# The  School Funding Thread- Merged



## Simon (24 Sep 2007)

I was at a service yesterday for a dear friend and fellow political warrior,  , Lindsey Mason was a political animal whose relentless dedication to the Conservative movement and charities was an inspiration to us all, Mr. Harris called both Provincial elections in Lindseys backyard, you may recall the teacher that climbed the tree next door and shouted obsenities at Harris. She worked tirelessly for the reform party pushing grassroots up policy, and was instrumental in its success and in the joining and healing of the federal conservative divide. She will be missed.

Afterwards, as would be fitting there was a discussion which involved 8 of us, all past riding association presidents, past candidates, etc. and several campaign managers for provincial conservative candidates on the topic of " Extending School Funding to all religions in Ontario". 

There was significant resistance to this idea articulated to the campaign managers, I myself stated that I would be parking my vote pending John backing off. I suggested a compromise position, that being that Tory should model what Harper did on same sex marriage, pledge a commitment to a debate on the topic in the legislature, and allow a free vote. Hopefully this is in discussion this morning at PCHQ, we'll see.

Anyway, the managers seemed to believe our resistance wasn't reflected in the polling they had done, so I put it to you in Ontario, do you believe we should extend funding to all religious schools in Ontario? Yes or no?

To make it clear the conditions are 3:
1- the schools must teach the Ontario school curriculum
2- the teachers must be recognized as accredited by a recognized body.
3- the schools must implement standardized testing

I shall pass the results on (final tally only) to the aforementioned campaign managers.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Sep 2007)

Much as I like John Tory he won't be getting my usual Conservative vote as long as he continues down this path.....


----------



## glock17 (24 Sep 2007)

It's the 21st century, publicly funded "religious" education of any kind does not belong here. People may worship on their own time and with their own dollar, don't waste any more of mine.

Why must we constantly revisit the most glaringly obvious and heinious mistakes of history? Religion is in itself, the most divisive and destructive of all of "MAN'S" incarnations. While we have entrenched in our law's that we must tolerate it, why must we endorse the poisoning of further generations of fragile young minds?

So I think that would be a "No" for me........


----------



## dapaterson (24 Sep 2007)

I'd favour full portability of school funding - parents receive vouchers that their school of choice (accredited curriculum and standardized testing) receive.

The current method of funding one religious groups over others runs afoul of guarantees of equality.  Letting parents decide provides an impetus for quality - right now, other than those of above average means, it is difficult to remove your children from sub-standard schools - you lack choice.

Abolish the school boards' duopolies and you'll see an immediate qualitative improvement in schooling.  I suspect we'd see even more improvement if we abolished credentialism in teachers and insisted on performance instead, but one rice bowl at a time...


----------



## Strike (24 Sep 2007)

I would suggest a fourth caveat: a student does not have to be of a specific denomination to attend one of these [publicly funded] schools.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Sep 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Much as I like John Tory he won't be getting my usual Conservative vote as long as he continues down this path.....



Same here.  I look at his proposal as bringing about more Segregation, rather than more acceptance of different cultures.   To me, Secular Schools brings to mind Segregated Schools, and that doesn't seem like it means "Inclusive" to me.  It means "EXCLUSIVE", excluding many minorities.  Not a good thing in my books.


----------



## exgunnertdo (24 Sep 2007)

Spent my whole life in Manitoba until last year, including 10 years of public school teaching.  I am now trying to figure out this debate, so that I can vote intelligently.

I can't figure out why the debate seems to be two choices - Extend the current funding given to public and Catholic schools to all faith-based schools who follow the three rules, or continue the status quo, which allows public funding to one faith only - Catholics.  Neither makes sense to me.

In Manitoba (this is a condensed version of education funding, so don't get wrapped up around the details, please) - The province funds several thousand dollars (don't know the exact figure) per student per year to the school division that student is enrolled in.  Private schools (religious or not) who follow the rules get "per student" funding as well (don't know if it's the same as public funding).  All concerned recognize that the funding provided by the province is not enough, and the remainder is made up by school taxes (for the public school divisions) or tuition (for the private schools).

I don't see why Catholics get a fully funded public education, and other religions can't.  Some of the comments about the segregation of society don't make sense.  On my block, in a span of 5 houses with school aged kids, there are already 4 school boards represented.  Pretty segregated right now, if you ask me.  I know, I've heard the arguments about the historical reasons why there is Catholic schools in Ontario, but to make current public policy based on a situation that existed in the past, just because there was a need in the past, that doesn't make sense.

One or the other, if you can't or won't fund all faith-based education, then the Catholic system has to go too.  I personally favour the system used by Manitoba, and I'm sure other provinces use it too.  But it feels like my choice is either status quo, or all faiths get full funding.  I guess I'm a non vote right now until someone convinces me otherwise.


----------



## glock17 (24 Sep 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Same here.  I look at his proposal as bringing about more Segregation, rather than more acceptance of different cultures.   To me, Secular Schools brings to mind Segregated Schools, and that doesn't seem like it means "Inclusive" to me.  It means "EXCLUSIVE", excluding many minorities.  Not a good thing in my books.



I see it the same as segregation based on race, and I think we should have a problem with that.


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Sep 2007)

exgunnertdo said:
			
		

> I don't see why Catholics get a fully funded public education, and other religions can't.  Some of the comments about the segregation of society don't make sense.  On my block, in a span of 5 houses with school aged kids, there are already 4 school boards represented.  Pretty segregated right now, if you ask me.  I know, I've heard the arguments about the historical reasons why there is Catholic schools in Ontario, but to make current public policy based on a situation that existed in the past, just because there was a need in the past, that doesn't make sense.



Naturally the arguments about Catholic School Boards in Ontario is an historical one.  The details escape me right now, but suffice it to say that the funding only goes to grade 10, again, for historical reasons.  Other than saying that there was a need in the past, I would argue that you would have to say what has changed that would cause the system to change.

As I understand it, you certainly don't have to be Catholic, or even Christian for that matter, to attend Catholic schools.  Some parents (when I was growing up) chose to have their kids attend Catholic schools because the catholic system (in that school board) happened to have a better rep than the public system.  Naturally there are mandatory masses etc for the kids, but in religion class, it wasn't all papistry (if such a word exists), but there was a significant programme educating us on World Religions.  

Anyway, I have no opinion either way.  I just moved here to Upper Canada, and I'm more focussed on the "proportional representation without responsibility" boondockle being suggested in the referendum.


----------



## McG (24 Sep 2007)

I've added a poll with the two options, and a third option of my own.


----------



## glock17 (24 Sep 2007)

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association have made their opinion known, and they released a list of interesting names in support of this position.

http://www.ccla.org/schoolfunding/jointstatement.pdf


----------



## Shamrock (24 Sep 2007)

Strike said:
			
		

> I would suggest a fourth caveat: a student does not have to be of a specific denomination to attend one of these [publicly funded] schools.



Although it may have changed since I went through Catholic school, neither students nor their parents were required to be Catholic -- they just sat out all the religious bits.  At the time, that meant 1st Confession, 1st Communion, and Confirmation.  We had no classes on religion nor did we attend mass.  We did have periods dedicated to the aforementioned, though.  This is to say, not every Catholic gets a fully funded public education and not everyone in Catholic School are Catholic. 

I elect to send my property taxes to the local Catholic schoolboard; the default is public schools.  As far as I know, it is people like me who choose to fund non-secular schools who allow them to exist.  However, I don't know how these boards came to be -- was the money publicly funded or was it done through a different means?  What are the obstacles to other faiths starting their own schools?  I've heard tell of an Islam based school starting outside of Windsor.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Sep 2007)

Why limit teachers to "accredited by a recognized body", particularly in the secondary grades?  Credentialism is a recent fad in the long history of teaching.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Sep 2007)

Apparently, Ontario has had full-funding of Catholic elementary since 1964 and Catholic secondary since 1984 (both years implemented by a Conservative gov't)

As far as I know, Catholic board students, parents or ratepayers are not required to be Catholic - I know of Muslim and other families who send their kids to Catholic school so they can get a bit of "moral education".  When I went to Catholic school (mind you, that was with Fred Flinstone), we did, indeed, go to mass around the corner at least twice a month, and had religious classes.  Heck, when I was in kindergarten, we had a nun as a principal (shades of the "Blues Brothers").

I was kind of surprised reading in the Toronto Star this weekend (see below) that the Supreme Court apparently rejected a Charter challenge in 1996 (although I haven't read the decision).  If that's the case, can't see this changing too quickly to "everybody gets $".  

Shared with the usual disclaimer...



> *The roots of discord over religious schools*
> The fight over separate schools in this province predates the country itself. Religion, it turns out, is Canada's oldest and deepest fault line
> Lynda Hurst, Toronto Star, 22 Sept 07
> Article link
> ...



_- edited to put article into quote box -_


----------



## Simon (24 Sep 2007)

Thanks for the Poll, Ill only submit the results based on a yes or no, options 2 and 3 will be considered as no. Don't want to get them off on a tangent, keep em coming. 

Update, i guess we got the answer.

School plan a tough sell: Tory


John Tory admitted during a radio interview this morning that the Progressive Conservative plan to fund religious schools has turned into a tough sell.

Tory made the comments during an appearance on Toronto radio station AM 640 after the Canadian Civil Liberties Association became the latest group to weigh in on the issue. The group says Ontario should stop funding Catholic schools by seeking a constitutional amendment, as Newfoundland and Quebec have done, and not finance any more faith-based schools. 

The Conservative position is that the funding should be extended to all groups to be fair. 

“This issue is tough, I admit that,” Tory said on the radio program. “It’s controversial.” 
Alan Borovoy chief counsel for the civil liberties group said the danger of extending the funding is that a proliferation of religious schools could leave Ontario a “much less tolerant place.” 

In Oakville, Tory said he is standing by his promise to provide an estimated $400 million in funding to religious schools - provided they teach the Ontario curriculum and use accredited teachers - despite public opinion polls suggesting the idea is not catching on. 

“I think people are tired, quite frankly, of leaders who base all of their decisions…on a public opinion poll,” he said after a campaign event on property taxes where he promised to cap assessment increases at 5 per cent annually. 

“I am trying to do here what I think is right.” Tory said he must continue to explain the issue to voters as the Oct. 10 election approaches. 

He told reporters he doesn't see a need for debate over the future of Catholic schools in Ontario - a position Premier Dalton McGuinty and NDP Leader Howard Hampton have also taken while opposing the faith-based schools plan. 

McGuinty, a Catholic, said in Walkerton he would not follow the CCLA’s tack of seeking a constitutional amendment to end Catholic funding and “get this province mired in some heated controversial debate about what we are going to do with education.” 

The more important issue is funding existing public and Catholic schools properly so kids get the education they deserve and parents don’t have to hold bake sales, Hampton said at a campaign stop in Waterloo. 

With files from Richard Brennan and Robert Benzie. 


Quoting John Tory
“I think people are tired, quite frankly, of leaders who base all of their decisions…on a public opinion poll,” he said after a campaign event on property taxes where he promised to cap assessment increases at 5 per cent annually. 

No John, we are just tired of leaders who shove policies down the throats of thier supporters without consensus. Simon


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Sep 2007)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> Apparently, Ontario has had full-funding of Catholic elementary since 1964 and *Catholic secondary since 1984 * (both years implemented by a Conservative gov't)


Humph.  The year I graduated from a Catholic secondary school!  I guess that's why I said that it only went to grade 10.  Ooops.


----------



## Flip (24 Sep 2007)

Sorry Glock17

I have to disagree with this.



> It's the 21st century, publicly funded "religious" education of any kind does not belong here. People may worship on their own time and with their own dollar, don't waste any more of mine.
> 
> Why must we constantly revisit the most glaringly obvious and heinious mistakes of history? Religion is in itself, the most divisive and destructive of all of "MAN'S" incarnations. While we have entrenched in our law's that we must tolerate it, why must we endorse the poisoning of further generations of fragile young minds?



First, let me say that as far as I understand the phrase"religious education"
,you would have a province approved curriculum which would strongly resemble
every other curriculum at that grade level.

The difference is more one of context. Less like an institution - more like one's own 
family. The alternative followed by many here in Alberta is home schooling and 
iterations that are more difficult to manage and regulate.

If we shoe-horn everone into the same sterile system and simply disregard religion
culture and heritage we create a completely new set of problems and divisions.
I could elaborate.....

I think it's better to accomodate to some reasonable degree rather 
than try to remove what only a few agree is the source of all problems.

Just my opinion.....

Dogpile to follow


----------



## Simon (24 Sep 2007)

Rob Ferguson 
Queen's Park Bureau
John Tory ran into more trouble over his promise to extend taxpayer funding to religious schools today when one of his Progressive Conservative MPPs broke ranks and said he'd vote against the plan. 
Bill Murdoch, the member for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, became the first Tory MPP to say he could not support the controversial promise. Others, including veteran MPP Bob Runciman in eastern Ontario, have so far said the pledge has not been popular with voters in their ridings. 

"I didn't realize how sensitive and divisive the issue would be when it was first introduced," Murdoch said today, adding that the majority of voters he's encountered are opposed to extending funding to schools for Jews, Muslims and other religions. 

"Should this come before the legislature, as it stands today, with the majority of my riding opposed, I will vote against it." 

Tory dismissed Murdoch's opposition after a rally in Guelph. 

"When you look up maverick in the dictionary, you find his picture there in colour," Tory told reporters.


----------



## Blindspot (24 Sep 2007)

How ironic is it that I may have to vote against the PCs because they might actually keep this promise. Unfortunately none of the other parties have the balls to abolish the Catholic system. McGuinty is the ultimate hypocrite. He spouts of buzzwords such as "segregation" yet he went to Catholic school, his kids attend Catholic school, his wife teaches at a Catholic school, half of his caucus attended/taught at/were principles of Catholic schools. And I just can't bring myself to vote for the NDP.


----------



## exgunnertdo (24 Sep 2007)

We're in a new-ish suburb and the debate out here re Catholic vs Public is often around which school board gets their schools up and functioning better and faster (right now Catholic is winning).  Parents get frustrated with a 45 minute bus ride each way for their grade 7 student, just because the public school board can't build a middle school in the neighbourhood, and want to send their kid to the Catholic school around the corner.  Regardless of the policy, some parents have been told:  (1) you must be Catholic, (2) you must move *all* of your children to the Catholic system and (3) even if you meet one and two, we'll only take you if there is room in our school.  

HUH?  Our public elementary school (thankfully) is at capacity without portables this year, but the public elementary down the road (1 year old) is going to be at 12 portables this year, and they are not allowed to turn people away, as long as they live in the area.  If we were to get a whole bunch more kids, we're back to the portables!  (Just came back from parent council - this is a hot topic, along with the fact that FINALLY our 'burb is getting a new 7-12 school in 2009)

I realize that the law says you don't have to be Catholic to go to the Catholic school, but it seems like some schools send non-Catholics away, and wait for them to come back with the law in hand.  Just an impression based on the number of parents I've talked to that have been told no by a Catholic school.


----------



## the 48th regulator (24 Sep 2007)

As a Catholic, I am proud to have my tax dollars go towards a Catholic education for my children.  Our religion requires and ongoing education for our children, this has been going on since 33 AD.

As for the Religion be schooled at home, yes we raise our children in the Catholic faith.  However, I am not trained to teach them the finer points of Baptism, Confession, first Communion, Confirmation, Marriage and Death.  I can teach them about Film and Television lamps, Kilts and Setting up a hooch, as that is my background.

We are the majority religion in Canada, and second to only the Protestants in Ontario.  Where has any Catholic schooling caused any segregation?  Why then would you believe the religious school to Guide those of other faiths be any different.

Wouldn't you all agree that abolishing all, and not allowing Religious schools really is not tolerant?  I find that to be even more segregational.  We must appease the few who do not understand my faith, to make the few feel good?  How is that democratic?  

dileas

tess


----------



## TCBF (24 Sep 2007)

So: election-wise, have the Ontario Conservatives snatched defeat from the jaws of victory with this initiative?  Did they hand their opponents a club to beat them with?  Have they alienated many of their key supporters and campaign workers?  Have I used too many cliche's?


----------



## the 48th regulator (24 Sep 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> So: election-wise, have the Ontario Conservatives snatched defeat from the jaws of victory with this initiative?  Did they hand their opponents a club to beat them with?  Have they alienated many of their key supporters and campaign workers?  Have I used too many cliche's?




Could it be that his opponent in this election is the current minister of education....

What a way to throw your opponent off, put the heat on her current work, to throw her off of her campaigning.

Brilliant chess move on John Tory's part, if I may say so.

dileas

tess


----------



## DBA (24 Sep 2007)

exgunnertdo said:
			
		

> I realize that the law says you don't have to be Catholic to go to the Catholic school, but it seems like some schools send non-Catholics away, and wait for them to come back with the law in hand.  Just an impression based on the number of parents I've talked to that have been told no by a Catholic school.



The law does not grant an unrestrictred statutory right for non-Catholics to attend Catholic schools minus a religious component. Some relevant parts of the Education Act. Some circumstances where the right is granted including not having to participate in religious instruction and programs. When the conditions are not met if they are enrolled then they particpate in all the instruction and programs:



> Exemption from religious studies
> 
> (11)  On written application, a Roman Catholic board shall exempt a person who is qualified to be a resident pupil in respect of a secondary school operated by a public board from programs and courses of study in religious education if,
> 
> ...



Participating in the religious component of a Catholic school involves the parents so those not willing to make a commitment will most likely not be admitted. This is also why some non-Catholics who send students to Catholic schools aren't completely happy with the arrangement.


----------



## Blindspot (25 Sep 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> What a way to throw your opponent off, put the heat on her current work, to throw her off of her campaigning.
> Brilliant chess move on John Tory's part, if I may say so.



Unfortunately for Tory, his policy isn't flying in Ontario. Something like 70% against. Whether it becomes the major election issue remains to be seen. I think he is in tough in Don Valley West. If you go by lawn signs it's about 8-2 for Wynne.


----------



## Nemo888 (25 Sep 2007)

Isn't this just a reframe of the previous Tory governments attempt to give vouchers for any school you wish to attend? This was an underhanded attempt to allow people who have their kids in expensive private schools the ability to recoup their school taxes and essentially gut the public school system.

No thanks. Stop kissing rich peoples asses. God there is really no one to vote for.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Sep 2007)

Frankly this is or should be a non issue; six provinces already do this without social unrest or a disintegration of the education system.

I suspect the biggest opponents are the teachers unions and school boards, who receive funding "per head", any initiative which increases parental choice (vouchers, charter schools, funding of religious schools) and allows parents to opt out of the "public" school system will be violently opposed. Since Premier Pinocchio is pretty deep in the pockets of the Union movement (and the NDP more so), it is easy to see why they are whipping up opposition to this initiative. It is also a good smoke screen to deflect attention to the Premier's record in office.

My own opinion is anything which increases parental choice is better, this is not the ideal means of doing so, but a step in the right direction.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (25 Sep 2007)

> Isn't this just a reframe of the previous Tory governments attempt to give vouchers for any school you wish to attend? This was an underhanded attempt to allow people who have their kids in expensive private schools the ability to recoup their school taxes and essentially gut the public school system.
> 
> No thanks. Stop kissing rich peoples asses. God there is really no one to vote for.



Essentially yes. It was called the padded school system, by padded I mean it padded the rich pockets with our tax dollars. It allmost  destroyed the public school system. 

Mike (the pompus *****) Harris had his head so far up rich peoples asses he got a permanent tan. I think McGinty crawled up there with him, he's looking kind of brown these days.


----------



## DBA (25 Sep 2007)

There isn't enough currently enrolled in private schools to make it a problem for public school finances and the rebate/voucher wasn't going to be worth enough to matter to anybody actually 'rich'. It's people of modest means who either can't afford or currently have to make major sacrifices to have children attend private schools that the program would have benefitted most. The teacher's unions hated the idea because it would also provide for the creation of low cost private schools, like charter schools in the US, which would be a major threat to them since they have a vested interest in maintaining the current size of the public system. 

You could also take another angle for a rant: the idea was defeated by rich people who didn't like the idea of more plebes being able to afford sending their children to private schools.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Sep 2007)

If John Tory's policy allowes us to dictate that whatever is funded in religious schools is dictated by Ontario policy, I'm all for it. They teach the same, act the same, and come under the same rules, let our inspectors in, or they don'r get the funding. What' s wrong with that? They don't follow the rules, they don't get the funding. I don't see the problem. Religious classes are funded outside the sytem, and are not part of the ciriculum. If the Catholics don't do that, which they do, they get cut off. I personally think It's about time we decide, and dictate what is taught in these religious schools. Want them to teach hate and destruction for the Infidel? Then let them do what they want.............in your own neighborhood.

If you vote liberal on this simple issue, vice all the broken promises, Caledonia, taxes, health care, gun control(which provinces have no legal contol over), 150000 high paying jobs lost against 300000 minimum wage jobs created, your head is in the sand. 

The liberal gov't has cost you $900.00 a year in the new health tax ( that he PROMISED he would'nt impliment) and the other, well over twenty campain promises he broke. You've recieved nothing for your money. McGuinty is no better than the fedearl liberals when it comes to keeping a promise. THEY DON'T!!! They say what it takes to get elected then spend the rest of the time blaming previous government and lying about the doom and gloom if you don't re-elect them. THEY DO NOTHING, and HAVE DONE NOTHING!! All his promises so far will not be impemented until his third term, over four years from now. HE HAS NOI NTETION OF KEEPING THEM!!!!

State ONE thing that they have done, since being elected, that has advantaged YOU. Not ONE THING. Prove it to me here!! 

They have been a legally spineless, promise breaking, overspending government since inception.

The one million dollars they gave to the Toronto Cricket Club, on top of the other vote buying 38 million they spent in the 905  area code was YOUR TAX DOLLARS. For the immigrant vote! They stole that money from you and spent it to buy votes! Wake the F*** up.

Now McGuinty want to install another 38 or so UNELECTED MPPs. How long before he gives THEM the same 40% raise he gave himself, while Ontario workers are pitched onto the street.

Anyone that votes on one issue deserves to be DICTATED by the assholes you elect.

You can put your head in the sand and watch your neighbors end up on the street, with you next, or you can vote for anything other than the liberals.


----------



## warrickdll (25 Sep 2007)

The separated school system is nothing but divisive segregation; and, much like school board and health board systems in general, is antiquated and meaningless in Canada today.

Once again our own constitution works against us; having the courts enforcing more religious subsidies, and aspiring to please the cries of the special interest groups.

Aside from a few local historical topics and language, education should be standard across the system, as most public services should be.

Also:
-	Private schools (all religious schools are properly private schools) are businesses and must be completely unfunded by public money and free from tax breaks. 
-	Private schools must all be regulated by the government, and be responsible for all costs associated with monitoring and accrediting.


----------



## Simon (25 Sep 2007)

OK recceguy, hows the meds? 

There would be no say beyond the 3 caveats, anything could be added onto the curriculum, no different from now without funding, so why fund?

The approach taken by John to shove this issue down the throats of his supporters without consensus smacks of the old Federal Tory arrogance, the primary reason Reform was born. He has already come out and refused to allow debate if elected.

I agree Daltons a jack ass, but Tory aint running Rogers Cable anymore, he better get it straight that he represents his party as its leader not its dictator. That was Ted's job.

Tacticly, its a trainwreck of an idea, its divisive, and is driven by a strategic boardroom decision not actual concern for some terrible social wrong. 

The solution is easy, offer an open debate with a free vote, and get on with the election, this one wont let go, its bad for the party and bad for the prospects of power for the PC. This wasnt my idea to toss this stinker out, I aint swallowing it, its knocked the wind out of the campaign, and caused nothing but grief.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Sep 2007)

Simon said:
			
		

> OK recceguy, hows the meds?



Good enough to allow me to look at a number of issues, in order to form an opinion on who I'm going to vote for. Instead of getting wrapped around the axle on a single subject. Unlike most of the sheeple in this country.


----------



## exgunnertdo (25 Sep 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> ... in order to form an opinion on who I'm going to vote for. Instead of getting wrapped around the axle on a single subject. Unlike most of the sheeple in this country.


Part of my problem is that I can't seem to get much info on anything past this issue.  I've only lived in Ontario a  little more than a year.  I don't have memory in my favour, so I'm relying on the media to help educate me.  Unfortunately, all I hear is "funding for faith based schools" and "Liberals lied."  I feel like I need a "none of the above" section on the ballot.  What are the Conservatives promising, other than the school issue?


----------



## sneezy (25 Sep 2007)

exgunnertdo said:
			
		

> Part of my problem is that I can't seem to get much info on anything past this issue.  I've only lived in Ontario a  little more than a year.  I don't have memory in my favour, so I'm relying on the media to help educate me.  Unfortunately, all I hear is "funding for faith based schools" and "Liberals lied."  I feel like I need a "none of the above" section on the ballot.  What are the Conservatives promising, other than the school issue?



For one, putting the onus on the criminal, with less bail and longer sentencing. Instead of the McGuinty/Bryant 'Catch and Release' program.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Sep 2007)

sneezy said:
			
		

> Instead of the McGuinty/Bryant 'Catch and Release' program.



McGuinty's a putz but stop with the election BS....................."catch and release" has been the standard with EVERY Ontario Govt., including the self-proclaimed "tough on crime" Mike Harris.


----------



## Shec (25 Sep 2007)

While driving by on Sunday I noticed a sign in front of McGuinty's campaign office advertising "free insulin pumps for the parents of diabetic children". What's next weeks inducement I wonder?

This struck me as a pretty pathetic state of affairs, reduced to buying votes in your own riding Dalton?


----------



## ex-Sup (25 Sep 2007)

Maybe I shouldn’t respond to this, but I’ll wade in and add my two cents. 

First, I’ll admit that I’m very biased. I’m a practicing Catholic, educated in the Catholic system and now a Catholic secondary teacher (incidentally at the same high school I attended). I know that there are a lot of strong opinions on either side of the argument, which I won’t get into. Rather, I’d like to respond to some of the comments made about Catholic schools and what occurs within them.

My opinion is that Catholic schools are anything but divisive. It may seem like that on the surface, but I’d like to think that what is taught in our schools tries to bind us together. Religion in Catholic schools is not all about learning the faith. There is a lot of time spent looking at ethics, morality and values. In the high school program, Gr.11 students learn about world religions, trying to teach understanding and respect for other faiths.

There are many non-Catholics in our system and we welcome them as we would any other students (I often only find out which of my students are non-Catholics when they ask me what the protocols for mass are). Yes, non-Catholics might have to go on waiting list to enter a Catholic school, but generally spots are found for them. Many non-Catholic parents chose the separate system because of the fact that through our religion program, we teach things like morality.

Some posts have mentioned that religious schools promote segregation and discrimination. I don’t think that I am in any way discriminatory, but as a Catholic student/teacher/coach I have experienced it. There are people out there who are vehemently anti-Catholic and let their opinions be known. I think that our kids need more moral guidance today, and if religious schools provide it, so be it.
Dave


----------



## GAP (25 Sep 2007)

I don't see what the fuss is all about

In Manitoba, all schools are eleigble for funding, period. They must abide by the provincial curriculum, and I gather there are some other rules, but it is a non issue. 

Here's what I could find on it quickly
Article Link

MANITOBA ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES
A REVIEW OF EDUCATION FINANCE IN MANITOBADuring the Period 1994/1995 to 1999/2 000

The “Schools of Choice” policy was implemented by the Province in
1997/98. Under this policy parents/students can choose to attend any school program
within their home division or in another division provided space is available. The sending
school division is responsible for payment of a transfer fee based on a portion of the tax
levy. The parent/student is responsible for transportation with some exceptions. As a result
of this policy the classification of Inter-fund Transfers, which includes payments of transfer
fees between school divisions, increased significantly from $1,586,819. or .1% of total
expenditures in 1996/97, to $10,358,313 or .9% of total expenditures in 1997/98. The level
of expenditure in 1999/00 is $10,244,286. or .8 % of total expenditures.

PRIVATE SCHOOL FUNDING
One of the ongoing issues related to education is the matter of Private
School Funding.
1994 Funding Agreement
In 1994, by mutual agreement, the Province and the Manitoba Federation of
Independent Schools entered into negotiations to develop a new funding arrangement
whereby operational grant funding for private schools would be based on 50% of the
weighted public school per pupil expenditure of the school division in which the private
school student resides. It was estimated that this method of funding would provide an
amount equivalent to 80% of the average public school per pupil funding. The
implementation of this formula began in 1995/96 and was paid in the following
percentages until full implementation in 1997/98:
1995/96 42.5%
1996/97 46.5%
1997/98 50.0%
In addition, independent schools receive grants for Level II and Level III pupils
as well as curricular grants. Shared service arrangements for certain types of services are
also in effect with public school divisions.
The 1994 formula is based on individual division expenditures, and the grant
will vary by a significant amount depending on the residency of the student.
For example, in an urban division where costs are higher and grants are
equalized because of a high assessment per pupil, the private school grant per pupil will
effectively take into consideration a portion of the taxes being paid by the parent in the
division in which they reside.
This system is very close to being a transfer of a portion of property taxes to
private schools as it takes into consideration the portion of expenditures raised by Special
Levy.
In 1998/99, there were 12,801 N - S4 students in the private school system,
with 11,610.9 eligible for grants. The total amount of grants paid was $33.7 million, or
$2901 for each eligible pupil compared to public school grants of $3,839. per pupil for the
same year.
In 1998/99, administration expenditures in the private school system were
$713 per pupil or 12.4% of expenditures, while for the same year in the public school
system administration expenditures were $336 per pupil or 3.6% of expenditures


----------



## exgunnertdo (25 Sep 2007)

ex-Sup said:
			
		

> Yes, non-Catholics might have to go on waiting list to enter a Catholic school, but generally spots are found for them.



My point being - our public school does not have a "waiting list."  If you live in the designated school boundary, the school *must* take your child.  How come the Catholic school can put kids (that live in the area, but are non-Catholic) on a waiting list until spots open up?  This is the segregation that I refer to.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Sep 2007)

>No thanks. Stop kissing rich peoples asses. God there is really no one to vote for.

Kindly refrain from spouting bullshit.  The people with children in private schools are not all "rich".

I ran across an interesting excerpt from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (to which Canada is signatory) elsewhere in the blogosphere:



> Article 26.
> (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
> 
> (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
> ...



Governments should fork over the vouchers and let the parents decide where to send their kids.


----------



## ex-Sup (25 Sep 2007)

exgunnertdo said:
			
		

> My point being - our public school does not have a "waiting list."  If you live in the designated school boundary, the school *must* take your child.  How come the Catholic school can put kids (that live in the area, but are non-Catholic) on a waiting list until spots open up?  This is the segregation that I refer to.


Because it's a Catholic school and Catholics get the first priority. Really it depends on where you are and what is the status of the school. I live in a town where enrollment is declining and there isn't generally an issue of non-Catholics getting in. It's actually welcomed. It's unfortunate that there is a waiting list, but they exist everywhere. In my board, many non-Catholic parents enroll their children right from the get go, which is easier than transfering mid-stream which could present a problem.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Sep 2007)

exgunnertdo said:
			
		

> My point being - our public school does not have a "waiting list."  If you live in the designated school boundary, the school *must* take your child.



