Too Cool for (Catholic) School?

This week from Ms. Communicate

quote: Dear Ms. Communicate,
I am extremely anti-Catholic for all of the obvious reasons - and have on many occasions spoken out against the church among my friends and family and even boycotted my niece's christening because I felt that I could not support my family's desire to offer up their daughter to such a sexist and oppressive institution.
Now, my son is about to enter high school. My children have always gone to public school, but the public high school in our area is a 25 minute drive away and has a bad reputation. The Catholic high school is right around the corner and has better programs. Apparently, by the time the students reach high school, there is no longer Catholic religion classes required. However, I am worried that sending my son there will be indirectly "supporting" the Catholic Church.

Will I still have a right to speak out against the Catholic Church if I choose to send my child to a school run by the Catholic School Board?

Thanks,

Feminist Mother

Find Ms. Communicate's answer here.

[ 18 July 2008: Message edited by: jrose ]

Oh, I see it completely differently than Ms Communicate.

She was unwilling to support having her niece offered up to the institution, because of sexism, etc, so she boycotted the baptism. But yet here she is willing/wanting to give her son up to a sexist institution and have further patriarchial bias entrenched into him, beyond what is already present in the public school system. Why the inconsistent philosophy?

Sure enough he would take a 25 min bus trip, as opposed to a 5 min walk, but is the saved 40 mins a day, worth serving your child up to an institution that will influence the rest of your child's life, and to one that she apparently feels strongly about, that she boycotted a baptism?

Wonder what kind of "bad reputation" the public school has that would outweigh the really bad reputation, and deserved one at that, of the Catholic Church?

I'm really glad that Ms C. included her last paragraph. Because that's the first thing that occurred to me too - whether the "bad school" thing was code for "poor kids" or "immigrants".

I tend to agree with remind's take on this one. It seems that the writer is more than just "anti-Catholic" in theory, rather she is an outspoken advocate against the church. If one is so vehemently against something that she would allow her politics to affect her relationship with her family (ie. neice's baptism) than I certainly don't think it makes sense for her to enroll her child into a Catholic school.

That stuck out for me as well. She's hard-nosed enough to hurt her family's feelings, but not hard-nosed enough to face personal inconvenience?

quote:Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
That stuck out for me as well. She's hard-nosed enough to hurt her family's feelings, but not hard-nosed enough to face personal inconvenience?

I've attended three Catholic funerals this month and no amount of political opinion would convince me to miss any one of them, in the same way I've attended baptisms and weddings, and even the odd church service because it was important to members of my family that I be there. The positive of attending something like a family occassion far outweighs my feelings toward any one denomination. It seems that someone who is willing to miss such a thing has convictions strong enough to keep his or her child out of Catholic school.

quote:Originally posted by jrose:
This week from Ms. Communicate: "I’d like to remind you that you only have this choice because the Church still considers you and your family members."
Not so. Open access was one of the conditions of extension of equal funding to grades 11, 12 & 13.

As to the question she raises: "I am worried that sending my son there will be indirectly "supporting" the Catholic Church" -- if you have the illusion you are "sending" your son to any particular high school, have another chat with him. Perhaps he will set you straight. In that case, you might ask him to explain why he has chosen this school, just so you will have a clue why you have "sent" him there.

But doesn't that support the continuing existence of confessional schools?

We have managed to eliminate public confessional boards, though alas there is still government funding for private confessional schools aka religion-based ghettos. That crap should be banned.

This does seem odd, and I can't imagine not attending a niece's baptism, given that most baptisms are simply done to please older family members. Hell, the only time I set foot in a church (other than for bazaars, and to admire exceptional architecture) is such family events.

I would like someone to explain to me what kind of community (indeed society) it is where you have to drive 25 minutes to get to a real public school, while the religious school is just around the corner?

These religious schools should be cut off without a cent.

Absolutely. I suppose one must admit the right of hard-core religious types to organise confessional (ghetto) schools on their own money, as the alternative would be persecution as of the Doukhobors, but not one cent for confessional brainwashing.

Such funding is the great loophole left in our fight to eliminate confessional schools in Quйbec. And while a (secular Jewish) friend has lots of horror stories from her stint as a teacher in a private Chassidic school, most of these centres for religious and sexist indoctrination remain Catholic ones.

quote:Originally posted by lagatta:
Such funding is the great loophole left in our fight to eliminate confessional schools in Quйbec.
The term confessional schools is not used in Ontario, and they are not private schools. We have four public systems in Ontario: English Catholic, English secular, French Catholic, and French secular. Also, within the two English systems parents have their choice between English-language schools and French Immersion. All four (or six) sets of schools are 100% provincially funded, thanks to Mike Harris taking taxing powers away from school boards. As such, they are effectively controlled by the province, with some local control in the hands of the four sets of publicly-elected boards of school trustees. The three sets of teachers' unions (the two French-language systems have a common teachers' union) work closely together.

Not very like Quebec.

The big Ontario battle was from 1971 to 1984. The Catholic system stopped at Grade 10, and Grades 9 and 10 were funded at elementary school levels, slightly lower. The Liberals and NDP fought for 13 years to get equal funding for the Catholic boards, while the last remnants of the Orange Order (the Masonic Lodges come to mind) tried to keep the Catholics in their place, leaving school at age 16. We won.

You won, did you? Well, congratulations, the Christian Supremacy Party did its work as well then as it does now.

That said, back then, public schools were de-facto "Protestant schools" with all sorts of religion in it, so I can understand why people then thought that Catholics should be able to go to separate schools (although it's still Christian supremacist, since no one ever thought that maybe Jews and people of other religions didn't like having Protestant bullshit crammed down their throats in the public school system).

But now, public schools have been properly stripped of religion. So, there is absolutely no excuse for publicly funding Catholic schools.

Not a single public dime towards religious indoctrination!

[ 19 July 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:Originally posted by Michelle:
The Christian Supremacy Party did its work as well then as it does now.
Led for most of that period by Stephen Lewis.

I don't give a shit who led it. If they're espousing Christian supremacist principles, then that's no party I'll be voting for any time soon.

Maybe there are a few non-Christians in the ONDP now too, when they decided it would be great policy to ensure that the Legislature continues to recite the Lord's Prayer every day, instead of supporting a completely reasonable proposal to end the practice. Doesn't mean that they're not reinforcing Christian supremacy.

[Bad taste joke deleted, l'koved Shabbos.]

[ 19 July 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

The context of the times was different. Ontario history for much of the 20th century had the Orange Order and Protestant supremacists trying to suppress Catholic and particularly French education and institutions (Regulation 17, enacted by the Tories in 1912, all but banned French language education). The 1971 Ontario election was the last gasp of this earlier force that was otherwise on the decline. Davis came out against extending Catholic school funding for fear of offending the Tory base - and he was always uncomfortable with having to do that so on his way out the door in 1985 he reversed the government's position.

