Funding for religious schools

[Wild Bill]

Funding for catholic schools didn't come until 1841 under the new School Act for the United Province of Canada including a clause that allowed Catholics and others to establish denominational schools.

Davis made a big mistake extending the funding before he left office, maybe if he hadn't done that it would be easier to dismantle it now. Either way, it'll be a long time coming, unless somebody challenges it in court. I'm surprised this hasn't happened yet ?

http://www.tcdsb.org/about%20us/history.html

Scrib, some years ago I had an argument with a local RC bishop about the funding issue and he made the BNA Act claim that they were entitled to the money. So I went home and d/l'd the damn thing! I read the Act from top to bottom. Nowhere did I find anything saying they were entitled to money!

It was quite clear that they were entitled to their worship, churches and schools. I just couldn't find anything that mentioned funding. To be fair, I couldn't find anything guaranteeing funding for the public school system either! It was very early in our history and things hadn't developed completely at that time.

I saw that bishop again and told him what I had found. He promptly made the claim that guaranteeing the right to HAVE schools was exactly equivalent to FUNDING such schools! I told him that seemed an unsubstantiated stretch and he didn't want to argue anymore.

I've told this story on MLW before and of course some disagreed with me but so far no one has quoted me the specific words in the British North American Act that say "Catholics get money!"

Being a layman it's possible that it does say specifically that and I missed it. If so, I would appreciate someone more learned to make the specific quote.

[charter.rights]

Scrib, some years ago I had an argument with a local RC bishop about the funding issue and he made the BNA Act claim that they were entitled to the money. So I went home and d/l'd the damn thing! I read the Act from top to bottom. Nowhere did I find anything saying they were entitled to money!

It was quite clear that they were entitled to their worship, churches and schools. I just couldn't find anything that mentioned funding. To be fair, I couldn't find anything guaranteeing funding for the public school system either! It was very early in our history and things hadn't developed completely at that time.

I saw that bishop again and told him what I had found. He promptly made the claim that guaranteeing the right to HAVE schools was exactly equivalent to FUNDING such schools! I told him that seemed an unsubstantiated stretch and he didn't want to argue anymore.

I've told this story on MLW before and of course some disagreed with me but so far no one has quoted me the specific words in the British North American Act that say "Catholics get money!"

Being a layman it's possible that it does say specifically that and I missed it. If so, I would appreciate someone more learned to make the specific quote.

What you simply miss WB is that Catholic churches were also the schools at that time and if schools were to be funded publicly then the Catholic schools were 1st in line.

[CANADIEN]

You mean discriminatory against non-Catholics AND non-Protestants?

I mean discriminatory against non-Catholics.

Indeed, section 93 of the Constitution Act of 1867protected Roman Catholic schools in Ontario, and Protestant and Roman Catholic schools in Quebec. But then, there is also section 93(A), an amendment dating from 1997, which removed that protection in the case of Quebec. Since then, Quebec`s Catholic and Protestant school systems have been scrapped.

The emptiness of the argument surrounds the fact that an opinion by the UN carries no weight when it comes to constitutional legalities in this country. Since there is a guarantee for Catholic and Protestant religious education in the Constitution, all the other religions have exactly the same privlidges and rights of one another.

So it because a real peach pit of an argument.

It would specious to grant other groups participation in what they themselves term a discriminatory privledge. So the only thing they could reasonable advocate for is an abolishment of those consitutional guarantees. Nevermind the implications of taking constitutional guarantees away from a group of people, but a good chunk of them vote which, as has already been pointed out, would be political suicide.

So sure, the UN says this or that, take the high road. But it changes nothing here.

An opinion from an UN body carries no legal weight, that's a fact. Does not change the fact that they are right... what we have here is discrimination. You want to dismiss their opinion, come with something much better than "they carry no weight".

Edited October 3, 2010 by CANADIEN

[Argus]

I don't agree with funding any religious schools, but as long as Catholic schools are funded it's discrimination to deny funding to other religions. We should end funding to Catholic schools once and for all.