Since I am now sending my daughter to a public school (Montessori essentially ran out after grade six) I have an interesting perspective. Yes, the school board *must* take my child, but they can send her wherever it is convenient to them. I can throw a rock at one public school from where I live, but she is bused past five OTHER public schools to reach the one our boundary was gerrymandered for.

The only reason I can see for this state of affairs is to maintain enrolment and receive per head funding in a school now in an empty neighbourhood (most of the people there moved when the school was built, now their children and grandchildren live elsewhere). Unlike the Montessori school, parental input is pretty much ignored except for constant requests to support school fundraising (to buy stuff I thought my tax dollars were supposed to be paying for).

The local bishop will be getting a visit from me and mine before my little boy has to move over from the private school system...........


----------



## GAP (25 Sep 2007)

Having served as a School Trustee, and in conversation with other trustees province wide, I can attest that - yes, it all about the oil money!!

Schools/divisions shuffle, entice as many students as possible prior to the end of September. On that date the funding is fixed for that division based on XXX students at XXX per student for that year. Then comes the other ancillary $$ as in special ed, etc.. 

Don't get me wrong, the trustee's have the best interests in mind for their divisions, but they can't do those things without as much funding as they can get.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Sep 2007)

If you really feel like rooting around a bit, here's some interesting links:

1)  Supreme Court decision, appeal of Ontario court decisions approving Catholic school funding, 25 Jun 07:  "...Bill 30 finds its validity in the exercise of provincial power under s. 93 (of the Constitutional Act 1967) and that the exercise of this power cannot be abolished or truncated by the Charter, is sufficient to dispose of this appeal."

2)  "Views of the Human Rights Committee under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights", UN Human Rights Committee, Communication Nº 694/1996 : Canada. 05/11/99, CCPR/C/67/D/694/1996. (Jurisprudence), 5 Nov 99:  "On the basis of the facts before it, the Committee considers that the differences in treatment between Roman Catholic religious schools, which are publicly funded as a distinct part of the public education system, and schools of the (other religions), which are private by necessity, cannot be considered reasonable and objective."

Continue to have at 'er - good discussion!


----------



## Strike (25 Sep 2007)

ex-Sup said:
			
		

> Because it's a Catholic school and Catholics get the first priority. Really it depends on where you are and what is the status of the school. I live in a town where enrollment is declining and there isn't generally an issue of non-Catholics getting in. It's actually welcomed. It's unfortunate that there is a waiting list, but they exist everywhere. In my board, many non-Catholic parents enroll their children right from the get go, which is easier than transfering mid-stream which could present a problem.



Just like French schools give priority of enrollment to those students who have french speaking parents.


----------



## ixium (25 Sep 2007)

You can give people of your own religion preference to joining?

Does that mean if theres a fountain you wouldn't mind black people from being pushed back in the line if a white person wanted a drink?

lf you can't see a problem with giving your specific religion preference over another, then theres a problem.


----------



## exgunnertdo (25 Sep 2007)

So the English public system becomes the only absolute public education system.

The Catholic system can turn people away because there is no room, the French system can turn people away who don't speak French, but the English public system has to take everyone.  If kids don't speak English, the system provides ESL programs.  If I want my child to learn French, there is no FSL system in the French school.  I need to rely on French Immersion (which is not universal - my 7 year old missed the FI boat since we were in Borden when he was in Grade 1; no FI or even Basic French there until grade 4.  French programming is offered at the discretion of the board and if I happen to be posted to an area of Canada that doesn't offer it, then I (my children, actually) am out of luck.

My point again is that the English public system is not permitted to be picky in any way shape or form.  There is no such thing as "no room" - the school makes room for them.  They can't turn students away that don't speak English - they must offer ESL programming.  The French system and the Catholic system can turn people away - that, in my opinion, is wrong!  A public system should be for anyone.  The French system should take anyone who is willing to learn French and then offer them FSL, and the Catholic system should take anyone who is willing to be educated according to the Catholic belief system.  Anything less and it is moving towards a private, closed system.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Sep 2007)

ixium said:
			
		

> You can give people of your own religion preference to joining?
> 
> Does that mean if theres a fountain you wouldn't mind black people from being pushed back in the line if a white person wanted a drink?
> 
> lf you can't see a problem with giving your specific religion preference over another, then theres a problem.



I don't really think you can equate the two, draw parallels ..........maybe, but still apples and oranges. At any rate a very crude and stupid remark. JMO though.


----------



## ixium (25 Sep 2007)

So replace black/white with any thing you want.

Canadian/American
French/Quebec French
Mormon/Scientology
Fat/Thin

Either way, pushing back one person because they are different in any shape or form is discrimination.


----------



## the 48th regulator (25 Sep 2007)

ixium said:
			
		

> Either way, pushing back one person because they are different in any shape or form is discrimination.



Site an example where this has happened?  If there is an easily accessable Public or other type of School why would the non Catholic be trying to push to go into a  Catholic School?

You are losing me here.  I see what you are getting at, however how does that follow within the theme of the thread.  You are suggest there was an act, or a potential for discrimination.

The only type I see is your fear, and lack of knowledge of the Catholic religion, is causing you to hinder My childrens' religious education and freedom.

dileas

tess


----------



## ixium (25 Sep 2007)

lt's a publically funded school, paid by taxes. *Anyone* should be able to go into it.

They put non-catholics into a queue system, but let practicing catholics in without a problem avoiding the queue system all together.

lf a public school tried that, they'd have all types of rights activists after them.

No matter what religion someone is, they should be able to get into a school that is paid by the public without being seperated(by the queue system).


----------



## McG (25 Sep 2007)

There is a new vote option: Yes, but end the special Constitutional status of the Catholic Boards


----------



## Yrys (25 Sep 2007)

As a Quebecer, I shudder at the idea of changing the constitution. It always seems an herculean task...
I don't see it happening with a minority government...


----------



## McG (25 Sep 2007)

Yrys said:
			
		

> As a Quebecer, I shudder at the idea of changing the constitution. It always seems an herculean task...


I seem to recall a few provinces which have had that very amendment made for themselves (Quebec being one of them).


----------



## the 48th regulator (25 Sep 2007)

ixium said:
			
		

> lt's a publically funded school, paid by taxes. *Anyone* should be able to go into it.
> 
> They put non-catholics into a queue system, but let practicing catholics in without a problem avoiding the queue system all together.
> 
> ...



And what about my tax dollars?  You are dictating to me why I can not fund a Catholic school system, and you find that fair?  Do you not beleive we Catholics pay taxes?

dileas

tess


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Sep 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> I seem to recall a few provinces which have had that very amendment made for themselves (Quebec being one of them).


I thought that Quebec still hadn't signed on to the constitution?  (Thank you very much P.E. Trudeau!)


----------



## McG (25 Sep 2007)

That is what made them pushing for & signing amendment so ironic.

http://www.sen.parl.gc.ca/lpepin/index.asp?PgId=815


----------



## McG (25 Sep 2007)

and this one: 


> Québec, Newfoundland, and Manitoba, have now eliminated constitutionally protected denominational schools.


http://www.oneschoolsystem.org/denominational_rights.html

not to mention the many provinces which never had constitutionally protected denominational schools.



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> And what about my tax dollars?  You are dictating to me why I can not fund a Catholic school system, and you find that fair?


Why do you find it fair that your tax dollars will give your children guaranteed access to any either school board, while non-Catholics are treated as second class by one of the boards?


----------



## ixium (25 Sep 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> And what about my tax dollars?  You are dictating to me why I can not fund a Catholic school system, and you find that fair?  Do you not beleive we Catholics pay taxes?
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



l've never said you can't fund the Catholic school board. l said if they wanted to be publically funded, they need to stop granting certain people special treatment.

Montrassori/Hindu/other religion schools aren't public, and the parents have to pay to have their kids enrolled. Those parents still pay taxes.

Are you suggesting that you, as a Catholic, deserve better treatment than them?


----------



## Bandit1 (25 Sep 2007)

Thought I'd wade gently into the water on this one...

I'm a Conservative, always have been and always will be.  I will vote again in the upcoming provincial election because more than enough people have died to ensure that I have the right to stroll down to a school and put an "X" in a circle beside the candidate and party who best espouse all the views that I hold to be true.  As a result, I will vote Conservative in this upcoming election.

That being said, I, along with many others in this province and country, will never agree 100% with the platform that the party we love will present.  Such is the case I am confronted with on the issue of extending school funding to all religions.

A bit about my background...

I was born, baptised, confirmed and raised into a Catholic household.  I attended Mass every Sunday, becoming an altar boy as soon as I could because my faith led me to that role.  There was one point in time when I actually contemplated a life in the priesthood, but the overwhelming urge to get married and have kids prevailed.  I am now more of the Protestant sort, and still go to Church every Sunday and spend time with both my Christian friends and my secular friends, and I can say that one group isn't larger in number than the other.  I grew up having a Catholic school less than a 2 minute walk from my home, and a public school about a 3 minute walk away.

Now to the meat of the story.  From Jr. Kindergarten to Grade 6 I attended the public school.  Back in those days (late 70's to mid 80's) we were still saying the Lord's prayer after singing Oh Canada, but as far as "religious teaching" went, there was zero.  I learned about my faith by posing questions to the parish Priest, outside of school time, usually on Sunday mornings when I went to Mass.  I was grateful that my parents, specifically my mother, took the time to introduce and expose me to faith - something not all kids have access to at all.  After much personal deliberating, in grade 7/8 I went to the Catholic school, and yes, it was different.  We had Mass in school every 3 weeks, a relationship with the Church which the school was named after, and we still said the Lord's prayer every morning after singing Oh Canada.  The only difference was that once a week we had a 1 hour lesson the Bible from a Catholic perspective.  In my opinion, it didn't teach me anything that I didn't already know about my _chosen_ faith.  After those 2 years, however, I went back to a public high school.  I graduated high school with kick *** marks, got a great education, and made a few friends along the way.  But guess what?  I never left my faith.  If anything it increased.

Now the point that I have out of all this rambling is very simple.  Religion, whether you choose to believe in a superior being or not, is a personal choice.  I didn't lose my faith by going to a public school, and my faith really wasn't enriched by going to a Catholic school.  I learned about my faith on my time, under my terms, and on my own schedule.  I took the time to not judge others on the basis of an apparant lack of faith because truly, who are we as men to know the heart of another man?  It isn't my "job" to make sure that the rest of the world become Christians, or if I were a Muslim that we all became Muslims, or Sikhs, etc.  My only "job" is to live out my faith as it lives in me.  I didn't learn that in school - I learned that by taking the time to study what exactly I believe in.  Faith is, after all, and above all, about free will.  We are not _told_ we have to believe in a God - we are given a choice to.

As I said, I'll still vote Conservative, but much like the rest of you, I have my reservations about this specific piece of policy.

Thanks for reading...


----------



## the 48th regulator (25 Sep 2007)

ixium said:
			
		

> l've never said you can't fund the Catholic school board. l said if they wanted to be publically funded, they need to stop granting certain people special treatment.
> 
> Montrassori/Hindu/other religion schools aren't public, and the parents have to pay to have their kids enrolled. Those parents still pay taxes.
> 
> Are you suggesting that you, as a Catholic, deserve better treatment than them?



We as tax payers do yes.  We pay into the system via a government, and therefore, must abide by the law of having it follow the approved system of education.  What exactly is the challenge with the current system?  The fact that one that is non catholic must que up?  That is wrong?  What is the purpose of going to a Catholic school system, if there are public ones "readilly" available?  Are you saying that one should have a choice to go to where they please, regardless of the purpose of the school?

dileas

tess


----------



## McG (25 Sep 2007)

He is saying that your tax dollar is "more equal" than his.  You can have certain access to two boards of education while he cannot.


----------



## onecat (25 Sep 2007)

Catholic school board, gets speical funding and as a religous school based on the roman catholic, it should either get no public funding or every school gets funding.  I personally don't think any religious school should get funding including the Catholic school board, but if one funded them all should be.  Also many people might not be aware, but in order get a position teaching for the Catholic school board, one needs a letter from priest ( a catholic priest) which might you needs to convert in order to get one.  Nothing like public discrimiation.


----------



## ixium (25 Sep 2007)

Yes, a -publically- funded school should be avaliable to the -public-. No ifs ands or buts.

People goto Catholic schools over public ones for different reasons:

Shorter walking distance.(from a 5 minute walk to a 15 minute walk where l am living right now)
Funded better thus being able to afford paper to hand out take home assignments
Less crowded, so the ratio of teacher:student is alot lower
Better specialized courses for dealing with mentally disabled kids(based on area, sometimes public school is better for this)
Sometimes parents think that giving their kids a religion will make them into well behaved adults but don't pratice it themselves.

l'll say it again. lf a school is publically supported through taxes, it needs to accept anyone and have the same rules and regulations as a public school.

Catholics aren't more special than any other private school and need to stop being treated that way.


----------



## McG (25 Sep 2007)

He is the score so far.


----------



## the 48th regulator (25 Sep 2007)

How so,

The fact that my tax dollars are being used, to suit my needs, as they should be.  Rather than complaining how my tax dollars are spent, see to it that your tax dollars are spent wisely inthe public school system.

Would you agree ixium, that you are preaching to the quire.  I feel my tax dollars are spent wisely in a Catholic school system, ensure your tax dollars are spent wisely in a public system.  Don't try to destroy what I am doing, just to make you feel better.

You call that democracy?  I am part of the Public, _just _ like you.  If you feel your system is broken because of amount of schools being built, distance of travel, then it is high time you concentrate on fixing that, not aboloshing all that works to suck the money in non Catholic system.

My Tax dollars are not more equal, but by the sounds of it, it is spent more wisely.

dileas

tess


----------



## McG (25 Sep 2007)

How is it not more equal when you are given a choice (the choice of school board) that non-Catholics are not given?


----------



## the 48th regulator (25 Sep 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> How is it not more equal when you are given a choice (the choice of school board) that non-Catholics are not given?



What choice would you like them to have, that is being denied?

dileas

tess


----------



## Yrys (25 Sep 2007)

Thread hijack



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> The fact that my tax dollars are being used, to suit my needs, as they should be.



So the poors should have less health care and education ? And women, when having or educating children,
handicap persons, etc. less access to government services ?

Not everybody can get they tax dollars worth of services. Some need more, some need less. Some rich people 
will get less sick then some poors people. We aren't in a communist system, but not in a completely capitalist 
one where people get only what they can pay for...

End of my hijack


----------



## the 48th regulator (25 Sep 2007)

Yrys said:
			
		

> Thread hijack
> 
> So the poors should have less health care and education ? And women, when having or educating children,
> handicap persons, etc. less access to government services ?
> ...



Uhm,

So with your Hijack, you then suggest that we do what?

dileas

tess


----------



## onecat (25 Sep 2007)

"My Tax dollars are not more equal, but by the sounds of it, it is spent more wisely."

it might be your tax dollars but its also everyone else's tax dollars and so should not be fund a religion ie the Catholic faith.  Look at the HPV debate, the soul reason it was debated in the Catholic system was because it's against Catholic teaching... again if its get public money, then it should be all religious faiths not just one.  Or better yet fund non and use the money wasted on two system to build a world class system with out any religious base.


----------



## McG (25 Sep 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> What choice would you like them to have, that is being denied?


That one group not be given unlimited access to a government funded education system which is denied to others simply based on religion.  You get the choice of public or catholic board based on which ever seems to fit your needs where you happen to live.  If you decide the local Catholic school is fucked, you can choose the public board.  Any other religion (or atheist) is told "TFB, go to the shitty school."



			
				radiohead said:
			
		

> Or better yet fund non and use the money wasted on two system to build a world class system with out any religious base.


+1
No more wasted money on buses to pick-up kids in front of one elementary school & drive them to another elementary school 20 blocks away.


----------



## ex-Sup (25 Sep 2007)

exgunnertdo said:
			
		

> My point again is that the English public system is not permitted to be picky in any way shape or form.  There is no such thing as "no room" - the school makes room for them.


Wanna bet? When there's a will, there's a way. Under the current system, there are no longer any boundaries between schools. Therefore any student can attend any school within their given system, even if it's across town. However there's no guarantee that they will get into that school if there's a "lack of space."
Want to get into the nearby Catholic school and not Catholic? Yes you'll probably end up on a waiting list. However, more likely than not, you'll get in. Why? Well it basically boils down to dollars and cents. The Catholic board wants the enrollment because every student means more $$$$$. It's the same for public schools; if they really want you, they make space.
Maybe this is just my perspective in my town. Thunder Bay has a declining school population as I've aleady mentioned. There is fearce competition between the boards for students. We get some of their students, they get some of ours. It has really driven the boards to substantially improve the quality of the programs they deliver, which in the end is a benefit to all students, whatever their religion.


----------



## the 48th regulator (25 Sep 2007)

radiohead said:
			
		

> "My Tax dollars are not more equal, but by the sounds of it, it is spent more wisely."
> 
> it might be your tax dollars but its also everyone else's tax dollars and so should not be fund a religion ie the Catholic faith.  Look at the HPV debate, the soul reason it was debated in the Catholic system was because it's against Catholic teaching... again if its get public money, then it should be all religious faiths not just one.  Or better yet fund non and use the money wasted on two system to build a world class system with out any religious base.



So let me get this straight, because I may be missing something here.

Is there a challenge with the public school system?

Is this Challenge associated with Catholic system?  And by Further funding other Religious Schools, this will also hinder the public system.

Maybe I need that answered, with examples please, before I go further as I may be missingout on a key point of everyones arguments.

dileas

tess


----------



## PMedMoe (25 Sep 2007)

Whatever happened to the separation of church and state school?

When I was a kid (Catholic), I went to DND schools (up until grade eight).  I had never heard of Catholic schools until I came to Ontario.  We went to Catechism Class (much like Sunday School) on our *own* time.

I think all schools should be equal-opportunity to all students and should not involve religion at all.

Just my


----------



## the 48th regulator (25 Sep 2007)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Whatever happened to the separation of church and state school?
> 
> When I was a kid (Catholic), I went to DND schools (up until grade eight).  I had never heard of Catholic schools until I came to Ontario.  We went to Catechism Class (much like Sunday School) on our *own* time.
> 
> ...



Very good pooint, but obviously, it has been found that that did not work, hence the Catholic school system being introduced.

Relligion, much like culture (remember we do have a Multicultural Dept.) is part of some people lives.

As I stated before, there are finer points of Catholisicim, that must be introduced to us on a daily basis in the growing period.

Don't blame me, if it were my descision we would still be praying to mithras and carrying the Eagle as a standard....

dileas

tess


----------



## the 48th regulator (25 Sep 2007)

I also want to make this statement before going any further.

All the posts in this thread have been Phenomenal, to say the least.

I hope that no-one is taking things personal, and feeling insulted.  This is a debate after all.

Further more, I am posting here as a regular poster, not a Mod. So please, if you got a point to say, and it meets the guidelines, get in here folks.

This is the type of discussion needed before our election, which is just over the horizon!

dileas

tess


----------



## onecat (25 Sep 2007)

"is this Challenge associated with Catholic system?  And by Further funding other Religious Schools, this will also hinder the public system.

Maybe I need that answered, with examples please, before I go further as I may be missingout on a key point of everyones arguments."

I have just one point, religion is personal choice, if the gov't is going fund a relgion it should all of them or none of them. My choice is no money what so ever going to any religion school including the catholic one.  If a religion needs to brain wash you when your young then your parent's should pay for the brain washing not the taxpayer.  The current system doesn't work because it give one religion (RC) get  a special leg up by being fully funded by the taxpayer, but are fully allowed to teach all religion theory to their students.  If all religions are equal in Ontario then all the funding should be equal as well, either that is fully funded or no funding at all.


----------



## the 48th regulator (25 Sep 2007)

radiohead said:
			
		

> "is this Challenge associated with Catholic system?  And by Further funding other Religious Schools, this will also hinder the public system.
> 
> Maybe I need that answered, with examples please, before I go further as I may be missingout on a key point of everyones arguments."
> 
> I have just one point, religion is personal choice, if the gov't is going fund a relgion it should all of them or none of them. My choice is no money what so ever going to any religion school including the catholic one.  If a religion needs to brain wash you when your young then your parent's should pay for the brain washing not the taxpayer.  The current system doesn't work because it give one religion (RC) get  a special leg up by being fully funded by the taxpayer, but are fully allowed to teach all religion theory to their students.  If all religions are equal in Ontario then all the funding should be equal as well, either that is fully funded or no funding at all.



Bingo,

which is why you and I are in the same boat.

I totally agree with the Conservatives Proposal.

dileas

tess


----------



## ex-Sup (25 Sep 2007)

radiohead said:
			
		

> If a religion needs to brain wash you when your young then your parent's should pay for the brain washing not the taxpayer.


Kinda harsh don't you think? A bit insulting? I've been educated/worked in a Catholic school all my life and I'm not in the least bit brainwashed. I am very well educated, think for myself and feel that I can question things about my religion. A better choice of words perhaps?


----------



## DBA (25 Sep 2007)

Some historical background: First there was the Protestant school system. Then Catholics, which were a minority, were granted the right to form their own school system so the could be free of discrimination and teach a Catholic view of the Bible. The Protestant system slowly morphed into the current public system with some remnants only going rather recently, like school prayer being abolished in the 1980's. The Catholic right was in the British North America Act and references to it are also in the current Canadian Constitution. No student in Ontario is currently forced to take part religious programs or classes, either in the public system on in the Catholic system if they must go to such a school due to reasons listed in the Education Act of Ontario. 

The status quo certainly does provide a right to Catholics that other religions don't share so isn't look upon favourably internationally and domestically. The chances of taking away the right of Catholics to a Catholic school system are next to Nil. A bit under 1/3 of students in Ontario attend such schools so it's a pretty big minority and it would require a constitutional amendment. The only other option open if the status quo isn't acceptable is extending funding to other religious schools.


----------



## rz350 (25 Sep 2007)

I was going to vote PC, but this here is a deal breaker for me. So the Libs get my vote. I'm not down for having a Madras on my penny...if someone wants to open one, fine, but it, like after market kit, should be "no cost to the crown"


----------



## ixium (25 Sep 2007)

Fact: Catholic schools are funded by taxes and the government.

Fact: Catholic schools can choose not to accept people based solely on their religion.

Fact: Public schools have to take anyone, even if they don't have room, so long as the child is in its district.

Fact: All other religious and private schools DO NOT get funding from taxes and/or government.

Fact: Parents of kids in private schools still pay taxes that go towards public schooling.

The argument here is why do Catholic schools get priority over any other religious group AND be able to discriminate against non-Catholics.

Again, a PUBLICALLY funded school, no matter the religion or method of teaching, should be avaliable to the PUBLIC. No one should be treated any different.

lsn't that what thousands and thousands and thousands of people have given their lives for in the past? To be free of disrimination in the world?


----------



## Bane (25 Sep 2007)

I went to a Catholic then public elementary school, did three years in a public high school and my final two years in a private Anglican high school.  I think funding should be taken away from the RC system, or at a minimum rolled back in all cases of duplication of service or low student levels, and the parents of kids who attend any private school be dealt a negative tax incentive.  You want to send your kid to a private school of any type, you pay 50%(as an example) more education tax.  This covers the cost of shaving off teachers and administrators from the public system and taking away focus on the public system as a social constructor.  If those with the most wealth (power) can avoid the public system, and many do, then they have zero incentive to engage, improve or fix that system. Thus they should suffer an increased cost for stealing away from the social fabric.  Ofcourse, I also would like to see universal conscription too, but that's for a future thread perhaps. 


As an aside, instead of funding religious schools why not add a series of religion classes to a total public system?


----------



## a_majoor (25 Sep 2007)

Most of these arguments are very similar to the ones "we" lambasted when UVic's student council decided to impose their will on the student body (which is also required to pay levies) and prevent the CF from recruiting at the job fair.

Rather than having the State decide for the parents, the system should be adjusted so parents can choose the school which supports their values. Why should parents who want their children to be taught in a supportive religious environment be denied? Taxpayer funding of _all_ religious schools that follow the curriculum is one means of achieving this end, and since there is no serious discussion of vouchers, charter schools or other alternatives, then this is the 1/2 loaf solution.

As pointed out, the true driving force for opposition to this plan is _not_ separation of Church and State or the other notions brought up by ixium but rather the competition for tax dollars when paid on a "per head" basis.

BTW Bane, I am by no means rich or powerful, but I chose to send my children to private school. Based on comparison with their public school peers when observed in outside settings, I really don't see any "social construction" going on, so please don't try to force your views on others.


----------



## McG (25 Sep 2007)

Update


----------



## the 48th regulator (25 Sep 2007)

ixium said:
			
		

> Fact: Catholic schools are funded by taxes and the government.
> 
> Fact: Catholic schools can choose not to accept people based solely on their religion.
> 
> ...



So with this post, your participaction here in this thread, has absolutely nothing to do with John Tory's proposal.  Your's is an anti-Catholic Agenda.

Hmm,

Now we get all the cards on the table.

dileas

tess


----------



## Bane (25 Sep 2007)

I don't see how I was forcing my views on you a_majoor? It's a forum debate and I'm just saying what I think. I choose to go to a private school! You also proved my point by saying you prefer the conduct of private school kids over public school kids.  I'd love to live in a 'better off' neighbourhood, but I don't think public housing giant projects and poor ghettos are good. Mixed neighbourhoods are better for contact across the socio-economic spectrum. Again, I'm not trying to push my argument upon anyone, this is what I think. I understand many of the arguments for private school and publicly funded religious schools, and some of those arguments are very good ones. I just don't find them fully persuasive. 


Edited for clairity


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Sep 2007)

rz350 said:
			
		

> I was going to vote PC, but this here is a deal breaker for me. So the Libs get my vote. I'm not down for having a Madras on my penny...if someone wants to open one, fine, but it, like after market kit, should be "no cost to the crown"



You've got it backwards. We have the Madrasses now. We have no control on what they are taught. If they take funding, they'll teach on our terms.

There's also more to system change than a single issue. I wish things were so shallow, that they could be solved so easy, with no real thought, on one thing, but they're not. Voter apathy is one of the main causes of being stuck with useless politicians.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Sep 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> So with this post, your participaction here in this thread, has absolutely nothing to do with John Tory's proposal.  Your's is an anti-Catholic Agenda.
> 
> Hmm,
> 
> ...



..and since your posting as a "normal user" I will post as a Mod and say lighten up with the accusations.


----------



## ixium (25 Sep 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> So with this post, your participaction here in this thread, has absolutely nothing to do with John Tory's proposal.  Your's is an anti-Catholic Agenda.
> 
> Hmm,
> 
> ...



How did you get that from what l said? They are facts, not made up facts, real ones.

There is only 2 logical ways to solve the problem.

Publically fund every school, but put in rules and regulations that stipulate that any one of any color/nationality/religion can join

Don't fund every school and just fund the public schools. No special religions getting extra benifits.

Allowing public schools to seperate two different people simply because of what they beleive or by what they look like or where their mom works is a step backwards of the 'Canadian way'

Even publically funding every school wouldn't be a smart idea. There's way too much stress on the school system as it is, spreading that same money(lets be honost, no extra money is going to come if this is put into place) over a larger audiance is going to cause problems. As it is right now, when l was in highschool in Ontario(the year before grade13(OAS?) was taken out) there was no extra money for photocopies. Students had to spend whole periods copying notes from an overhead because the teachers barely had enough photocopies to make all the tests.

l'm anti-anything that requests special treatment just because they beleive something that someone doesn't and they try and force the public to bend to their will. So in this matter, yes l'm anti-Catholic.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Sep 2007)

AND A NOTE TO ALL, I REALIZE THIS IS IN CANADIAN POLITICS BUT SINCE THIS SECTION/THREAD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WEBSITES THEME, I WILL FEEL NO REMORSE IN THROWING IT IN THE TRASH SHOULD IT GET OUT OF HAND.

YOU NOW KNOW THE PERIMETERS.
Bruce


----------



## the 48th regulator (26 Sep 2007)

ixium said:
			
		

> How did you get that from what l said? They are facts, not made up facts, real ones.



We shall see, let us just use this post.



			
				ixium said:
			
		

> There is only 2 logical ways to solve the problem.
> 
> Publicly fund every school, but put in rules and regulations that stipulate that any one of any color/nationality/religion can join
> 
> Don't fund every school and just fund the public schools. No special religions getting extra benefits.



Exactly, the main two arguments, I am voting for choice one.



			
				ixium said:
			
		

> Allowing public schools to separate two different people simply because of what they believe or by what they look like or where their mom works is a step backwards of the 'Canadian way'



You have heard of the Bloc Quebecois, the party that was at one time the official opposition.  The party willing to break apart the country.  We allowed them to function, as it was democratic, the Canadian way.
Democracy allows many views, eh.



			
				ixium said:
			
		

> Even publicly funding every school wouldn't be a smart idea. There's way too much stress on the school system as it is, spreading that same money(lets be honest, no extra money is going to come if this is put into place) over a larger audience is going to cause problems. As it is right now, when l was in high school in Ontario(the year before grade13(OAS?) was taken out) there was no extra money for photocopies. Students had to spend whole periods copying notes from an overhead because the teachers barely had enough photocopies to make all the tests.



I went through the Public school system, from JK, straight through to grad 13 (Graduated from Runnymede Collegiate In 1989/90)  We had rare challenges.  Our school had Two Gyms, a pool, a Tennis court, a full Science program, an IT program with the latest Computers,  Fantastic Theatrical program (Music and Drama).  So we never Cried the blues.



			
				ixium said:
			
		

> I'm anti-anything that requests special treatment just because they believe something that someone doesn't and they try and force the public to bend to their will. So in this matter, yes I'm anti-Catholic.



That's what get's my ire.  You want to say that I am claiming special treatment, because I advocate a Catholic school system.  Who are you to try to abolish it?  You are finding challenges with your local school system, raise the hand and fix it.  Your only proposal thus far is to abolish the Catholic School board to fix your challenges.  You have as of yet, given me examples where the public system has suffered, due to the Catholic system (which is paid by my taxes btw).

Until you do, sorry Bruce, I find your agenda anti Catholic, and you admit to it!

Dileas

Tess


----------



## ixium (26 Sep 2007)

You're comparing school from 90 to schools of today? There's 17 years missing. Most of the kids today wouldn't have even been born.

The Bloc weren't paid by limited Provincial taxes. They also didn't exclude people that wanted to support their cause.

You might be voting for choice one, but you've adding your own rules in that you find it okay for a religion to exclude people that want to attend that school.

Again, l'm not against religious schools. l'm not against publically funded religious schools.
l'm against schools that will seperate two different students(most of the time under the age of 13) over something as simple as their parents religions.

My mom is a Catholic but l've never beleived in it. Should l get preference over another kid that is wanting to goto a Catholic school?


----------



## Blindspot (26 Sep 2007)

What about one completely public system that has voluntary religious classes outside of normal school hours? This would serve all parties in the following ways:

1. No more talk of segregation - catholic goes to school with muslim who goes to school with atheist who goes to school with shinto
2. Public students have access to their religious theology taught by accredited teachers of their own faith
3. All public money goes into one school system
4. Teachers unions can stop worrying about losing funding based on per head
5. No new schools need be built
6. Utopia is achieved!


