Catholic school funding 4

And you can quit with dredging up history of the Church to the exclusion of their royal masters, if it's not too much trouble, please and thank you. Everyone was obligated to get along with insane and inbred bluebloods and their genetic baggage ruling the roost for centuries, and the Church was no exception. According to you people there were no megalomaniacs giving the orders and commanding empires in those days, just evil monks and priests who made life somewhat bearable for the desperately poor until Henry and centuries of enclosure. Bloody Liberals and their exclusive private property laws are the root of all evil today.

Trade Unionist wrote:

The issue now is to get rid of the Catholic public schools.

Why? Fiscal prudence? Efficiency? To come full circle, a complete mirror image of the imperial master nation, USSA? You're a stooge for big box privatization jackals and neoliberalisation of the commons? Neoliberalism is falling down around our ears, TU. You must try harder. Focus with everything youve got and lay it on the line for us. Go!

George Victor wrote:

 But if the separate school ratepayer is happy with what is happening to the kids, I don't believe logic will move her.

Well, whether people whose religion is funded by public tax dollars are "happy" about that or not is not the prime consideration, is it?

Fidel wrote:

Trade Unionist wrote:

The issue now is to get rid of the Catholic public schools.

Why? Fiscal prudence?

No.

Quote:

Efficiency?

No.

Quote:

To come full circle, a complete mirror image of the imperial master nation, USSA?

No.

Quote:

You're a stooge for big box privatization jackals and neoliberalisation of the commons?

Yeah, that's it, you got me.

Actually, in case you've had a hard time reading my posts, Catholic public education should be abolished even if that were to cost more, be less efficient, and downgrade the overall quality of education.

It should be abolished because: 1) our public schools should not be segregated on the basis of religion; and 2) society's common resources should not be used to line the pockets of priests and rabbis and imams by enabling them to cultivate disciples at public expense.

It's simple, really. It's a matter of principle, so basic that you don't even have to be a socialist - just a humble democratic-minded person - to support it.

It's coming to a school near you. Better to try to shed your Catholic school upbringing and welcome the future with arms open rather than with heels dug in.

Therefore every priest and monk who ever worked on behalf of the Church must have been cozy with European royalty? Perhaps some but certainly not all. Vows of poverty were taken seriously by very many. I've never once said anything about admiring or worshipping Catholic Popes. There is a right wing of the Church for a long time.

The Medici family were simply part of the thousand year-old Venetian-Dutch-Anglo banking system of usurous money lending. Italy is where banking began. The Medici's were viewed as somewhat enlightened stewards who financed artistic endevours and expanding trade. But they also loaned money to European royalty who made sport of warring with other inbred blue bloods and murderous cutthroats,  who at some point in history or another demanded everyone refer  to them as nobles and royalty. Charade they were. But it was the Genoa bankers who gained a notorious reputation for being greedy and vicious speculators.

u:

Well, whether people whose religion is funded by public tax dollars are "happy" about that or not is not the prime consideration, is it?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm trying to imagine the strange assemblage of political events that would have to be cobbled together to make that mom  "unhappy" , u. Or her thoughts on the matter becoming irrelevant - in the face of a history of religious sickness raised again to importance for contemporary decision-makers - resurrected as if it somehow meant something more than diddly squat in the face of today's questions confronting a "ratepayer" mom.

Aren't you again cherry-picking in hit and run fashion to steer discussion/debate around an uncomfortable  "reality"?

 I have been away for a couple of days. But one thing I would like to know, if how many posters have actually had children in schools recently. Or stepped in side a school recently. 

Why I ask this, it appears that some folks are talking about their elementary school experiences from  - my goodness - how long ago. It makes me very concerned that folks are bringing in their old prejudges and experiences which are not a part of school today. This is 2008 folks, not 1946, not 1950s, the 60s and so on. Do you even have children???

The focus should be about "kids in desks". And as for the notion that "80%" of the costs are related to teachers salaries well that is bogus. 

Another thing, and this is a reminder to brother Cassidy, the province, like the rest of Canada has been experiencing a zero population growth for over 10 years, even with immigration. In Ontario we have lost over 90,000 students since 2000 in both public and separate school systems. The overall trend is down even in large urban centres. Only Durham and perhaps Peel is experiencing growth, but futuristically the trend line is an overall decrease. 

