The School Funding Thread- Merged

[Brad Sallows]

>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]

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]

>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]

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]

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

 

[warrickdll]

...
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.

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?
...

...
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.

...
>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.

...
  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.

...
>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. 

>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]

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.

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

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

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

>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.

  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.

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

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]

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]

>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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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