The Liberals, which were traditionally the party Catholics and francophones voted for in opposition to the Protestant, Orange and anti-immigrant Tories traditionally supported the extension of funding for separate schools and the NDP advocated this position as well, in the 1970s, party in order to eat into the Liberal's base but also because in the context of breaking from Ontario's Anglo-Protestant supremacist past supporting Catholic school funding seemed like the more progressive option. Of course, the notion that right wingers oppose Catholic school funding and progressives support it is a false dichotomy but it was very real in the politics of post-war Ontario.

Of course, by 1985 the reality of Ontario had changed and the old Protestant-Catsholic enmity was gone but just like the way generals often fight the last war, Ontario politicians, particularly on the liberal-left, were looking at Catholic school funding from the context of 1971 and before and failed to recognize that the rest of the word had changed and that extending funding to a Christian school was not a progressive, anti-discrimination measure, an antidote to the bigotry of the past, but was actually a reactionary move that failed to recognize the importance of separating church and state.

[ 19 July 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

deleted

[ 19 July 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

So Michael Prue announced his leadership campaign yesterday and immediately got himself in trouble by questioning Catholic school funding and then instantly backpeddling.

Just when it looked like Prue might be trying to distinguish himself from the other candidates through a bold policy maneuver that would make the NDP more attractive to a large sector of the population whose views are not reflected currently by any party - he backtracks for fear of having been bold.

quote:"The NDP policy is there, it says that we support the dual system," he said. "It is time though, I think, that we take a look at that, but we need to leave that to (the) convention. It cannot be my position or an individual's position."

As handlers tried to end the news conference, Prue insisted he wasn't trying to re-open the debate about religion and schools that caused so much trouble for Conservative Leader John Tory in last year's election and accused reporters of trying to put words in his mouth.

"I think Tory ran a very poor campaign in the last election in terms of faith-based schools . . . and he suffered the consequences and dragged us down a little with it," he said.

"I think the NDP policy is quite clear and it is there until such time as the convention reviews it."
Canadian Press

[ 19 July 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

[ 19 July 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

quote:Originally posted by aka Mycroft:

That's not only inaccurate but completely out of line.

It was meant as a dumb joke in bad taste. Oh well, I guess I should have known better than telling bad jokes on Shabbos. I'll delete it if you delete your quoted reference to it.

[ 19 July 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

[ 19 July 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

quote:Originally posted by Michelle:
I don't give a shit who led it. If they're espousing Christian supremacist principles, then that's no party I'll be voting for any time soon.
Other than invoking the name of Stephen Lewis, the other name I should invoke was the best voice of the Left within the party in Ontario at that time, Dan Heap. At the crucial convention debate on the topic he argued, as always, from socialist principle, not from any sort of realpolitik, that no socialist could defend what the grade 10 cut-off was doing to working-class Catholic kids. The hope that some folks nurtured in the hearts -- that if we starved the Separate School system of money it would somehow wither away -- he dismissed pretty brutally as fighting religious battles on the backs of working-class and immigrant kids.

But perhaps I'm in trouble quoting Dan Heap. After all, he was (gasp) an Anglican priest. Never mind that he had quit the role of parish priest back in 1954 and been a worker-priest for 18 years before being elected to city council and then to Parliament. Never mind that no one who knows him or knew him then -- such as his first young constituency assistant, Olivia Chow -- would ever think of him for a millisecond as a Christian Supremacist.

Some people are being unnecessarily judgmental here.

I don't understand the criticism of this woman for being inconsistent in her opposition to Roman Catholicism. Is consistency such a virtue that it should outweigh other factors? If you strongly object to an infant family member being baptized into the church on the say-so of her parents (considered by some to be a form of child abuse) does that mean you should not so much as contemplate sending your own child to a Catholic school - even though you believe he will not receive religious instruction?

A more reasonable answer would point out that there is no way to avoid "supporting" the Catholic Church if she sends her son to the Catholic school; not only will her school taxes be directed to the separate school system, but the very presence of her son as a student - and therefore a statistic - will help to validate and perpetuate the existence of the separate school system, and conversely weaken the public system, even if only by a relatively tiny amount.

And of course, she does not forfeit the right to speak out against the Church (which was the actual question she asked).

She was not asking for advice on whether she should send her son to a Catholic school. There are obviously some arguments for and against it, and she has the right to decide that for herself. If she decides to go with the catholic school, it will not be because of any religious sympathy for the Church, so it doesn't make her a hypocrite for speaking out against the chirch and opposing the enforced religious recruitment of family members through the sacrament of baptism.

I thought Ms. Communicate's response was quite appropriate.

quote:Originally posted by Wilf Day:
At the crucial convention debate on the topic he argued, as always, from socialist principle, not from any sort of realpolitik, that no socialist could defend what the grade 10 cut-off was doing to working-class Catholic kids.What was it doing to working-class Catholic kids? Forcing them to switch to a public high school for Grade 11?

The horror!

quote:Originally posted by M. Spector:
What was it doing to working-class Catholic kids? Forcing them to switch to a public high school for Grade 11?
I grew up in a neighbourhood that was about half Catholic. When I was finishing Grade 10, I found to my great surprise -- indeed, horror -- that the majority of the Catholics in my age cohort were planning on leaving school at age 16. A smaller group were going to continue and pay tuition fees. A still smaller group were going to switch schools. The next September there were a small handful of switchers in my Grade 11 class. If I recall correctly, only one stuck it out to the end of Grade 12.

But what I found was the true horror was that everyone seemed to think this situation was perfectly normal. It was 1958. The USA was gradually and painfully granting equal rights to black students. Justice Frankfurter expressed faith that although the practice of segregation had gone on for a long time, the change in the legal backdrop and the education of the general public would ultimately change local customs. But equal rights for Ontario Catholics was not on the radar, it seemed.

quote:Originally posted by Wilf Day:
But equal rights for Ontario Catholics was not on the radar, it seemed.

Equal to whom? Non-Catholics? Interesting bifurcation of the society.

"Equal rights" for Catholics would mean no religious public schools for them - just like everyone else. Are you using some Ontario dialect definition of "equal"??

Quйbec and NL have wiped out religious public schools, with virtually zero backlash.

Starting this school year, no Catholic public school should accept any new student. Simple, eh? No traumas for the "working-class" kiddies. They can all just stay in whatever school they're in, or start their schooling in a plain vanilla public school.

Oh, of course, it will require a constitutional amendment, which takes two seconds. We know, we've done it.

Any other social crises I can help Ontario with?

quote:Originally posted by unionist:
Starting this school year, no Catholic public school should accept any new student. Simple, eh? No traumas for the "working-class" kiddies. They can all just stay in whatever school they're in, or start their schooling in a plain vanilla public school.