----------



## warrickdll (26 Sep 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> ...As pointed out, the true driving force for opposition to this plan is _not_ separation of Church and State or the other notions brought up by ixium but rather the competition for tax dollars when paid on a "per head" basis. ...





			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> ...There's also more to system change than a single issue. I wish things were so shallow, that they could be solved so easy, with no real thought, on one thing, but they're not. Voter apathy is one of the main causes of being stuck with useless politicians. ...



I believe that the main issue for Canadians _is_ the separation of Church and State, and the proposal to increase the subsidization of religion is what most people are worried about. 

Funding loud and needy special interest groups, and segregating our children, will cause other issues to seem insignificant. Having a couple of smaller bad policies is tolerable, but one huge misstep like this isn’t.





			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> ...Rather than having the State decide for the parents, the system should be adjusted so parents can choose the school which supports their values. Why should parents who want their children to be taught in a supportive religious environment be denied? ...



There is no religious content required for schools. Many things can be described as education, but religious beliefs are not part of what the government is required to (or should ever) provide anyone with. 

A public school system without religious content is not denying anyone a religious education, just like it isn’t denying anyone a hunting education, or a firefighter education, or a fishing education. 

There are plenty of hours in the day to provide your children with many other forms of education that have nothing to do with the government or with the tax money collected for education. 

The catholic school system is from a time long gone, when the public school system was a protestant school system.  Now that the public system is no longer a religious system there is no justification for a catholic school system. 

The subsidies for religion must end. Government involvement in religion must end.





			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> ...Taxpayer funding of _all_ religious schools that follow the curriculum is one means of achieving this end, and since there is no serious discussion of vouchers, charter schools or other alternatives, then this is the 1/2 loaf solution....




Many here have already testified to how little religious education is in the catholic school system – all this religious stuff can be passed along at the respective religious facilities on everyone’s own time and with their own funds. If someone wants to use a private system then that must be completely funded by private money, and meet government standards (at the private system’s expense).





			
				Bane said:
			
		

> ...As an aside, instead of funding religious schools why not add a series of religion classes to a total public system?





			
				Blindspot said:
			
		

> What about one completely public system that has voluntary religious classes outside of normal school hours? ...




There is just no need to have the government, or the public school system, get involved in religion in any way – there is plenty to learn already.


----------



## glock17 (26 Sep 2007)

Well said Iterator, and I would hazard a guess that this is the way it would be if that were the question on the referendum attached to this years provincial ballot.

If Quebec and Newfoundland sought and received constitutional change for this purpose, why not us?

The Tories have grabbed a tiger by the tail on this issue, it has already cost them points. I wonder if we'll see some serious back peddling before the election date ?


----------



## a_majoor (26 Sep 2007)

glock17 said:
			
		

> The Tories have grabbed a tiger by the tail on this issue, it has already cost them points. I wonder if we'll see some serious back peddling before the election date ?



Alas, I suspect that is exactly what we'll see. The Tories *could* diffuse this by simply pointing out Ontario is joining six other provinces which do this already, or they could take the moral high ground and campaign on a platform of *parental choice* (since one of the tenants of true conservatism [or classical liberalism if you prefer] is that people have the right and responsibility to make their *own* choices and must abide by the consequences of these choices); which would actually mean going wide open and advocating charter schools under parental control and educational vouchers as well.

As pointed out several times already, the people and groups which have the most to lose if State payment "per head" is dismantled will violently oppose such a move, but if some leader has the intellectual and moral strength to advocate it and the practical political machinery to present this choice *and* implement it (sorry Paul McKeever) then the voters could examine this (and related ideas like healthcare vouchers and medical saving plans) and perhaps we could begin to move in a different direction.


----------



## DBA (27 Sep 2007)

glock17 said:
			
		

> The Tories have grabbed a tiger by the tail on this issue, it has already cost them points. I wonder if we'll see some serious back peddling before the election date ?



The issue has changed into "how do we deal with Catholics currently having special treatment" and suggesting Catholics should lose funding is not going to go over well with most parents of the 600,000 kids currently enrolled in Catholic schools. The anti religious undercurrent of some of the debate taking place will also end up hurting the Liberals more as it doesn't exactly make religious parents feel their kids would be made welcome in the public system.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Sep 2007)

>Again, a PUBLICALLY funded school, no matter the religion or method of teaching, should be avaliable to the PUBLIC. No one should be treated any different.

This view persists because people insist on seeing the "system" as publicly funded rather than seeing the child as publicly funded.  We provide handouts for all sorts of stuff - health care, housing, child raising, income, etc - without requiring that the money be spent in a public "system" or attaching very many strings because we are funding *people*.  Get it straight.


----------



## ixium (27 Sep 2007)

You're arguing two different points against each other.

l'm not going to argue whether having a parent have schooling allowence or whether the child is sent to a public school. Or which one is better.

l'm arguing that right now, as the system is today, a publically funded school shouldn't be treating two different kids two different ways.


----------



## UberCree (27 Sep 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> My own opinion is anything which increases parental choice is better, this is not the ideal means of doing so, but a step in the right direction.



This is where I stand exactly


----------



## glock17 (27 Sep 2007)

I certainly like the idea of Parental choice, but within the limitations of a civil and progressive society, I would endorse the idea of allowing Parents who wish to provide their children with a faith based education, to remove them from the public system and place them in a private school, or even home school. However, they do so at their own expense, and they must meet curiculum guidelines. Perhaps we could even go so far as to provide them with tax relief of some form, but not equal to their contribution through residential taxes. If you wish to remove your kids from our community of schools, do so, but it is your choice and you will have to fund it. We all have a responsibility, as a community, to provide for the education of our childern collectively, whether we have our own children or not. I believe the best way to use those resources is to pool them into one, non-faith based system. The kids will learn about other cultures and heritage from each other, first hand, discussions of religion could take place objectively, and celebrations of each others' culture could be encouraged rather than suppressed.

It is fair treatment for all, and that is what we should aspire to


----------



## UberCree (27 Sep 2007)

Here's the way I have seen schooling work best ... from my experience as a teacher and administrator in Canada and the U.S., in both Charter schools, public schools and First Nations schools.

Set a standard (provincial curriculum, certified teachers (national standard?), and the minimum standard stuff found in the provincial schools acts), set a funding level ... then let communities run with their ideas and measure their results.  If they fail don't accredit them, if they succeed their ideas will prosper.  It promotes choice, it promotes and fuels the evolutionary process and it creates more smaller schools, which are generally better for communities and student outcomes.  

One kid = one funding rate, wherever they wish to go (that meets the minimum standard).


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Sep 2007)

>within the limitations of a civil and progressive society

In short, within the confines of dogma and beliefs of which you approve.  Just because there are no articles of worship doesn't mean something is not equivalent to religion.

>However, they do so at their own expense, and they must meet curiculum guidelines.

Children have a civil right to an education.  Period.  If a political jurisdiction wishes to provide a default system open to all, great.  We still have an obligation to fund the children.  We have public health care facilities and employees without requiring that all publicly-funded treatments go through public facilities.  What's the hang-up here?*

>I believe the best way to use those resources is to pool them into one, non-faith based system.

"believe".  I suppose your beliefs - the how as well as the what - are reason, and the other guys' beliefs are superstition.

>The kids will learn about other cultures and heritage from each other, first hand, discussions of religion could take place objectively, and celebrations of each others' culture could be encouraged rather than suppressed.

Do you really know the One True Way to educate children and truly believe that every other system would be certain to poison young minds?  Do you not see the arrogance of assuming yourself to be essentially faultless and everyone else to be in some way evil?

*It's a rhetorical question.  I already know the answer: the hang-ups are the desire to impose one flavour of secular progressive religion, and to protect the turf of everyone whose job is in the public system.


----------



## glock17 (27 Sep 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >within the limitations of a civil and progressive society
> 
> In short, within the confines of dogma and beliefs of which you approve.  Just because there are no articles of worship doesn't mean something is not equivalent to religion.
> 
> ...




It didn't sound so bad when I read it.  I certainly didn't intend to impose any beliefs on anybody.

And arrogance is something I do have trouble with ;D


----------



## warrickdll (28 Sep 2007)

In general:

Education and health care both, as services, have low level delivery but with high level standardization (2 + 2 = 4, fixing a broken leg is just fixing a broken leg) and, combined with the large budget requirements, this should mean a federal responsibility.

Having high quality education and health care, regardless of the local economic conditions, is a much better way to share prosperity than transfer payments are. This works whether you are looking at it government-to-government, or government-to-citizen.

Across-the-board commitments to education and health care, along with policing and other services, are a part of the fundamentals of Canadian civilization. The guaranteed provision of these fundamentals should be a covenant between the government and the people, and the success in the delivery a testament to our culture.

However, the 1867 constitution was a reflection of the communication and organizational limits of its time (as well as the bigotry), and unfortunately the 1982 constitution is a reflection of the extreme limits of politician, bureaucrats, and lawyers. 

But even limited to provincial levels the principles remain the same: If the provincial government takes care of the fundamentals, regardless of location within the province, then it leaves the other levels of government, and the people, an even-playing-field with which to prosper.



On individual economic levels:

The poorest families within our society will always have the fundamentals provided for them, and it is pointless to try to corral the rich into anything (just make sure their activities are legal and not subsidized by the public system - just because someone is rich doesn't mean they aren't cheap).

It's the people who are in the middle who get squeezed. Almost any voucher or refund system will cause those in the middle income range (especially the low end) to have to compromise on quality somewhere in their lives; it could be in their children's education, or their own health care, or somewhere else.

Voucher and refund systems are meaningless to the poor since they require (and receive) full funding. For the rich, and upper middle income earners, voucher and refund systems are just more money (perhaps simply as a tax break) since the use of the public system was never going to be their first choice anyways.

High quality delivery of the fundamentals allows the poorest among us to concentrate on fixing themselves and their economic situation; someone in the middle can enjoy the quality of their life and aspire to achieve more; and the rich do not need to be walled in to keep out the rioting masses (since the masses are pretty content).




On religion:

Neither education nor health care has anything to do with religion (the same applies for any of the fundamentals).

The government is obligated for Standard Education and nothing else in that area.

Standard Education is what the tax money is collected for. Standard Education is why the buildings are constructed. Standard Education is the reason why the students are gathered together.

The government should be concentrating on providing the highest possible quality of Standard Education. None of the tax money, buildings, or students, is there to subsidize religious indoctrination. For that, a religion has to provide its own money, its own buildings, and gather its own captive audience.

It isn't the government's job to finance (by money, tax break, or other subsidy) any religion.
It isn't the government's job to endorse or promote any religion.
It isn't the government's job to verify, approve, qualify, or validate any religion.
It isn't the government's job to provide information about any religion or to keep informed about any religion.

In short: The government has nothing to do with religion and religion has nothing to do with government.




On secularism:

It is a mistake to state that a secular school system teaches secularism - or is even about secularism. 

A secular school is not the opposite of a religious school; it is simply a school without religious content or basis. 
A secular school does not teach non-religious beliefs it just doesn't teach religious beliefs.

Without a secular government, or secular institutions, you do not have religious freedom; and having a separate (Catholic) public school system is corrosive to everyone's freedom.


Every time some wayward individual decides to put a "Christmas" tree up in City Hall, instead of a "Holiday" tree, they put another nail into the coffin of their own religious freedom. 

By not enforcing a secular government and institutions the door is left wide open to all varieties of non-compatible religious baggage. And while christianity has been continually modified over the last several hundred years to sell itself to a changing customer base - other religions have not been.

Our courts handle religious matters incompetently; mostly it seems due to its own interpretations of the constitution. With a fully secular government and institutions, there is less rope for the courts to hang us with, and allows us to keep our tax money free from the constant demands from organized religions' to be subsidized.





On provincial responsibility:

The provincial governments are responsible for education and health care in Canada, but they abrogate this by the use of the board system. This lack of direct control is a way for the politicians to sidestep their failures and avoid the rightful response from the electorate. 

On any given news day you can here provincial cabinet ministers proclaiming: 
	- "Don't like what's happening? Well, it's the board that makes the decisions!"
	- "Not being properly funded? Well, it's the federal government that isn't giving us enough money!".


The provincial governments are the responsible agencies and all failures in these areas are due to them. As much as I think that the federal government should be the responsible agency - it isn't. And so every time a federal politician goes on about education, or health care, you know that money is being wasted. It's about as useful as seeing those old "Burnaby.  A Nuclear Weapons Free Zone." signs. Every level of government should concentrate on its areas of responsibility, regardless of how popular the topic is.




In conclusion:


The best system is a high quality public (Standard Education) system.

Vouchers and tax breaks only give the illusion of choice when it comes to lower middle income families (and in rural areas - not even the illusion).

Trying to fix Ontario's system by funding all religious education is like pouring water on a grease fire. You can't fix a mistake by making more mistakes. 

In Ontario the Liberals are rightly condemned for being hypocrites on this issue; the Conservatives are rightly condemned for being incompetents on this issue; and the NDPers are rightly condemned for being cowards on this issue.


----------



## Sassy (28 Sep 2007)

Why punish the catholic school system?  It's part of the BNA, so who's going to pay to get this part of the constitution struck down?  I've heard it's a great system, so why get rid of something that works?  Islam, Hinduism, Somalian Tribal Law aren't part of our history or culture so why punish a religion that is? Currently our public system is more concerned with "Diversity" ,gag me with a spoon, and mulitculture is more important than the three R's.  Left leaning do-gooders deciding what should be culled for the good of the minority currently control public schools.  Is this a good thang? NO but it's the liberal/left way.  Pandering and appeasement is their ethos, after sucking up to Quebec of course.


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Sep 2007)

>Education and health care both, as services, have low level delivery but with high level standardization ... this should mean a federal responsibility.

The conclusion doesn't necessarily follow.  Provincial governments don't train the drivers they licence; they publish a standard and test to it.  And while the quality of the public systems are "high" enough, both private education and private health care can provide superior outcomes.

>Almost any voucher or refund system will cause those in the middle income range (especially the low end) to have to compromise on quality somewhere in their lives

Why?  What is your chain of reasoning here - that governments would issue vouchers good for $X and then charge $Y > $X for a slot in a public school?  It is to laugh.  If we had vouchers, governments would be hard-pressed to make an excuse for anything other than a straight exchange (no additional payments necessary) for a slot in the public system. 

>The government is obligated for Standard Education and nothing else in that area.

If true, that's a sufficient condition for a voucher system.  Regardless of intentions, the public system does an irregular and unsatisfactory job of preparing exceptional students to excel in subsequent education.  Any sufficiently bright child should have a shot at a more demanding school irrespective of the parents' means.

> None of the tax money, buildings, or students, is there to subsidize religious indoctrination.

That high horse has been ridden to death.  The fact is a religiously established school can be run to meet public curricular standards while expending very little time (money) on "religious indoctrination".  One would be better served objecting to the money spent on "competitive sports indoctrination" to the benefit of a select few.

>It isn't the government's job

The government's job is in part whatever the people decide it is, if they feel strongly enough about something.  The complete evisceration of government involvement in religion in any way, shape, or fashion is just frothing-mouthed fanaticism impelled by secularism-as-a-religion.

>It is a mistake to state that a secular school system teaches secularism - or is even about secularism.

I call bullshit. Too many people have proudly stated for the record their belief in schools as a tool of socialization.  Socialization is nothing but indoctrination into a set of beliefs and behaviours to suit the keepers of the system.

>Without a secular government, or secular institutions, you do not have religious freedom; and having a separate (Catholic) public school system is corrosive to everyone's freedom.

Again, I call bullshit.  In what concrete way has a publicly-funded Catholic school system corroded freedom?  Given that anyone can put a child in school somewhere, you can't even make the argument that there is a loss of financial freedom.

The board system is, BTW, an excellent way for communities to retain control of their schools - if it is so used.


----------



## warrickdll (29 Sep 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ...
> >The government is obligated for Standard Education and nothing else in that area.
> 
> If true, that's a sufficient condition for a voucher system.  Regardless of intentions, the public system does an irregular and unsatisfactory job of preparing exceptional students to excel in subsequent education.  Any sufficiently bright child should have a shot at a more demanding school irrespective of the parents' means
> ...



I'm using Standard Education to indicate topic content, not topic depth. While schools of excellence could be set up in a Standard Education public system, I would suggest an improved ability in all public schools to meet the needs of their quick learners.

Private schools don’t exist to be educational oases. They exist to generate profit by direct payment and/or promoting membership in an organization that then receives money from its members. 

If someone wants their child in a private school then they must be prepared to fully pay for it. I’m not advocating the end of private schools (neither is anyone else), but just because someone thinks their child should be in a school designed especially for dancers, or for actors, or for Catholics, this does not mean that they should be subsidized by taking money out of the public system. If fewer funds are needed in the public system, due to people using private systems, then this should be reflected in lower taxes for everyone.





			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ...
> >It is a mistake to state that a secular school system teaches secularism - or is even about secularism.
> 
> I call bullshit. Too many people have proudly stated for the record their belief in schools as a tool of socialization.  Socialization is nothing but indoctrination into a set of beliefs and behaviours to suit the keepers of the system.
> ...



Organized religions have nightmares thinking about governments becoming officially secular. One of the more devious and underhanded ways to prevent this is by promoting the myth that secularism is a set of beliefs on par with religious beliefs. That simply isn’t true. A secular system is not anti-religious, it just isn’t religious.

Any time some special interest group gets special privileges it makes all others less than they are.





			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ...
> > None of the tax money, buildings, or students, is there to subsidize religious indoctrination.
> 
> That high horse has been ridden to death.  The fact is a religiously established school can be run to meet public curricular standards while expending very little time (money) on "religious indoctrination".  One would be better served objecting to the money spent on "competitive sports indoctrination" to the benefit of a select few.
> ...



I agree - except about the “ridden to death”. It will be “ridden to death” when, in this instance, the Catholic Church weans itself off of tax money. You state it clearly yourself *“expending very little time (money) on "religious indoctrination"” * – there is absolutely no requirement to have an entire school system set aside to handle what can be handled in church at some other time during the week.

And I fully agree about sports. All inclusive sports in school are only there as part of physical fitness. If someone wants their child to be an athlete then that is done outside of school – this is exactly how we handle hockey.





			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ...
> >It isn't the government's job
> 
> The government's job is in part whatever the people decide it is, if they feel strongly enough about something.  The complete evisceration of government involvement in religion in any way, shape, or fashion is just frothing-mouthed fanaticism impelled by secularism-as-a-religion.
> ...



Sort of, even governments have to follow the law (but yes the laws can be changed). What needs to be stressed here is that the only reason Ontario has a Catholic school system taking tax money is because of an exclusion to allow the continued use of a 19th century law based on bigotry. Catholics didn’t like Protestants; Protestants didn’t like Catholics; the fact that this all changed seems to have been overlooked sometime in the previous century.

The only reason our governments and public institutions aren't fully secular yet is only due to massive efforts of special interest lobbying. One day Canada will get it right, and we will have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion.





The lack of proximity to alternate schools leaves few options to most people, especially outside the city cores. It’s a far better idea to fix the public system then to leave children’s education to market forces.


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Sep 2007)

>If someone wants their child in a private school then they must be prepared to fully pay for it.

Why?  The point of publicly-funded education is to provide an education to a child at public expense, not to sustain a public educational bureaucracy.  People who regard the system as the objective have incorrectly placed the means ahead of the ends.  The objective is the educated child.

>A secular system is not anti-religious, it just isn’t religious.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but you're hiding behind a definition and hoping no-one will notice the features of the underlying system.  The principles and arguments of anti-religionists can be directed at their own preferences: beliefs and abstract social and political ideas are just that, regardless of source.  Our ancestors formulated social rules and dressed them up as received wisdom because religion was an effective way to enforce compliance.  Nearly everyone is operating from a point of bias with respect to the values they wish inculcated in children, so the basis of objection to any particular preference is negated on grounds of hypocrisy.  There is no reason secular progressive parent A should be allowed to impose a financial disadvantage on Muslim parent B to influence behaviour.  At least the religious school supporters take the refreshingly liberal road of exerting their beliefs on their own children, rather than those of others.

>there is absolutely no requirement to have an entire school system set aside to handle what can be handled in church at some other time during the week.

You've got it backwards.  There is absolutely no basis to object to an entire distinct school system set up for no particular reason.  It's the business of those who want and use it, even if all they want is for everyone to wear green pants and skirts on Tuesdays.

>It’s a far better idea to fix the public system then to leave children’s education to market forces.

That experiment has been tried and failed.  We've thrown bags of money at public school systems over the past 30+ years, to not much real effect.  What we have are more employees with larger salaries and benefit packages.  To pre-empt any sensitive over-responses, I'm not judging who deserves what; the point is that opportunities and resources to fix the system have been repeatedly provided and the promised results have not been delivered.


----------



## warrickdll (30 Sep 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >If someone wants their child in a private school then they must be prepared to fully pay for it.
> 
> Why?  The point of publicly-funded education is to provide an education to a child at public expense, not to sustain a public educational bureaucracy.  People who regard the system as the objective have incorrectly placed the means ahead of the ends.  The objective is the educated child.
> ...



An educated population is an objective much like a defended population is an objective. The government decides how it will defend Canada and provides us with the CF. While someone might prefer to be defended by Challenger MBTs, instead of Leopard MBTs, they just can’t go out, hire some mercenaries, send the bill to the government, and then reasonably expect to be reimbursed. 

The government has provided the service to meet the objective; the government is in no way obligated to subsidize someone’s personal expenditures that duplicate that service – even if the same objective is met.





			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ...
> >It’s a far better idea to fix the public system then to leave children’s education to market forces.
> 
> That experiment has been tried and failed.  We've thrown bags of money at public school systems over the past 30+ years, to not much real effect.
> ...



Something that can be improved isn’t necessarily broken. More leadership is required from the governments responsible in order to make whatever improvements are required. This is where the board system works against us, by providing political cover for those who should be held directly responsible.





			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ...
> There is no reason secular progressive parent A should be allowed to impose a financial disadvantage on Muslim parent B to influence behaviour.  At least the religious school supporters take the refreshingly liberal road of exerting their beliefs on their own children, rather than those of others.
> ...



The secular system is welcoming to everyone, and so it must be the one used by the government. No religious person is denied anything by sending their child to public (secular) school – and they are certainly not financially disadvantaged in any way.



The public (secular) school teaches math, spelling, etc, in other words: the topics any certified school must teach. 
The Catholic school system teaches the topics any certified school must teach, and Catholic specific content.
Once the Catholic school system is converted over to the public (secular) system they will teach the topics any certified school must teach.

No one is disadvantaged either educationally or financially. It will be up to the Catholic Church (and its members) to figure out how to teach Catholic specific content with their own means – as it should have always been.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Sep 2007)

The fact a broad social objective1 is adopted by government does not necessitate government being the only provider.  If you wish to make comparisons, find some which are comparable: we aren't permitted to hire our own armed forces, so the illustration is irrelevant.

>The government has provided the service to meet the objective; the government is in no way obligated to subsidize someone’s personal expenditures that duplicate that service – even if the same objective is met.

You reduce a family's financial freedom of action by taking what was the family's (money) in the first place, provide one service, and then add insult to injury by requiring that if the family wishes to exercise freedom of choice it must expend yet more money.  That is a wholly unsatisfactory excuse which directly erodes two fundamental freedoms: property and conscience.

I'm sure the public school system can be improved; the point is that more money evidently isn't what is needed.  Vacuous well-wishing (more leadership...to make whatever improvements) isn't a solution.  I've noted that whenever more money is announced for a public service, the public sector unions are generally first in line with their latest contract demands.  However, all of the employee compensation and motivation articles to which my attention has been drawn over the past few years note that more pay and benefits don't have much impact on employee productivity or happiness (at least not at the income levels most white collar workers already enjoy).  And we don't lack for leadership.  The educational establishment is well-credentialed and educated, from the classroom teachers to the school administration to the board offices to the provincial ministries.

>No religious person is denied anything by sending their child to public (secular) school

Yes he is.  Unfortunately the rhetorical heat is drawn by notions of indoctrination, and the practical aspects are overlooked.  A religiously established school may set its school year to suit its religious calendar.  It may set the daily schedule to suit daily observances.  It may set dress and dietary codes.  It may segregate by gender.  It may arrange facilities and physical education to accommodate notions of modesty.  It may provide on-site facilities for worship.  And so on.

There is also this: the social price of not supporting differently established schools is that demands for accommodation in the public system are made.  When the demands are not granted, there is increased social tension on the part of the applicants.  When the demands are granted - sometimes they are - there is increased social tension on the part of others.  And the demands do not end.

1. Ask around.  You won't find many parents who agree they don't care whether their children are educated.


----------



## foo32 (30 Sep 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >No religious person is denied anything by sending their child to public (secular) school
> 
> Yes he is.  Unfortunately the rhetorical heat is drawn by notions of indoctrination, and the practical aspects are overlooked.  A religiously established school may set its school year to suit its religious calendar.  It may set the daily schedule to suit daily observances.  It may set dress and dietary codes.  It may segregate by gender.  It may arrange facilities and physical education to accommodate notions of modesty.  It may provide on-site facilities for worship.  And so on.



The religious person you are talking about is the parent. Children don't have a religion, it is the parents that have the religion. It is limits of their rights as parents that are in question, and it seems clear to me that the rights of the child and setting good social policy are what is most important.   In particular, the rights of the child to the best education our society can provide.  The message of religious dogma is antithetical to that of education -- our schools are charged with exposing children to knowledge and giving them the tools they need to think critically.  If an adult wishes to harsh their melon with religious dogma that is their right, but I see absolutely zero obligation for the government to compromise the rights of the child (and pick up a big tab to boot) just to humour a handful of overly religious parents.

Furthermore, when it comes to setting good social policy, segregated religious schools (which is where we'd be going if we start expanding funding based on religion) are so divisive they can only be called poisonous.  There are a million examples:  the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland, Jews and Arabs in Israel, the Islamic madrases in Pakistan and pretty much the rest of humanity. Problems are even taking shape in the UK courtesy Tony Blair's misguided policies. Canadians should learn from the mistakes of others, and just not go there ... not even a single step. 

It is also clear the Catholic church cannot be trusted as guardians of children ... and I don't just mean their history of sheltering paedophile priests.  The recent debate they had about vaccinating young girls for HPV (known to case most cervical cancers) just show how profoundly misogynistic and just plain ... wicked ... this institution happens to be.   I'll just stop here before I get much farther into a rant  :rage:


----------



## Shamrock (30 Sep 2007)

What?

I'm willing to bet some of that is just shooting from the hip, not intending to be informative or based on fact, rather inflammatory and opinion laden.    This, however:



			
				foo32 said:
			
		

> It is also clear the Catholic church cannot be trusted as guardians of children ...



That's a little hard to follow.  

You do realize the Church doesn't actually set the syllabi, right?  Catholic school have to meet the same educational criteria as public schools; their teachers must be certified, just the same as public school teachers.  More than likely, Catholic school teachers have gone to teachers' college alongside public school teachers.  If Catholic school teachers aren't apt guardians, then by extension are their public school counterparts equally inept?  Or is it because of an individual's religious affiliation that he becomes inept?  In that case, should Catholics be banned from teaching even at public schools?


----------



## foo32 (1 Oct 2007)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> What?
> 
> I'm willing to bet some of that is just shooting from the hip, not intending to be informative or based on fact, rather inflammatory and opinion laden.    This, however:



Inflammatory and opinion laden ... absolutely!  You can say I'm wrong but you can't say I'm wishy-washy or afraid of holding an unpopular opinion (and how boring these forums would be if everyone agreed with me.)  However, I'm not fabricating or exaggerating anything, so my opinions are 'based on fact' -- the conclusions one reaches from the facts, are of course, open to interpretation.

I was slamming the judgement of a school board that would even consider a decision that would put the lives of women at risk because they are worried a vaccine 'might encourage promiscuity'.  As priorities go, that is just plain warped. To be fair, the HPV vaccinations went ahead, but this would be a no-brainer for any secular school board -- to even debate the matter makes me worry.

I have no problem with any teacher's personal religious views, as long as they don't force them on the children. While I don't trust the institution of the Catholic Church, and I think I would be stupid to do so considering its history, I'm absolutely *not* making the absurd assertion individual Catholics can't be trusted around children any more than any other group ... that would exceed by far my personal limit for bigotry.  I like to at least try and stay grounded. ;D

I'm aware Catholic schools in Canada have the same basic educational criteria as other schools. I still consider *any* message aimed at religious indoctrination being put forth by an institution responsible for education to be contrary to the very purpose of education (and probably a conflict of interest as well).


----------



## onecat (1 Oct 2007)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> You do realize the Church doesn't actually set the syllabi, right?  Catholic school have to meet the same educational criteria as public schools; their teachers must be certified, just the same as public school teachers.  More than likely, Catholic school teachers have gone to teachers' college alongside public school teachers.



Thanks Shamrock, you just proved why extending funding to all faith based schools is the right thing to do.  All the schools will have same syllabi to teach from and will also have cerdified teachers....


----------



## warrickdll (1 Oct 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ...
> >The government has provided the service to meet the objective; the government is in no way obligated to subsidize someone’s personal expenditures that duplicate that service – even if the same objective is met.
> 
> You reduce a family's financial freedom of action by taking what was the family's (money) in the first place, provide one service, and then add insult to injury by requiring that if the family wishes to exercise freedom of choice it must expend yet more money.  That is a wholly unsatisfactory excuse which directly erodes two fundamental freedoms: property and conscience.
> ...



Converting the Catholic school system to the public (secular) system will not cause parents, whose children are in the Catholic system, to pay more taxes. Taxes will remain the same and so their financial freedom stays the same.





			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ...
> >No religious person is denied anything by sending their child to public (secular) school
> 
> Yes he is.  Unfortunately the rhetorical heat is drawn by notions of indoctrination, and the practical aspects are overlooked.  A religiously established school may set its school year to suit its religious calendar.  It may set the daily schedule to suit daily observances.  It may set dress and dietary codes.  It may segregate by gender.  It may arrange facilities and physical education to accommodate notions of modesty.  It may provide on-site facilities for worship.  And so on.
> ...



None of that has anything to do with education; and that’s the point – nothing about education is being denied. 





			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ...
> There is also this: the social price of not supporting differently established schools is that demands for accommodation in the public system are made.  When the demands are not granted, there is increased social tension on the part of the applicants.  When the demands are granted - sometimes they are - there is increased social tension on the part of others.  And the demands do not end.
> ...



As much as any religious organizations will try to paint themselves as victims, it will always be a mistake to setup separate schools, police forces, prisons, etc, to appease a religious organization. Any pandering to a religious organization will always lead to more demands from them.


----------



## Simon (1 Oct 2007)

Well, it seems that Mr Tory has decided to listen. He could have done this a week ago, either way, John Tory you now have my vote, I encourage all those interested contact your MPP or candidate, express your pleasure, and kick in $50 today, or go down and volunteer for the last week, god knows hes gonna need the help now.

