSELF to have much sympathy for Tammy Mott. As a member of Ontario's pre-eminent faith under law, she is guaranteed a choice of publicly funded schools wherever she chooses to live in this province and ultimately, that choice provided her with busing for her children. Non-Catholics are often not so lucky.
Like Ms. Mott, I live within walking distance of a school, albeit a public one, not Catholic. That school was so overcrowded during my childrens' kindergarten years the school board bused kindergarten-aged kids 90 minutes a day to a community far away for the 2 1 /2 hour school day.
I found that unacceptable and tried to enrol my children in the local Catholic school, where I was turned down cold on account of the non-Catholic "colour" of my faith.
I ended up paying a private school nearly $20,000 a year for two years to escape an overcrowding situation that my Catholic neighbours could escape for free by going to the Catholic school that had rejected my children.
After reaching grade school age, my children walked the 1.5 kilometres from their babysitter's house to their school for six years.
She lived just within the 1.6-km busing limit for grades 1 to 6 in the Ottawa public school board. Again, I could not have switched to the Catholic school, where my children would have been bused, even if I had wanted to.
In Ottawa, parents of public high school students living in the urban transit area must pay $626 per child per year for bus passes while the Catholic board furnishes those same passes to their high school students for free.
Ms. Mott should count her blessings. In Ontario, it still pays to be Catholic. One day, hopefully in my children's lifetimes, the rest of us will enjoy equal respect and consideration from a religiously neutral provincial government.
Leonard Baak, President,
Education Equality in Ontario
www.OneSchoolSystem.org
Catholics are too high a percentage of the electorate for the NDP to take a principled stance on this issue.
According to the 2001 Census, the last to include religious data (the next is 2011), Catholics are 34% of the Ontario population. In Newfoundland and Quebec at the time of the elimination of public funding for Catholic schools, they were 37% and 83% respectively.
Many Catholics do not support our wasteful and discriminatory system:
"Our continued status as part of the publicly funded education system is not only dependent on legislation (provincial and federal), but it is also dependent on the political commitment of the prevailing government of the day, and the political will is in no small way influenced by prevailing public opinion.
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.
The thread title should read, "In Liberal-Tory Ontario, in education, it still pays to be Catholic" And especially if you're one of the 22% of registered voters propping-up old line party dictatorships here. Democracy is the right's most hated institution still.
I realize that - but the argument you'll hear is that just because a majority of Ontarians support such a stance, doesn't mean they'll cast their vote on it, but Catholic school suppoters definitely will. Some of these Catholics are NDPers and if they bolt they won't be able to come into power and do all these bold, amazing, progressive things.
Don't expect the party to change its position under Horwath
It was the defining issue of the last two weeks of the last election campaign. The two third rail parties and their friends in the newz media made it so. And it resulted in one of the lowest voter turnouts in Ontario's history. The ONDP is attacking in the correct manner, we just need more resources and to get the message and vote out. I'd love to see the two third rail parties and those in so-called news media buried for their efforts. We can't let the bozos do it to us again.
To quote Barney Frank, on what planet do you spend most of your time?
Well I wasn't on that exoplanet where 22% of registered voters and jokers in the newz media were in the last week of the election campaign. Sorry.
Well, one solution to bussing favourism is for board's to be forced to form consordiums (for bussing for eg) and that those consordiums be arms length from their respective boards thus no political interference. All walking distances should be the same for all boards without privelege for some.
In fact there is movement now for consortium's at arm's length of boards so this nonsense can end. That said, there is movement for coternimous board's to build schools together to "serve all students." Eg. Brantford.
I agree with Leonard - it is stupid to bus kids all over the place when their is a "school close by." That said, one may see more of this as northern and rural boards close half filled schools and bus kids to the next community where there is a public school.
Many parents just want their kids to attend the local community school - whether public or separate - so they enrol them in the half-filled separate school - who can keep open because of getting a lot more money per student - wait out the public local school, and than reap the reward - filling up with the public school children that they need (no discrimination as they need those warm bodies) to keep their separate school humming.
Personally, the province should make board's automatically hold accomodation reviews when schools trigger under 80%. This would force all board's to act in "good faith."