Any other social crises I can help Ontario with?
I doubt you're serious. But let's suppose.

Would you make no exception for younger siblings, who would find themselves in a different school then their sibling two years older? I guess not.

But we have no surplus buildings. In Port Hope today three schools have students entering Grade 1: one Catholic and two Public. Where will this new plain vanilla public school be? In a wing of St. Mary's, which will gradually fade out the "St." and eventually be renamed Mary Vanilla?

More to the point: what sane person would propose, or vote for, such unnecessary disruption? What voter wouldn't say "Why can't we all get along?" as in fact we do.

[ 19 July 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

Simpler way.

Starting from last years grade 9s, the catholic school is funded for those grade 9s until grade 12 and all the ones after them already in the system. Starting next year there is no funding for any students entering the catholic system. That way no one can say we are abandoning students already in the system.

And there should be no mre funding for anything but the public system

quote:Originally posted by Wilf Day:

Would you make no exception for younger siblings, who would find themselves in a different school then their sibling two years older? ... But we have no surplus buildings.

I'm trying to determine whether you really don't understand that change is several decades overdue.

Each new cohort doesn't have to be in different buildings. They just need to abolish the religious stuff. One year at a time. Within 5-6 years, the nightmare is over.

Get it? Same building? Different syllabus?

quote:Originally posted by unionist:
Same building? Different syllabus?
Different school board. Different principal. In fact, different neighbourhood, if the three new public schools each have their own attendence boundaries.

quote:Originally posted by Wilf Day:

Different school board. Different principal. In fact, different neighbourhood, if the three new public schools each have their own attendence boundaries.

Look, if it's all that complicated, then just abolish it overnight. Any parent that feels their child needs the Pope overseeing biology and math class can work the extra overtime shifts and force their kid into some private school - the way all the other non-equal religions do.

What is the problem here? Is there actually 1% of voters who would vote for someone who promised to maintain this medieval system?

Wilf, you say everyone gets along fine. That's what every beneficiary of inequality and supremacy has always said. Ontario Catholics must learn to live like other folks. You'll see, people will get along even finer - I guarantee it.

quote:Originally posted by unionist:
Ontario Catholics must learn to live like other folks.
They do. Our kids all play hockey and soccer together, and go to movies togther. Kids in the east half of town go to one school, the west half to a different school, the Catholics to a third school. It bothers no one. You're trying to solve a problem that does not exist.

quote:Originally posted by Wilf Day:
It bothers no one.It bothers me. My taxes are subsidizing your kids' religious education.

quote:Originally posted by M. Spector:
My taxes are subsidizing your kids' religious education.
Catholics pay taxes too.

If Catholic schools get subsidies from non-Catholics, the only reason would be if Catholics have lower incomes and pay less taxes.

In which case your taxes are subsidizing Catholic hospitals too. Does that bother you?

Why don't you worry about real social issues that affect most people. Not your little religious wars. I'm restraining myself here.

I suppose because a majority of Quйbйcois and Newfoundlanders are nominally Catholic, we view the matter differently.

Of course Dan Heap was right, as at the time the so-called public system was actually strongly Protestant - but that has to be abolished as well.

Secular education and an elimination of any religion's influence on public or publicly-funded education is a very real issue. It should have been settled in the 19th or early-20th century, true, but there are obvious historical reasons (including reactionary anti-"Papist" bigotry, mostly against French and Irish) among the non-less God-bothered Protestants and Orangemen). The elimination of the influence of any Church, Temple, Synagogue or Mosque on public education - and on funding for sectarian schools - is a fundamental of democracy and equality.

And I definitely am of the opinion that Catholic - and any other religion-based hospitals receiving public funding - must become secular.

That does not mean there can't be accomodations to people of a given religious faith - a chapel, a chaplain, kosher or halal food, etc. It means that there will be no religious busybodies trying to control women's private parts, for one thing.

The hospitals, mostly Catholic, were nationalised here during the Quiet Revolution. So were the universities and the former Collиges classiques.

I don't think it is a false issue - it would also eliminate a wasteful duplication of school boards.

quote:Originally posted by Wilf Day:
Why don't you worry about real social issues that affect most people. Not your little religious wars.

Progressive people have big hearts - lots of room to worry about lots of things. Like segregation and ghettoization and dating and marrying "one's own". That's a real social issue. It should be publicly discouraged, not funded.

I totally understand why, back when the public schools were actually unofficial "Protestant schools" that some kind of arrangement had to be made for kids of other religions. And I realize that the times were different then, and non-Christian religions didn't count, so obviously the only "other religion" was Catholic and so they decided to make separate schools.

But now, we're all a lot more enlightened than we were 30 or 40 years ago, we've eliminated all religion (including Protestant) from our public schools, and it's time to get rid of publicly funded Catholic schools.

It doesn't surprise me that the NDP doesn't support such a measure. They don't have a very good track record on this issue, unfortunately.

quote:Originally posted by unionist:
Like segregation and ghettoization and dating and marrying "one's own". That's a real social issue. It should be publicly discouraged, not funded.
That's not for me to say, since I'm not a Catholic. Would you like me to tell Montreal Jews that they shouldn't send their kids to anglophone schols, and shouldn't be so concentrated in TMR and other neighbourhoods, but should integrate themselves into the majority culture? Do you propose anglophone schools should be de-funded, to discourage segregation and ghettoization?
quote:Originally posted by Michelle:
it's time to get rid of publicly funded Catholic schools.
If a Catholic family doesn't want to send their kids to a Catholic school, they don't have to.

What gives you or me the right to abolish their school system? Sounds pretty arrogant, sorry.

[ 20 July 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

They can have their school system all they like. I don't care if they have the system. But not a single penny of public funds should be allotted towards them. Not one penny.

Not all Montreal Jews are anglophones. There is a large French-speaking Sephardic community, and also Jewish immigrants from francophone countries.

Many parts of Canada are still incredibly backward on the issue of secular schools. There are a lot of countries viewed as strongly Catholic - such as Mexico - where all public education has been secular since the Revolution 100 years ago.

The issue doesn't have to be shutting down the school system. We can simply remove the control of the church from that system. Still probably takes a constitutional amendment, but hugely reduces the disruption the dogmatic secularists are trying to impose.

In most of Ontario the school boards are too big, courtesy of Mike Harris. My sister just retired from teaching in Bracebridge and her board offices were in Lindsay. We can use this transformation to start rationalizing the board areas.

Dogmatic secularists?

As in not wanting public money to fund any religious dogma?

Also sounds like the only fair system in a society where there are people of many faiths, and of none.

Vive la rйvolution!