Progressive Conservative leader John Tory is poised to change the message on his controversial faith-based school funding platform, Sun Media has learned. 

According to campaign sources, it is expected today he will announce that if he forms the government, he would put the issue to a free vote in the Legislature, instead of insisting MPPs follow the party line.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Oct 2007)

>It is limits of their rights as parents that are in question, and it seems clear to me that the rights of the child and setting good social policy are what is most important.

A child has different rights than an adult because a child is morally immature.  Parents have the inherent right to choose the upbringing and education of the child.  Setting good social policy is just a variation on imposing a belief system.  Other people don't have a moral authority to intervene between parents and children except when children are in manifest danger - real abuse and neglect, not invented harms.  I await the data which show that the people with religious upbringing, particularly those educated in Ontario's Catholic school system, are harmful.

>segregated religious schools  ... are so divisive they can only be called poisonous.

Rhetorical overreach leaves you nowhere to go when you encounter something truly evil.  Northern Ireland is a political problem going back centuries and is not the result of religiously segregated schools.  Israelis do not teach their children to revile Arabs.  The Israeli-Arab conflict is fundamentally a political one.  And to the extent some schools in the Middle East do teach hateful propaganda, they are not in Canada and subject to Canadian law.  In view of the fact of religiously established schools in Canada now, please try to make the case that segregated religious schools *in Canada* can only be called poisonous.  The existence of madrassas in Pakistan is not an argument against anything in Canada.

>The recent debate they had about vaccinating young girls for HPV ... just show how profoundly misogynistic and just plain ... wicked ... this institution happens to be. 

Debate is wicked?  I think you just zeroed out your credibility.

(BTW, in the common sense world I inhabit, the notion that pregnancy and disease prevention tools contribute to increased sexual expression is a no-brainer.  When the inherent risks of something people enjoy are reduced, people tend to do more of it.  And nothing a school board decides can remove the freedom of a parent to exercise a different decision.)


----------



## a_majoor (1 Oct 2007)

The overheated rhetoric against parental choice is pretty amusing because it is taking place in a vacuum. Would all those people who are against public funding of religious based schools please provide examples or proof that any of the negative effects being claimed HAVE HAPPENED in any of the six provinces which currently provide funding for religious based education?

On the other hand, it is very easy to show academic improvements in provinces like Alberta which have the greatest amount of parental choice; indeed Alberta spends less on "education" than most other provinces, but because there are lots of choices for parents to take (including public schools, religious schools, charter schools, home schooling and private education) the need and size of the educational bureaucracy is lower, hence more education money is actually making it to the students. (given the combination of a vast public service educational bureaucracy and powerful teachers unions in Ontario, only a thin trickle of our "education" dollars ever makes it to the student, hence the constant dunning for more money for school supplies or the lack of supplementary programs like music in schools).


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Oct 2007)

>Converting the Catholic school system to the public (secular) system will not cause parents, whose children are in the Catholic system, to pay more taxes. Taxes will remain the same and so their financial freedom stays the same.

If I were writing only about the Catholic school system, that would be true.  But I'm writing about the situation faced by all parents, including those who might desire differently focussed schools for reasons other than religion.

>None of that has anything to do with education; and that’s the point – nothing about education is being denied.

It's not given to you or I to narrowly define the parameters of what constitutes a child's education; neither of us is in a position to determine that nothing is denied.  It is easy to conceive not only of things parents might desire that their children learn in the institutional setting, but of things parents might not want their children exposed to in the public system - including the general setting.  If the public education system is the minimum standard, I don't deem it a worthy objective to stand in the way of those who seek higher standards. Give them their share of funding and let them make up the difference toward what they desire.

>Any pandering to a ... organization will always lead to more demands from them.

Yes, and we don't use it as an excuse not to pander to any non-religious group so we should not discriminate against religious groups.  We must hear their complaints and decide whether to pander in each case.  Your objection amounts to a claim that we won't know when to stop, in which case every change which was ever opposed by fears of the slippery slope should be rolled back immediately.  Or we could just acknowledge that we do have the power and ability to set limits.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Oct 2007)

Arthur's comment goes back to a point I stated earlier: one of the worries is what will happen to the jobs of everyone in the public system.  The educational establishment is well aware of the free ride it gets on the back of everyone who pays taxes and does not use the public system.  Of course, if separate schools and boards were established, there would still be the same number of children to educate: while some people would have to change employers and some facilities would change ownership and/or management, the cost would not be a completely new liability.

And that reminds me of the other worry: the ideological one.  So I ask: what is the "poison" with which some of you are concerned?

Is it:

The citizens turned out by existing private or separate Jewish schools?
The citizens turned out by existing private or separate Protestant schools?
The citizens turned out by existing private or separate Catholic schools?
The citizens turned out by existing private or separate schools of some other religious group?

Let us see specific concerns instead of vague worries.  If you concede there is no group poisoning the minds of the young, then you have no basis for objection.  And if there is such a group, who are they?


----------



## glock17 (1 Oct 2007)

Are any of the children in the above mentioned groups being taught that their religon is the "right" one?


----------



## warrickdll (1 Oct 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> ...
> On the other hand, it is very easy to show academic improvements in provinces like Alberta which have the greatest amount of parental choice; indeed Alberta spends less on "education" than most other provinces, but because there are lots of choices for parents to take (including public schools, religious schools, charter schools, home schooling and private education) the need and size of the educational bureaucracy is lower, hence more education money is actually making it to the students. (given the combination of a vast public service educational bureaucracy and powerful teachers unions in Ontario, only a thin trickle of our "education" dollars ever makes it to the student, hence the constant dunning for more money for school supplies or the lack of supplementary programs like music in schools).



Alberta’s successes and Ontario’s failures are not directly linked to having publicly funded religious schools (unless you have some data to share on that). Expressing disappointment in Ontario’s school bureaucracy or teacher’s union does not give an actual reason why the government would be obligated to pay for someone’s religion.





			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> The overheated rhetoric against parental choice is pretty amusing because it is taking place in a vacuum. Would all those people who are against public funding of religious based schools please provide examples or proof that any of the negative effects being claimed HAVE HAPPENED in any of the six provinces which currently provide funding for religious based education?
> ...





			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ...
> Let us see specific concerns instead of vague worries.  If you concede there is no group poisoning the minds of the young, then you have no basis for objection.  And if there is such a group, who are they?



There could be no negative affects, aside from distaste for segregation, but then again – no one here is happy about their tax money propping up Bountiful BC. 

Perhaps religious schools do a good job, but that is no reason for them to receive tax money. 
-	we don’t require separate police forces for different religions
-	we don’t require separate courts for different religions
-	we don’t require separate health care systems for different religions 

And we don’t require separate school systems for different religions. Education is not some special case where religions get to horn in on government services.






			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ...
> >None of that has anything to do with education; and that’s the point – nothing about education is being denied.
> 
> It's not given to you or I to narrowly define the parameters of what constitutes a child's education; neither of us is in a position to determine that nothing is denied.  It is easy to conceive not only of things parents might desire that their children learn in the institutional setting, but of things parents might not want their children exposed to in the public system - including the general setting.
> ...



It is entirely up to us, collectively, to determine what our tax money will pay for.





			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ...
> If the public education system is the minimum standard, I don't deem it a worthy objective to stand in the way of those who seek higher standards. Give them their share of funding and let them make up the difference toward what they desire.
> ...



There is no reason to do this; we fund the public system; none of us owns a share of the tax money. Religions do not need to teach math and spelling, any additional religious content does not need a school – especially not one paid for with tax money. 

If there is something wrong with the public system then it should be fixed.





			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ...
> >Any pandering to a ... organization will always lead to more demands from them.
> 
> Yes, and we don't use it as an excuse not to pander to any non-religious group so we should not discriminate against religious groups.  We must hear their complaints and decide whether to pander in each case.  Your objection amounts to a claim that we won't know when to stop, in which case every change which was ever opposed by fears of the slippery slope should be rolled back immediately.  Or we could just acknowledge that we do have the power and ability to set limits.



This isn’t a slippery slope issue; the line needs to be drawn absolutely at public funding. A person’s religion is their own responsibility - not the governments.  





			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Converting the Catholic school system to the public (secular) system will not cause parents, whose children are in the Catholic system, to pay more taxes. Taxes will remain the same and so their financial freedom stays the same.
> 
> If I were writing only about the Catholic school system, that would be true.  But I'm writing about the situation faced by all parents, including those who might desire differently focussed schools for reasons other than religion.
> ...



Nothing about the public (secular) school system stops anyone from attending to any of their other desires. Be it religion, hockey, painting, speaking Russian, extra math, or extra science; all of these are up to the parent to provide for their child, if they want to.

As a rule, government should never pay for, or subsidize religion, and there is no need to. Once the Ontario Catholic school system converts to the public (secular) school system everyone will still be educated. There is no extra expense. 

If someone wants to send there child to a private (secular) school then they should be expected to pay for it – entirely. The government doesn’t pay you for not sending your child to public school, just like the government doesn’t pay you for not having a child to send to public school.

As for private (religious) school, it’s the same as private (secular) school – there is no tax refund because a child is in private school or because you don’t have a child. 

Besides, it would be foolish for a parent to pay for private (religious) school. The business of religions depends on memberships for funding and relevancy, so they desperately want the kind of brand loyalty you can only really get from the impressions made on the young consumer. Religious parents should be demanding that their religion’s fully fund their children’s enrollment since the religion will make more money off of the child over the long haul.


----------



## McG (1 Oct 2007)

Sassy said:
			
		

> Why punish the catholic school system?  It's part of the BNA, so who's going to pay to get this part of the constitution struck down?  I've heard it's a great system, so why get rid of something that works?  Islam, Hinduism, Somalian Tribal Law aren't part of our history or culture so why punish a religion that is? …


At a time when the majority would have an option to attend a school of their religion, the BNA created protected denominational schools as an element of minority rights (Protestant schools in Quebec & Catholic schools in Ontario).  However, Canada has changed since the later half of the 1800’s.  The majority school boards have become secular and open to all students regardless of religion.

As I’ve mentioned, other provinces, which had constitutionally protected denominational schools, have changed the Constitution.  Canadian courts have recognized that the Catholic school system in Ontario is discriminatory, but as it is protected (& mandated) in the constitution it is legal.



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> On the other hand, it is very easy to show academic improvements in provinces like Alberta which have the greatest amount of parental choice;


... and user fees that you will not find in other provinces' public school systems.  http://www.cbe.ab.ca/trustees/fees.asp



			
				ex-Sup said:
			
		

> Yes, non-Catholics might have to go on waiting list to enter a Catholic school, but generally spots are found for them.





			
				ex-Sup said:
			
		

> Because it's a Catholic school and Catholics get the first priority. Really it depends on where you are and what is the status of the school. I live in a town where enrollment is declining and there isn't generally an issue of non-Catholics getting in.


Well, your experience in a community of declining enrollment does not match that of mine in communities where the schools are all full.  Each school board draws boundaries & you go to the school that your boundaries dictate.  If you are Catholic you have two schools the choose from (Public or Catholic), and if you are not Catholic you do not get a choice.



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> The fact that my tax dollars are being used, to suit my needs, as they should be.  Rather than complaining how my tax dollars are spent, see to it that your tax dollars are spent wisely in the public school system.
> 
> …
> 
> My Tax dollars are not more equal, but by the sounds of it, it is spent more wisely.


The days of choosing the school board for your tax dollars are gone.  Your tax dollars & my tax dollars pay for both boards, but my children will be given second class treatment by the Catholic boards.  Your tax dollar is certainly treated “more equal” than mine, and that will be the reality of the situation as long as there is constitutionally protected denominational segregation of the publicly funded school system.


----------



## ixium (1 Oct 2007)

Lets make this argument simple.

Is there anyone, that is not a practicing Catholic, that will argue that Catholic school boards getting special treatment is acceptable?

I highly doubt it.

I find it even hard for a Catholic to argue it. One person giving special treatment because of their race/religion/place of origin is the cause of all the major problems of society.


----------



## Shamrock (1 Oct 2007)

ixium said:
			
		

> Is there anyone, that is not a practicing Catholic, that will argue that Catholic school boards getting special treatment is acceptable?



I'm not a practicing Catholic.


----------



## Simon (1 Oct 2007)

I will put my final 2 cents in, as a former catholic (but Im OK now), I went to seperate achools till grade 11 when I rebelled and enlisted in the public system, outside of the saying hail marys in home room you wouldnt know the difference, septin for the penguins in the main Hall
when the bell went off, never saw any on Public high though, hmmm strange.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Oct 2007)

Iterator, while your beliefs are obviously quite strong, you are arguing against a straw man.

There are six Canadian provinces which already support separate religious schooling, without any of the apocalyptic consequences you, the teachers unions or Priemier Pinnochio  are claiming.

Jurisdictions which offer more parental choice do better because parents can get more involved with the educational process with their children; there is nothing in what I said that would prevent any parent from choosing a secular "State" school if that is what they desire. They would need to abide by the consequences of their choice, just like the other parents in competing schools. OTOH, the secular "State" education establishment has huge incentives to oppose any form of competition, so long as their funding model is driven by "per head" payments drawn from the tax revenues of the State.

While there are user fees in Alberta schools, paying for school supplies like textbooks or going outside for supplimentary education like music in Ontario is also a form of user fee. Given the vast amount of resources being poured into the public system already, the argument isn't about money, rather how it is spent and the lack of parental input or discretion for spending.

Once again, while using tax dollars to support parental choice in choosing and funding schools is not my first choice, today it is the only realistic choice for voters (yes, the Freedom Party supports vouchers, but their ability to form the next government is *ahem* in doubt). One can only hope that this issue will spark a full scale examination of vouchers, parental charter schools and other means of increasing parental choice between now and the next election.


----------



## foo32 (1 Oct 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> A child has different rights than an adult because a child is morally immature.  Parents have the inherent right to choose the upbringing and education of the child.




On your first point, children have different rights, but as a general rule I do not agree that the a child's rights are immediately trumped by a parents religious rights.  On your second point, it is not widely agreed that parents have carte blanche when it comes to the upbringing and education of the child. If it was widely agreed, creationism would be being taught in science classes in several schools in the USA.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Setting good social policy is just a variation on imposing a belief system.



Historically speaking, the religious have never had a problem with imposing belief systems. But regardless, a secular system isn't imposing a particular belief system simply because it sticks to its core purpose and doesn't humour every whim of every possible person with a "belief". Fanatics will scream otherwise, but that's too bad.  If impartiality is a goal, then if you cater to one you must  cater to all. It is hard enough just juggling the minor religious accommodations as our secular system already does.




			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Other people don't have a moral authority to intervene between parents and children except when children are in manifest danger - real abuse and neglect, not invented harms.



As I pointed out with the Creationists, this point isn't widely accepted. Whether it should be or not is another debate.




			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I await the data which show that the people with religious upbringing, particularly those educated in Ontario's Catholic school system, are harmful.



That's rather easy, but I expect you won't like my answer.  If a child graduates from some education system, and isn't able to recognise that wild supernatural claims -- offered without a shred of evidence --  have no credibility and should not be taken seriously, and those children cannot do so because the system itself has indoctrinated them, then the minds of those children have been done real harm.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >segregated religious schools  ... are so divisive they can only be called poisonous.
> 
> Rhetorical overreach leaves you nowhere to go when you encounter something truly evil.  Northern Ireland is a political problem going back centuries and is not the result of religiously segregated schools.



True. Religiously segregated schools have almost certainty been a contributing factor, but the details of cause and effect are impossible to tease out in this situation. 




			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Israelis do not teach their children to revile Arabs.  The Israeli-Arab conflict is fundamentally a political one.



Not entirely true. There are both political and religious aspects, and they are tangled together.  The claim that Israelis do not teach their children to revile Arabs is dubious as well. They may not teach them to revile Arabs per se, but Google for the studies of Israeli psychologist George Tamarin -- in particular his studies on the effect of Jewish teachings on the moral choices of children in evaluating the story of the Battle of Jericho.  In his tests, Jewish religious teachings effectively put some rather nasty blinders on children when it came to rendering moral judgements.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> And to the extent some schools in the Middle East do teach hateful propaganda, they are not in Canada and subject to Canadian law.  In view of the fact of religiously established schools in Canada now, please try to make the case that segregated religious schools *in Canada* can only be called poisonous.  The existence of madrassas in Pakistan is not an argument against anything in Canada.



I have to disagree again. If we want to assess the effects of widened religious schools in Canada, we have to look to places that actually have such schools. Britain is probably the case that is most comparable to Canada.  As look what happened in the case of say, the Islamic schools:

The ideal:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6338219.stm

The reality:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/faithschools/story/0,,2008805,00.html




			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Debate is wicked?  I think you just zeroed out your credibility.
> 
> (BTW, in the common sense world I inhabit, the notion that pregnancy and disease prevention tools contribute to increased sexual expression is a no-brainer.  When the inherent risks of something people enjoy are reduced, people tend to do more of it.  And nothing a school board decides can remove the freedom of a parent to exercise a different decision.)



To defend putting women's lives at risk by suppressing a vaccine, just in the hope of being able to scare them into remaining chaste, is the expression of a mind that has been tainted by evil.  Leaving real power over the lives of children in such hands is crazy. 

Sorry Brad.  I think my credibility isn't in danger in this particular argument -- you might be able to get me on a different thread though ;D


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Oct 2007)

It isn't proposed that the public pay for anyone's religion.  It is proposed that the public pay for education in settings other than the public school system which observe religions.  The principle at stake is not separation of church and state, which is already observed: the state is not imposing religion; the church is not exercising control of the machinery of government.  The principle is universality of a publicly funded benefit.  There is nothing in our Charter which limits schooling to a public system - obviously - but there is an unambiguous statement that all should receive equal benefit of the law.  Do you think Ontario taxpayers are paying to make children Catholic?  That is not the case.  Taxpayers are paying for their education.

>Perhaps religious schools do a good job, but that is no reason for them to receive tax money. 

The main reasons for separate school systems to receive tax money are universality, equality of benefit of the law, and observance of the principles stated in the UN document I cited earlier.  I am still waiting for a compelling argument to be made that separate schools should *not* receive public funding - the burden of argument belongs to those who wish to set aside law and principles - on some basis stronger than spitefulness.  If the Catholic schools are providing an adequate education, do you have an objection more substantial than emotional dislike?

>It is entirely up to us, collectively, to determine what our tax money will pay for.

Agreed.  But while nothing in our constitutional law requires us to provide public funding for transgender surgery, to support hard drug habits, or to hand over income supplements with little or no accountability on the part of the recipient, the issue of a child's education actually does have standing in constitutional and international law.

>As a rule, government should never pay for, or subsidize religion

Government isn't subsidizing religion through schools but I recognize the theme of your straw man, which is a popular one.  The fallacy is this: to portray the purpose of the school system as the subsidization of religion.  If it were true, your objection might stand.  But the point of the school system is, unequivocally and foremost, to be a school system.  If students meet or exceed the standards set by the government on the basis of per-student funding calculated to match the public system, what are the grounds for claiming subsidy of religion?  One must presume the equivalent of every public dollar is consumed to deliver the public curriculum.  It is unlikely any education bureaucrat will accuse the private schools of paying for curriculum + religion on funding identical to what the public system consumes for curriculum only; it would be an invitation for funding cuts across the board.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Oct 2007)

>I do not agree that the a child's rights are immediately trumped by a parents religious rights.

What right of the child do you imagine is trumped?  Again: parents have the inherent right to choose the upbringing and education of the child.  On what basis would you overthrow that and claim the right belongs to some number of other people?  And parents do have complete carte blanche to teach creationism; they just happen for the most part not to have the power to set the curricula of the public systems.

>Historically speaking, the religious have never had a problem with imposing belief systems.

Historically speaking, neither have any number of adherents of political ideologies ranging from the nearly harmless to the insanely murderous.  Secularists in Canada seem to have no compunction about sticking their preferences down the throats of everyone.  Impartiality is not an ideological principle to which we adhere.  Our governments are rife with favouritism at all levels.  I stand by my assertion that what is passed off as secularism is just another belief system, albeit one without one or more Prime Causes.  Reduced to fundamentals, much of what is passed off as "rational" reduces to "just because" and "we believe".

>But regardless, a secular system isn't imposing a particular belief system simply because it sticks to its core purpose

Yes it does.  Everytime the "secular system" says "be this way" and a person says "No thank you; I'll be my own way" and the "secular system" forces the issue, that's imposition of belief.  Secularists like to pretend their ideology stands above other religions; it is a fantasy without foundation.

>That's rather easy, but I expect you won't like my answer.

Leaving aside the issue of whether beliefs in deities and miracles and string theory have any credibility, and leaving aside whether a mind is harmed by anything held as belief rather than as a known (provable, verifiable, experiential) fact, I asked whether the *people* are harmful.  Because absent any proof that they are, there is no number of other people with moral authority to impose limits on them for the sake of their personal beliefs, no matter how giddy or eccentric.

>The claim that Israelis do not teach their children to revile Arabs is dubious as well.

It's dubious until you prove that such behaviour is widespread and the results effective.  If you wish to cite the corrosive effects of religious schools, find cases in which the religious schools are manifestly responsible.  If it is Islamic schools which alarm you, then state your position unambiguously and remove all the denominations which you consider essentially harmless from the debate.  If you fear madrassas, don't use Ontario's Catholic school system as a smokescreen if you don't fear the graduates of the system.  State which religious school systems in Canada you fear, and why.

>Sorry Brad.  I think my credibility isn't in danger in this particular argument -- you might be able to get me on a different thread though 

Characterizing the position as "wicked" or "suppressive" is intellectually and morally null.  Any person or organization legitimately exercises freedoms of conscience and association in choosing to not participate in something held on principle to be immoral.  It is correct, in view of human nature, to assume that HPV vaccinations broaden sexual licence (ie. freedom to act with fewer consequences).  You or I may say, "big deal", but it is correct, in most branches of Christianity, that one exercise temperance in all things.  It is entirely consistent for a Catholic organization to remove itself from anything which would contribute to licentiousness - however niggling the degree - and leave the moral choice up to (in this case) the daughters and parents.


----------



## eerickso (2 Oct 2007)

Let me see if I understand the ontario premier. If I want my child to have good protestant values,  I need to pay? It is really unfortunate that he made this choice, he had the opportunity to do what a premier should do: lead.


----------



## R.O.S (2 Oct 2007)

I just want to throw in my rock into the pond. I was educated under the catholic system untill grade 5. Personally I would like no funding for any religion from public funds, I believe it is unfair that my Jewish, Muslim and other friends will have to pay for another religion. A constitutional change would be favourable to my. However, if no change like this will happen then I do agree that if one religion must get funding then all should that follow the standerdized system of course. It is either equality for all religions or, to my favor, a change in constitution and religious teachings to come out of private pockets and not mine.


----------



## the 48th regulator (2 Oct 2007)

leftcoaster said:
			
		

> Let me see if I understand the ontario premier. If I want my child to have good protestant values,  I need to pay? It is really unfortunate that he made this choice, he had the opportunity to do what a premier should do: lead.



And Catholic Taxpayers have a free education?

Thanks for the input....

dileas

tess


----------



## McG (2 Oct 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> And Catholic Taxpayers have a free education?


Publicly funded from the pockets of all tax payers (including the pockets of non-Catholics who are given second class treatment when it comes to getting in).  You do not get to pick which school board gets your money any more.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Oct 2007)

A "refinement" of John Tory's position, shared with the usual disclaimer....

*Tory backpedals on pledge to fund faith-based schools*
GREG MERCER, KITCHENER-WATERLOO RECORD, 2 OCT 07
Article link

John Tory's decision to change his tack on a controversial proposal to extend public funding to the province's private religious schools was jumped upon by three local party candidates yesterday, who said the idea is too unpopular to support.

Tory tried to pacify Progressive Conservative faithful and win back badly needed votes by *promising to allow caucus members a free vote on his proposal*, which until yesterday he had steadfastly defended throughout the campaign.

Kitchener-Waterloo incumbent Elizabeth Witmer, Cambridge and North Dumfries incumbent Gerry Martiniuk and Kitchener Centre candidate Matt Stanson reacted by saying they cannot support a policy that Tory now admits is "divisive."

All three said voters in their ridings had made it clear any such legislation would be unpopular.

"There is no doubt that the overwhelming sentiment is to not extend public funding to private religious schools," Martiniuk said. "I will vote against public funding of private religious schools."

Stanson said "I have heard the people of Kitchener Centre loud and clear and if elected . . . I will be voting against the funding of faith-based school."

Witmer, a former education minister and public school board trustee, said the majority of constituents she's talked to are not behind Tory's proposal.

Witmer lamented the issue was distracting attention away from other priorities such as health care and the environment.

"It's time to move on," she said, adding she would have to consult with her constituents again if faced with legislation.

She praised Tory for having the "courage" to recognize "there wasn't enough support for this."

Kitchener-Conestoga candidate Michael Harris, meanwhile, said it's too early to say how he would react to a free vote, but argued the decision to allow a free vote on the issue shows Tory is a "principled individual."

Harris said he can't comment on legislation that doesn't exist yet, but added that Ontario needs a "fair and inclusive" policy toward funding religious-based schools.

"I view it differently," he said. "It's an issue of fundamental rights. There is an inequity in the system and we have a responsibility to address it . . . I think it's a discussion that's long overdue."

Tory, whose marquee pledge to bring religious schools into the public-funding fold has been a millstone around the neck of the Conservative campaign since it began three weeks ago, earned sustained applause when he made his concession in a speech to business leaders in Toronto.

"People have a depth of concern about this that I've listened to and I've heard,'' Tory said later.

"It is an issue that is proving to be more divisive. I'd like to try to depoliticize (it), frankly, while maintaining my position of conviction and letting the people play a very active role in making the ultimate decision.''

In defending the policy throughout the campaign, Tory has insisted that real leadership is about promoting policies that aren't "universally popular.'' In yesterday's speech, Tory changed his tack, saying, "In the end, what a real leader does is to listen.''

"This was never the most important issue to me nor is it to the people of Ontario,'' he said. "What I've done is listened to the voters.''

Conservative house leader Bob Runciman, who was the first in the Conservative caucus to publicly admit the question of extending funding to private religious schools was "not playing well'' with voters, said Conservative strategists began bandying about the notion of a free vote last week.

"The issue tapped into a vein of discontent about a whole range of things,'' said Runciman. "It's a response to what the people are telling us. You ignore that at your peril.''

The issue "was starting to create divisions'' among voters, he added, accusing the Liberals of "shamelessly'' promoting those divisions for political gain.

In his speech, Tory described a televised campaign-trail encounter last week with a disgruntled voter in Sarnia, Ont. -- who complained that he had failed to address public concerns about the proposal -- as the moment when he realized it was time to rethink the proposal.

"That exchange that night, televised across the province, convinced me that something I had genuinely, honestly put forward in a spirit of inclusion and fairness had in fact become too much a source of division,'' he said.

"Merely proceeding as we were . . . would not achieve our aims of inclusion and fairness.''


----------



## the 48th regulator (2 Oct 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> Publicly funded from the pockets of all tax payers (including the pockets of non-Catholics who are given second class treatment when it comes to getting in).  You do not get to pick which school board gets your money any more.



No, but neither should the fact that Catholics are riding on the Taxpaying coat tails of others.

We are a large Tax paying membership, much like everyone else.  AS for this second class citizenship, it only happens when non-Catholics push the bounbdaries and try to enter a system, when there are others readily available.

Let's not make this out to be more than it is, and show all the facts.

dileas

tess


----------



## McG (2 Oct 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> No, but neither should the fact that Catholics are riding on the Taxpaying coat tails of others.


I don't know what you are trying to say here.


			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Let's not make this out to be more than it is, and show all the facts.


Which fact am I not showing?  The fact that you get more privilage from your tax dollar (a choice in publicly funded schools)?


			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> AS for this second class citizenship, it only happens when non-Catholics push the bounbdaries and try to enter a system, when there are others readily available.


That's right. Bad non-Catholics! What are you doing trying to get into thier special school?!

tess,
Face it.  You (your children) are treated special because of your religion.  You are given a guaranteed choice that may be denied to all others simply because of your religion.


----------



## the 48th regulator (2 Oct 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> tess,
> Face it.  You (your children) are treated special because of your religion.  You are given a guaranteed choice that may be denied to all others simply because of your religion.



Then it is about time.

Obviously the history of our Province has been forgotten.  And because we, as Catholics Taxpayers have been able to use our tax dollars to the ultimate advantage in improving the school system, should be in no way a reason for anyone to criticize and try to claw that away from us.

So tell me then, you would agree with this statement?



			
				leftcoaster said:
			
		

> Let me see if I understand the ontario premier. If I want my child to have good protestant values,  I need to pay? It is really unfortunate that he made this choice, he had the opportunity to do what a premier should do: lead.



No, the public school system allowed administrators appointed to watch over the school system to leave it in the state it is.  It has nothing to do with Politicians or Catholics.  You watched it happen as they took away Protestant values.  The prayer in the Morning with Oh Canada.  The Christmas, and Easter decoration to be abollished.  In the mission of appeasing the politically correct, you allowed that to happen.  Don’t come crying now.

In fact, as a person who was educated in the public school system, I am thoroughly appalled that it is in such a state, that people would have to crush the Catholic school system to gain improvements.

Further to these “Second Class Citizen” comments everyone is bandying about, please site me hard documented examples where this has happened, where a non Catholic was either denied or made to wait in line, and being bumped behind Catholics.  Further to that, I would like to also see the bad cases compared to the students of non-Catholic denomination that were allowed an education in that school system with out any challenges.

That is what irks me, MCG.  No matter how thinly veiled the comments are, they are insulting.  

dileas

tess


----------



## glock17 (2 Oct 2007)

Oh Boy....

History of our Province? 

Do we really need to start digging up examples of the mistakes we've made in the past? Historical policy is almost reason enough to make changes........

Unless you want to go over that whole "Women Voting" thing again... ;D

If there are problems with the public system, then don't abandon the vast majority of kids in Ontario to it, fix it, together.

Has anybody been swayed by the arguments presented on this forum?


----------



## the 48th regulator (2 Oct 2007)

glock17 said:
			
		

> Oh Boy....
> 
> History of our Province?
> 
> ...



It was in reference to his "Protestant Values" as opposed to Catholic, which I actually found amusing.  Hence the statement....

dileas

tess


----------



## glock17 (2 Oct 2007)

Seen. Rant dialed back.

But as an aside, I think we could probably agree that "Good Values" are not mutually exclusive to faith, or religious beliefs in general.


----------



## the 48th regulator (2 Oct 2007)

glock17 said:
			
		

> Seen. Rant dialed back.
> 
> But as an aside, I think we could probably agree that "Good Values" are not mutually exclusive to faith, or religious beliefs in general.



Oh I know that 

dileas

tess


----------



## R.O.S (2 Oct 2007)

glock17 said:
			
		

> Seen. Rant dialed back.
> 
> But as an aside, I think we could probably agree that "Good Values" are not mutually exclusive to faith, or religious beliefs in general.