I think that providing religious instruction, where there is sufficient community interest, either within and or outside the school day (for any group) would provide the Catholic community, as well as other faith communities the "equal" and "equitable" opportunity to provide interested children and their parents accomodation and thus provide "everyone choice"  within a publicly funded unified education system in Ontario.

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

janfromthebruce wrote:

I think that providing religious instruction, where there is sufficient community interest, either within and or outside the school day (for any group) would provide the Catholic community, as well as other faith communities the "equal" and "equitable" opportunity to provide interested children and their parents accomodation and thus provide "everyone choice"  within a publicly funded unified education system in Ontario.

You're suggesting publicly-funded religious instruction - for Catholics and other faiths? Or did I misunderstand?

This would be different from John Tory's proposal... how?

quote:

"My childhood taught me that one should bloody well have a good reason for segregating children."

-----------------------

In fact, I find it hard to think of any reason that justifies it.

Now, how do we get there?

And your input here is indeed most welcome. Experience is important. Speaking for the future of one's children and grandchildren is important.  A leavening influence when rhetoric becomes high blown.

"I think that providing religious instruction, where there is sufficient
community interest, either within and or outside the school day (for
any group) would provide the Catholic community, as well as other faith
communities the "equal" and "equitable" opportunity to provide
interested children and their parents accomodation and thus provide
"everyone choice"  within a publicly funded unified education system in
Ontario. "

is going to fly anywhere????????

Are there not any polls indicating the rate at which Catholic moms would go for integrated schooling?

I'm trying to simplify the point to aid understanding out there in babbledom.

And your observations on the return to the lurid historical events that moved the Orange Order in the past are much appreciated."

If one was to look at the Vector survey (OSSTF, 2005) Catholic school parents, like their public school parents, when asked in order of preference of value in choosing one school over another for the children when asked this question: "Please tell me which one is most important to you if you were choosing a school for your child," responded thusly:

The quality of teaching staff: 50%

The range of courses and programs: 13%

The school is close to home instead of having to travel: 12%

The school has religious instruction for the children: 14%

One has to take note of the very small percentage of Catholic School parents (14%) that indicated that the availability of religious instruction was the most important factor that they considered when selecting a school for their children. The focus should be on the quality of public education. 

I am presently doing a critque of the OSSTF study done in 2005, as there were many flaws of the study. One thing it didn't focus on was the phenomona of declining student enrolment, nor the fact that 4 school systems in overlapping geographical areas serve and compete for the same student population and thus missed that when comparing it to amalgamation of like school boards serving different geographic areas. It also did not consider the cost savings for reinvestment when whole buildings are removed. Remember, our school infrastructure had been greatly neglected over the past 20 years and the overall lack of capital investment in repair and mainetance in these public buildings (which many are old) requires a great infusion of "cash." We also need to build schools for future consideration of oil being $500.00 a barrel and thus building eco-friendly buildings that will last alot longer than when we use to build schools (thinking about the environment - global warming - and ecological footprint). Right across this province we have school busses taking kids by schools that they should be able to attend to further distanced schools,  due to "funding 4 separate systems." Some of these kids could become walkers again, some would have a lot shorter bus trips, and the environment would become the overall winner, along with kids all going to school together, in a system were one puts "kids first" and "quality of programmings" first. 

I also would suggest that if survey participants were asked today about  "the importance of the "local community school," it would receive a much more higher rating, as "school closures have greatly increased since 2005. A moretorium on school closures was lifted in the last 3 years, and thus there has been rapid succession of closures and with lots more to come in the next couple of years. 

I just want to insert here that although most school boards want to build eco-friendly schools the upfront costs are just prohibitive and we don't get enough money from the province for this to happen so if we are going replace these old buildings we end up replacing with ones that - in the long run - are not at the level of environmental friendliness or sustainability. Once again, the costs of propping up 4 separate systems is bad for the environment.

I think that if "kids were at the centre" of this "debate" they would be providing the "adults" with very different priorities, and environmental sustainability would be very high up on their list and all the ramifications that would proceed from the goal, along with the elimination of user fees and fundraising for "extras" that are not frills but are the underpinning of a well-rounded quality education system that provides well-funded quality programs.  