I'd like to remove the religious control as well. I just think we can and should do it without throwing social and historical bombs. There has been way too much enthusiasm from some posters in this thread for the idea of disrupting the lives of people in this province.

AFAIK there are only 2 things that need to be done to the current system. Remove the requirement for a letter from a priest to get a teaching job and move religious classes out of the regular school day, and I'm not even sure if the latter problem exists.

Anybody know if there are any other issues?

quote:Originally posted by Wilf Day:
...Would you like me to tell Montreal Jews that they shouldn't send their kids to anglophone schols, and shouldn't be so concentrated in TMR and other neighbourhoods, but should integrate themselves into the majority culture? Do you propose anglophone schools should be de-funded, to discourage segregation and ghettoization? Wilf, that is a wee bit of a red herring, no?

As really, what you did with that sentence was juxtaposition religion and language and created a conceptual framework that the 2 are equal within the functioning of the state.

The 2 cannot be compared, as such your questions have no basis in the reality of the situation, nor can they be factored into any deliberations.

There is NO state religion, as such there should be no funding of any religious schools. There ARE state language requirements, thus funding must exist for them. You see how that works?

In order for your framework to be valid, we would have to get rid of state language requirements.

quote:If a Catholic family doesn't want to send their kids to a Catholic school, they don't have to. No, actually, the opposite should be true, if they do not want to send their children to the state's publically paid for schools, then they should be paying for it themselves, just as other private school parents do.

You see how that works public vs private?

Private is one's own religious choice, public is secular with NO funding for private religious choices, as it is a secular state.

quote:What gives you or me the right to abolish their school system? Uh, that is really a self-evident question, no? We, the Canadian public, are the ones funding a school that contains their private religious beliefs. I would say that fact gives us the foremost right to petition to withdraw public funding from their private religious schools. If they cannot operate their private belief schools, on their own, it would be their problem, not the general publics.

quote: Sounds pretty arrogant, sorry. No actually, what is arrogant, is the Catholic Church's belief, or anyone else's, that the general public of Canada, should fund their, or any religious, schools.

What you are hearing the sound of is empowerment of the general public, in realizing, and saying; public money must not go to an organization that operates a school from a position of private religious beliefs.

[ 20 July 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:Originally posted by jrootham:
Anybody know if there are any other issues? How many do you need before critical mass of removing all funding would be viewed as the best thing, considering all things?

We could add, things like:

1. No adequate sex education

2. Heterosexual family teaching only

3. Systemically entrenched sexism

But does it really matter what issues there are? The reality is there are too many issues to try and eradicate, in order for public funding to apply. As religion, their religion, is entrenched into their school systems. Period.

etd to remove creationism by popular consensus, though I know Catholics who believe whole heartedly in it.

[ 20 July 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

Remind what actual experience do you have with the Separate School system in Ontario?

I don't have much but at least one thing on that list is almost certainly false.

quote:Originally posted by jrootham:
The issue doesn't have to be shutting down the school system. We can simply remove the control of the church from that system.

The church doesn't control the system. The democratically elected school board trustees control the system. Well, except to the extent that the provincial government controls the system.

The teachers still need a letter from a priest AFAIK. That is an unacceptable measure of control.

quote:2. Creationism as opposed to evolution

This is incorrect.

I attended Catholic high school many decades ago, and it was made clear to us that the church had no position against evolution, and the nun who taught the course indicated that she believed the Adam and Eve story was 'symbolic'.

It's true. I went to Catholic highschool about 1 decade ago and they teach a pro-evolution creation story - Adam and Eve, symbolism and all that.

They also taught that gay people weren't sinners, gay sex was the sin. So it was okay that people were gay, they just could never EVER have sex. The reason that they gave was that they could not produce children when they had sex. I asked, what about a married hetero Catholic couple that is infertile for some reason. That sent my religion teacher into an ethics/reason glitch. I took a lot of enjoyment in asking those questions in religion class, mostly 'cause I was a little punk who enjoyed watching my teacher squirm. [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]

Yes, creationism is much more a feature of evangelical Protestant fundamentalist beliefs, and is stronger in areas where those groups are the main conservative religious lobby.

quote:Originally posted by Michael Hardner:

This is incorrect.

I attended Catholic high school many decades ago, and it was made clear to us that the church had no position against evolution, and the nun who taught the course indicated that she believed the Adam and Eve story was 'symbolic'.

While I do agree with some of reminds other points this is one myth about Catholics that I do wish could be laid to rest. Catholics whether in school or church are for the majority part not creationists and haven't been for some time. I've seen some pretty dogged out battles between Catholics and creationist/iders on this subject.

quote:Originally posted by Le Tйlйspectateur:
I went to Catholic highschool about 1 decade ago and they teach a pro-evolution creation story - Adam and Eve, symbolism and all that. Symbolism of what? And what is all that?

Having asked that, I will point out that we can see from your, and others, examples, they mixed religion and evolution, notwithstanding is the most important and sole fact they teach/indoctrinate religion, their religion.

Well remind, they are referring to religion classes. Which need to be removed, but we don't need to shut down the boards and the schools to do it.

Having looked over this thread, I can see no one advocating closure of said schools, only the removal of funding.

I would beg to differ that just the religion classes need removal, to be acceptable for public funding.

quote: Symbolism of what? And what is all that?

Having asked that, I will point out that we can see from your, and others, examples, they mixed religion and evolution, notwithstanding is the most important and sole fact they teach/indoctrinate religion, their religion.

That is to say that the story symbolizes the creation of the universe, much in the same way creation myths from other cultures do.

I imagine that the Adam/Eve story is probably some kind of Sumerian myth that was handed down anyway, so our culture probably inherited it from some long-dead peoples...

quote:Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
That is to say that the story symbolizes the creation of the universe, much in the same way creation myths from other cultures do. Oh, and here i thought you actually meant it when you said above:

quote:This is incorrect.

I attended Catholic high school many decades ago, and it was made clear to us that the church had no position against evolution, and the nun who taught the course indicated that she believed the Adam and Eve story was 'symbolic'.

Uh, so what do you not get about "creation" vs evolution? As you just said above it was a creation myth.

Well.... they are after all Catholic and do believe that God "created" the universe.

But Catholics, I would say, tend to think that God's creation involved lighting the fuse on the big bang. This is what my kindly teacher believed, and why Adam / Eve wasn't taken literally [by her].

quote:Originally posted by Wilf Day:
As to the question she raises: "I am worried that sending my son there will be indirectly "supporting" the Catholic Church" -- if you have the illusion you are "sending" your son to any particular high school, have another chat with him. Perhaps he will set you straight. In that case, you might ask him to explain why he has chosen this school, just so you will have a clue why you have "sent" him there.

Excellent point, bears repeating.