True. I hardly believe that people truly send their kids to catholic school because they will not gain "good values". Anyone here who has attended catholic school, as I have, will know that it is no different value system then the one recieved in the public school, as I have. Some may argue you 'can' recieve better values at public schools because of the large diversity found in the public schools. Public school builds that "don't look at the differences (religion, culture) but the similarities". 

The catholic system is no one that teaches above average values or anything like that, it is a culture system. It focuses on the Hellenic (Greek/Roman system that pope Benedict said is supreme and should not be altered by anyone) and teaches a culture. Look at the catholic school board, not as a religious school board, but as an *ethnic school board*. Why is one ethnicity given special treatment?


----------



## McG (2 Oct 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Obviously the history of our Province has been forgotten.


 What part has been forgotten?  That the constitutional protection was created for the largest minority in a time when there were only two predominate religious systems in Canada?



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> And because we, as Catholics Taxpayers have been able to use our tax dollars to the ultimate advantage in improving the school system, should be in no way a reason for anyone to criticize and try to claw that away from us.


I find it insulting that you keep referring to this as a “Catholics Taxpayers” vs everybody else issue.  It is not just your tax dollars.  It is also everybody else’s tax dollars.  I, as a non Catholic, am paying for your schools & my children have been turned away because the school was too full and Catholics had priority.  Why are my tax dollars funding your special privilege?


----------



## R.O.S (2 Oct 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> I, as a non Catholic, am paying for your schools & my children have been turned away because the school was too full and Catholics had priority.  Why are my tax dollars funding your special privilege?



+1.

I would go futher by asking why a non-catholic should be penalized because they were born of a different religion or none at all. I thought Canada was a place of equal opportunity, no matter of your race or cultural background (yes, religion is part of culture).


----------



## the 48th regulator (2 Oct 2007)

R.O.S said:
			
		

> True. I hardly believe that people truly send their kids to catholic school because they will not gain "good values". Anyone here who has attended catholic school, as I have, will know that it is no different value system then the one recieved in the public school, as I have. Some may argue you 'can' recieve better values at public schools because of the large diversity found in the public schools. Public school builds that "don't look at the differences (religion, culture) but the similarities".
> 
> The catholic system is no one that teaches above average values or anything like that, it is a culture system. It focuses on the Hellenic (Greek/Roman system that pope Benedict said is supreme and should not be altered by anyone) and teaches a culture. Look at the catholic school board, not as a religious school board, but as an *ethnic school board*. Why is one ethnicity given special treatment?



This is not a thread to discuss opinion one has with regards to Catholicism.  

Unless you have facts to state otherwise, that a) Catholics believe their school system is above all else when it comes to values and b) Religion does not fall into "Ethnicity" as the religion spans many "Ethnic" Regions of the world.




			
				MCG said:
			
		

> What part has been forgotten?  That the constitutional protection was created for the largest minority in a time when there were only two predominate religious systems in Canada?



Okay.

So now we are facing an election which a party has offered to legitimize schools that are not controlled by the government, ensuring that education levels are met.  Because they are religious based schools, the solution is the erase them all and dump everything into the public school system?  So once again, we are truly going to bend to small groups that want to impose "Their non religious" beliefs on everyone, claiming that we are all Sectarian?




			
				MCG said:
			
		

> I find it insulting that you keep referring to this as a “Catholics Taxpayers” vs everybody else issue.  It is not just your tax dollars.  It is also everybody else’s tax dollars.  I, as a non Catholic, am paying for your schools & my children have been turned away because the school was too full and Catholics had priority.  Why are my tax dollars funding your special privilege?




Oh no, I do don't refer to that being that way, I respond to the comments aimed at Catholics as we are taking away your tax dollars.  Just reminding you that we also pay taxes, which goes towards the public system as well.

If your children have been turned away, have you raised this issue with OHRC ?  I would like to know what outcome came of y our children's denial into the Catholic school you chose.

dileas

tess

midified my grammar.


----------



## Shamrock (2 Oct 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> ...I, as a non Catholic, am paying for your schools & my children have been turned away because the school was too full and Catholics had priority...



I, as a Catholic, am paying for your non-Catholic schools.

I, as a non-parent, am paying for your chilren's school.


----------



## glock17 (2 Oct 2007)

Not sure of the exact relevance on this , but it is freakin hilarious....

www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/


----------



## glock17 (2 Oct 2007)

In all of my exuberance, I nearly missed this little gem...

http://www.venganza.org/2007/10/01/ontario.htm


----------



## ex-Sup (2 Oct 2007)

R.O.S said:
			
		

> True. I hardly believe that people truly send their kids to catholic school because they will not gain "good values". Anyone here who has attended catholic school, as I have, will know that it is no different value system then the one recieved in the public school, as I have. Some may argue you 'can' recieve better values at public schools because of the large diversity found in the public schools. Public school builds that "don't look at the differences (religion, culture) but the similarities".
> 
> The catholic system is no one that teaches above average values or anything like that, it is a culture system. It focuses on the Hellenic (Greek/Roman system that pope Benedict said is supreme and should not be altered by anyone) and teaches a culture. Look at the catholic school board, not as a religious school board, but as an *ethnic school board*. Why is one ethnicity given special treatment?


As a Catholic teacher, I find these comments distressing. I too attended a Catholic school, and now I teach in one. It is the values and ideology that separate Catholic schools from public ones. As I student I always believed that there was something different about being in a religious school. In case you're wondering, I'm not some religious zealot. I consider myself a fairly liberal, mainstream Catholic. I have more to add, but I'll have to wait until tonight to reply.
As a side note, I find all these comments about schools and specifically Catholic schools amusing. Are any posters teachers? Just curious.


----------



## R.O.S (2 Oct 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> This is not a thread to discuss opinion one has with regards to Catholicism.
> Unless you have facts to state otherwise, that a) Catholics beleive their school system is above all else when it comes to values and b) Religion does not fall into "Ethnicity" as the religion spans many "Ethnic" Regions of the world.



I have no opinion to catholism, and have not put an opinion forward. I just wrote that "good values" are not better at religious schools. 

An *ethnic group or ethnicity * is a population of human beings whose members identify with each other, either on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry or recognition by others as a distinct group, or by common cultural, linguistic, *religious*, or physical traits. Religion is considered ethnicity, and if a group for example muslims are killed by christians or vis versa (taking yugoslavian example) it is called ethnic cleansing... not religious cleansing.


----------



## the 48th regulator (2 Oct 2007)

R.O.S said:
			
		

> I have no opinion to Catholicism, and have not put an opinion forward. I just wrote that "good values" are not better at religious schools.



And your facts are….

No facts, then it is  an opinion, and an unfounded one.



			
				R.O.S said:
			
		

> An *ethnic group or ethnicity * is a population of human beings whose members identify with each other, either on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry or recognition by others as a distinct group, or by common cultural, linguistic, *religious*, or physical traits. Religion is considered ethnicity, and if a group for example Muslims are killed by Christians or vis versa (taking Yugoslavian example) it is called ethnic cleansing... not religious cleansing.



As opposed to Bosnian, Serbian or Croatian??


Dileas

Tess


----------



## R.O.S (2 Oct 2007)

ex-Sup said:
			
		

> As a Catholic teacher, I find these comments distressing. I too attended a Catholic school, and now I teach in one. It is the values and ideology that separate Catholic schools from public ones. As I student I always believed that there was something different about being in a religious school.



What different values, please explain. Why should a non-catholic pay for your values, why can other values get the same credit? As a student you believe you gain something different in religious school, what is that? 

The only thing I felt I had different in my experiance in the catholic school board and my friends who went through it was isolation from other cultures. I am not bashing catholics, for I would be bashing half of my family. I just find it hard to understand why others should pay for a catholic value system. If you want your kids to learn catholism then pay from your own pocket... but if no constitution change is made, then all religions should get equal treatment.


----------



## eerickso (2 Oct 2007)

Could anybody explain to me why the Ontario premier is not a hypocrite. 

hypocrite: someone who expects a privilege while denying it to others.


----------



## R.O.S (2 Oct 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> And your facts are….
> No facts, then it is  an opinion, and an unfounded one.


So are you saying catholic values are better then a jews values or muslims or whatever. Are atheists and agnostics without values? where are you going with this?




			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> As opposed to Bosnian, Serbian or Croatian??



Well look at Serbia. Many muslims serb were killed. or look at Bosnia, christians were too. and it was called ethnic cleansing... You are going off topic and nit picking. You stated Religion is not an ethnicity, I said it is. Read any definition and you will find religion. And catholism out of most religions is one of the most structured and defined religions with variants non-existant or opposed. Pope benedict even said that catholics must follow the hellenic 'tradition' and tradition is part of one heritage and ethnicity as well.


----------



## the 48th regulator (2 Oct 2007)

R.O.S said:
			
		

> What different values, please explain. Why should a non-catholic pay for your values, why can other values get the same credit? As a student you believe you gain something different in religious school, what is that?
> 
> The only thing I felt I had different in my experiance in the catholic school board and my friends who went through it was isolation from other cultures. I am not bashing catholics, for I would be bashing half of my family. I just find it hard to understand why others should pay for a catholic value system. If you want your kids to learn catholism then pay from your own pocket... but if no constitution change is made, then all religions should get equal treatment.



First you state that;



> Why should a non-catholic pay for your values


I thought you also said;



> True. I hardly believe that people truly send their kids to catholic school because they will not gain "good values". Anyone here who has attended catholic school, as I have, will know that it is no different value system then the one recieved in the public school, as I have.






> If you want your kids to learn catholism then pay from your own pocket...



I do.  It's called Tax Dollars, just as equal to your Tax Dollars.

dileas

tess


----------



## the 48th regulator (2 Oct 2007)

R.O.S said:
			
		

> So are you saying catholic values are better then a jews values or muslims or whatever. Are atheists and agnostics without values? where are you going with this?



No just proving that you are spouting opinion, and want us to accept it as a fact.  I went to public schooling my whole life.  I thought it was an excellent education, and I learned many values.  

So now this gives me the right to tear it apart to suit my arguments here?  I have previously posted that I am appalled that the current state of the Public system is in dire state.  And am even more appalled that people's answer, on this thread, is to Crush the Catholic school system to gain that balance of Money to band aid fix the wrongs of the system.

Look at the system internally and fix the administration.



			
				R.O.S said:
			
		

> Well look at Serbia. Many muslims serb were killed. or look at Bosnia, christians were too. and it was called ethnic cleansing... You are going off topic and nit picking. You stated Religion is not an ethnicity, I said it is. Read any definition and you will find religion. And catholism out of most religions is one of the most structured and defined religions with variants non-existant or opposed. Pope benedict even said that catholics must follow the hellenic 'tradition' and tradition is part of one heritage and ethnicity as well.



So it had nothing to do with the other points of your definition of Ethnicity

_common genealogy or ancestry or recognition by others as a distinct group, or by common cultural, linguistic, religious, or physical traits._

Yes I am nitpicking your "Broad Stroked" statements.

dileas

tess


----------



## eerickso (2 Oct 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> And Catholic Taxpayers have a free education?
> 
> Thanks for the input....
> 
> ...



You are putting words into my mouth, I am saying that I would have to pay more.


----------



## PMedMoe (2 Oct 2007)

Okay.  I have been wading through the posts here, trying to consider everyone's point of view.

Check here for admission requirements to the Toronto Catholic District School Board (for elementary school): 





> Non-Catholic children of non-Catholic parents are not eligible for admittance to Toronto Catholic District School Board elementary schools.



Let's take a different look at this.  If we were to change the word Catholic to something else (religious, ethnic or whatever), is this practice not discriminatory?

By the way, I am *not* being anti-Catholic here, I am being anti-discrimination.


----------



## the 48th regulator (2 Oct 2007)

leftcoaster said:
			
		

> You are putting words into my mouth, I am saying that I would have to pay more.



You are losing me here.

How so?

Or maybe what you should be saying is the Ontario Government is overcharging you, to keep it equal to our taxes, so therefore you should get a credit?

Please help me understand your statement.

dileas

tess


----------



## eerickso (2 Oct 2007)

I am saying that if I want to send my kids to a protestant school, I would have to pay more than a catholic.


----------



## the 48th regulator (2 Oct 2007)

leftcoaster said:
			
		

> I am saying that if I want to send my kids to a protestant school, I would have to pay more than a catholic.



Why would you?




			
				PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Okay.  I have been wading through the posts here, trying to consider everyone's point of view.
> 
> Check here for admission requirements to the Toronto Catholic District School Board (for elementary school):
> Let's take a different look at this.  If we were to change the word Catholic to something else (religious, ethnic or whatever), is this practice not discriminatory?
> ...



Very good point, what would the valid reason be to attend a Catholic school, as non-Catholic?  And please provide proof that there has been a case for someone not being accepted, that has caused a challenge to the non-Catholic.

Just wondering if protecting the democratic right to do as you please, or to attend an educational institution.

dileas

tess


----------



## R.O.S (2 Oct 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> No just proving that you are *spouting opinion, and want us to accept it as a fact*.  I went to public schooling my whole life.  I thought it was an excellent education, and I learned many values.
> So now this gives me the right to tear it apart to suit my arguments here?  I have previously posted that I am appalled that the current state of the Public system is in dire state.  And am even more appalled that people's answer, on this thread, is to Crush the Catholic school system to gain that balance of Money to band aid fix the wrongs of the system.




Wait maybe we are misunderstanding eachother. I believe that catholic values are not better then the values of non-catholics, is that really opinion. But if you want facts here we go.

Fact: Catholics get special treatment
Fact: Non-catholics have to pay for catholic teachings

I do not want people of other religions or no religions to pay for others. Religion is a private choice, and sould not be burdened on others that have not chosen that religion. It is not about the money that drives my opinion, it is the want for every person to be treated fairly and that people who are born from a certain background be punished for it.


----------



## the 48th regulator (2 Oct 2007)

R.O.S said:
			
		

> Wait maybe we are misunderstanding eachother. I believe that catholic values are not better then the values of non-catholics, is that really opinion. But if you want facts here we go.
> 
> Fact: Catholics get special treatment
> Fact: Non-catholics have to pay for catholic teachings
> ...



Fact: Catholics get special treatment  What is the special treatment
Fact: Non-catholics have to pay for catholic teachings  And Catholics have to pay for Non Catholic funding.



			
				R.O.S said:
			
		

> I have no opinion to catholism, and have not put an opinion forward. I just wrote that "good values" are not better at religious schools.



No I guess your facts are published, please provide links.

dileas

tess


----------



## PMedMoe (2 Oct 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Very good point, what would the valid reason be to attend a Catholic school, as non-Catholic?



Because it's closer to home, they offer better education, it's on their bus run? I have no idea.  But they should be *able* to attend as a Catholic student can attend a non-Catholic school.



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> And please provide proof that there has been a case for someone not being accepted, that has caused a challenge to the non-Catholic.



Sorry, don't have any.  My daughter attends public school in N.B.



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Just wondering if protecting the democratic right to do as you please, or to attend an educational institution.



Huh?


----------



## R.O.S (2 Oct 2007)

leftcoaster said:
			
		

> I am saying that if I want to send my kids to a protestant school, I would have to pay more than a catholic.





			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Why would you?



Why would he? Why would someone want to send someone to catholic school… same reason. Well, 44th your bouncing around to quickly to understand were you sit. Leftcoaster provides a valid point that it *costs more to be a protestant (or whatever) then it does to be a catholic * and that is just plain discrimination. If catholics want catholic education then let them pay for it, not others.


----------



## the 48th regulator (2 Oct 2007)

So your worry is based on heresay, not what has happened.

That is my point.  

Rural Catholic school, without a publice school, yes I agree they should be allowed.  Does this exist?  I don't know, never heard of it though, so my guess is that the situation does not exist.

I will stand correct, if someone can provide me with the proff.




> Just wondering if protecting the democratic right to do as you please, or to attend an educational institution.




As you asnwered your question, with regards to locality, my question was in regards tot he fundemental reason behind a Non-Catholic wanting to go to a Catholic school.  Or a denominational school of any kind for that matter.

dileas

tess


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Oct 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Fact: Catholics get special treatment  What is the special treatment



Tess, 
I know you, and even though you're about as stubborn as a mule, you really are not this dumb.

Catholic.....gets to go to their  religious themed school with just the tax dollars he/she has put in the system.
Muslim.....must pay out of pocket to go to their religious themed school even though they have payed the same amount of tax dollars as the person above.
Jewish...same
Etc......same

....and both my kids go to Catholic schools and my wife works in one...............hard to say I'm just being "anti- Catholic".


----------



## the 48th regulator (2 Oct 2007)

R.O.S said:
			
		

> Why would he? Why would someone want to send someone to catholic school… same reason. Well, 44th your bouncing around to quickly to understand were you sit. Leftcoaster provides a valid point that it *costs more to be a protestant (or whatever) then it does to be a catholic * and that is just plain discrimination. If catholics want catholic education then let them pay for it, not others.



What are you saying ROS??

My question was "Why would you pay more" not why would you want to send them to a protestant school.

If you have nothing to offer but insults, please sit aside and read.

dileas

tess

ps it's 48th, ROS....


----------



## the 48th regulator (2 Oct 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Tess,
> I know you, and even though you're about as stubborn as a mule, you really are not this dumb.
> 
> Catholic.....gets to go to their  religious themed school with just the tax dollars he/she has put in the system.
> ...



Bruce,

Which is why I am for the proposal of John Tory....


People have been targeting the Catholic system, and the Politicians in this thread.  Go after the Public administrators I say.

Stating the Catholic system is "special" or supported by "their" tax dollars.  What about my tax dollars, and disgust with the deterioration of the public system on my dime?

That is why I am stubborn. 

dileas

tess


----------



## R.O.S (2 Oct 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Fact: Catholics get special treatment  What is the special treatment
> Fact: Non-catholics have to pay for catholic teachings  And Catholics have to pay for Non Catholic funding.


Special treatment that they recieve funding from the public while others do not. Why can a Jew not recieve the same treatment as catholics and npt suffer a huge financial burden for being Jewish and wanting to learn the jewish religion alongside normal studies? 


And yes everyone HAS to pay towards public schools, and hospitals... its called being a citizen. 




			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> No I guess your facts are published, please provide links.



So you believe that as a catholic your values are better then that of a Jews or muslim? Are you saying that people who go the religious schools are better valued people?


----------



## the 48th regulator (2 Oct 2007)

R.O.S said:
			
		

> Special treatment that they recieve funding from the public while others do not. Why can a Jew not recieve the same treatment as catholics and npt suffer a huge financial burden for being Jewish and wanting to learn the jewish religion alongside normal studies?
> 
> 
> And yes everyone HAS to pay towards public schools, and hospitals... its called being a citizen.
> ...




ROS

Huh??

dileas

tess


----------



## R.O.S (2 Oct 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> What are you saying ROS??
> 
> My question was "Why would you pay more" not why would you want to send them to a protestant school.



You pay more because it is not partially funded from public funds. Private schools are expensive, and a protestant school is a private school.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Oct 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Go after the Public administrators I say.
> 
> and disgust with the deterioration of the public system on my dime?




Funny thing that, I forgot to mention that my oldest actually now goes to a High school in Hamilton that is public, and my youngest will start there next year as the local Catholic High School in Cambridge is an absolute disaster.
[EDIT; should mention in case someone up on his geography is going "What?"...they go in French]

Any school can suck based on the Principal and his staff................funny how you don't mind insulting the public system with a broad brush, but when others have done the same to the Separate System, its "anti-Catholic".


----------



## R.O.S (2 Oct 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Huh??



ME - I have no opinion to catholism, and have not put an opinion forward. I just wrote that "good values" are not better at religious schools. 

YOU - No I guess your facts are published, please provide links.

You wanted facts that catholic values are no better then other values. I stated simply that just questioning this makes me question if you believe catholic values are better then others. My comment to put it simply as it seems i must is "the catholic value system is no better or worse then the values of jews, muslims, others, atheists or agnostics". Your questioning of such statements would be as if you said "prove to me that blacks and whites are equal". In this day and age I don't feel I should be proving equality, but sometimes I wonder.


----------



## the 48th regulator (2 Oct 2007)

R.O.S said:
			
		

> You pay more because it is not partially funded from public funds. Private schools are expensive, and a protestant school is a private school.




Oh okay,

I stand corrected;



			
				leftcoaster said:
			
		

> Let me see if I understand the ontario premier. If I want my child to have good protestant values,  I need to pay? It is really unfortunate that he made this choice, he had the opportunity to do what a premier should do: lead.



Leftcoaster was talking about private Protestant schools.

I stand corrected, then I would agree with his statement then, hence why I believe in Tory's proposal, read statement above to Bruce M.

Bruce,

Let's face it, anyone I have targeted as being Anti-Catholic, was thinly veiling their own argument.  And if you will notice, I did receive an admission to that.  Remember?

dileas

tess


----------



## the 48th regulator (2 Oct 2007)

R.O.S said:
			
		

> ME - I have no opinion to catholism, and have not put an opinion forward. I just wrote that "good values" are not better at religious schools.
> 
> YOU - No I guess your facts are published, please provide links.
> 
> You wanted facts that catholic values are no better then other values. I stated simply that just questioning this makes me question if you believe catholic values are better then others. My comment to put it simply as it seems i must is "the catholic value system is no better or worse then the values of jews, muslims, others, atheists or agnostics". Your questioning of such statements would be as if you said "prove to me that blacks and whites are equal". In this day and age I don't feel I should be proving equality, but sometimes I wonder.





			
				R.O.S said:
			
		

> Fact: Catholics get special treatment
> Fact: Non-catholics have to pay for catholic teachings



_Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This 
*Fact  *     /fækt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fakt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation 
–noun 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.  
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.  
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.  
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.  
5. Law. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.  
—Idioms6. after the fact, Law. after the commission of a crime: an accessory after the fact.  
7. before the fact, Law. prior to the commission of a crime: an accessory before the fact.  
8. in fact, actually; really; indeed: In fact, it was a wonder that anyone survived.  _ 

Again,

Can you please back up your above fact based statements?

dileas

tess


----------



## Danjanou (2 Oct 2007)

Ok a heated and passionate topic yes. Everyone has been warned once by the staff here to keep it civil. Consider this the last warning, otherwise this one is binned.


Danjanou
Staff


----------



## eerickso (2 Oct 2007)

My issue is with the people who voted, "no". Presently Dalton is one of them and furthermore this makes him a hypocrite by definition. The issue between the yes and no (change the system) is largely philosophical.


----------



## McG (2 Oct 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> R.O.S said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, the quote was provided for the Toronto school board, but it is the same in York & Hamilton and Renfrew.



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> what would the valid reason be to attend a Catholic school, as non-Catholic?


Many of the reasons have been identified.  Better class conditions, better location, ability to walk without need of school bus, etc.  And consider that most attanding a Catholic School may do so not for religion but for these other reasons.


> When a Catholic family chooses to send their children to a Catholic school, it may appear to be a religious choice. According to Father James T. Mulligan in Catholic Education: Ensuring a Future. Ottawa: Novalis, 2005, 70 to 75 per cent of the families using publicly funded Catholic schools are considered "unchurched." Most families using separate schools are making a secular choice based on such factors as test scores, programs and location.
> 
> Religion is rarely a factor.


from: http://www.jasongennaro.com/2007/April/public_money_wasted_two_education_systems.php



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> It's called Tax Dollars, just as equal to your Tax Dollars.


Your tax dollars buy you more choice.  You can choose between two school boards.





			
				Shamrock said:
			
		

> I, as a Catholic, am paying for your non-Catholic schools.
> 
> I, as a non-parent, am paying for your chilren's school.


As a Catholic, should you have children, they will have access to Catholci & non-Catholic schools.  You are only investing in your future options.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Oct 2007)

Moving forward:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorialsletters/story.html?id=6f17f212-0e27-459c-be47-e8db9c7e0c11&p=1



> *Tory's plan is a good start*
> National Post
> Published: Tuesday, October 02, 2007
> 
> ...


----------



## McG (2 Oct 2007)

... and now for some just because readings ...

Significant Events in the History of Catholic Education

Supreme Court Challenge: Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Assn. v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2001 SCC 15, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 470 

and also in 1996





> In another decision affecting religious minorities, the Supreme Court held that the Province of Ontario was not legally obliged to fund all religious schools. In a decision supported by seven of the nine justices, the Court held that Ontario's funding of Roman Catholic schools, which is required under the Canadian Constitution, does not impose an equivalent obligation to fund schools established by other religious minorities. Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 was, in its words, the product of "a historical compromise crucial to Confederation". Current Ontario law does not prevent parents from sending their children to the schools of their choice, whether they be public schools, Catholic schools, private religious schools or home schools. Hence, it is not discriminatory. "[T]he cost of sending children to private religious schools is a natural cost of the appellants' religion and does not, therefore, constitute an infringement of their freedom of religion protected by section 2(a) of the Charter."


http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/publications/1996_ar/page12-en.asp


----------



## the 48th regulator (2 Oct 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> R.O.S said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, the quote was provided for the Toronto school board, but it is the same in York & Hamilton.

Fantastic link you sent, and I agree with her beliefs.  All schools should be treated the same.  In no way was I stating otherwise.  They should all be funded with tax dollars.  Again, please read my posts above.,



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> what would the valid reason be to attend a Catholic school, as non-Catholic?



Many of the reasons have been identified.  Better class conditions, better location, ability to walk without need of school bus, etc.  And consider that most attanding a Catholic School may do so not for religion but for these other reasons.

Then fix the public system, don't fight against the Catholic School Boards.  Lack of the above flies in the face of poor administration on the Public schools part.  Why penalize a school system that works, to fix the one that do not?

That is Democracy?



> When a Catholic family chooses to send their children to a Catholic school, it may appear to be a religious choice. According to Father James T. Mulligan in Catholic Education: Ensuring a Future. Ottawa: Novalis, 2005, 70 to 75 per cent of the families using publicly funded Catholic schools are considered "unchurched." Most families using separate schools are making a secular choice based on such factors as test scores, programs and location.



Very Good observation, but it would be interesting to see where the facts came from.

It may help many Catholics realize the true menaing of faith, myself included.



> Religion is rarely a factor.


from: http://www.jasongennaro.com/2007/April/public_money_wasted_two_education_systems.php

That was a statement made by an editor in the Owen Sound times, not Mr. Gennarro



> Publication
> Owen Sound SunTimes
> 
> Publication Date
> ...



Which Jason Gennaro Responded in Opposition of _not agreed_, as you would have us believe with the cut and paste above...
http://www.jasongennaro.com/2007/April/public_money_wasted_two_education_systems_published.jpg





			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> It's called Tax Dollars, just as equal to your Tax Dollars.



Your tax dollars buy you more choice.  You can choose between two school boards.

No it may be better managed, which assures that my taxes are well used.  Something you rarely hear with Government.




			
				Shamrock said:
			
		

> I, as a Catholic, am paying for your non-Catholic schools.
> 
> I, as a non-parent, am paying for your chilren's school.


As a Catholic, should you have children, they will have access to Catholci & non-Catholic schools.  You are only investing in your future options.

In the elementary portion yes, in the High school portion no.  Most of our teachings revolve around the age of elementary level age.

MCG, I see you are as passionate as me, but we must not cloud the situation here with mis informed quotes and ideas.

Again, apart from the what if's has there been a case where a student has been stopped from attending a Faith based school (There) that is funded by the Government.

dileas

tess


----------



## McG (2 Oct 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> That was a statement made by an editor in the Owen Sound times, not Mr. Gennarro


Actually, if you read the quote, you would see the comment was taken from Father James T. Mulligan in Catholic Education: Ensuring a Future.  Interesting enough, while I never found his report, I did see his work has been sited by many on both sides of the Catholic school debate (which leads me to suspect both sides have judged him as credible).  Now, there is a risk that Mr Jones paraphrased things a bit, but he gave the reference for any that want to follow-up.  The message is that even in the Catholic schools, the majority have chosen the location for purely secular reasons.



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> the 48th regulator said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


tess, 
Thanks for clearly not trying to read what I had written & providing an answer that had no relevance to my observation of "choice."  I give up.  I can't argue with you because you are a moving target and your understanding of the situation seems to change in order to fit which ever argument you feel the need to counter.

You've acknowledged that this is not a case of my tax dollars pay for "my" system & your tax dollars pay for yours.  You know that our tax dollars pay for both systems.  However, here again you are trying to pretend that it is "your" tax dollars creating your system which is "better managed."  You asked for proof that Catholic boards give second class consideration to non-Catholics, and four school boards have been provided for you.  You asked about the CHRC's position on this, but the CHRC can do absolutely nothing because this discrimination is constitutionally protected.  And I know you will just come back with a "why should a non-Catholic want to go to a Catholic school" and "go fix your own system."  You are missing the whole point.  Tax dollars have absolutely nothing to do with it (because we are all paying taxes toward the same things).  It has everything to do with choice.  You have unfettered choice between two school systems and any non-Catholic does not.

Now, if you want to continue on fooling yourself that your tax dollar is not "more equal" by providing you access to everything any other Ontarian would have plus gives you a second school system which can discriminate against the majority of Ontarians yet is funded by all taxpaers, well then I guess there is nothing anyone can do to change your mind.  

At the very least though, tell me that you've cast your vote for equality in this poll (that denominational schools be funded but the Catholic system loose its constitutional protection which would ensure that it is alway "more equal" than any other denominational system).

... I really don't care if there is a single secular public school system, two competing secular public school systems, or a plethora of competing publicly funded school systems (though at a point I would expect the overhead of smaller & smaller boards to see reduced fiscal efficiencies).  I do think special constitutional treatment of one religious group needs to end.


----------



## Shamrock (2 Oct 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> ...I do think special constitutional treatment of one religious group needs to end.



As do I. 

However, I see far too many people using this as a platform to bash Catholocism.  This, and a great deal of demands the Catholic school system be abolished place me, as a product of that system and someone who would like his children to go through same, in a defensive position.  

That means that if I have to vote to preserve a system that promotes the special treatment of my interests, I will do it.  

I'd much rather see a constitutional ammendment granting equal and proportional consideration for all groups provided all groups are willing to meet the same standards. Incidentally, which parties have actually said they'd do what?  I just reread all their hyperbole and can't quite figure out who stands where (except the Liberals, and with their track record...)

Incidentally, should I get my wish and equal funding be given, what happens in communities where there aren't enough students to balance the school's costs?  Will more  public funds be pumped in to these areas to balance?  Or will those schools unable to hold their heads above water be left to sink?

Now, back to another thing that's been bugging me.  Why can ROTP refuse entry to conscientious objectors?  It's publicly funded, too.


----------



## McG (2 Oct 2007)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Why can ROTP refuse entry to conscientious objectors?  It's publicly funded, too.


Bonafied occupational requirement.  This has also passed the supreme court test (though not necessarily in a question specific to RMC).


----------



## glock17 (2 Oct 2007)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> As do I.
> 
> However, I see far too many people using this as a platform to bash Catholocism.  This, and a great deal of demands the Catholic school system be abolished place me, as a product of that system and someone who would like his children to go through same, in a defensive position.
> 
> That means that if I have to vote to preserve a system that promotes the special treatment of my interests, I will do it.



   Tough to argue against that logic.

I think people are bashing the idea, not the specific faith.