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

 unionist, you asked me a question re "religious program instruction". I think that this could be a pragmatic approach as it provides all faith groups (where there is enough community interest" to provide space use within our community school buildings "equal opportunity." I didn't suggest that we would pay for it out of public funds, but as public buildings all groups in communities have a right to use our buildings. No one would be given a priority but all would be welcomed, and thus inclusive. 

Likewise, if just say the humanist society wanted to offer an afterschool program, and there was enough community interest, they could do so. 

In school, boards would provide a world religion course - as part of the curriculum. Again, the curriculum could include a segment related to groups who do not espouse any religious beliefs. 

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

Thanks, jan. I think I misunderstood when you talked about religious instruction "within and or outside the school day".

As I've mentioned before, after a 10-year transition, Québec stopped permitting optional religious courses and instituted a mandatory "ethics and world religions" course (which was already available as an option). This course is mandatory in all schools, including private ones.

I have demanded clarity all along, George. Most of us are all about it, so your volunteer moderation isn't really necessary, thanks. Please feel free to make a passive aggressive comment about my lack of civility, though. I couldn't really care less.

A much more sincere thanks to riffraffrenegade for his first contribution here. In one post, you contributed more than many have with dozens. 

riffraffrenegade wrote:

My childhood taught me that one should bloody well have a good reason for segregating children. I understand why French speaking Canadians needed their own schools and why they have a right to those schools. I respectfully disagree that Catholics have that right carved in stone, nor do I believe that they should continue to receive that privilege. Catholics are no longer oppressed and in many ways have become the oppressor

But there were no shortages of reasons for segregating whole nations of people onto reserves across Canada for a long time. The "crown" and their wealthy land speculating friends had no intentions of ever giving it back. First Nations people are still looking for land claims settlements in Ontario where they own somewhere around one percent or less of the total land. We should laugh a derisive laugh at false "concern for children" expressed by our two stale old line parties who have an historical hand in Canadian apartheid and the poverty experienced by First Nations through today. As unionist once said in an unrelated thread for discussion, This "children" bullshit has to stop. Please, let's at least be serious about whose concerns are addressed with making a business of school funding.  

I fail to see how Canada's deplorable treatment of First Nations people justifies Ontario continuing its discriminatory practices wrt Catholic school funding and hiring.

OK, let's get serious about whose concerns are addressed with making a business of school funding.

Last month, I attended the Ontario Association of Parents in Catholic Education's Regional Forum "The Future of Catholic Education" at Regiopolis-Notre Dame, Canada's Oldest English Catholic High School. The turn-out was poor for a regional forum addressing the Catholic school system's very survival. I would estimate about 30 parents max after I separated out presenters, clergy, trustees, and teachers. And many of the parents there had children in the band which performed at the forum. The band almost outnumbered the audience.
The keynote speaker, a Sister Clare Fitzgerald from Boston College, made it clear that Catholic parents don't seem to see the value in Catholic faith-based education and suggested that Catholic parents do not want to appear uncanadian by lobbying to maintain their "right" to Catholic education. She confirmed that the vast majority of parents choose Catholic schools for, what parents perceive to be, superior academics and discipline.
They had a panel "Working Together to Strengthen Catholic Education" where reps from OCSTrusteeA and OECTeacherA talked about having "nailed Michael Prue to the wall" for even suggesting this should become an ONDP leadership issue. I guess they wanted to leave Prue's actual crucifixion to the ONDP membership.

Thanks, RRR, for bringing some sanity to this discussion. And don't worry about the tangents. You seem to be learning quickly how to sidestep them.

On second thought, maybe we should postpone educational reform until we have licked climate change and achieved peace on earth.

Merry Christmas!

u the sanctimonious:

I have yet to see one of your posts which doesn't contain such a veiled attack. What precise purpose does it serve to carry on this campaign? I have exhorted you to just state your views and stop insulting and attacking individuals here, as well as babble in general. I'll reiterate that now.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Babble is a dangerous place to enter, u.

Here's riffraffrenegade putting his toe in the water after watching exchanges for a few days:

I am new to babble so please go easy on me. I don't have the keenest mind. I am not a great writer nor am I a public speaker. This takes me so far outside my comfort zone but I feel I must fight this fight for my children and grandchildren.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You would never be the cause for this caution of course, u. But then again, quick perusal of your snotty offerings, might give it the lie.

i.e.

George, I love you dearly, but don't be supercilious. Attack people's style one individual at a time. Don't attack babble. It's our home. Make it better.