Anyways, the separate boards are all crazy anyways from what I hear, so personally I'm just as happy not having to deal with some of those people. Went through enough of that nonsense before I switched myself out of Catholic high school in grade 10.

A bigger issue of concern to me is the siphoning off of many of the most advantaged students to private schools as well as specialty schools within the publc and separate boards -- French immersion, arts, or my brother also works out of a tech school. There is also way, way too much reliance on fundraising, which leads to a huge disparity in the amount of money that the different schools have even with the same publicly funded boards.

Removing funding does not mean closing the schools.

Removing the PUBLIC funding means simply that those who wish to indoctrinate their children with religion should do so on their own dime. Not tax payers money. Public schools, especially in poor and working class areas, need the funding that gets syphoned off to the Catholic schools that teach kids that homosexuality is a sin, men are inherently better than women, and abstinence is the best policy (we all have seen how that BS works).

You want to send your kids to Catholic school, you pay for it out of your pocket. Period.

Frankly why any progressive would willingly send their children to a religious school is beyond me. Wait until kids are old enough to determine which religion (or no religion at all) best fits their world view. Let them decide on their own.

Oh and BTW jroothamn, my son was sent to a Catholic High School. I will forever regret making that decision.

Added just in case you decide to posit the notion I have no right to say anything because I know nothing. Despicable argument really, since any half-wit knows what Catholic schools teach as part of their curriculum.

[ 21 July 2008: Message edited by: Stargazer ]

quote:Originally posted by Stargazer:
Removing funding does not mean closing the schools.

Yes it does. Just like removing funding from hospitals means closing hospitals.

Do you honestly think that the overwhelming majority of students in the separate system will be able to pay to keep their schools open? Of course you don't, so stop being dishonest about it.

Don't tell me I'm dishonest. You essentially called me a liar.

Your stance is incorrect. If people want their kids to so badly go to a separate school, they can pay for it. Otherwise their kids can can to the same school as the unwashed masses attending public school.

If you call me a liar again, I'll have to notify the mods.

ETA: it is not the same as removing funding from public hospitals, which are open to ALL people, in all walks of society. Now who is being dishonest?

[ 21 July 2008: Message edited by: Stargazer ]

Well here in Quйbec the religion-based boards were eliminated (the outcome of a protracted struggle) and replaced with language-based boards.

No schools were closed because of that. Of course schools, like hospitals do get closed due to government cutbacks and underfunding, of for legitimate reasons such as sharp declines in enrolment.

We are stuck with private schools with a religious outlook and sadly, they, like other private schools, still receive public funding.

I suppose it is because we were dominated by such a reactionary Church for so long that we have developed a more progressive outlook (catching up?)

This started with a fictional correspondent saying "I am extremely anti-Catholic for all of the obvious reasons . . ." I can't criticise a fictional correspondent for bigotry, but unfortunately she has set the tone for remarks like "Ontario Catholics must learn to live like other folks" and "they teach/indoctrinate religion, their religion." And "the separate boards are all crazy anyways from what I hear, so personally I'm just as happy not having to deal with some of those people."

A few contrary notes stand out:
quote:Originally posted by jrose:
The positive of attending something like a family occassion far outweighs my feelings toward any one denomination.
quote:Originally posted by the grey:
The church doesn't control the system. The democratically elected school board trustees control the system. Well, except to the extent that the provincial government controls the system.
quote:Originally posted by Le Tйlйspectateur:
I took a lot of enjoyment in asking those questions in religion class, mostly 'cause I was a little punk who enjoyed watching my teacher squirm. [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]
quote:Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
Catholics, I would say, tend to think that God's creation involved lighting the fuse on the big bang.
quote:Originally posted by jrootham:
Get real. These are not private schools with a public top up. Removing funding means closing the schools.
quote:Originally posted by the grey:
Do you honestly think that the overwhelming majority of students in the separate system will be able to pay to keep their schools open? Of course you don't.
I regret having tried to get some people to open their eyes to reality. It likely would have been better to shut up. I do, after all, have a little relevant experience. I have a protestant Northern Irish wife, and we have a Catholic foster daughter and two Catholic grandchildren. I was a public school trustee for 12 years, during which we worked together with the Separate Board on the implementation of full funding. I watched the local separate board set up their new high school for this area, headed by an NDP supporter they lured from the Toronto Public board to be its principal, and watched as she attracted our board's best social justice voice, thereby teaching a vital lesson to the administrators of our public board who had failed to give that teacher enough leeway. I watched as our own school board chose as its chairwoman a retired teacher and NDP member who had taught in the separate schools for years with no pastoral letter, not being Catholic. I watched as a succession of non-conformist Grade 8 Port Hope kids (not including either of our own) chose the "cooler" school for Grade 9. A temporary fad, which died out over time.

Our board now lives with a competitor who plays on an even playing field. Would it eliminate wasteful duplication if we could rewrite 150 years of history and have only two systems (one English, one French?). Sure, on paper that would look more efficient, which is what Mike Harris said when he created the current mega-boards. Except he didn't really believe it, because OISE had done a study showing that boards with 15,000 students had the lowest per-student costs. It was a pretext to abolish the NDP-controlled Toronto Board. And even that didn't work out for him. Just a bad idea all round.

And that's my last word. Unless people try to drag religious wars into the NDP leadership race.

[ 21 July 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

Wilf, if I'd thought the person writing in to ms communicate was a Protestant Orangeist "anti-Papist" bigot, I'd have screamed bloody murder. There are familiy members in Eastern Ontario who were victims of such bigotry and worse. Don't you think it is clear from the thing about her niece that she is an apostate from a Catholic background?

We have every right to say nasty things about the Church. And about Orangemen.

You could have two boards but smaller geographical areas - that would be far more democratic, and it would have no relation to any given religious faith.

Frankly Wilf Day, I don't see why your particular experience gives you the right to dictate reality to anyone. I was raised Catholic, my family was intensely involved in the parish and diocese, I had an uncle who was a monseigneur and I myself attended ten years of separate school. My eyes are plenty open, thank you.

Given section 93 of the BNA Act, how would one go about legislatively abolishing the Catholic system in Ontario?

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:
(4) In case any such Provincial Law as from Time to Time seems to the Governor General in Council requisite for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section is not made, or in case any Decision of the Governor General in Council on any Appeal under this Section is not duly executed by the proper Provincial Authority in that Behalf, then and in every such Case, and as far only as the Circumstances of each Case require, the Parliament of Canada may make remedial Laws for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section and of any Decision of the Governor General in Council under this Section. (50)

quote:Originally posted by Wilf Day:
This started with a fictional correspondent saying "I am extremely anti-Catholic for all of the obvious reasons . . ." I can't criticise a fictional correspondent for bigotry, but unfortunately she has set the tone for remarks like "Ontario Catholics must learn to live like other folks" and "they teach/indoctrinate religion, their religion."

