• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The School Funding Thread- Merged

Election Over

  • yes

    Votes: 13 40.6%
  • no

    Votes: 19 59.4%

  • Total voters
    32

Simon

New Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
110
I was at a service yesterday for a dear friend and fellow political warrior,  :salute:, 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.

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

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

 
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

 
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.
 
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.
 
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

"... Irish beggars are to be met everywhere, and they are as ignorant and vicious as they are poor. They are lazy, improvident and unthankful; they fill our poorhouses and our prisons, and are as brutish in their superstition as Hindoos."

– Newspaper editor George Brown

Conservative Leader John Tory's provocative campaign call for public funding for all faith-based schools, or for none, has many Ontarians wondering how Roman Catholics came to have a separate system in the first place.

When and why did it happen?

Some may think the "right and privilege" began with the 1867 Constitution Act. But, in fact, separate schools pre-date Canada's Confederation. And they were neither a right nor a privilege, but a reflection of reality.

That reality was a grim one if you were Catholic in the Ontario of the 19th century, especially in York, as Toronto was then called.

Known as the "Belfast of North America," the city was populated mainly by Northern Irish and Scottish Protestants, who were appalled by the arrival of thousands of Irish Catholics forced out of Southern Ireland during the Great Famine of 1845 to 1849.

The quote at the beginning of the article, from the Globe newspaper, was typical of the unrelenting bigotry against the impoverished "Papist" immigrants, their large families and peasant ways, their "Mick superstitions" and, perhaps worst of all, lack of loyalty to the British Crown.

In 1844, Egerton Ryerson, an English-born Methodist, became chief superintendent of schools for Upper Canada (Ontario), charged with setting up a system of "common" or public schools. By public, read Protestant. A few Catholic schools run by the church and paid for by the community would be allowed on the side.

Ryerson promised that a public system would prevent a "pestilence of social insubordination and disorder" being spread by the "untaught and idle pauper immigration."

More to the point, it would also assimilate the Catholic minority into the prevailing Protestant culture.

Ryerson's plan was to split that minority. Those in the common schools would gradually be absorbed, while others, once they saw the poor quality of the education in their schools, would abandon them for the public system.

"That was his hope," says Michael Power, author of A Promise Fulfilled, a history of Catholic education in Ontario. "But that didn't happen."

The Catholic minority became more determined than ever to have their own schools.

While the first Catholic bishop of Toronto more or less went along with Ryerson's idea, the next one, Bishop Armand de Charbonnel, who arrived in 1850, was infuriated by the situation. He denounced the public/Protestant system as an "insult" to Catholics and began a 10-year battle for the same kind of separate schools in Ontario that were provided for the Protestant minority in Quebec.

In 1841, the Act of Union had combined Ontario and Quebec into the United Province of Canada, with one legislative assembly. Half the members were French-speaking Catholics.

Due solely to their support, two acts were passed, in 1855 and 1863, creating the basis for today's separate system.

They gave Ontario's religious minority the right to direct their property taxes to the separate schools and guaranteed Catholic trustees the same powers as their public system counterparts.

"It was a fair political trade-off," says Power. "The Protestant minority was recognized in Quebec, then the Catholic minority should also be in Ontario. They were the realities of the time."

The intent was to lessen widespread religious intolerance, he says, not to provide Catholic privilege here or Protestant privilege in Quebec. The issue remained incendiary, however, with Toronto's press never tiring of their crusade against Catholic school funding.

Canada, meanwhile, was moving step-by-step toward dominion status. In 1866, at the last conference before Confederation the following year, delegates from Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick met in London with British officials to draft the British North America Act (BNA).

A major bone of contention was education, with Catholic bishops lobbying for assurances that separate-school systems would be protected. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick opposed the idea, but a compromise was reached.

Section 93 of the BNA (subsequently known as the 1867 Constitution Act) would deal only with Ontario's and Quebec's religious minorities, and would be unrepealable. It gave them the constitutional right to separate school systems, though leaving it up to the provinces to work out the funding.

Quebec moved quickly, passing legislation in 1869 for corporate taxes to be divided between the public and separate systems, according to the number of children enrolled in each.

"Quebec was always generous to the religious minority," says Power. "There was no century of fuss in Quebec like in Ontario."

It was, indeed, a different story here. After Confederation, separate schools became a permanent feature of the educational landscape, but their funding would long remain a hugely contentious issue.

In 1936, Liberal Premier Mitch Hepburn, feeling disposed to do something, as he put it, for "those who eat fish on Friday," introduced a bill, similar to Quebec's, compelling corporations and public utilities to direct 40 per cent of their taxes to separate schools.

In a December by-election in East Hastings that year, anti-Catholic protests cost the Liberals a seat. The following year, Hepburn repealed the bill.

Only in 1964 did Catholic schools, at least up to Grade 10, become government-funded by then education minister Bill Davis. In 1984, when Davis was Premier, he controversially extended the funding to secondary schools.

Today, the Toronto Catholic District School Board alone has 168 elementary schools, 31 high schools and two combined primary and secondary schools.

With Canada's changing demographic face, a challenge was sooner or later inevitable. In 1996, a case before the Supreme Court argued that Catholic-only school funding contravened the 1982 Charter of Rights, which guarantees equal treatment for all, regardless of religion.

The court ruled against the application. It noted that the founders of the nation had used Section 93 of the 1867 Constitution act to make Confederation possible between two distinct groups, Protestants and Catholics.

Their specific rights were further underlined in Section 29 of the Charter, which states "nothing in this Charter abrogates...from any rights or privileges guaranteed by or under the Constitution of Canada in respect of denominational, separate or dissentient schools."

That section, the court said, ensured "the complete and continuous enjoyment, by the religious minorities, of such rights as were originally granted."

In 1999, the United Nations Human Rights Commission decreed that Ontario's separate school system is discriminatory and called for the issue to be addressed within 90 days. Conservative Premier Mike Harris refused.

And now the issue is back once again.

"People have to read history," says Michael Power, "to understand why Ontario's Catholic schools have had the right to exist since before Confederation."

As for Quebec: In 1998, it decided to end the religious distinctions, but maintained two secular systems based on language; a public French one, a separate English one.

Religion, after all, hasn't been Canada's only historical dispute. Just, it seems, the longest-lasting one.

- edited to put article into quote box -
 
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


 
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.
 
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  ;)





 
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.

 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top