While I'm not fan of religious education the fact is that Catholic schools generally operate more effectively and more efficiently than the public schools, are better at instilling a sense of values, and have more discipline. The religious element is really a rather small portion of the curriculum.

It works. And that's all the argument that needs to be said.

As for other minority schools. We don't trust them. Plain and simple. Nobody wants to get into funding Islamist schools which will focus most of their school time on teaching students how many virgins they'll get in paradise if they blow up parliament.

Edited October 3, 2010 by Argus

[CANADIEN]

Nope. It came about as a result of the Treaty of Paris 1763 where in return for surrender by France, the British guaranteed that the Catholics could continue to keep their religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_%281763%29

The treaty of Paris guaranteed the right of Catholics to practice their religion "as far as the laws of Great Britain permit", at a time when itwas illegal to be a Catholic in Great Britain (!) (text of the treaty)

TheQuebec Act of 1774gave freedom of religion to Roman Catholics, but said nothing about school rights.

[CANADIEN]

Funding for catholic schools didn't come until 1841 under the new School Act for the United Province of Canada including a clause that allowed Catholics and others to establish denominational schools.

Davis made a big mistake extending the funding before he left office, maybe if he hadn't done that it would be easier to dismantle it now. Either way, it'll be a long time coming, unless somebody challenges it in court. I'm surprised this hasn't happened yet ?

http://www.tcdsb.org/about%20us/history.html

The extension of the funding to secondary schools was contested in court, and upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada

[CANADIEN]

Scrib, some years ago I had an argument with a local RC bishop about the funding issue and he made the BNA Act claim that they were entitled to the money. So I went home and d/l'd the damn thing! I read the Act from top to bottom. Nowhere did I find anything saying they were entitled to money!

It was quite clear that they were entitled to their worship, churches and schools. I just couldn't find anything that mentioned funding. To be fair, I couldn't find anything guaranteeing funding for the public school system either! It was very early in our history and things hadn't developed completely at that time.

I saw that bishop again and told him what I had found. He promptly made the claim that guaranteeing the right to HAVE schools was exactly equivalent to FUNDING such schools! I told him that seemed an unsubstantiated stretch and he didn't want to argue anymore.

I've told this story on MLW before and of course some disagreed with me but so far no one has quoted me the specific words in the British North American Act that say "Catholics get money!"

Being a layman it's possible that it does say specifically that and I missed it. If so, I would appreciate someone more learned to make the specific quote.

Section 93 of the Constitution Act of 1867states.

In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education, subject and according to the following Provisions:

(1) Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class of Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union:

(2) All the Powers, Privileges, and Duties at the Union by Law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the Separate Schools and School Trustees of the Queen's Roman Catholic Subjects shall be and the same are hereby extended to the Dissentient Schools of the Queen's Protestant and Roman Catholic Subjects in Quebec:

(3) Where in any Province a System of Separate or Dissentient Schools exists by Law at the Union or is thereafter established by the Legislature of the Province, an Appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or Decision of any Provincial Authority affecting any Right or Privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic Minority of the Queen's Subjects in relation to Education:

(4) In case any such Provincial Law as from Time to Time seems to the Governor General in Council requisite for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section is not made, or in case any Decision of the Governor General in Council on any Appeal under this Section is not duly executed by the proper Provincial Authority in that Behalf, then and in every such Case, and as far only as the Circumstances of each Case require, the Parliament of Canada may make remedial Laws for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section and of any Decision of the Governor General in Council under this Section

So indeed, the word money does not appear. That being said, sub-section 93(1) states:

Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class of Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union

.

As for the rights of priviledges existing at the time, and therefore protected by the Constitution, the Act to restore to Roman Catholics in Upper Canada certain rights in respect to Separate Schools (S. Prov. C. 1863, 26 Vict., c. 5 (Scott Act)) stated:

7. The Trustees of Separate Schools forming a body corporate under this Act, shall have the power to impose, levy and collect School rates or subscriptions, upon and from persons sending children to, or subscribing towards the support of such Schools, and shall have all the powers in respect of Separate Schools, that the Trustees of Common Schools have and possess under the provisions of the Act relating to Common Schools.