Seems to me we could all make it more welcoming, u. Even you.

So cut the sanctimony and the puritanical pontification.

riffraffrenegade's opener:

I am new to babble so please go easy on me. I don't have the keenest mind. I am not a great writer nor am I a public speaker. This takes me so far outside my comfort zone but I feel I must fight this fight for my children and grandchildren.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are doing wonderfully.

Please explain the Michael Prue bit for me. The trustees and teachers are angry at Prue for wanting to do just what, exactly?

Fidel wrote:

Those feelings of enmity in Ireland were fomented by British colonialism  over long periods of time with Catholics taking the brunt of it.

Actually, it was the [b][i]|Irish people[/i][/b] who took the brunt of it. Britain didn't stop to ask one's faith before colonizing, exploiting, starving, and expelling. The Catholics in England weren't subject to any such privations. Nice to see you situating the Irish problem in religious terms, though. Thank God the Irish themselves have gotten past that.

Unionist wrote:

Actually, it was the [b][i]|Irish people[/i][/b] who took the brunt of it. Britain didn't stop to ask one's faith before colonizing, exploiting, starving, and expelling. The Catholics in England weren't subject to any such privations. Nice to see you situating the Irish problem in religious terms, though. Thank God the Irish themselves have gotten past that.

Jeez, and I thought Whigs and Tories in London went out of their way favour Protestants and shit disturbing loyalists. I believe the 13 people shot to death by British soldiers on Bloody Sunday were all Catholics, if I'm not mistaken. They were just going about their business when it happened. And British soldiers stood by and did nothing down the road from Bernadette Devlin's house while it was shot up and ransacked. 

I kind of got lost when Fidel started talking about King Henry VIII. 

Anyway I say bring it on.  The more the Catholic Church mobilizes about their "historic right" and how opposing separate school funding is "anti-Catholic" the more Ontarians will want to get rid of their archaic privileges. 

Lord Palmerston wrote:

I kind of got lost when Fidel started talking about King Henry VIII. 

Anyway I say bring it on.  The more the Catholic Church mobilizes about their "historic right" and how opposing separate school funding is "anti-Catholic" the more Ontarians will want to get rid of their archaic privileges. 

And for that I demand a shrubbery on your return post. Not an expensive one as tax cutters wont appreciate it much. Just a pretty one.

riffraffrenegade wrote:

Yes, Fidel, those ethnic and religious tensions are old, worn out and irrelevant to most Ontario Catholics under the age of 45.

In 1973, a Queen's U. at Kingston History professor, Donald Akenson, wrote Education & Enmity: The Control of Schooling in Northern Ireland. Akenson is quoted in the Queen's Alumni Review May 19, 2008 Volume 82, Number 2: "I didn't see how segregating kids [by religion] from age three or four to at least age 18 could produce anything but enmity".
Akenson's work provided a catalyst for a small group of youth and parents in Belfast who in 1974 got together to start planning for the first integrated school in NI. They opened their first school, Lagan College, in Belfast in 1981 and opened three more in 1984. (Just about that time, Bill Davis decided to extend Ontario Catholic School funding to grade 13.) Today, that small parent group has evolved into the Northern Ireland Council on Integrated Education. Michael Wardlow, NICIE's director, tells me that Akenson's work remains a seminal text in the study of integration ethos. NICIE now has over 60 integrated nursery, elementary and secondary schools throughout NI. Parents have been willing to mortgage their homes in order to make this happen. This past fall, NICIE had to turn away 700 students.
As I said to Mr. Wardlow, the world has much to learn from those first brave parents and children who risked more than I can imagine to make this happen. They faced stiff opposition from church authorities in 1974 and they still do. But the will of the people is winning out. And yes integration is all about the children.

This past spring, Akenson received an honorary doctorate from Queen's University (Belfast) for his body of work on the Irish diaspora.

RRR - thanks so much for posting. I would be very interested in reading of this individual's intergration work in Ireland. I too am interested in what is happening to Prue. 

At this point , what  Prue has advocated is to allow the membership to debate this policy idea. I think it is very democratic of him and shows leadership. It also makes me realize that some on the executive are concerned that it might well get wide support and thus the prevention of allowing this to come to the floor for debate in the last 4 conventions. That's very sad for a political party to prides itself on grassroots democracy.

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