Catholic school funding - continued

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

Quote:

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

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

Left J.A.B. wrote:

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

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

Lard Tunderin' Jeezus wrote:

Left J.A.B. wrote:

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

We do not have a protestant school system in Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

n/c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Savings in transportions would increase on the same scale. 

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

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

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

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

Normal
0

false
false
false

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

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

Normal
0

false
false
false

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

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

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

janfromthebruce wrote:

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

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

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

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

janfromthebruce wrote:

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

Savings in transportions would increase on the same scale. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

unionist wrote:

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

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

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

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

 

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

Separate highways for the Amish?

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

HERE HERE!!!!!

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

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

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

janfromthebruce wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

unionist wrote:

... there should still be only one public secular system. 

It's about ending segregation and building social solidarity.

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

unionist wrote:

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

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

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

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

unionist wrote:

Wilf Day wrote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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