Wow, so you think the correspondent and I and others are "bigots".

Take this for what it's worth: Your posts on many issues are cool and rational and thoughtful. On this subject, however, you tend to plunge off the deep end without a lifejacket or swimming lessons. And the pool's empty. Instead of leaping, perhaps reflect quietly for a while about the perils of misperception, prejudice, and namecalling.

quote:Originally posted by Caissa:
Given section 93 of the BNA Act, how would one go about legislatively abolishing the Catholic system in Ontario?

The same way we did in Quйbec in 1997-98: by a constitutional amendment. This has been detailed in other threads, especially during last year's Ontario election.

I feel the same about all faith-based schools, whatever the religion. It has nothing to do with bigotry against a specific one, which would be heinous.

Of course I feel much freeer to say nasty things about Catholicism than I would about, say, Judaism or Islam, simply because I am from that background. But I think all religious fundies share a deep misogyny, for one thing.

quote:Originally posted by unionist:
I would like someone to explain to me what kind of community (indeed society) it is where you have to drive 25 minutes to get to a real public school, while the religious school is just around the corner?

.

rural Alberta. First Nations reserves.

Many larger towns.

The closest school to our residence is Catholic. The next closest secular school would be a 40 minute walk, when its -40 or take the school bus, which takes almost as long due to it's route.

Alternatively, the closest Islamic school is a 90 minute school bus ride

I should note that Francophone communities in Alberta traditionally had been targets of hate and terrorism by the Orange-men Lodges and the Ku Klux Klan chapter that was chartered in Alberta. These communities were largely Catholic, isolated, and targeted. To identify as Francophone in Alberta was to identify one's self as Catholic. It was a way to preserve a sense of community in Orange country.

As a consequence, there is now a separate schools act in Alberta, to protect those communities, which protects the rights of Separate school boards, and defines their responsibilities because they are publicly funded

[ 21 July 2008: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

I knew there was a constitutional amendment, Unionist. Sorry if I was too oblique. Does the Constitutional Amendment only require the concurrence of the Ontario and Federal Legislatures? If you could point me in the write direction I'd be greatly appreciative.

Wikipedia is a good memory aid here (I know it isn't always accurate but here it confirms what I thought) Memory a bit fuzzy although I was involved in the fight (and ironically, of course had to declare self a Catholic to vote the religious party out in school board elections).

quote: For more than a century before 1964 non-Catholic immigrants from outside Canada who settled in Quebec were not allowed to attend French Catholic schools. The Quebec Education Act of 1988 provided a change to linguistic school boards, a change that has not yet complete been fully implemented. In 1997, a unanimous vote by the National Assembly of Quebec allowed for Quebec to request that the Government of Canada exempt the province from Article 93 of the Constitution Act. This request was passed by the federal parliament, resulting in Royal Assent being granted to the Constitutional Amendment, 1997, (Quйbec).

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_education_system

Temporal, I am well-aware of the history of anti-francophone and anti-Catholic persecution. The original KKK in the Southern US was also anti-Catholic, and anti-Semitic. But nowadays it is certainly possible to identify as a francophone without being Catholic, and indeed, without being of old-stock Quйbйcois, Acadian or Mйtis heritage.

Interestingly, and perhaps regrettably, our public secondary schools only extend to Grade 11. With the Quiet Revolution reforms, it was decided to create Cйgeps - a common trunk for pre-university and vocational trade students - instead of adding a grade 12 and 13.

quote:Originally posted by Caissa:
Does the Constitutional Amendment only require the concurrence of the Ontario and Federal Legislatures?

Yes.

quote:If you could point me in the write direction I'd be greatly appreciative.

"Greatly" appreciative - as in, money? [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

Section 43 of the Constitutional Act, 1982:

quote:43. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to one or more, but not all, provinces, including

(a) any alteration to boundaries between provinces, and
(b) any amendment to any provision that relates to the use of the English or the French language within a province,

may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies.

Thanks, Unionist. "Greatly appreciative" means a couple of rounds if you ever make it down to Saint John.

ETA; Thanks to Lagatta, as well.

[ 21 July 2008: Message edited by: Caissa ]

The point I took from Wilf was that change needs to be done foremost with consideration of the people who will face the change.

quote:Originally posted by Pogo:
The point I took from Wilf was that change needs to be done foremost with consideration of the people who will face the change.

Interesting viewpoint. Who are the "people who will face the change" and which Ontarians will not "face the change"?

For example, some Jews and Muslims and evangelical Christians and others were no doubt hoping John Tory's funding promise would happen. The elimination of Catholic public schools will impact on their expectations, will it not?

And what of the majority of Ontarians who want a single system? Will they be facing this change too?

In BC Catholic schools are private and private schools get a fraction of the funding that public schools get (there are compelling arguments for the fraction and for giving them nothing). I don't see a need for a Catholic school board but for me it is a question of timing, process and priority.

quote:Originally posted by Pogo:
... for me it is a question of timing, process and priority.

What did you think of my idea of "no new students"? That way everyone in the system gets to finish if they want?

I would be okay with that. I would even be okay with a more rapid change that took the interest of current students and employees into consideration.

I do think it would be stupid however to take a run at it at the wrong time and not only lose and set the issue back, but also weaken the ability to stand for other issues. I like the idea of taking the idea out of the political mix and having an independant commission look at it.

quote:Originally posted by Stargazer:
Don't tell me I'm dishonest. You essentially called me a liar.

Your stance is incorrect. If people want their kids to so badly go to a separate school, they can pay for it. Otherwise their kids can can to the same school as the unwashed masses attending public school.

If you call me a liar again, I'll have to notify the mods.

ETA: it is not the same as removing funding from public hospitals, which are open to ALL people, in all walks of society. Now who is being dishonest?

1) Catholic schools are open to ALL students, in all walks of society. Just like Catholic hospitals are open to ALL patients.

2) Pretending that it's as simple as cutting off funding is entirely disingenuous.

Anyone who thinks that only an insignificantly small number of students will be forced to leave the separate school system when forced to pay tuition isn't being dishonest. However, they also aren't in touch with reality.

If the Catholic system is going to remain in place for tuition paying students, that means they keep their buildings. When an avalanche of students are forced to leave the system because they can't afford tuition fees, that means schools will close. Public boards might buy and re-open some of those schools, but the schools still close.

quote:Originally posted by lagatta:
Well here in Quйbec the religion-based boards were eliminated (the outcome of a protracted struggle) and replaced with language-based boards.

No schools were closed because of that. Of course schools, like hospitals do get closed due to government cutbacks and underfunding, of for legitimate reasons such as sharp declines in enrolment.