----------



## ex-Sup (2 Oct 2007)

I’ve made a few posts to this thread, and read the many varied responses. I think it time that I wade into this full tilt.

In my previous post I asked if any posters are teachers and citing a lack of replies, I will assume no. The many posters to this thread are basing their views on their experiences as a student or a parent. Not to sound pompous, but I feel that I have much more “firsthand” experience. I have been a teacher for the past ten years, and am now entering my fifth as a department head. If you doubt my credentials, I’ll gladly PM them to you.

The fact is folks that a lot of kids in our school system need help. Not physically or academically, but morally and socially. How do I know…I see it everyday. Some kids come from good solid homes where they get love, attention and support. Unfortunately, there are a whole lot that don’t. Where do these kids get the moral and ethical guidance that they need? Society…let’s not even go there. Their peers? If they can’t even find their own way, how can help others?

These morals and values come from school and the teachers that instruct them. What values you ask? Love, compassion, brotherhood, tolerance and many others. Don’t they teach this in public schools you ask? Well, they may, but what is the root of these values. I can answer that they are based on the teachings of my religion. There are topics and issues that I can deal with that my colleagues in public schools can’t touch. Why? Because they deal with themes (religion, etc.) that are generally off limits in a multi-religion school. How do I know? I have close friends that teach in the public system.

The education that a student receives in a public school is no different from that taught in a Catholic school; we use the same curriculum. However I truly believe that it is the “value” added that separates the Catholic (or any religious system) from the public system. This is why many non-Catholics choose to send their children to Catholic schools. How do I know? I have had parents tell me this. It is unfortunate that some parents have experienced difficulties enrolling their children in the Catholic system, which certainly hasn’t been the case in my city.



			
				R.O.S said:
			
		

> What different values, please explain. Why should a non-catholic pay for your values, why can other values get the same credit? As a student you believe you gain something different in religious school, what is that?
> 
> The only thing I felt I had different in my experiance in the catholic school board and my friends who went through it was isolation from other cultures. I am not bashing catholics, for I would be bashing half of my family. I just find it hard to understand why others should pay for a catholic value system. If you want your kids to learn catholism then pay from your own pocket... but if no constitution change is made, then all religions should get equal treatment.


It is very unfortunate that your experience in Catholic schools has been less than positive. My experience, and that of my friends was the complete opposite. I was not isolated from other cultures; religions…somewhat. I attended school with many cultures, as I likewise have taught kids from many cultures. I was fortunate to learn about other religions, even visiting their places of worship. It has given me a deep respect and appreciation for other religions and the ideas they espouse.

I know that what I have to say will not sway some, just as I will not change my views. I don’t have or know what the right answer is, but I know what I see everyday. Maybe if everyone knew or saw what I do, then they agree that we need more guidance in schools, not less.


----------



## R.O.S (2 Oct 2007)

ex-Sup said:
			
		

> I was fortunate to learn about other religions, even visiting their places of worship. It has given me a deep respect and appreciation for other religions and the ideas they espouse.



While this maybe off topic, I would really like such an experiance to be practiced at all schools. I have been to a synogogue and a mosque during mass, and have found the experiance very positive, and I hope that many others do the same. This is why I love Canada so very much that while other people in different places fight over small differences in religion or culture, Canadians can sit down togather in the table of brotherhood and sisterhood. This is why I also cannot agree with the current situation that one religion is held in high regard in our constitution while others are not. I understand there are worse scenerios in the world, but this is why Canada is so great we are different.


----------



## the 48th regulator (2 Oct 2007)

R.O.S said:
			
		

> While this maybe off topic, I would really like such an experiance to be practiced at all schools. I have been to a synogogue and a mosque during mass, and have found the experiance very positive, and I hope that many others do the same. This is why I love Canada so very much that while other people in different places fight over small differences in religion or culture, Canadians can sit down togather in the table of brotherhood and sisterhood. This is why I also cannot agree with the current situation that one religion is held in high regard in our constitution while others are not. I understand there are worse scenerios in the world, but this is why Canada is so great we are different.



So then,

We finally have you working with the thread.  You will be voting conservative then?

And please don't give me the quick post of "Stop putting words in my mouth".  AS by your own admition you agree with the concept of funding for all schools, secular and not.

This has been my argument from the beginning, and I will not stand by the "It's no fair Catholics get it and others don't" Argument.

Many Catholics would agree with you. 

dileas

tess


----------



## ex-Sup (2 Oct 2007)

R.O.S said:
			
		

> While this maybe off topic, I would really like such an experiance to be practiced at all schools. I have been to a synogogue and a mosque during mass, and have found the experiance very positive, and I hope that many others do the same.


I don't think (?) we have a mosque here, but I have been to the local synogogue. This was part of the gr.11 world religions program. I also remember multi-faith celebrations on a few occasions. Sadly, we have gotten away from the places of worship tour (I think it became too difficult logistically & financially). The world religions class is still part of the requirement in catholic schools. I know that a lot of students find it interesting and beneficial to learn about religions other than their own.


----------



## R.O.S (2 Oct 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> We finally have you working with the thread.  You will be voting conservative then?



Yes, I am even helping out the local candidate here. 

So let us clear up, I believe in no religious funding period. However, if we cannot change the constitution, and I bet it would involve a lot of disorder and whatnot then I believe that other religions deserve fair treatment = public funding as well. 

After going back and reading your posts 48th I think we both misinterpreted each other, as is the result of reading words that are typed with little review and body movements to coencide. You believe in the funding for other religions? yes? you will be voting conservative? yes?... Seems to me we have been doing a little american friendlyfire, kinda shoot anything that moves.


----------



## the 48th regulator (3 Oct 2007)

R.O.S said:
			
		

> While this maybe off topic, I would really like such an experiance to be practiced at all schools. I have been to a synogogue and a mosque during mass, and have found the experiance very positive, and I hope that many others do the same. This is why I love Canada so very much that while other people in different places fight over small differences in religion or culture, Canadians can sit down togather in the table of brotherhood and sisterhood. This is why I also cannot agree with the current situation that one religion is held in high regard in our constitution while others are not. I understand there are worse scenerios in the world, but this is why Canada is so great we are different.





			
				R.O.S said:
			
		

> Yes, I am even helping out the local candidate here.
> 
> So let us clear up, I believe in no religious funding period. However, if we cannot change the constitution, and I bet it would involve a lot of disorder and whatnot then I believe that other religions deserve fair treatment = public funding as well.
> 
> After going back and reading your posts 48th I think we both misinterpreted each other, as is the result of reading words that are typed with little review and body movements to coencide. You believe in the funding for other religions? yes? you will be voting conservative? yes?... Seems to me we have been doing a little american friendlyfire, kinda shoot anything that moves.



Uhuh.

Okay.

dileas

tess

btw, which candidtate?


----------



## R.O.S (3 Oct 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> btw, which candidtate?



Rob Alder. http://www.robalder.ca


----------



## warrickdll (3 Oct 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> ...
> Given the vast amount of resources being poured into the public system already, the argument isn't about money, rather how it is spent and the lack of parental input or discretion for spending.
> ...





			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ...
> The principle is universality of a publicly funded benefit.
> ...



How I believe the misunderstanding is taking place:

	1) The government provides funds to the public (secular) school system to meet its educational service requirements.

	2) For budgeting purposes, parts of the public educational funds are calculated out on a per child basis. That should be per child in the public system; with a contingency based on the maximum possible.

	3) Parents then decide not to send their child to a public (secular) school.

	4) The above parents (item 3) then, incorrectly, assume that the government should pay them the money from the public educational funds that were calculated out on a per child basis.

	5) It does not matter if the above parents (items 3 and 4) intend to use the money for educational purposes, since it was never their money – it was always the public’s money, and intended for public education.


The government has not collected tax money, from everyone, just to meet the whims of some parents (even parents with good intentions). The government provides the public (secular) system for everyone’s benefit, and that is what is being funded; not X number of children.

The public (per child) money that is not used, due to parents buying private services, is folded back into the education budget (or general budget) and the next year’s budget and taxes are re-estimated.


Parents already receive tax breaks and money from the government for their children; expecting even more money from the government, just because they don’t like the public education system, would be putting them in the same class of people as those who try to withhold paying their taxes based on the amount that DND uses.


On the matter of choice: Parents should be able to send their children to any accredited school and meet their responsibilities as parents; but the government should only fund the public (secular) schools. If parents want choice within government funding then they can send their child to a public (secular) school outside their catchment.





			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ...
> Do you think Ontario taxpayers are paying to make children Catholic?  That is not the case.  Taxpayers are paying for their education.
> ...



Having the Catholic school system is forcing the tax payers of Ontario to subsidize the Catholic Church. 

Think of it this way: The government funds a school, and a soft drink company says it wants to run it; I’ll call this company Pep-C (hopefully not a real company). 

The government is already funding all the education at the school. While Pep-C gets to mark everything with the Pep-C logo; gets to advertise how great Pep-C is to the assembled children (children who are there for education).

Sure, Pep-C will pay for the Taste-Test-Challenge, and other direct Pep-C classes; but other than that the whole thing is coming out of the tax payer’s pocket - and for no good reason. Pep-C would have paid for the whole thing; they require the brand loyalty they are establishing by getting the consumer during their formative years. 

Pep-C would fight tooth-and-nail to keep this free ride going for as long as possible. And, if Pep-C failed to keep the monopoly on this, Pep-C would desperately try to convince people that the fair thing to do isn’t to stop doling out money to Pep-C, but to have the tax payer dole out more money to other businesses (like Koke, and Dr. Salt - hopefully not real companies either) to run the same scam, and to keep the free ride going.

By funding the Pep-C school you are subsidizing the Pep-C company. If you cannot see how this is happening then the people who run Pep-C are probably having a good (but diabolical) laugh right now.


Okay, enough with the Pep-C.





			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> ...
> There are six Canadian provinces which already support separate religious schooling, without any of the apocalyptic consequences...
> ...



Then there are six provinces that are doing it wrong. There doesn’t have to be any apocalyptic consequences, it is just wrong for the government to fund religions (again though, ask someone in BC if they enjoy having their tax money funding religious schools in Bountiful).

Government services such as courts, policing, health care, and education, do not require separate institutions for peoples’ varying religious beliefs.

No where in Canada do you need, or should the government ever provide, Islamic courts, Sikh policing, Protestant health care, or Catholic education.

Even if the government contracts out services, it should never be funding religions. It’s not just education; it could be something as benign as a soup kitchen. 

I’m not saying a religious group can’t run a soup kitchen – but it cannot receive government money. You cannot have freedom of religion (or just freedom) if either the government is funding religious belief, or the government is being controlled by religious belief.


----------



## Shamrock (3 Oct 2007)

Iterator said:
			
		

> Think of it this way: The government funds a school, and a soft drink company says it wants to run it; I’ll call this company Pep-C (hopefully not a real company).
> 
> The government is already funding all the education at the school. While Pep-C gets to mark everything with the Pep-C logo; gets to advertise how great Pep-C is to the assembled children (children who are there for education).
> 
> ...



I'm sorry, this is nothing more than a strawman.  

Catholic schools don't "brand" an education -- no Catholic student has been exposed to Catholic algebra.  There's no Christian physics.  I don't recall once seeing a Jesus fish in any of my text-books.


----------



## DBA (3 Oct 2007)

Promoting education to all I think most would agree is a public good. The majority of Canadians support or realize the necessity of levying taxes to support such a goal. The mechanics of achieving that goal are administrative and in a democracy must involve respecting the right of parents to make choices. To compel one choice above others through economic means is not in any way respecting that right. 

I don't agree with the assumption that some form of collectivist education is a government goal or a worthy goal at all.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Oct 2007)

Iterator said:
			
		

> 5) It does not matter if the above parents (items 3 and 4) intend to use the money for educational purposes, since it was never their money – it was always the public’s money, and intended for public education.



And that is the true and only crux of the argument right there: it *IS* the taxpayers money, not the politician's, not the bureaucrats and not the teacher's unions. For reasons ranging from accountability to justice, the parents should be the ones with total control over how this money is spent, hence the fact that the current proposal is only partially satisfactory. Full vouchers with full choice and full parental control; lets work to make that the real issue in this and any future elections!


----------



## ex-Sup (3 Oct 2007)

Iterator said:
			
		

> Having the Catholic school system is forcing the tax payers of Ontario to subsidize the Catholic Church.
> 
> Think of it this way: The government funds a school, and a soft drink company says it wants to run it; I’ll call this company Pep-C (hopefully not a real company).
> 
> ...


Huh????????

So we've clearly established your opposition to religion in schools, especially Catholic schools (I'm making this assumption on some of your wording). We've been down that road...but it's clearly your opinion of the situation and one that is not shared by all. Now I would like to clarify some things for you.

First, what are you basing this interesting analogy on? I asked in a previous post for any teachers posting to sound off...you didn't, so I'm assuming you're not. Well, in case you missed it, I'm a Catholic teacher, so I know what I'm talking about. The Catholic church does not run the Catholic school system. The system is built upon the beliefs and teachings of the church, but not subservient to it. Our local bishop does not drop by and check on what we're doing; the board does not have conference calls with the Vatican to keep them up to date. The Catholic school system is directly responsible to the Ministry of Education, just like the Public system.


> Catholic schools don't "brand" an education -- no Catholic student has been exposed to Catholic algebra.  There's no Christian physics.  I don't recall once seeing a Jesus fish in any of my text-books.


+1 Curriculum is curriculum. The Ministry of Education (http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/teachers/curriculum.html) details what we do in our classrooms everyday. We use the same material, which has been rewritten to include Catholic graduate expectations. These expectations are formulated by a group called ICE (http://www.occb.on.ca/ice/default.cfm?category=50), who represent Catholic educators, trustees and clergy. These items are an addendum to the curriculum; by no means do they override or replace it. They simply state what a Catholic student should know before they graduate (http://www.occb.on.ca/ice/online_docs/Graduate%20Expectations.pdf). The only curriculum ICE actually writes is that for the religious education courses, which are only used in Catholic schools.
I've already stated my position regarding religion is schools in a previous post. I base this on my experiences as an educator over the past ten years. One cannot assume to know what happens in a school, especially in a Catholic school, when you're on the outside looking in.


----------



## warrickdll (4 Oct 2007)

DBA said:
			
		

> ...The mechanics of achieving that goal are administrative and in a democracy must involve respecting the right of parents to make choices. To compel one choice above others through economic means is not in any way respecting that right.
> ...





			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> ...For reasons ranging from accountability to justice, the parents should be the ones with total control over how this money is spent, hence the fact that the current proposal is only partially satisfactory. Full vouchers with full choice and full parental control; lets work to make that the real issue in this and any future elections!



The public (secular) education system is there for the public good. That is what the tax money is for; it isn’t a fund set aside for an episode of Pimp My Ride. 

People are free to move around in the public system, or leave it. There is no reason for tax payers to pay for the designer educational desires of some parents. And under no circumstances should tax money go to religious organizations.

The real educational issues in Ontario are ending the Catholic school system and concentrating on having the best public (secular) system possible.





			
				ex-Sup said:
			
		

> ...
> So we've clearly established your opposition to religion in schools, especially Catholic schools (I'm making this assumption on some of your wording).
> ...



The topic is the Ontario school system and religious schools. The Catholic system is bound to come up – nothing special about it.





			
				ex-Sup said:
			
		

> ...
> We've been down that road...but it's clearly your opinion of the situation and one that is not shared by all.
> ...



I don’t mind holding the minority view, but most Canadians, in my opinion, are opposed to their tax money going to religious schools.





			
				ex-Sup said:
			
		

> ...
> First, what are you basing this interesting analogy on?
> ...



The analogy was to show how allowing a business interest to run a school with public funds is a massive subsidy. The Catholic school system in Ontario is a massive subsidy to the Catholic Church and should be ended immediately.





			
				Shamrock said:
			
		

> ...
> Catholic schools don't "brand" an education -- no Catholic student has been exposed to Catholic algebra.  There's no Christian physics.  I don't recall once seeing a Jesus fish in any of my text-books.
> ...





			
				ex-Sup said:
			
		

> ...
> +1 Curriculum is curriculum.
> ...



No shortage of examples showing that education is just education; and how everything else is so insignificant a part of a religious school that it can be done at another time, another place, and with the religious organization's own money.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Oct 2007)

Frankly Iterator, your position is the one that is not appropriate for a democracy.

You tell us that our tax dollars should be handed over to education bureaucrats to promote a "common good" which is not defined, nor do you make mention that the definition of "common good" chosen in Queens park might be wrong. I invite you to look at places like the former Soviet Union, or the current "New Labour" UK. The "common good" was chosen and imposed based on political ideology and enforced by State power (consider the fate of someone in the UK who chooses to with hold taxes in protest). Like here, alternatives were and are suppressed through various means. The situation is far advanced in the USSR and UK, and so now we can see the social collapse and economic ruin in the former USSR and the disintegration of social mores and general run down of the UK economy since 1997 (there was a fairly detailed article about the breakdown of the UK in Maclean's Magazine this summer).

If you or I make a wrong choice, only we have to bear the consequences. A distant bureaucrat in Queens park can make a wrong choice, and it is amplified with the power of billions of tax dollars to affect us all. Taking that power away and allowing parents to have a wider range of choices is for the benefit of us all. To stubbornly insist that parents must only follow your choice or should be economically punished for accessing a wider range of options (through what amounts to double taxation) reveals a petty and authoritarian streak which seems to be the common denominator among many of the opponents of this scheme in particular and school choice in general.


----------



## ex-Sup (4 Oct 2007)

Iterator said:
			
		

> The analogy was to show how allowing a business interest to run a school with public funds is a massive subsidy. The Catholic school system in Ontario is a massive subsidy to the Catholic Church and should be ended immediately.
> 
> No shortage of examples showing that education is just education; and how everything else is so insignificant a part of a religious school that it can be done at another time, another place, and with the religious organization's own money.


My point is that you are basing everything on your own opinion. How do you know these things? Are you in any way associated with education or specifically Catholic education? Everything that I've mentioned comes from my experiences in the system. They are not my opinion. It's clear that our students need more moral and ethical guidance; if religion provides that, so be it. And I don't buy this majority view either. There are over 100,000 teachers in the publically funded systems in Ontario; some 36,000 are Catholic.  Add to this the many that teach in private religious schools, the number is much higher. There are clearly many parents who want their children to experience the benefits of religious education.
editted for gammar


----------



## warrickdll (4 Oct 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Frankly Iterator, your position is the one that is not appropriate for a democracy.
> ...
> ...the social collapse and economic ruin in the former USSR...
> ...
> ...



I think you’ve confused the similes.

In my opinion, the right way:

	- Government provides a good (secular) police force for the public good
	- If you have the means, you can hire (for example) the services of a private security firm


	- Government provides a good (secular) health care system for the common good
	- If you have the means, you can hire (for example) the services of a private Doctor 


	- Government provides a good (secular) education system for the public good
	- If you have the means, you can hire (for example) the services of a private school


	- All private services will have some restrictions such as monitoring, accreditation, and limited powers.
	- All private services must function without public money and must pay for government services such as monitoring and accreditation


In, my opinion, the wrong way:

	- Government services formerly provided for the public good are allowed to rot
	- People purchase private services they cannot afford and force the state to fund them
	- Religious organizations set up exclusionary services and (even though the religious organizations have their own money) force tax payers to fund them


I’m calling for responsible government, individual choice and individual responsibility. You seem to be advocating government as an absentee landlord and people using tax money as their own private bank account.





			
				ex-Sup said:
			
		

> My point is that you are basing everything on your own opinion...



Yes; it is in my opinion that publicly funding religious schools are a subsidization of religion. I have stated why I hold that opinion, and provided an analogy to counter suggestions that it is not.




			
				ex-Sup said:
			
		

> ...
> It's clear that our students need more moral and ethical guidance; if religion provides that, so be it....
> ...



It is not a “so be it” situation. The public (secular) school system is perfectly capable of handling the day-to-day business of “everyone needs to play nicely together” and any requirements of right and wrong that would apply equally in any school setting. 

It is the responsibility of the parents to handle non-secular moral and ethical issues. If some parents want to farm this responsibility out to some religious group – fine, but that has nothing to do with education, and nothing to do with tax money.


----------



## Shamrock (4 Oct 2007)

You still haven't clarified HOW these faith based schools are government funding religion.  

An analogy:

School Board A receives a contract with a beverage company, we'll call it Pep-C.  All the funds for the education come from public sources.  Pep-C inundates the students with marketing but all at Pep-C's own expense.  Therefore, Pep-C is funded by the government.


----------



## marc (4 Oct 2007)

I moved from Quebec to Ontario for job purposes. I have young kids. I chose a French-Catholic school for them and I have higher quality service in Ontario than in the Quebec schools. I am watching Quebec schools as they are developing an education program to all religions. For the moment, it is a mess. It is a reason for which I am happy to be in Ontario.


----------



## PMedMoe (4 Oct 2007)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> You still haven't clarified HOW these faith based schools are government funding religion.



Are income taxes are not considered government funds?

Let's take religion out of the equation (and no, I won't use brand names either).  Do you not think that if there were a Caucasian school board, being funded by the government, that did not allow the entry of non-Caucasian children, there would not be a HUGE uproar from all other ethnic groups?
Most people are arguing here against the religion based schools and NOT against the Catholics.  They are against ANY religious school being funded or they want ALL religious schools to be funded.  The Catholic school just happens to be the only one there is.


----------



## warrickdll (4 Oct 2007)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> You still haven't clarified HOW these faith based schools are government funding religion.
> ...



Really? I thought for sure the Pep-C analogy (though tiresome) really nailed it – if not the previous posts I submitted. I find it difficult to believe that someone cannot see how this is subsidizing religion.


	- All the logistics are taken care of by the good people of Ontario. No need to convince parents to bring their children to church on the weekend or after school.

	- It would be incredibly difficult for a religious organization to find a way to receive such a large and steady flow of consumers, and to have it just handed to them – and paid for by the government – Bonanza!

	- The validation alone: “My religion is so real the government allows it to run schools with other people’s money!” – You can’t buy that.


----------



## DBA (4 Oct 2007)

Iterator said:
			
		

> In my opinion, the right way:
> 
> - Government provides a good (secular) police force for the public good
> - If you have the means, you can hire (for example) the services of a private security firm
> ...



Except it all reads no choice at all except for those with money and they must leave the system not make choices within it. It's nothing but, Don't like it? Then leave/move/etc. The less choices and flexibility in a system the more it will resist change, the less it changes and adapts the bigger chance it rots in place. Throwing more money at rotting system that got that way through failure to adapt or change just papers over a symptom without addressing the cause. When education funding was changed in Ontario a couple years ago a pile of extra cash was added to allow school boards to adapt and make the changes necessary to function under the new funding formulae. Instead of changing they blew the money papering over problems leaving things in an even worse state today. Instead of rationalizing schools by closing some, expanding or building others and in general planning for predictable changes in student populations in different geographical areas they used the money to keep all the schools open. So the problem that school infrastructure is old, poorly matched to geographical student populations and very costly to run remains. We need to stop rewarding incompetence and intransigence with more money.


----------



## Shamrock (4 Oct 2007)

Iterator said:
			
		

> You can’t buy that.



You're absolutely right.  I don't buy your analogy for an instant.  It's beyond watery.

It has been argued in plain here that students are not exposed constantly to the Church while at school.  



			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> - All the logistics are taken care of by the good people of Ontario. No need to convince parents to bring their children to church on the weekend or after school.



This is equally ludicruous.  Do you really think that?  Can you verify it?  



			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> - It would be incredibly difficult for a religious organization to find a way to receive such a large and steady flow of consumers, and to have it just handed to them – and paid for by the government – Bonanza!


You seem to think religion is a marketable product instead of a faith.  Sure, you can find analogies between them.  I can find analogies between swimming and flying, but I have yet to see a sign that says, "Beware of low flying carp."

If only it were true that Catholic schools did produce ready-made Cathbots.  However, a quick read-through of this thread reveals that several students of Catholic school systems are no longer practicing Catholics.  The reverse is true, that practicing Catholics come from the public school system.  Are you going to argue that the public school system fails to protect children from the evils of mass marketing religion?


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Oct 2007)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Naturally the arguments about Catholic School Boards in Ontario is an historical one.  The details escape me right now, but suffice it to say that the funding only goes to grade 10, again, for historical reasons.  Other than saying that there was a need in the past, I would argue that you would have to say what has changed that would cause the system to change.
> 
> As I understand it, you certainly don't have to be Catholic, or even Christian for that matter, to attend Catholic schools.  Some parents (when I was growing up) chose to have their kids attend Catholic schools because the catholic system (in that school board) happened to have a better rep than the public system.  Naturally there are mandatory masses etc for the kids, but in religion class, it wasn't all papistry (if such a word exists), but there was a significant programme educating us on World Religions.
> 
> Anyway, I have no opinion either way.  I just moved here to Upper Canada, and I'm more focussed on the "proportional representation without responsibility" boondockle being suggested in the referendum.



Actually, I would argue that the same conditions that drove the two-system : one curriculum solution in the 1890's still apply in spades today.  The compromise had been cobbled together over the time from the taking of the Plains of Abraham.  There was an ongoing war between Huguenots and Catholics that had broken out in Paris in 1525 and that ended up with Britain calling herself protestant and aligning itself with the Huguenots while Catholics of all nations (including both Roman Catholics and the Bourbons' homegrown Gallican Catholics) lined up on the other side.  Irish Catholics, including Fenians, as well as Scots Metis and Cape Breton Highlanders, self identified with the Catholics.  (Together those groups represent the core constituency of the Liberal Party....but I digress as usual).

So the Schools Question was played out against a backdrop of a War that lasted over 400 years (1525 to 1963 - Day of the Placards to Vatican 2 and the Tascherau Report) and that regularly saw neighbours killing neighbours and Governments taking advantage of the heartfelt beliefs of individuals to further their own interests.

Our fight with Islam is entirely analogous to the Huguenot-Catholic War.  And as it was considered a "reasonable accomodation" to back off on principle - despite popular opposition - and display a bit of toleration by offering the gift of funding I think that it an equally acceptable solution today.

In the 1890s the greatest fear of the Church in Rome was of Toleration.  They believed it was more important that they were seen to be Right than that people were allowed to accomodate their neighbour. (Check the Vatican site for encyclicals of that era.  The sentiment was explicitly expressed.)  That puts the Mullahs of today and the Cardinals of the 1890s on the same page.

In return the Government gained access to the schools to inspect and "govern" the curriculum while at the same time demonstrating that all Protestants weren't all bast...ds all the time (12th of July, Derry Day and hiring practices excepted).

We are in exactly the same situation today between the Fundamentalists of Secularism and the Fundamentalists of Islam (not to mention Sikhs and Jews and Latter Day Saints and Presbyterians).  The issue goes to the question of the Government's right to monitor free speech and association and control messaging in the interest of maintaining some form of civil discourse, if not harmony.

It's worth it to me to pay a Shilling to a piper that plays poorly if I get to call the tune.


----------



## warrickdll (4 Oct 2007)

DBA said:
			
		

> ...
> Throwing more money at rotting system that got that way through failure to adapt or change just papers over a symptom without addressing the cause.
> ...
> We need to stop rewarding incompetence and intransigence with more money.



Pointing out problems with the public system only shows how much effort and leadership is needed to fix it, not that it should be abandoned (note: I disagree with the board system).

Education isn’t some freak government service that is somehow unworkable or must be handed over, with bags of money, to religious organizations.

We all make choices in life; it doesn’t mean the government has to pay for all of them.






			
				Shamrock said:
			
		

> ...
> It has been argued in plain here that students are not exposed constantly to the Church while at school.
> ...
> 
> ...



Well then clearly it is not needed to be run along religious lines.


	- If you point out how much a religious school doesn’t teach religion you're just proving the point that a religious school is not required

	- If you point out how much a religion needs a religious school you're just proving the point that it shouldn’t be government funded.


----------



## warrickdll (4 Oct 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ...
> We are in exactly the same situation today between the Fundamentalists of Secularism and the Fundamentalists of Islam (not to mention Sikhs and Jews and Latter Day Saints and Presbyterians).  The issue goes to the question of the Government's right to monitor free speech and association and control messaging in the interest of maintaining some form of civil discourse, if not harmony.
> 
> It's worth it to me to pay a Shilling to a piper that plays poorly if I get to call the tune.




The situation is not the same today. Canada’s governments today have only a few vestigial remains from its former Protestant status – none of which affect education. This leaves no cause for separate school systems or appeasement to religious organizations on this matter.

It is the parents’ responsibility to ensure that their children acquire education to a government set standard. The government provides the public (secular) system for them to achieve that. The parents may go outside the system and meet their responsibilities; but not with government money. There is absolutely no reason for the government to pay for schools run by religious organizations – religions have enough money for this.

The piper does not need your shilling - he must play your tune regardless.


----------



## Shamrock (4 Oct 2007)

Iterator said:
			
		

> - If you point out how much a religious school doesn’t teach religion you're just proving the point that a religious school is not required



Your logic is clearly flawed.  I am saying that a Catholic school teaches considerably more than religion.  



			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> - If you point out how much a religion needs a religious school you're just proving the point that it shouldn’t be government funded.



Aren't you the one asserting this?  I sure as hell ain't.



			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> There is absolutely no reason for the government to pay for schools run by religious organizations – religions have enough money for this.



I was under the impression the schools were run by the school boards, which in turn are ran by publicly elected trustees.


----------



## warrickdll (4 Oct 2007)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> ...
> Aren't you the one asserting this?  I sure as hell ain't.
> ...



Yes. It is my post - and very much my assertion.





			
				Shamrock said:
			
		

> ...
> I was under the impression the schools were run by the school boards, which in turn are ran by publicly elected trustees.



I'll go with another - Really?! Why dance around this. It's a catholic school system. Not a school system that, just by happy coincidence, is favourable to Catholics.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Oct 2007)

Iterator said:
			
		

> The situation is not the same today. Canada’s governments today have only a few vestigial remains from its former Protestant status – none of which affect education. This leaves no cause for separate school systems or appeasement to religious organizations on this matter.
> 
> It is the parents’ responsibility to ensure that their children acquire education to a government set standard. The government provides the public (secular) system for them to achieve that. The parents may go outside the system and meet their responsibilities; but not with government money. There is absolutely no reason for the government to pay for schools run by religious organizations – religions have enough money for this.
> 
> The piper does not need your shilling - he must play your tune regardless.



I see that we are likely to be in disagreement for a long while.  

First of all - it is never an issue of "needing" the shilling.  People that "need" the shilling do not appreciate it as a "gift".  It is usually seen as a just reward for services rendered.   They "need" the shilling to put food on the table.

On the other hand a gift freely offered when there is no need is likely to be taken as a token of friendship....and there is a thought - trying to make friends.  It is pretty hard to compel someone to be friendly.  I doubt the piper will play well if he has a bayonet at his backside. (Maybe we should check with RHFC_piper on that one   )

As to the situation not being the same today.  You say it isn't.  I say it is.  I'm right.  ;D

The issue is not about the religious affiliation of the Government.  I agree that there is not much overt Protestantism about the Government.  But there is a great degree of Protestantism about Secularism.  The Roman Church took issue with the provision of "religion-free" schools just as much as they did about "protestant" schools because in both cases the innocents were being denied the protection of the Church from wayward arguments as the Church attempted to bring them safely to the One Truth.    In that the Church was no different than the Communists, the Presbyterians or even the Canadian Labour Congress and the CBC.
It is always done by good people with the best of intentions - but it never works.

