Catholic school funding III

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.

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.

Social ghettos are bad.

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 ).

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.

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 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?

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.

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!