I understand this, but it isn't the same argument. It isn't about "cutting off funding", but about public boards taking over separate boards. It also means that the separate system won't exist for those who want to pay to send their kids to attend.

Good point Grey, I was going to comment on the Catholic hospital thing too. They exist with public funding.

I think that people need to understand that Catholic schools are not all identical. Each school has its own politics. When I was attending you could "opt out" of religion class after grade 9 or 10. And as I recounted, religion class could be kinda fun for the critical non-believer.

Catholic or Public, schools can be incredibly oppressive places for youth. Whether young people are being "indoctrinated" with a religion of the Catholic flavour or the public religion of capitalism and hierarchy really doesn't make a lot of difference in my mind. I went to Catholic school, an incredibly conservative Catholic school, and I think that it actually contributed in a good way to my concientization.

One notable difference about Catholic schools and "public" schools is that Catholic schools make room for spirituality. Yes, Catholic spiritualities for the most part, but I had many friends in Catholic school who were not Catholic (or even Christian) and who were aloud to talk, discuss, and celebrate their spirituality at school and in class. There is no room for this in public schools. From what I have heard, having many friends who are teachers in both systems, public schools have a chill effect regarding spirituality because they try to do the secular thing in the bureaucratic, PC way typical in this province. Think anti-racism vs. "multiculturalism".

There are many, many bad things about Catholic schools but there are also some things that I think have value and public schools could learn from.

quote:Originally posted by Le Tйlйspectateur:
...There are many, many bad things about Catholic schools but there are also some things that I think have value and public schools could learn from.

Promoting spirituality and/or belief in a supernatural power isn't one of them, however. The seperation of church and state is essential for democracy and should not be accepted in any form.

You make it sound as if there was no pressure at all to accept spirituality and catholicism at the school you attended. My guess is that there was a lot of pressure indirectly on students to conform and be part of the greater mission of the school, despite an official policy of openess. You may not have felt it, and I suspect that you beleive in god and are a Catholic, so this would not be not surprising.

Also, values and economics that are taught in public and Catholic school will reflect what ever the ruling order is in society, and kids are taught to think like capitalist wage slaves in one same as the other.

It would be nice if we had only one school system. My guess is that if any future goverment decided to get rid of the Catholic separate school system, a publicly funded charter system would takes its place. Charter schools are essentially publicly funded school authorities that do not have geographic boundaries. Charter schools are not the same as private schools in that charter schools, like public schools, cannot charge added tuition. They also follow the same curriculum as public schools do (although private schools can follow the curriculum). They can add content, and offer differnt teaching and learning strategies.

If a future government were do abolish the Catholic separate school system and introduced charter schools, most of the separate schools would turn into publicly funded Catholic charter schools. Also, other religious and non-religious charter schools could start. Charter schools could offer unique religious programs, but would not be able to discriminate against students and teachers living within a geographic area. For example, a non-Catholic student could enroll at a Catholic charter school. A non-Catholic teacher would no longer be denied employment because he or she doesn't have a priest's letter. However, both the student and teacher would need to adhere to the charter's mission statement.

How would the introduction of charter schools affect the public school system? Public schools may lose a few students in urban areas. In rural areas, students may join together to be taught in one public school. Public schools will need to become more innovative in offering unique programs to keep students within the public school system as have occured in Calgary and Edmonton.

I have mentioned in previous forums that John Tory made the mistake in offering funding for private religious schools. It was a mistake because public funding would have gone to private entities that could still charge tuition and just to religious schools. Non-religious private schools would have received no funding. I think he gambled in that he thought that non-"Faith Based" supporting voters would not notice while "Faith Based" supporters would and vote for his party. Those who opposed his proposal noticed and voted against him big time.

I do think that any party can and will implement changes to Ontario's school system. Don't think that only the Tories will make these changes.

...perhaps I am just a coward, afraid of losing what we do have, but...

I think we should be cautious in calling for an end of public money for Catholic, Islamic, Protestant, Jewish schools, / separate school boards.

Essentially, these schools are in the realm of public education. They are guided by rights and regulations and responsibilities.

We are helping the case of those that are attempting to divide and conquer public education, the camp that wants to privatise the Public school systems, and create for profit institutions from K to 12.

There are legitimate concerns about doctrine, attitudes, and social ramifications in the faith based schools, but I don't think these challenges trump the goals of corporations and think tanks to privatise our schools.

[ 23 July 2008: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

Darn , I miss all the fun stuff. First thing I have to say is, I'm not going to theorize, I'm going to generalize from my experience. Not one thing I say here can not be backed up with a real life example.

First , the Catholic system is discriminatory. They have the right to , and discriminate against qualified teachers, on the basis of their religion. No publicly funded body should have that right. There are many teachers who are Catholic teaching in the public system. But only Catholic teachers can teach in the Catholic system. This is a clear and strategy of the Catholic church in Ontario to try and ensure that Catholics teach the majority of Ontario's children, Catholic or not.

Second. If tax money is used to support Catholic schools, and Catholic schools hold compulsory masses during school hours, tax dollars are being used to fund religious services. Again, no other religion in Ontario has the right to do this. It's discriminatory and should be illegal.

Third, only the Catholic religion has the right to teach religious courses during the school day. IN grades 9, 10 and 12 Catholicism is taught for a one credit course in the Dufferin Peel board. And in that board, it's compulsory. No other religion can determine for the ministry what can be taught in 3 credit courses. The Catholic board has even rewritten the grade 11 World Religions text to conform to a Catholic perspective.

In short, the Catholic Church has taken the opportunity to have Catholic schools and turned it into Catholic privilege, taking for themselves opportunities denied every other religion in Canada.

Having taught for the Windsor Board of Education, The Timmins Board of Education and the Dufferin Peel Catholic School Board , I would also offer the following the observations. This would not be necessarily be generalized to all boards, but would be food for further exploration. I found that based on my experience with these Boards, the Catholic board was a poisoned environment for the teachers. After all the goal of a Catholic board is to produce Catholics. We wouldn't want to alienate and future Catholics by actually demanding any accountability by the students. The first day I marched a kid down to the office for a black and white uniform violation, the student actually said to me, " I don't know why you're doing this, you're going to be in the office longer than I am." He was right, and it remained true throughout my Catholic teaching career. Discipline was so much better in the public system, it was a joke. Public school students had more time for electives such as tech, art and music. By the time you subtract 4 religion courses from the 12 possible electives, Catholic students could take one third fewer electives than the equivalent public school student.

My solution.. one public school system for everyone. If parents feel compulsory religious education is necessary, ad and extra period to the day and use the resources of the school to enforce attendance. But the same opportunities should exist for all religions. If they miss extra-curriculars, tough luck. Making religion painless is a farce. I gave up tons to be a member of a small religion when I was in high school. Catholic education as practiced in Ontario is a scam.