The problem is not with the Government's perceptions.  The problem is with the perceptions of the problem population and changing those perceptions.  

And if that population perceives that they are under threat from the Government (and the general populace) I doubt if they are likely to be convinced otherwise by bayonets and other coercive and compulsive forces.

With respect to the curriculum/values thing:

With money comes access.
With access comes the opportunity to carry a message (any message) 
With access comes the opportunity to demonstrate your values in action
With access comes the opportunity to demonstrate your own humanity and dispel rumours (like being hard-hearted spawn of satan that are just raising good muslim kids for the thanksgiving table)

That has a tendency to undercut any messaging from the other side.


BTW - I still have no problem with arresting disturbers of the peace and shooting any beggar that is inclined to shoot at me and mine.  This is not a bleeding-heart reflex.  It is a hard, cold, economic calculus.  I would sooner spend a Shilling on the piper and make him happy than a Pound putting down an insurrection by his malcontented relatives.


----------



## warrickdll (4 Oct 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ...
> But there is a great degree of Protestantism about Secularism.
> ...



Much of Protestantism has changed in order to become more relevant to a population that is more secular. 




			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ...
> The Roman Church took issue with the provision of "religion-free" schools just as much as they did about "protestant" schools
> ...



That is not a problem that the government should pay for - I’m not saying Catholic schools can’t exist.




			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ...
> I would sooner spend a Shilling on the piper and make him happy than a Pound putting down an insurrection by his malcontented relatives.
> ...



I can’t see this being a problem; there is no attack on anyone’s religion, just putting the funding where it should be.




			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I see that we are likely to be in disagreement for a long while.
> ...
> As to the situation not being the same today.  You say it isn't.  I say it is.  I'm right.  ;D
> ...



No, no! I'm sure my opinions are well thought out and entirely convincing.


----------



## eerickso (4 Oct 2007)

Denmark now has separate school systems, however; I doubt it was the government's intention.


----------



## ex-Sup (4 Oct 2007)

Okay, I’m going to try this again, because obviously some things are not getting through



			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> Yes; it is in my opinion that publicly funding religious schools are a subsidization of religion. I have stated why I hold that opinion, and provided an analogy to counter suggestions that it is not.


Fine, this is your opinion, great. My point is that the facts that you are basing your opinion on are incorrect. You state that religious schools are a subsidization of religion, but what is this based on? Where are your facts to back this up? What experience do you have to corroborate this statement? The fact is you don’t have any; according to your profile you don’t even live in Ontario. And as for your rather interesting analogy, it is once again based on opinion. 
In case you missed it, I’m Catholic teacher. I work for the Thunder Bay Catholic District School Board, which reports directly to the Ministry of Education. I do not work for the Diocese of Thunder Bay, nor do I work for the Vatican. Additional teaching expectations are placed on me by my school board, which are based on Catholic beliefs, but are not dictated by the church. Yes, we deal with the teachings if the church, but we don’t work for it. This is fact.



			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> It is not a “so be it” situation. The public (secular) school system is perfectly capable of handling the day-to-day business of “everyone needs to play nicely together” and any requirements of right and wrong that would apply equally in any school setting.


How do you know? I’m not implying that they can’t, but you cannot say for certain because you’re not in the system. The real problem arises when there is an issue that cannot be dealt with in a secular school. Unfortunately there are topics that are off-limits. In the spirit of political correctness and for fear of offending someone’s religious beliefs, public teachers need to tread lightly in some areas. I know this because I have close friends that work in the public system. How do you then deal with this? I have no such reservations; my students are the same religion as myself or choose to experience my religion. Therefore one can say that my students are gaining an advantage over their public school peers because we can discuss and examine a greater spectrum of issues.



			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> It is the responsibility of the parents to handle non-secular moral and ethical issues. If some parents want to farm this responsibility out to some religious group – fine, but that has nothing to do with education, and nothing to do with tax money.


The facts are that some parents are, and some are not. There are so many kids out there that come from dysfunctional families…you have no idea. I don’t even know the full story because I don’t see every case in a school of 1300. I’m sure if you talked to my principal or one of the VP’s, they could tell you quite the tale. Put simply, there are kids that have no moral or ethical guidance. Where are they to get it? In a world where so many of our kids are cynical, where do we tell them that these ideas come from? Some may not always agree with them, but at least they can say that they know where religious morals and ethics are rooted. What you need to realize is that education is more than just books and academics; school has become so much more. I know because of my daily interactions with my students in classroom, the hallway and on the football field. Teachers are not just educators anymore; we are psychologists, babysitters, parental figures and much more. We are being asked to do the very things that you say we should not. In an ideal world everything happens as you describe; but this is not utopia, this is reality.
editted for grammar


----------



## a_majoor (4 Oct 2007)

Iterator said:
			
		

> In my opinion, the right way:
> 
> - Government provides a good (secular) police force for the public good
> - If you have the means, you can hire (for example) the services of a private security firm



This is one of the few true functions of government, to protect the citizens; hence the Army and Police, as well as the State holding the monopoly on the use of force. Since governments are expanding into many areas which are not and should not be in their jurisdiction, they are squandering resources which should go to protective services, hence the need for private citizens to provide their own protection.



> - Government provides a good (secular) health care system for the common good
> - If you have the means, you can hire (for example) the services of a private Doctor
> 
> 
> ...



These are areas where there is no clear justification for government to be the provider of these services. Just because governments have adopted these services as means to buy votes does not mean this is the right thing to do. The Roman Emperors used Gladiatorial games, bread and circus's to buy off the masses, eventually diverting a large part of the treasury away from productive investments, with results we should all know.



> - All private services will have some restrictions such as monitoring, accreditation, and limited powers.
> - All private services must function without public money and must pay for government services such as monitoring and accreditation



Once again, one of the functions of government is to provide a level playing field for all (i.e. uniform regulation and enforcement), this concept is generally known as the Rule of Law.

Your fervor for the State to take over large portions of the market and civil society is really based on a limited perspective. Most of Canada's vaunted "social safety net" and "public services" came into being in the late 1940's, early 1950's; decades after America's "New Deal". The perverse incentives that taxpayer funding induces has resulted in the shoddy schools and public health systems we see today, which suck up vast amounts of resources for trifling ends. Public systems exist for the benefits of themselves, as a look at the CWB should tell you; farmers forced to sell their wheat through the board are often paid at less than the world price, yet the Board is often defended in terms strikingly similar to those used by advocates of public schools or public health. With records like that it is very _easy_ to 
advocate for the Libertarian ideal of Government as the "Night Watchman" and strip away expensive and ineffectual "public" service roles.

This is about control of resources and choice. If resources are taken away from the taxpayer (i.e. their hard earned money) then their choices are restricted as well. While this proposal is not ideal, it is the one on the table, and offers a greater degree of choice.

_edit to fix the quote boxes_


----------



## warrickdll (5 Oct 2007)

ex-Sup said:
			
		

> ...
> Therefore one can say that my students are gaining an advantage over their public school peers because we can discuss and examine a greater spectrum of issues.
> ...
> Teachers are not just educators anymore; we are psychologists, babysitters, parental figures and much more.
> ...



Yes. Be the best Catholic school teacher you can be - just don't do it with public money.





			
				ex-Sup said:
			
		

> ...
> Yes, we deal with the teachings if _of_ the church, but we don’t work for it.
> ...



I understand the difference, but it doesn’t matter. It is still the Catholic Church. If you don’t have the Catholic Church you don’t have Catholic beliefs and you don’t have a Catholic school board. With or without direct involvement of the Catholic Church it is still a religious school system run by a religious organization.





			
				ex-Sup said:
			
		

> Okay, I’m going to try this again, because obviously some things are not getting through
> 
> >Yes; it is in my opinion that publicly funding religious schools are a subsidization of religion. I have stated why I hold that opinion, and provided an analogy to counter suggestions that it is not.
> 
> ...



What isn’t getting through to me is how you do not see any advantage for the Catholic Church in there being a publicly funded Catholic school system. It isn’t as if I’ve revealed a trade secret, or decrypted a coded message. 





			
				ex-Sup said:
			
		

> ...
> Fine, this is your opinion, great. My point is that the facts that you are basing your opinion on are incorrect. ...



If you could list the incorrect facts that my opinion is based on then I would be able to respond.









			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> ...
> _Re: Health Care and Education_
> ...
> These are areas where there is no clear justification for government to be the provider of these services.
> ...



Not that I don’t see the advantages of your system: taxes would be extremely low since, instead of providing public services, you can just hand out some money to those below a set minimum income level and everything is handled at private hospitals and private schools. 

But I think it would an extreme mistake to not have public health care and public education. These should be the services expected from the government.





			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> ...
> This is about control of resources and choice. If resources are taken away from the taxpayer (i.e. their hard earned money) then their choices are restricted as well. While this proposal is not ideal, it is the one on the table, and offers a greater degree of choice.



Spending public money on private schools is a big, and expensive, step in the opposite direction from which you wish to proceed.


----------



## ex-Sup (5 Oct 2007)

Iterator said:
			
		

> Yes. Be the best Catholic school teacher you can be - just don't do it with public money.



Your opinion once again. There is a good chunk of the population that feels that a religious education (whatever that religion may be) is important. They represent a good proportion of the public.



			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> I understand the difference, but it doesn’t matter. It is still the Catholic Church. If you don’t have the Catholic Church you don’t have Catholic beliefs and you don’t have a Catholic school board. With or without direct involvement of the Catholic Church it is still a religious school system run by a religious organization.
> If you could list the incorrect facts that my opinion is based on then I would be able to respond.


 :brickwall: How many times do I have to repeat myself? As is so often quoted on this site, stay in your lane! Your clearly do not live in Ontario, nor are you an educator. Everything that you describe is simply opinion because you don't know about the situation. I'm not making my statements up, I am directly involved. I rarely pipe up about military matters on this site because I don't know. Education is different; it is my occupation.
The Catholic church does not run the Catholic school system. This is fact! The system is guided by the philosophies of the church in its moral and ethical approach, but the church does not control what we do. Maybe there was a time in the past when the church had a huge say in things (ie. when there were priests and nuns in the school), but not today. My school is run by and my bosses are the school board, who report directly to the Ministry of Education. The church does not tell me what to do in my history class, the ministry of ed does. They do tell me how to act...so if this constitutes your "church" control, then by all means.
I have provided a lot of hard evidence to support my statements. In case you missed it the first time, you can browse over to these sites:
Ministry of Ed http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/index.html
Education Act http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90e02_e.htm
All I keep hearing is a lot of opinion, supported no factual evidence. If you have such material, please provide it.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Oct 2007)

Iterator said:
			
		

> But I think it would an extreme mistake to not have public health care and public education. These should be the services expected from the government.



While this is your opinion, there is no reason (other than to buy votes) for the State to be involved in providing these services. Indeed, you can extend that to so many different areas, such as garbage collection, housing, postal services (originally set as a State monopoly so the State had the ability to read your mail), and so on.  



> Spending public money on private schools is a big, and expensive, step in the opposite direction from which you wish to proceed.



Frankly, yes. However the current situation is untenable and the new proposal (if implemented) would also be unstable. While a larger set of parents would have more school choice, the universe of parents would not be encompassed, many more parents would be agitating for choice. Eventually governments would have to extend the system to be even more open (charter schools, vouchers etc.) in response to parental pressure.

Like I said before, other options are not on the table at this time (unless the Freedom Party was to win a majority, which does not seem to be in the cards), so we go with what is possible and extend from there.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Oct 2007)

Sadly, the article is reflected here; how much time and effort have _we_ spent debating all the other issues that were so effectively smokescreened by this proposal?

http://unambig.blogspot.com/2007/10/howard-hampton-has-it-right.html



> Friday, October 5, 2007
> *Howard Hampton Has It Right*
> 
> We've all heard the sound bytes of Howard having a breakdown in front of media by now [and if you haven't, you should], and while you can question his political strategy of this lashing out, you can't really question the truth of the statement. The fact is that we here in Ontario allowed the idea [and let's be honest here, it was only the idea or principle of the thing] of faith-based funding to hijack the entire election. The issue has so dominated the campaign that an angry Hampton yelled out: "We've become the child poverty capital of Canada - don't any of you people care? Don't you care that there are seniors living in soiled diapers? Don't you care about that?"
> ...


----------



## ex-Sup (5 Oct 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Sadly, the article is reflected here; how much time and effort have _we_ spent debating all the other issues that were so effectively smokescreened by this proposal?



+1...there are a lot more important issues to deal with in our society.


----------



## warrickdll (5 Oct 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> _Re: public health care and public education_
> ...
> ...there is no reason (other than to buy votes) for the State to be involved in providing these services. Indeed, you can extend that to so many different areas, such as garbage collection, housing, postal services (originally set as a State monopoly so the State had the ability to read your mail), and so on.
> ...



I agree that there is nothing concrete that a State has to be involved in. Collective security seems to be one of the first reasons for becoming a State so that usually is taken care of (trade comes up early as well). 

I think as you form larger and larger gatherings of people you will end up in an unhealthy situation that is detrimental to everyone. It is also my opinion that an uneducated population in an industrial or technological environment is a liability: can’t train a military; can’t handle policing; can’t understand health care; can’t compete economically; and probably won’t be able to be free and democratic.

Those are the reasons that I believe education and health care have evolved over time to be collective services. You disagree; so it should be a simple matter of taking it to the electorate, either by referendum or by candidate platform.





			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> ...
> ...However the current situation is untenable and the new proposal (if implemented) would also be unstable. While a larger set of parents would have more school choice, the universe of parents would not be encompassed, many more parents would be agitating for choice. Eventually governments would have to extend the system to be even more open (charter schools, vouchers etc.) in response to parental pressure.
> 
> Like I said before, other options are not on the table at this time (unless the Freedom Party was to win a majority, which does not seem to be in the cards), so we go with what is possible and extend from there.



Your underlying position seems to be that the less money the government has then the more control the individual will have (also the less money the government bureaucracies will waste).

Then of the proposals present I believe you should be on the side of the government only funding (and so only collecting taxes for) the public (secular) school system. The other options present are to fund the more expensive status quo (funding both a public (secular) system and a public (Catholic) system), or the status quo and even more public religious schools, or the status quo and even more public religious schools and private schools.


----------



## Shamrock (5 Oct 2007)

> We allowed an issue as tiny as something which affects 3% of the population at most [if that], to possibly hand the ill-begotten Liberals and their leader-in-broken-promises Dalton McGuinty another majority government.



Is it really that small?  Are only 3% of public schools Catholic?


----------



## ex-Sup (5 Oct 2007)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Is it really that small?  Are only 3% of public schools Catholic?


Not even close. I don't have exact numbers, but I'd venture between 35-40% are. In my city (Thunder Bay), he's how things measure up:
The Lakehead District School Board is the largest, with 22 elementary schools, 4 secondary schools and a centre for adult studies. The Thunder Bay Catholic District School Board is the second largest with 16 elementary schools, 3 middle schools and 2 high schools. CSDC Aurores boréales operates one elementary and one high school in Thunder Bay, and an additional six schools throughout the Thunder Bay District
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Thunder_Bay%2C_Ontario ya I know it's wikipedia, but I don't have a lot of time


----------



## warrickdll (5 Oct 2007)

ex-Sup said:
			
		

> >Yes. Be the best Catholic school teacher you can be - just don't do it with public money.
> 
> Your opinion once again. There is a good chunk of the population that feels that a religious education (whatever that religion may be) is important. They represent a good proportion of the public.
> ...



I don't believe that your chunk is big enough; if it were then there wouldn't be a problem amongst the voters of Ontario when it comes to the government spending even more taxpayer money on religious schools.





			
				ex-Sup said:
			
		

> ...
> The Catholic church does not run the Catholic school system. This is fact! The system is guided by the philosophies of the church in its moral and ethical approach, but the church does not control what we do. Maybe there was a time in the past when the church had a huge say in things (ie. when there were priests and nuns in the school), but not today.
> ...



It's a religious school system and, in my opinion it should not receive any tax money. It doesn't matter how many arms’ lengths it is removed from the Catholic Church itself, it is still a religious school system - even you refer to it as a “religious education” so it seems a bit dicey to try and obfuscate that fact. 

My opinions in this matter concern what I would want funded by a provincial government – so my lane_, in my opinion_, seems pretty clear.


----------



## warrickdll (5 Oct 2007)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Is it really that small?  Are only 3% of public schools Catholic?



I took it to mean the other religious schools.


----------



## ex-Sup (5 Oct 2007)

Iterator said:
			
		

> I don't believe  that your chunk is big enough; if it were then there wouldn't be a problem amongst the voters of Ontario when it comes to the government spending even more taxpayer money on religious schools.
> It's a religious school system and, in my opinion  it should not receive any tax money. It doesn't matter how many arms’ lengths it is removed from the Catholic Church itself, it is still a religious school system - even you refer to it as a “religious education” so it seems a bit dicey to try and obfuscate that fact.
> My opinions in this matter concern what I would want funded by a provincial government – so my lane_, in my opinion_, seems pretty clear.


_Opinion_ noted...I've got to go back to teaching in my publically-funded religious school right now, thanks.


----------



## glock17 (9 Oct 2007)

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/264582

The article would seem to indicate that there is a groundswell of "Democratic" support for eliminating all public funding of religous schools, including, and I guess specifically the catholic one....good news as far as I and about 70% ( Tor Star Poll ) of my fellow citizens are concerned.

I find the comments from some of the younger students included a little disturbing, just my opinion though, don't excommunicate me for it.


----------



## glock17 (9 Oct 2007)

What are a group of "Bishops" doing mandating the development and publishing of grade eleven text books ?

TORONTO - The Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops has given the go ahead to write the first-ever Grade 11 world religion textbook from a Canadian Catholic perspective.

http://www.catholicregister.org/content/view/1109/855/

And, it seems that these "Bishops" are starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel, which in this case, might be the train of public opinion coming the other way.

http://www.catholicregister.org/content/view/1072/849/

More fuel for the fire Folks, have at it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Oct 2007)

glock17 said:
			
		

> http://www.thestar.com/News/article/264582
> 
> The article would seem to indicate that there is a groundswell of "Democratic" support for eliminating all public funding of religous schools, including, and I guess specifically the catholic one....good news as far as I and about 70% ( Tor Star Poll ) of my fellow citizens are concerned.
> 
> I find the comments from some of the younger students included a little disturbing, *just my opinion though, don't excommunicate me for it.*





			
				glock17 said:
			
		

> What are a group of "Bishops" doing mandating the development and publishing of grade eleven text books ?
> 
> TORONTO - The Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops has given the go ahead to write the first-ever Grade 11 world religion textbook from a Canadian Catholic perspective.
> 
> ...



Glock 17,

The portions of your posts that I have highlighted, can be considered trolling and trying to start a flame war. If you're interested in serious discourse on the subject. Act like it. If you want to be a bozo and create havoc, find another site. We're not going to put up with it here. No more warnings.


----------



## glock17 (9 Oct 2007)

recceguy

I have been reading and participating in the thread from the start, and have read some comments that might be taken as as little more inflamatory than those I put above.


If I offended anyone, I apologize, it was not my intent. I simply offered outside sources of information to support my opinion and what was supposed to be comments to inject a little levity into the discourse.

I withdraw them. And request that you refrain from calling me a "Bozo" in the future.

Have a nice day


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Oct 2007)

Read it again. You would have only been a 'bozo' if your intent was to disrupt. Then it would have been deserved.

Pretty easy to misread and misconstrue things, isn't it?


----------



## ex-Sup (9 Oct 2007)

glock17 said:
			
		

> What are a group of "Bishops" doing mandating the development and publishing of grade eleven text books ?



They form part of a group called ICE (Institute for Catholic Education)...the link is in one of my previous posts. ICE modifies/writes curriculum for Catholic schools. They are simply stating that a new Gr.11 world religions text will be written for the course.



			
				glock17 said:
			
		

> And, it seems that these "Bishops" are starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel, which in this case, might be the train of public opinion coming the other way.





			
				glock17 said:
			
		

> The article would seem to indicate that there is a groundswell of "Democratic" support for eliminating all public funding of religous schools, including, and I guess specifically the catholic one....good news as far as I and about 70% ( Tor Star Poll ) of my fellow citizens are concerned.



And so....
As for your stats, depends who you ask and where. 35-40% of the teachers in this province in the Catholic system, and in my city, over 40% of the schools are Catholic. We have a lot of non-Catholics in our system. Best to stay in your lane here. And what's with the quotes? Bishop not a legitimate title?



			
				glock17 said:
			
		

> I find the comments from some of the younger students included a little disturbing, just my opinion though, don't excommunicate me for it.


Why, because they have an opinion on religion, specially Catholic religion? I find yours likewise...but that's just my opinion.


----------



## glock17 (9 Oct 2007)

Best to stay in my lane.


----------



## ex-Sup (9 Oct 2007)

glock17 said:
			
		

> Best to stay in my lane?


Not trying to be offensive; there just are a lot of people piping in that are not in the education field and offering opinions, not facts. I will freely admit that I'm not the end all and be all. However I am a Catholic teacher with 10+ years in the system; I know what I'm talking about.

This is a pretty inflammatory issue with a lot of strong opinions on both sides; I don't think anyone wants to turn this into a p@ssing match. However, the facts are not always there. What the media reports (as we all know) is whatever suites their particular interest or need. People need to be aware of what goes on free of media manipulation or ignorance.


----------



## glock17 (10 Oct 2007)

Well said, and after a night's sleep, I see there's something we can agree on. I do concede that you're position inside the system would offer you some exclusive insight, however it doesn't negate the opinion of other's and it may also cause you to be somewhat subjective in your own. 

I offered the article about the new text books as a counter to your earlier assertions that the Church wasn't running the schools, it seems that the truth is somewhere in the middle, the school's report to the Ministry, but the Bishops also have influence through the creation of part of the curiculum. Further, as I understand it, the Students at that level may opt out of religious instruction alltogether, so it's not like they're being forced into it.

As for the stats, yes we all know stats serve the master who manipulates them, but I did offer two different sources for my numbers. Selected to support my position, and of-course I didn't give reference to the one's that didn't.



Stay Safe


----------



## warrickdll (10 Oct 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ...
> Religious people seeking publicly-funded denominational school systems have not asked for special treatment; they have asked to be treated the same as everyone else and to have the educations of their children publicly funded.  Right to education, freedom of choice, freedom of association, and freedom of belief.  The lazy and greedy people are by definition the ones arguing to defund the Catholic schools in Ontario: greedy because they don't want to spend that money on those children; lazy because they aren't willing to make the public spending adjustments necessary to fund all children irrespective of schooling choice.
> ...



That is completely wrong; it *is* special treatment being asked for - it is private education at everyone else's expense. The public (secular) system is already openly funded for them - there has been no limitation of choice or freedom.


----------



## ex-Sup (10 Oct 2007)

glock17 said:
			
		

> I offered the article about the new text books as a counter to your earlier assertions that the Church wasn't running the schools, it seems that the truth is somewhere in the middle, the school's report to the Ministry, but the Bishops also have influence through the creation of part of the curiculum. Further, as I understand it, the Students at that level may opt out of religious instruction alltogether, so it's not like they're being forced into it.


Just as an elaboration in your point. The only role the church has in "writing" curriculum (which through ICE, is partnership of clergy, teachers and administrators-teachers actually do the writing) is with religious education courses. The ministry mandated curriculum in other subjects is only modified to add Catholic graduate expectations. I think that it was, to quote my students, "old school" when the church had a direct say in what happens. They do play a role today, but it is mostly limited to moral, ethical and spiritual issues.



			
				glock17 said:
			
		

> however it doesn't negate the opinion of other's and it may also cause you to be somewhat subjective in your own.


I know that I'm biased, but I've tried to stick to the facts. Everyone is entitled to their opinion...sometimes facts help to clarify misconceptions and misunderstandings.



			
				glock17 said:
			
		

> Further, as I understand it, the Students at that level may opt out of religious instruction alltogether, so it's not like they're being forced into it.


Nope...it's usually only in certain circumstances and at the discretion of the principal (in my board anyway). Catholic or non-Catholic, you have to take it. Besides, as I've already mentioned, religion has moved  away from purely scriptural teaching. A lot of time is spend on morality, ethics, psychology, lifestyles, world religions, etc. I know that a lot of kids, especially at the senior level, get a lot out of it because of the discussions and interaction.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Oct 2007)

"It is private education at everyone else's expense."
"It is public education at everyone else's expense."
"It is education at everyone else's expense."

I see no difference, unless it were proposed that private school students receive greater per-student funding than public students - a proposition which I have not seen seriously advanced.  If each child receives the same basic funding package, what is your objection - why do you care where it is spent?  If each child's parents are handed $7,000 annually conditional on it being spent entirely on the education of the child subject to minimum curricula, what magically transforms "acceptable" to "unacceptable" in the transition from a public to private school?

>The public (secular) system is already openly funded for them - there has been no limitation of choice or freedom.

The fact that there is exactly one publicly-funded option negates the possibility of "choice".  How do you manage to miss that point?  Much of public health care spending does not go into public employees and infrastructure.  Do you object to that; if not, how do you justify your different stances with respect to health care and education?


----------



## warrickdll (10 Oct 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ...
> ...If each child receives the same basic funding package, what is your objection - why do you care where it is spent?  If each child's parents are handed $7,000 annually conditional on it being spent entirely on the education of the child subject to minimum curricula, what magically transforms "acceptable" to "unacceptable" in the transition from a public to private school?
> ...



The idea that there is a specific amount of money due to parents for their children is a myth, propaganda, poor logic, and bad math.

Why should Joe Gazillionaire get to drop off his Precious at Madame Truffle’s School of Short-pants and Beanies, and then get a cheque from the government to go buy matching plasmas for his yacht? 

How does it make sense to pay someone to not use a service they were never going to use in the first place?

After all: Susie Spinster doesn’t receive a manila envelope every year containing a wad a cash and a note stating “thanks for not clogging our schools”; neither do parents whose children are too young (or too old) for school. 

Perhaps single Corporal “no children that I know of” Bloggins should be voicing his desire for a turn at the money-for-nothing trough.

Governments in Canada that fund private schools cost more – because, even when public services are being reduced, they end up creating a complex system of redistributing the wealth amongst the wealthy.


----------



## warrickdll (10 Oct 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ...
> >The public (secular) system is already openly funded for them - there has been no limitation of choice or freedom.
> 
> The fact that there is exactly one publicly-funded option negates the possibility of "choice".  How do you manage to miss that point?...



Why would there be unlimited choice with total government obligation to pay? Parents are not being charged to use public (secular) schools - and so they are free to choose any of them they can get their child to.

Nowhere is there the right for parents to choose the school that offers a free car for every child they enroll - and then have the government pay for it.





			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ...
> ...Much of public health care spending does not go into public employees and infrastructure.  Do you object to that; if not, how do you justify your different stances with respect to health care and education?



Yes I object to that. I have seen how hospitals in BC aren’t as clean as they were before they went with private companies. Check the news to see how well seniors are doing in privately run facilities. 

Not everything needs to be done by a public employee (e.g. books can be purchased) but businesses are there to make money and so have a profit added to their expense; government services, of the same quality, should be less expensive.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Oct 2007)

Perfectly good model for the PPP hospitals.  The same as at Canada Packers or on Fishing Vessels in the Bering.

Hire a Federal Inspector.  Just like towns hire the RCMP to police them.  Meat Packers hired Government Inspectors to police them.  In Alaska fishing vessels hire accredited inspectors to police them.  (More like Underwriter's Laboratories (UL) and Canadian Standards Agency).   They are private firms that are jealous of their reputations because they have nothing else to sell.

You don't need a CPSEU employee to deliver a Public Service of good quality.  You need a fire-able employee.  And someone with the ability to fire them (as well as reward them).

And by the way that applies to line and management.  The difference in dollars between line and management is not the amount of sweat.  It is the amount of responsibility.  As Line Wages approach or exceed Management Wages then Line Responsibility should increase accordingly.  And if you are responsible and get the money when things go well then you can carry the can when they don't.

Managers haven't been able to "discipline" their subordinates in an effective and timely fashion for donkey's years - nor for that matter have they been able to reward them.  No carrot, no stick, no control, no authority.

Pre-requisites for a Manager: Responsibility, Authority, Budget.  

Budgets are limited.  Authority is non-existent.  But everybody loves to pass along the Responsibility.  

And I don't care what colour your suit is or if it comes with pants or a skirt.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Oct 2007)

Iterator said:
			
		

> Why would there be unlimited choice with total government obligation to pay? Parents are not being charged to use public (secular) schools - and so they are free to choose any of them they can get their child to.



We are not free to choose which public school our child is sent to; I held off enrolling for one year since our gerrymandered boundaries would have forced me to enroll my child in a school rated (By the Ministry of Education) as being at the bottom of the list for *all Ontario*; no recourse, no appeal. You should be aware there is a flourishing underground of address and PO box magic as parents attempt to bypass the gerrymandering. You are also indulging in willful ignorance of where the money to run schools comes form; parents are being charged up the hoop, with no relief in sight. 



> Not everything needs to be done by a public employee (e.g. books can be purchased) but businesses are there to make money and so have a profit added to their expense; government services, of the same quality, should be less expensive.



But in case after case is far more expensive. The incentive to business is to make profits, through a combination of offering innovative goods and services or reducing costs (i.e. Wal Mart). Government bureaucracies have the perverse incentive to maximize their budgets, hence problems can never be solved except by increasing budgets, inflating the civil service and adding more paperwork. If problems were solved, then budgets would go to someone else. Civil service unions understand empire building perfectly, so drive up labour costs to increase their share of the pie. Notice innovation and service are no longer in the equation........


----------



## warrickdll (11 Oct 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Perfectly good model for the PPP hospitals....
> 
> Hire a Federal Inspector....Meat Packers hired Government Inspectors to police them....reward them).
> ...



Public Private Partnerships are not ideal for public health or public education; they have to make profits, are exclusionary, and favour those with cash who just want a subsidized form of a purely private service.

But private schools and private health facilities must be made to pay for exactly the kind of inspectors you mention.





			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ...
> You don't need a CPSEU employee to deliver a Public Service of good quality.  You need a fire-able employee.  And someone with the ability to fire them (as well as reward them).
> ...



It isn’t the public unionized employee that is the issue, it is the public institution – it is the best option. Besides, here in BC the government has signed contracts with unions and then legislated the contracts away – so public unions can be dealt with if they are the problem (I don’t see it that way though).


----------



## warrickdll (11 Oct 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> ...forced me to enroll my child in a school...
> ...parents are being charged up the hoop...
> ...bureaucracies have the perverse incentive to maximize their budgets...
> ...Civil service unions understand empire building...



All problems that are solvable without having to throw money away for the benefit of private schools and those that use them.




			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> ...
> ...The incentive to business is to make profits, through a combination of offering innovative goods and services or reducing costs (i.e. Wal Mart)....
> ...