IMPV
And dont forget that reduced school busing would be green policy and good for the environment, too.
No it was Tory's plan of funding "faith based schools" vs. the status quo position of "no funding for religious schools (unless they're Catholic)." Although support for one system is a very popular position among Ontarians, none of the three major parties would take that stance.
they prefer the slow death approach. Which in the end leaves less $$$ for kids and their educational needs. But that's the way the cookie crumbles, so pushing in other ways makes sense - equitable funding for all kids - no special privelege based on school Boards' religous/non-religous dsscripter.
Advertising dollars by outsiderd not allowed for any school board - get rid the catholic church's bucks for pushing their schools, while public schools cannot do this as they don't get money from the prov. That would also level the playing field.
It's about leveling the playing field so we all "play fairly." I'm sure catholic boards would support that as fair.
So you're saying that four million plus voters stayed home not because they felt their votes would be wasted by an inefficient 19th century electoral system, but because none of the three parties have clear policy for school funding? Ontarians are more fickle than I could have imagined.
Fidel that was not what LP was saying - please don't suggest something that isn't what was said - it lowers your credability when you post elsewhere.
LP is suggesting that tackling the third rail issue of school funding would be a popular policy among Ontarians. Okay, and he did not say that it would do anything positive for voter turnout. And LP did not suggest that of those 22% of registered voters who elected McGuinty to a false majority, that very many of them would switch to the NDP if the NDP writes a clear policy for one system fits all school funding. I'm not trying to be sarcastic just wanting to understand this issue of school funding and why I should care when so many other issues are smoking on the backburner.
Perhaps both you and LP are right, and this is exactly the kind of can of political worms the ONDP need to pry open in order to stir Ontario voters from their slumber. So let's go for it. I am now of the opinion that we need to shake it up by quite a lot in Ontario, and this could well be the ONDP's most potent weapon in the next election. I'm not crazy about it, but we really must check the electorate for vital signs.
thanks Fidel - I was concerned that you might respond negatively to me - thanks for coming back so thoughfully. I know there are lots of pressing issues, least of all the economy.
That said, the two biggest files are health care and education under prov. jurisdiction.
Holy Cow! Cause for celebration. Fidel acknowledged a flaw in ONDP stand (or lack thereof) and would agree on correcting it. Let us hope Fidel is sober.
Other than the fact that the constitution would need to be amended to reverse the rights of the catholic schools I can't think of ant reason to chance the status quo. Apparently changing the constitution in Canada is a bit of a big deal.
Education
Legislation respecting Education
93. In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education, subject and according to the following Provisions:—
(1) Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class of Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union:
(2) All the Powers, Privileges, and Duties at the Union by Law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the Separate Schools and School Trustees of the Queen's Roman Catholic Subjects shall be and the same are hereby extended to the Dissentient Schools of the Queen's Protestant and Roman Catholic Subjects in Quebec:
(3) Where in any Province a System of Separate or Dissentient Schools exists by Law at the Union or is thereafter established by the Legislature of the Province, an Appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or Decision of any Provincial Authority affecting any Right or Privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic Minority of the Queen's Subjects in relation to Education:
With respect to education Kropotkin1951, it is not difficult to change the Constitution at all. Vested interests often try to suggest that it is to discourage even discussion of the possibility. They point to earlier Constitutional conferences like Meech Lake and say "See, look -- it is darned near impossible!". But they are not comparing apples to apples (and I think a lot of them know that). Some Constitutional changes, like those affecting one province, are much easier to achieve and are governed by a different and much more streamlined amendment procedure.
Education is solely a provincial responsibility and the feds have established a precedent of not interfering with the will of the provinces. Three provinces have so far eliminated denominational separate schools with Ottawa's blessing (Quebec, Newfoundland, and Manitoba).
The Constitutional change to pave the way for the elimination of publicly funded Catholic schools in Ontario can be accomplished through a simple bilateral agreement between Ottawa and Ontario (the route taken by both Newfoundland and Quebec in eliminating Catholic schools). No other provinces need to be involved, unlike other sorts of Constitutional changes, which involve greater consensus. To go the bilateral route, all the Ontario legislature need do is pass a motion asking Ottawa to amend the constitution to erase the "obligation" (I say "obligation" in quotes because as obligations go, this one is really quite illusory).