During Catholic education week there was a shameless assembly promoting Catholic Education, where it was clearly stated that a Catholic Education was superior to any other type of education and that the students were so lucky they were getting one.

In my opinion, such shameless self promotion and bigotry should never be paid for with tax money. The current system discriminates against everyone but Catholics. And I have completely lost all respect for those who try and make themselves out as anything but privileged opportunists.

The Catholic system promotes ignorance on a grand scale, to the point where students used to seek me out to get answers they couldn't get elsewhere such as, " Do other Christians celebrate Christmas?". No lie, if you support the Catholic system, that's what you are supporting. Keep your faith, but live in the world.

[ 23 July 2008: Message edited by: retiredguy ]

quote:Originally posted by TemporalHominid:
...We are helping the case of those that are attempting to divide and conquer public education, the camp that wants to privatise the Public school systems, and create for profit institutions from K to 12.

I liked what retired guy wrote.

But, to TemporalHominid: You must supply something more than a sweeping statement. Whom exactly are we helping to divide and conquer the school system by advocating a unified, publically controlled school system? We need a few names here, and a few details about how that insidious goal could be furthered by supporting the exact opposite. Sorry, but I'm confused.

Anybody know how to figure out how much of any given individual's taxes go specifically to Catholic schools?

Yeah yeah, I know someone is gonna say that its about principle, so the amount doesn't matter. But I'm talking practical. How much am I actually paying for this?

In Ontario, 15ў out of every dollar of government spending goes to elementary and secondary education (not counting money collected through property taxes). Currently about 31% of that goes to funding Catholic schools, so an Ontario taxpayer is supporting Catholic schools to the tune of about 5ў on every dollar they pay to the provincial government.

I'll try to get info on B.C. It's not easy, because B.C. only gives partial funding to faith -based, "independent" schools of many religious denominations, and the funding formula is different according to "categories" of schools. For example, the largest category, with more than 67,000 students, receives 50 per cent of the funding available to their local school district.

[ 24 July 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

Thanks M. Spector.

I'm woefully ignorant of who gets what portion of our taxes and how they are collected.

So does this funding come from income tax? PST? Gas tax? Property tax? All of the above?

quote:Originally posted by the grey:
Catholic schools are open to ALL students, in all walks of society. Just like Catholic hospitals are open to ALL patients....except, of course, the ones who want abortions.

As for Catholic schools: quote:Separate school boards in Ontario regularly discriminate against non-Catholic Ontarians (two-thirds of the population, 2001 Census) in admissions. At the elementary school level, separate school boards have absolute control over the denominational aspects of education. The religion of you or your child is considered by the Ministry of Education to be a denominational aspect of education that separate boards may control. If you are not a Catholic, you have no right to admission.

The situation with secondary schools is quite different. There, "open access" applies and public school supporters must be admitted to the separate school in their area upon request. In practice, this "open access" begins at grade 9 (Ottawa-Carleton Catholic School Board). Be wary of entrance interviews for new students at the secondary school level. One usually expects that an interview has two possible outcomes: acceptance or rejection. In this case, rejection is not an option, but the interview serves to suggest that it is and discourages some from even applying. Source

quote:Did you know…

• The cost of running parallel school systems (public and separate) serving overlapping jurisdictions amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

• School boards across the province are now cutting staff and programs to deal with funding shortfalls while well over a million dollars per day goes up in smoke due to unnecessary duplication.

• Separate school boards have an absolute right to discriminate against non-Catholic children in admissions (until grade 9) and against non-Catholic teachers in employment (at all grade levels).

• All Ontarians bear the same tax burden, but only those of the Roman Catholic faith are guaranteed a publicly-funded school choice.

• School support designations on municipal property assessments have no effect on total school board funding, which is ultimately determined by enrolment and other documented needs.

• Canada has now been censured twice by the UN Human Rights Committee (in 1999 and again in 2005) for violating the equality rights of its own citizens by virtue of the religious discrimination in the Ontario school system.

• Of the 800,000 students bussed in Ontario every day; tens of thousands are bussed past their nearest publicly funded school to attend another publicly-funded school. Those children would have shorter commutes or would walk under one school system, bringing fiscal, environmental, health, and lifestyle benefits.

• The religious segregation of Ontario children results in de facto racial and ethnic segregation that further undermines the development of tolerance and respect between Ontarians of different backgrounds.oneschoolsystem.org

quote:Originally posted by Robespierre:

.

But, to TemporalHominid: You must supply something more than a sweeping statement. Whom exactly are we helping to divide and conquer the school system by advocating a unified, publicly controlled school system? We need a few names here, and a few details about how that insidious goal could be furthered by supporting the exact opposite. Sorry, but I'm confused.

Yea,h I'll name some names and provide some links

the end of not-for-profit public services- Maude Barlow

The Alberta Case [95]- chronic underfunding of public education by the Klein government, the Reform Party of Canada calling for more "choice" for those that can afford it

quote:Education, just like the telephone service, electric power and many other essential services, could and should be privatized. But for the time being the ideology of public education is still strong, and that means that government-owned school systems will continue to exist. In those circumstances, the best policy is to introduce as many competitive elements as possible. Tom Flanagan, University of Calgary and advisor to the then Reform Party, Globe and Mail (July 16, 1998)

quote:OUT OF CONTROL: The great socialist experiment in public education has resulted in rampant school violence, runaway costs, poor performance and furious parents. The alternative is privatization -Alberta Report, July 5, 1993

I should note, Alberta was 1st jurisdiction to privatise liquor retailing [96].

quote: Liquor consumption has increased (with its potential risks of increasing social ills), wholesale costs have risen, and retail prices have increased. Although retail prices have increased, the tax revenues to government have fallen significantly.

Alberta has pursued electricity and natural gas deregulation; the Klein government promised Albertans lowered electricity prices and more stable supplies once electricity was subjected to the competitive pressures of the marketplace.

The price of electricity rose over 500% between June and October 2000, and even more since then.
Albertans are paying a lot more, and experiencing moreblackouts [97] under deregulation.

As a result of deregulation in Alberta, Ontario, Montana and California, the consumer [98] is the loser- as they pay higher and higher bills for gas and electricity, but less service and a less reliable supplies

[ 24 July 2008: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

quote:Originally posted by Pogo:
I do think it would be stupid however to take a run at it at the wrong time and not only lose and set the issue back, but also weaken the ability to stand for other issues. I like the idea of taking the idea out of the political mix and having an independent commission look at it.
That's actually the best solution. A government that did that would have plausible deniability- they could always point to the independent commission's recommendations. The risk, of course, is that the commission would recommend something else (like, say, expanding funding to other religious schools).