No; what happens for businesses that want government contracts is that they lowball their bids and then do not meet the requirements they were contracted for.

And one of the innovative ways that a private school will maximize profits is by kicking out (or denying entry) to any child that doesn’t fit into their specifications. They have no need for our tax money.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Oct 2007)

1) The idea that there is any amount due parents for the education of their children is founded in the principle that education is a civil right (privilege) of the child, given voice in both domestic and international law.  The Charter principle of equal benefit of the law strongly suggests identical funding be available to all within each responsible jurisdiction.  $7000 is a ballpark example I wrote based on figures I've read, and note that the amount would not be simply based on total education budget divided by number of children in public system - there would first be a separation of some of the infrastructural and administrative overhead from the year-to-year costs of the service (chiefly, an estimate of supplies and labour at the school level).  So, no myth, no propaganda, straightforward deduction, and basic arithmetic of estimation - only principles, reason, and reality.

2) Notwithstanding equality of benefit, means testing is an accepted principle of dispensing social and civil benefits.  The attempt to create a straw man by appealing to envy of the super-rich is noted.  Any astute observer will be aware that most children in private schools or the Ontario Catholic denominational system are not members of super-rich families.

3) Whether people choose to use the public system is beside the point, because the driving principle is that education shall be provided to children at public expense, not that public education agencies shall be sustained at public expense.  If you wish to invert that, please state so clearly.  That suggests we pay parents to use an education service, not that we pay them (indirectly, by selectively not charging them) to use only a public education service.  Unless one believes the public teacher is the funding objective and the educated student is not, there is no sense to adopting lines of argument based on the primacy of the public service.

4) To suggest that people without children of school age should receive money is a manifestly pathetic straw man which suggests someone isn't reading or comprehending, since I've already noted that the funding would be subject to common-sense conditions: that it be spent on the education of a child, and not provided otherwise.

5) It is true that funding children (vouchers, for clarity) would cost governments more, because governments already are free-riding on those who use non-public schools by conspicuously abdicating the responsibility to fun d the educations of all children equally.  This is not something to which a just and fair person would point with pride or wish to continue.

6) Parents are not in fact free to use any public school.  Public school systems typically have catchment areas, and the specialty schools (eg. language immersion; emphasis on athletics, sciences, fine arts, or trades) by no means guarantee admission to all.

7) Who wrote anything about free cars or other come-ons?

8) Regardless of minor changes in public health institutions such as who mops the floors, most doctors operate privately and there are many private clinics offering various services.  Squaring that circle rather than trying to defend the inconsistency between how we deliver health and education is still a burden that has not been met.

9) Profit is what the doctor with a private practice makes.  To note the existence of profit is not a counterargument, although some people seem to believe the mention of the word is sufficient as if profit were somehow dirty.  Since we know from experience that profit is generally a motivator for excellence, the reasonable conclusion is that a profit motive should be encouraged.  And before another straw man is excitedly thrown out, note that I wrote "generally" - there can be exceptions.

10) Contracts that are not met can be litigated.  Regardless, the contracts in question would be between parents and schools.  Ineffective schools would not last long, because parents vote very quickly with their feet when their children are at stake - it is clear enough that private schools provide at least adequate education, and clear enough that the schools at risk in a more competitive environment would be the bottom-ranked public ones if parents had sufficient flexibility to avoid those schools.


----------



## GAP (11 Oct 2007)

The election is over, and so is this particular issue, so why are we  :deadhorse:


----------



## UberCree (11 Oct 2007)

This issue is far from over.  It may well come up in the next federal election, as many educators are pushing for a federal department of education.  Canada is one of the only modern western countries that does not have a federal department of education (minus the enept INAC department of ed with no educators working there).


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Oct 2007)

Just laying in a stock of clubs to bludgeon the next one expeditiously.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Oct 2007)

UberCree said:
			
		

> This issue is far from over.  It may well come up in the next federal election, as many educators are pushing for a federal department of education.  Canada is one of the only modern western countries that does not have a federal department of education (minus the enept INAC department of ed with no educators working there).



And coming soon - from the Liberal/NDP/Bloquistes - The Ministry of Truth - for that is what a centralized Department of Education is responsible for - deriving a common curriculum with common history and common language to generate a common polity.

Societally it may have its advantages but historically it has had a stultifying effect on development and progress. Like my democracy I like my education messy and individual.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2007)

UberCree said:
			
		

> This issue is far from over.  It may well come up in the next federal election, as many educators are pushing for a federal department of education.  Canada is one of the only modern western countries that does not have a federal department of education (minus the enept INAC department of ed with no educators working there).





			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> And coming soon - from the Liberal/NDP/Bloquistes - The Ministry of Truth - for that is what a centralized Department of Education is responsible for - deriving a common curriculum with common history and common language to generate a common polity.
> 
> Societally it may have its advantages but historically it has had a stultifying effect on development and progress. Like my democracy I like my education messy and individual.



Education is a ‘public good’ – it is one of those things, like national defence, which is ‘consumed,’ directly or indirectly, by all. It is also, broadly, a good thing – better educated societies are, without fail, I *confidently* think are measurably *better* than less well educated societies – by any sensible definition of bad/good.

Since it is a public good and a good thing, education ought to be:

1.  Compulsory, at some level, for all;

2.	Publicly funded, at some levels, for all.

There is, however, no especially good argument for government run education. In fact, I would argue, that anything which is government run – including the Canadian Forces – is bureaucratic, expensive, hide bound, risk averse, ill managed, etc, etc, etc _ad infinitum_.

It would be better if _society_ (through elected governments) set the *standard* for an elementary education – the level which lets one at, say, age 16 or so, enter the work force or proceed on to higher levels of education but that all schools were independently managed.

That does not mean that a _community_ could not run its own _public_ school but it means that anyone who could meet the government’s standard could run a _public_ and _*publicly funded*_ school.

Education standards above the elementary (age 16_ish_) level should be set by the education system’s customers: universities, colleges, trade/industry groups.

All education beyond the elementary level should be provided on a _”pay-as-you-go”_ basis but government should provide funding to students (n advance and based upon their previous year’s performance) at some sort of sliding scale – say, just for example:

*A+  125% of the cost of tuition, books and fees*
A    112.5% of the cost of tuition, books and fees
B+  105% of the cost of tuition, books and fees
B    103.5% of the cost of tuition, books and fees
C+ 102.5% of the cost of tuition, books and fees
*C   100% of the cost of tuition, books and fees*
C-  100% of the cost of tuition, books and fees
D    95% of the cost of tuition, books and fees
*F    50% of the cost of tuition, books and fees*

This should apply all the way from high school (10th grade) to post graduate work (PhD) for all work in all *public* schools, colleges and universities.

Broadly, schools should be privately run. They should aim to serve _customers_ (trades, colleges, universities, etc). They should aim to make a profit by ‘graduating’ a many students as possible – and the government should pay them based on a mix of enrolment and performance.

Clearly there will have to be exceptions. Schools in rural and remote areas will not able to reap the undoubted benefits of an open, competitive market. They will have to be funded almost without regard to performance – which (lack of incentive to do well) is one of the many problems with public education today.


----------



## medaid (11 Oct 2007)

They can PUSH for the matter all they want but it will take an act of parliament plus the majority of provinces and territories to agree to it before a federal department of education can be created. Under the BNA s.91 and s.92 are the sections which outlines the responsibilities and authorities for both Fedeal and Provincial levels of government, and education is purely a Provincial responsibility, to create the curriculum and to administer it all without Federal interference. So another words to change something that is apart of our Charter will be tough.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Oct 2007)

Brilliant; just fucking brilliant.  A solution in search of a problem.  Clearly we can see that our K-12 systems produce such ill-prepared adults that we need to have one federal agency.  Is there even going to be a pretense of demonstrating an actual need, or does this community of university-educated people without the common sense God gave dirt just feel we should do this to be fashionable?  What a bunch of oxygen-thieving wastes of skin.  If any of them vote they should be executed for the crime of masquerading as competent adults.

I trust by tomorrow this will be revealed to be a hoax designed to trigger an outburst of utter contempt from me.


----------



## ex-Sup (11 Oct 2007)

UberCree said:
			
		

> This issue is far from over.  It may well come up in the next federal election, as many educators are pushing for a federal department of education.  Canada is one of the only modern western countries that does not have a federal department of education (minus the enept INAC department of ed with no educators working there).


Great...if provincial paper pushers weren't enough.
Curious to see the reaction from some provinces such as Quebec. This was one of the main reasons why education became a provincial responsibility in the BNA.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Oct 2007)

MedTech said:
			
		

> They can PUSH for the matter all they want but it will take an act of parliament plus the majority of provinces and territories to agree to it before a federal department of education can be created.





			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Brilliant; just ******* brilliant.  A solution in search of a problem.



The Federal government already poaches on Provincial jurisdictions with its spending power. This is most apparent in health care and "higher" education (although one of the institutions of "higher" education in London eventually had to install a fence to prevent undergraduates from jaywalking on a four lane arterial road; higher education does not = common sense), where the Federal government can impose standards through the threat of withholding funds.


----------



## medaid (11 Oct 2007)

Yeah, I know what you mean, but in the "word" of law, it states that... we all know that not all laws are created equal  ;D


----------



## 1feral1 (12 Oct 2007)

Iterator said:
			
		

> Parents are not being charged to use public (secular) schools - and so they are free to choose any of them they can get their child to.



In Saskatchewan, property owners pay education tax as part of their council rates for their homes. Cost captured by the city. When I lived in Regina, and owned a home, I was paying (in 1994) over $600 each year to either the Regina Public schools, or the Regina Catholic schools. I had a choice. Renters of property paid nothing, and still do not. I was not even a parent myself.

All in Saskatchewan(and those passing thru) pay E&H (education and health) tax on almost everything they buy, thats how things are funded. PST, plus GST, double stabbed. Indians excluded of course.

So its not free education for your kids if you own a home in Saskatchewan, don't know how it works in other provinces.

Regards,


Wes


----------



## warrickdll (12 Oct 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...
> There is, however, no especially good argument for government run education....
> ...



Children who have richer parents will receive many advantages over their cohorts; why should we add education to this? There will be many points in a person’s life where merit and competition will be significant factors; but no child starts life having earned a better education over others.


On some level doling out an equal amount of money to parents, for each of their children, seems fair and balanced.

But I believe this will lead to many young Canadians attending nothing but Box-Store educational facilities; unable to simply add more money to the government cheque and buy themselves out of the situation.


By making government directly responsible for delivering education, and not hiding behind school boards, vouchers, or private schools, I believe that enough focus can be brought upon this so that we can have a public education system worthy of all our children.



And, though it might not be an especially good argument, I think that many Canadians do see an advantage in having young Canadians being educated with a diverse mix of their peers, as opposed to being overly stratified by economics, religion, or point of origin.


----------



## DBA (12 Oct 2007)

Iterator said:
			
		

> But I believe this will lead to many young Canadians attending nothing but Box-Store educational facilities; unable to simply add more money to the government cheque and buy themselves out of the situation.



This is the current system. There is per head funding for each student but it's only useable in two places in Ontario: the public school system or the separate school system. In addition everybody has to pay into the common fund those cheques are drawn from so those who want to buy themselves out of the situation are in effect being double billed. The double billing means less people have the means for educational choice. 

The current system can still provide an education but it will allways drift towards being bureaucratic and inefficient. The very stakeholders who are against change also control the bureaucracy making it incredibly frustrating to get anything fixed. Just try to rationalize school infrastructure to current and projected student populations in the different geographic areas of a major city to see the type of fight I mean. School boards were given *BILLIONS* of dollars to do it and instead blew the money on current expenses and promptly cried for more.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Oct 2007)

All of those who deride the present school system as "bloated and inefficient" need to spend more time involved in it.

I think I will now go into the various "Afghanistan" threads and tell all those who have been there what they need to do better next time..............no, wait,  I will rebuild NDHQ, ........hold it, better idea, I just watched Al Gore on TV so I'll...............


----------



## a_majoor (12 Oct 2007)

The alternative: (unable to find link)



> May 20, 2004, 8:51 a.m.
> *Lessons in Liberty*
> Our children deserve freedom — most especially in their schools.
> 
> ...



On the one hand, idiological demands that children be forced into government "public schools", on the other, repeated and constant evidence that allowing parental choice provides better results. Idiological purity is invoked in order to achieve certain "results", although looking at these threads and listening to the last election campaign it is clear that actually educating children is not one of the results demanded (protecting budgets being forst and foremost).


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Oct 2007)

Again, a waste of our bandwidth article,.................comparing how one can run schools on an island with almost a third of Canada's total population would be like comparing why the Toronto subway doesn't go all around the city like New York's.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Oct 2007)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> I. Renters of property paid nothing, and still do not.



Umm, yes they do..............unless the person owning the rented building is a very bad [or very generous] business person.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Oct 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Umm, yes they do..............unless the person owning the rented building is a very bad [or very generous] business person.



Touche Bruce ;D


----------



## GAP (12 Oct 2007)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> In Saskatchewan, property owners pay education tax as part of their council rates for their homes. Cost captured by the city. When I lived in Regina, and owned a home, I was paying (in 1994) over $600 each year to either the Regina Public schools, or the Regina Catholic schools. I had a choice. Renters of property paid nothing, and still do not. I was not even a parent myself.
> 
> All in Saskatchewan(and those passing thru) pay E&H (education and health) tax on almost everything they buy, thats how things are funded. PST, plus GST, double stabbed. Indians excluded of course.
> 
> ...



Renters DO pay education taxes via the landlord incorporating the property/education tax charges into the rent. They do not pay them directly like homeowners, but also are not eligible for tax rebates that homeowners are, unless the landlord lowers the rent (right!!)


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Oct 2007)

Iterator said:
			
		

> Children who have richer parents will receive many advantages over their cohorts; why should we add education to this? There will be many points in a person’s life where merit and competition will be significant factors; but no child starts life having earned a better education over others.
> 
> 
> On some level doling out an equal amount of money to parents, for each of their children, seems fair and balanced.
> ...




Iterator,  have you considered fully why the English call their Private Schools "Public Schools" while their Public Schools are "State Schools"?

At bottom it is because money, like that other great bete-noire of the left the Colt .45 (and before it the longbow - digressing again  :-[  ) was the great leveller.  With money everybody could buy themselves an education.  They were not dependent on a hierarchy that hid behind the veil of "merit" to determine who it was safe to entrust with knowledge, and how much knowledge they could be entrusted with, and what knowledge should be released to the public.

Folks talk about access.  Quebec and Ireland, and many other places denied their kids, and their adults, unfettered access to knowledge up until the Taschereau Commission in the early '60s.  The Church limited access and consequently bolstered the power structure.  It was all done by well-meaning individuals with the best of intentions - wishing to maintain societal peace and harmony.  But it didn't work.  It was a prescription for continuous, intermittent, violent eruptions of rebellion as dissatisfaction built to the point that the lid blew off.  The Church controlled the schools, the universities, the kids and the books.

In Scotland "open" lectures at University became the norm in the 18th century.  Instead of going to the movies or the theaters local people, common people, would go to lectures and throw a donation in the collection box on the way out.  The "lecturers" were used to this system because most of them were Presbyterian ministers, many of them without parishes.   The reason they were without parishes was their contracts were not renewed by the local congregations - often because they failed to deliver suitable "Ernest Ainsley" type fire and brimstone sermons on Sunday.  They learned the value of being entertainers.  And it is easier to "please a crowd" if your subject matter is interesting or useful.

Likewise "Public" Libraries sprang from the same source.  A down on his luck poet couldn't get published (Allan Ramsay) so he tried his luck self-publishing his work.  That didn't work either.  But he discovered a niche with a Blockbuster Video type of business: renting books for a week.  The idea caught on just like Blockbusters did and soon dirt poor coal-miners in Lanark and Ayr were organizing their own "subscription" libraries.

Now all information was available to everybody. Because the price was set at what the market would  bear.

Just like Blockbusters.  I don't know many folks that can't afford to spend a few dollars a week on entertainment at that establishment.   And before you go undervaluing the role of entertainment most Americans know what they know of American history from watching John Wayne movies.  Most Canadians know what they know about the environment from watching David Suzuki's "The Nature of Things" and Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth".  Politics are gleaned from Mockumentaries prepared by an ugly, fat f**k.  And Victorians learned what they knew about morality and reform from Jane Austen, Walter Scott, Robert Burns and Thomas Hardy.

The Internet has merely improved the accessibility to information.

Those that wish to control information moved to plan B.  Since they could no longer justify "merit" based access, or at least prevent general access, they moved to testing, accreditation and pricing folks out of the market.  Do you think that James Watt had an Engineering Degree?  No his "accreditation" was that he had "studied" at Glasgow but more importantly that his ideas worked more often than the failed.  The market place "accredited" him.

Now that we have successfully managed to control access by raising the price of information, and the cost of a ticket to the Guild, the call goes out to make access more universal by reverting to "merit".  And how is "merit" to be judged? By "Judges".  Superior mortals that understand these things, things that are beyond the ken of us lesser mortals.

The good news is that the Internet has already cut the feet from that argument.  And as much as China and Russia and Burma are fighting it, I believe the genie is well and truly out of the bottle.

Now, for peace of mind I still want a reliably "accredited" surgeon slicing me open.  But I am not sure that a single source "accreditor", like the CMA or the various Bars (creatures of the original "merit" based Clerical system - they are steeped in the culture of controlled access) is necessarily the best way to go.  

Control panels, and electrical equipment, kill people as surely as a poorly wielded surgeon's scalpel.  But they aren't licensed by one federal bureaucracy.  They are tested by private firms like Underwriter's Laboratories or Canadian Standards Association. Likewise ships are "licensed" by Lloyd's of London or Det Norske Veritas - again private agencies.  These companies are hired to test outcomes, not process.  They don't care if the engineer is accredited or not.  They only care that the panel meets all relevant standards, both their own and any relevant government imposed regulations.  Once they have done that the panel may still explode, but if it does it will be because somebody, accredited or not, has found a new way to screw up within the existing rules.  The purchaser of the ship or panel gets to choose which accreditor he or she prefers.  If the accreditor has a good track-record, ie few catastrophic failures, then the market will tend to favour that accreditor.  Likewise for educational accreditation.  Have you considered the difference between a University where one attends lectures or one "reads" a subject?  One requires that you show up for classes to hear the "Truth" propounded from the pulpit.  The other requires that you embark on a course of reading, draw conclusions and then defend your conclusions.  

The educational equivalent, I guess, would be the LSAT type tests.  Individually purchased from a private administrator and accepted as a reasonable assessment by the merit based law community - who then charge a fortune to become a member of their club.

But the knowledge, the information that education is supposed to supply, that is increasingly available outside of a formal, institutional environment.

I would go further than Edward and state that real "education" ends when individuals are capable of discovering, evaluating and applying information themselves.  And I don't think that takes 12 years to accomplish that - much less 16, 18 or 20.

Someplace between Kindergarten and Grade 12 kids learn to read competently and understand what is written.   Beyond that they need to be taught "logic" - good old fashioned Aristotelian logic.  A schema for organizing your thoughts and available data.

From then on what passes for education can be characterized as:

a) feeding kids "The Truth"
b) teaching them how to become "Good Citizens"
c) keeping them off the labour market as we already have more people than jobs available
d) supplying jobs for teachers, administrators and janitors (see point c).

If information transfer is institutionalized it can be controlled.  Societies that control information transfer have not fared well because, if the Great Leader, is a moron then the whole society goes over the cliff with him when he screws up.

Privately financed access to information may be a messy solution but, like democracy, it is better than all the alternatives.

Besides which is more affordable?  $40,000 for a Law Degree via a Law School?  Or the license fee associated with just writing an accreditation exam - like getting your steam ticket.?


----------



## a_majoor (12 Oct 2007)

> Again, a waste of our bandwidth article,.................comparing how one can run schools on an island with almost a third of Canada's total population would be like comparing why the Toronto subway doesn't go all around the city like New York's.



This was to demonstrate there are different means of achieving the end (educated children). I don't have anything handy about Alberta's experiments with parental charter schools, but many of the solutions tried in Alberta are similar enough to what was used in NYC to make this a valid comparison. Outcomes are similar too.

You could examine why the TTC does not run a subway around the city. I suspect the answer would also be perverse incentives to fail. After all, the TTC wants you tax dollars just as badly as the Ministry of Education.......


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Oct 2007)

...the answer is quite simple, with enough clients things are possible, without enough clients, they are not.

Those who live in the metropolition areas will be served a choice of whatever school type they wish simply by numbers. Those who do not live in those areas will not have those choices. I guess living in, say London, makes one more important than one who might live in a place like Merrickville?


----------



## warrickdll (12 Oct 2007)

DBA said:
			
		

> This is the current system. There is per head funding for each student but it's only useable in two places in Ontario: the public school system or the separate school system. In addition everybody has to pay into the common fund those cheques are drawn from so those who want to buy themselves out of the situation are in effect being double billed. The double billing means less people have the means for educational choice.
> ...





			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> The idea that there is a specific amount of money due to parents for their children is a myth, propaganda, poor logic, and bad math.
> 
> Why should Joe Gazillionaire get to drop off his Precious at Madame Truffle’s School of Short-pants and Beanies, and then get a cheque from the government to go buy matching plasmas for his yacht?
> 
> ...


----------



## UberCree (12 Oct 2007)

Charter schools are something we should support in Canada.  Start them and measure their effectiveness.


Here's a delema for you if you believe in 'schools of choice' or vouchers.

I am the director of education for a band that has 1050 K - 12 students.  Our spending per pupil is roughly $6,400 (provincial average is $8,950 and local public is ~$10,000).  We have no tax base, an overcrowded building, and can't pay our teachers enough to stop losing them to the nearest public school which pays between 8 - 12 k more per position.  I dare not say this but the reality is that our educational outcomes suffer as a result of our funding levels.  
If a band member wants to send their child to school off reserve, to support them we have to pay the public school directly between $7,000 - $10,000.  We lose a significant amount of money for every child we send off reserve, yet many parents know their kids will get a better education off reserve.   So we say no, we can't afford it.
Vouchers, schools of choice and parental rights of choice are all excellent ideas, I wholeheartedly agree with them ... IF the schools of choice are supported equally.
Solve this problem for me and I'll buy you the first three rounds.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Oct 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ...the answer is quite simple, with enough clients things are possible, without enough clients, they are not.
> 
> Those who live in the metropolition areas will be served a choice of whatever school type they wish simply by numbers. Those who do not live in those areas will not have those choices. I guess living in, say London, makes one more important than one who might live in a place like Merrickville?



While we in London do tend to have a higher opinion of ourselves ( ), the solution is a mix of funding methodologies as mentioned:



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Broadly, schools should be privately run. They should aim to serve customers (trades, colleges, universities, etc). They should aim to make a profit by ‘graduating’ a many students as possible – and the government should pay them based on a mix of enrolment and performance.
> 
> Clearly there will have to be exceptions. Schools in rural and remote areas will not able to reap the undoubted benefits of an open, competitive market. They will have to be funded almost without regard to performance – which (lack of incentive to do well) is one of the many problems with public education today.



For UberCree, the universal voucher system would provide a voucher of (say) $7000 for each child, so the parents can shop around for a school that meets their needs, band together to found a charter school or use the money to home school. If your band is in a rural or isolated region, then some sort of suppliment will be needed. (see above).


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Oct 2007)

>Solve this problem for me and I'll buy you the first three rounds.

1) If there is no tax base, from where is the current funding obtained?

2) There may be more to teacher retention than the wage gap (benefits? attitude of students? parental support? available resources?), but a $12K delta is about $500 per student in a class of 24.

3) What other privileges/benefits are in the band's power to grant to teachers as a condition of employment?

If money is truly a barrier, non-monetary benefits must be explored.  Among the reasons private schools can retain teachers while paying them less is that the students are somewhat better behaved and motivated than the general public school population.  I also suspect that more of the parents are directly involved and supportive.  If there are too many disruptive students and indifferent (to their children's behaviour) parents, your options are severely limited.

If there truly is no tax base, then the community is essentially in the same situation as every company ghost town I've ever seen, but for the grace of federal funding.  Reassign funding priorities.


----------



## TCBF (12 Oct 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ... I guess living in, say London, makes one more important than one who might live in a place like Merrickville?



Or Dryden.  Or Kapuskasing.


----------



## UberCree (14 Oct 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Solve this problem for me and I'll buy you the first three rounds.
> 
> 1) If there is no tax base, from where is the current funding obtained?
> 
> ...



Our funding comes from INAC (Band schools are a federal responsiblity) through the chief and council (who of course take an administrative fee).  The funding formula for First Nations educational authorities is astoundingly complex.  There is a base funding amount ~4,400, which has not changed since 1985, then additional base funds for special needs, this is all multiplied by an 'adjustment factor' depending on area, which is around 1.01 for us =~ $ 5200 per pupil + overall transport, counselling etc.  The funding is negotiated by transfer funding agreements either every 5 years or yearly (depending on how well run a bands finanace dept is) and increaes are fixed at a max increase of 2% annually.  Our population meanwhile is doubling every 13 years - between 1990 and 2003 we went from 2500 to 5000 members.  At one point in the 80's we were at comparable levels to the provincial system funding wise ... now we are way back.

There are multiple teacher retention issues beyond salary, the main one being policital interferance.  FN schools do not fall under the jurisdiction of the provincial public schools acts, so there is no real form of ensuring a standard is kept and zero accountability except through post-secondary success.  It is not uncommon for overcrowded schools to be constantly shut down because of mold problems, weather, politics.  There is nothing mandating 196 teaching days, certified teachers, etc.  We are adressing that by creating our own education act on my reserve to create internal accountability.  As an administrator with a school at double its intended capacity and funding levels far below our neighbours money is a big issue for me.  It is hard NOT to want to be political in this regard as I know the squeeky wheel getys the oil.  I also know most Canadians know nothing about First Nations educational issues.  All of the "free money" some complain about FN's getting is below what New York spends per pupil just for education, meanwhile we are forced to use it for health care, infrastructure, capital, policing, education, social assistance, housing, etc.
I am not one to whine, but when it comes to our education budget I cannot help it.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Oct 2007)

Some pretty cogent whining UberCree.

An awful lot of overtones about self-governance, autonomy, resources, being part of the whole etc.

It comes down to something that Brad keeps coming back to how much risk are you willing to accept, how much material loss are you willing to sustain in the name of independence.  And that is a negotiation.

If I choose to live on an Island and look after myself I must be willing to accept that there is no hospital and that I may run out of coconuts some day or a wave may wash me overboard.

Conversely, if I want to pitch in with a bunch of people to afford a hospital, establish a food trading network and provide a rescue service then I have to prepared for them to come up with a solution that wouldn't be my preferred choice.  If I then choose to accept the solution regardless I also end up having to accept that they have a right to tell me how they will spend they money I have given them regardless of my input.  They also get to tell me how to live my life so that their solutions work.

I am pretty sure from your tone that you get that.  Your band politicians may even get that - but they, and the white politicians, don't seem to be doing a very good job of communicating that reality.

People everywhere are still looking for something for nothing.  Native schools, white schools, health care etc.


----------



## UberCree (15 Oct 2007)

Well the sh*t is hitting the fan on this issue here.  I talked to the CBC about an education act initiative we are beginning in our community and they took something I said way out of context.  It makes me look really bad.  My comment was that because of mold problems, overcrowding, underpaid teachers etc. some first nations schools are not open as many days as they should be ... in one extreme case the school was only open 76 days and there is no accountability measure in place to stop this from happening.  They opened with "First Nations schools open under 80 days, with unqualified teachers says XXXXXX XXXX the director of education for ....."  
I am going to have every single First Nations administrator and leader in the province severely pissed off at me.


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Oct 2007)

A low-visibility problem rarely gets fixed.  Undoubtedly people will be pissed; they might have to divert funds from their own preferences.  Get it out in the open.  If children are receiving substandard education in unsafe facilities, grab the collective bureaucracy by the scruff of the neck and wipe their faces in it until they change their behaviour.  If this was about a dodgy water supply there wouldn't be so much hesitation; surely the spectacle of children being shortchanged in the great opportunity equalizer (education) is worth more displeasure.

Since INAC is your funding source (which I figured from your first post), then if it costs the province $X per student in your region (leaving out the large-scale costs like district boards), you should be asking for $X per student which covers each school building and everything in it, including upkeep.  The province probably has a better idea of how to run schools than the federal agency, so use their numbers.


----------



## UberCree (15 Oct 2007)

The problem for me lies in telling people who is responsible, we (as First Nations people) have to take responsibility ourselves in order to get anywhere.  INAC is responsible but so are we ... and when I say this publicly I lose support in my own community.  If you want support from the community you have to blame someone outside and have enemies (INAC) but to make real change we have to blame only ourselves.  This is the issue I am dealing with today as I feel like a traitor for speaking out ... it is not a good feeling.  
Sorry to have hijacked this thread but I am severly stressed about this right now, I think my job is now on the line.
Part of me says 'go on the offensive' and challenge anyone that questions me to prove a FN school cannot be open 30 days a year if it wanted to.  Part of me wants to retreat and shut the hell up, not cause any problems and smooth everything out ... just collect my paycheck and keep things the way they are.


----------



## TCBF (15 Oct 2007)

UberCree said:
			
		

> The problem for me lies in telling people who is responsible, we (as First Nations people) have to take responsibility ourselves in order to get anywhere.  INAC is responsible but so are we ... and when I say this publicly I lose support in my own community.  If you want support from the community you have to blame someone outside and have enemies (INAC) but to make real change we have to blame only ourselves.  This is the issue I am dealing with today as I feel like a traitor for speaking out ... it is not a good feeling.
> Sorry to have hijacked this thread but I am severly stressed about this right now, I think my job is now on the line.
> Part of me says 'go on the offensive' and challenge anyone that questions me to prove a FN school cannot be open 30 days a year if it wanted to.  Part of me wants to retreat and shut the hell up, not cause any problems and smooth everything out ... just collect my paycheck and keep things the way they are.



-  You are certainly displaying leadership on this issue.   Unfortunately, leadership nowadays is so rare, most people don't recognize it.  That applies to all of Canada, not just First Nations.  Our municipalities are operating the same way.  

- I would not be surprised if more than a few people approached you and told you they agree, but, what can they do?  Well, they can be vocal, or just be 'silent partners'.  Everyone can support in their own way.  See if your supporters will approach other like-minded people in small groups - or even one on one - and talk to them about this.   Hang in there.  They need you.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Oct 2007)

UberCree,
You and I have disagreed on a few things over the last few years but you always meant what you said and said what you meant and, even though I don't 'know' you, I do believe that if you say there is a problem, then there is a problem.

It would be too easy for me to say fall on your sword, but you must think of you and your families livlihood also.  Stay balanced, and good luck.................


----------



## UberCree (15 Oct 2007)

In the end nothing I said was false information and there is a dire problem that has to be faced.  Those around me here tell me I am over reacting and that the story was good.  I just do not like the fact that they focused in on one specific negative area.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Oct 2007)

The media?...just focusing on the negative??........Hmmm, you should read the Ruxted articles.

That was the origin.


----------