Ontario could also choose to eliminate the Catholic system unilaterally as it was done in Manitoba, whose constitutional "obligation" reads identically to Ontario's and proved to be not so obliging after all.
We've covered the constitutional issue ad nauseam in other discussions on this forum. See "Is there a principled, progressive case for continued support for funding separate schools?" and "Why the constitution is relevant to discussion of denominational schools". The Constitution is not that relevant really; Peter, the author of the second post, just wants people to believe it is a big scary obstacle because he likes Catholic privilege and wants to protect it (no doubt he's Catholic and likes the view from the top -- damn the cost and the consequences). They can't justify Catholic privilege any other way, so they just say "It would be too hard to change". They are blowing smoke out their ass.
I didn't say it can't be done I just pointed out the obvious that it takes a constitutional amendment and they seem to be very hard to pass. I am very sorry that this has been discussed before but quite frankly that is because it is the relevant point otherwise it might have been changed ages ago.
In BC they went the other way and they fund every denominational school not just the catholics including the school on Bountiful. I think it is a major mistake and has the potential for ghettoizing people but I can still imagine the political blow back if a party in BC tried to run on a platform of no more money to denominational schools. You would have every organized religious group in the province fighting against it. I suspect that the catholics in Ontario would also put up a fight that most politicians would prefer to avoid.
http://www.bountifulschool.org/
Interesting since my nephew went to a Catholic school through his entire primary and high school careers (in Ontario). This despite being non-Catholic (and the schools knew it). But my brother and his wife were adamant that the public school system was broken and they couldn't afford private schools.
Where do you find a private school for multiple children for $20,000 a year - day school tuition is typically that much per student.
I had classmates in Catholic school who were not Catholic. The all-public school down the road had no room for them, or at least that was what they were told. They were "Indian" and wards of the CA.
And in my hometown you could be bussed anywhere if there was no room at the school down the road, or even if you simply lived on the wrong side of a ward boundary. There was no bending the rules then for the sake of the environment let alone convenience. And there were two primary schools in our neighborhood. My older sister didnt attend either one and walked well over a mile most school days to a Catholic school where there was room for her. It was quite a mess.
Schools operate most cost-effectively when enrolment nears design capacity -- that is, if a school was designed for 600, then it is most cost-effective to operate it with that many students. When school boards have too many half-empty schools, the per pupil costs of education go up and the quality of education declines. In Ontario, this has always led co-terminous Catholic and public school boards to "poach" students from each other (to use the term employed by Liberal MPP Dave Levac, a former Catholic school principal and chair of the Ministry of Education's Declining Enrolment Working Group). They want to protect the quality of education in their boards and avoid uncomfortable decisions involving closing schools. Damn the effect on their friendly neighbourhood co-terminous board -- they really don't care.
Catholic elementary schools typically only admit non-Catholics in declining enrolment areas, where a few warm-bodied non-Catholics can bring the enrolment level of a school up to a more cost-effective level and protect the quality of education for the other [Catholic] kids. It is the other [Catholic] kids who matter. The door is almost universally slammed in the faces of non-Catholic children in areas where school enrolment approximates design capacity. The non-Catholic kids are "cash cows" in declining enrolment areas, welcome for the holy enrolment grants that come with them, but spurned where the extra money is not needed. It is sickening really.
Catholic high schools are not supposed to discriminate in grade 9 and up ("open access" policy), so you will see more non-Catholics there, particularly when the only high school or the closest high school in a community is a Catholic one.
The absolute right of Catholic school boards to discriminate against non-Catholics in admissions up to grade 9 means that non-Catholics are very rare in Catholic elementary schools -- except where they need those "cash cows" for the holy enrolment grants that come with them. "Cash cow" children are typically needed in rural, urban, and northern communities where the population of school aged children is and has been in decline. Non-Catholics are pretty much non-existent in Catholic elementary schools in growth areas (and if you ask, you'll often find that at least one of the parents was baptized Catholic with a "right" to enrol their children -- the case in my non-Catholic Church).
The Hamilton Catholic District School Board is only 7% non-Catholic (2006 figures), vs. 66% of the Ontario population that is non-Catholic. Most of that 7% is likely skewed towards the high school level, where "open access" is supposed to apply. Few to no non-Catholics are likely to be found in their elementary schools.
Yes, you can find the odd non-Catholic kid in a Catholic school in Ontario, but they aren't wanted. They are allowed in for the money that comes with them. They are barred (at the elementary level) or discouraged from applying (at the high school level) where that money is not needed.
Oh, to be Catholic in Ontario is a blessed thing. You bear the same tax burden as your neighbours according to your income, not your faith, but you and yours alone are guaranteed a choice of publicly funded schools. You get a two for one deal. All that Charter of Rights and Freedoms rubbish about equality is just that -- rubbish.
All animals [Ontarians] are equal, but some are more equal than others. If you believe that, then the status quo in Ontario's school system probably doesn't bother you at all. But if you believe that, well ... I don't want to say. It's not a nice thought. I hope you don't believe that and are willing to help look for a solution.
One needs to come to terms with 2009 and not remember the days of long ago to see what is happening in Education in Ontario. Declining enrolment is happening all over the place. Why do you think the Ministry is pushing schools as community hubs - we have half filled buildings.
And what community partner would make the most sense? Well, it would be a partner with interest in public education? Geez, now that would be too smart - sharing buildings for starters and why not programs?
As I said earlier, only certain types of amendments are hard to pass -- like those affecting multiple provinces. Amendments concerning areas of sole provincial concern, like education, are easy to pass.
The amendment removing denominational school rights in Newfoundland was proclaimed into law by the Governor General barely four months after being requested by the Newfoundland legislature. Politically, the Quebec amendment went even more smoothly, despite Catholics being 83% of their population (way more than Ontario, where 34% of the population is Catholic).
The idea that education amendments are hard to pass is a fiction, no, an outright lie, peddled by Catholic education vested interests. I have to be charitable and assume that some of the people peddling this mistruth may be genuinely ignorant, but I believe many are deliberately making false comparisons between difficult and easy amendments, counting on public ignorance of the Constitution and our constitutional history (Newfoundland and Quebec have already removed denominational school rights). Very deceptive -- and thus not very Christian.
Look at the poll results quoted above, which were from a newsletter to Catholic parents in the Halton Catholic District School Board:
A non-Catholic (Peter Jones) who ran for Catholic school trustee in Brantford the last election on a one school system platform (eliminate Catholic boards) garnered almost 1 in 5 votes from Catholic ratepayers. He was very open about his position. Many Catholics are pro one school system, but won't speak out for fear of retribution against their kids. Give them a secret ballot, however, and they will speak their mind.
I think if you had a public debate on the future of Catholic schools, that is, if a major party actually proposed it, you'd find few Catholics willing to wear the "religious bigot" label they would inevitably wear while trying to argue "More rights for us -- we are more equal than others". The media was almost universally pro one school system in the 2007 election and will be again when the issue next comes up. The status quo is indefensible. Few people would want to publicly defend it -- that is a hopeless task.
The suggestion that there would be a general Catholic insurrection if the end of Catholic schools was proposed is therefore nonsense. They are not a bunch of bigoted goons. No such insurrection took place in the other provinces that eliminated Catholic schools -- and they had a greater proportion of Catholics in their populations.
Catholic education vested interests peddle crazy myths like "the Constitution is hard to change" and "there would be a Catholic insurrection" because they can't justify their preferential treatment or the wastefulness of dual overlapping systems. They want to discourage and scare people. They are grasping at straws -- lies actually, in desperation.
Mahmud that's just the sort of thing that's really unhelpful and contributes to getting these threads off the rails. Thanks for restraining yourself in the future.
.
Ya gotta wonder just what that would look like.
As I have posted in related threads, I really think a single quality publically funded public school system is an idea whose time has come. I believe a party with the will to do so, and the skills to really put put out the message in a clear and convincing way (at the moment that's nobody) would be pleasantly surprised at the polls.
There is a party that ran on that. The Greens. They won 0 seats.
Ok oldgoat. I retract, apologize and come to the core subject.
The spineless ONDP position is an example of sacrificing the principles of equality and fairness for political expediency.
Good point. People should just give up now.