20. Every Separate School shall be entitled to a share in the fund annually granted by the Legislature of this Province for the support of Common Schools, and shall be entitled also to a share in all other public grants, investments and allotments for Common School purposes now made or hereafter to be made by the Province or the Municipal authorities, according to the average number of pupils attending such school during the twelve next preceding months, or during the number of months which may have elapsed from the establishment of a new Separate School, as compared with the whole average number of pupils attending School in the same City, Town, Village or Township.

It is clear that the Constitution guarantees Catholic schools in Ontario the same level of government funding as as for Public schools.

Edited October 3, 2010 by CANADIEN

[scribblet]

Scrib, some years ago I had an argument with a local RC bishop about the funding issue and he made the BNA Act claim that they were entitled to the money. So I went home and d/l'd the damn thing! I read the Act from top to bottom. Nowhere did I find anything saying they were entitled to money!

If this is so, then there should be no problem, which could explain how other provinces get away with not funding a Catholic system, in fact Newfoundland did it when it abolished funding for religious schools.

A single, unified, school system has to be more economical.

http://www.cbc.ca/ontariovotes2007/features/features-faith.html

can you imagine the uproar if any politican tried to change the system, the furor over John Tory's voucher proposal would look like a Sunday School picnic.

[CANADIEN]

If this is so, then there should be no problem, which could explain how other provinces get away with not funding a Catholic system, in fact Newfoundland did it when it abolished funding for religious schools.

A single, unified, school system has to be more economical.

http://www.cbc.ca/ontariovotes2007/features/features-faith.html

can you imagine the uproar if any politican tried to change the system, the furor over John Tory's voucher proposal would look like a Sunday School picnic.

Provinces other than Quebec, Ontario and Newfoundland did not have a separate school system at the time of Confederation. As for Quebec and Newfoundland, they had to get a Constitutional amendment to abolish confessional school systems.

[Shwa]

I mean discriminatory against non-Catholics.

Indeed, section 93 of the Constitution Act of 1867protected Roman Catholic schools in Ontario, and Protestant and Roman Catholic schools in Quebec. But then, there is also section 93(A), an amendment dating from 1997, which removed that protection in the case of Quebec. Since then, Quebec`s Catholic and Protestant school systems have been scrapped.

Right, I had forgotten that. I belonged to a Protestant School Board way back in the day. However, how about Alberta and Saskatchewan?

An opinion from an UN body carries no legal weight, that's a fact. Does not change the fact that they are right... what we have here is discrimination. You want to dismiss their opinion, come with something much better than "they carry no weight".

So we have established that the UN opinion carries no legal weight, so what other weight could there be? Moral weight? Weight of logic? Some sort of economic weight? Give me an idea of what you mean and I am sure I will come up with a decent way to dismiss it accordingly.

[Wild Bill]

It is clear that the Constitution guarantees Catholic schools in Ontario the same level of government funding as as for Public schools.

Does it?

"7. The Trustees of Separate Schools forming a body corporate under this Act, shall have the power to impose, levy and collect School rates or subscriptions, upon and from persons sending children to, or subscribing towards the support of such Schools, and shall have all the powers in respect of Separate Schools, that the Trustees of Common Schools have and possess under the provisions of the Act relating to Common Schools.

20. Every Separate School shall be entitled to a share in the fund annually granted by the Legislature of this Province for the support of Common Schools, and shall be entitled also to a share in all other public grants, investments and allotments for Common School purposes now made or hereafter to be made by the Province or the Municipal authorities, according to the average number of pupils attending such school during the twelve next preceding months, or during the number of months which may have elapsed from the establishment of a new Separate School, as compared with the whole average number of pupils attending School in the same City, Town, Village or Township."

The first paragraph seems to me to be saying that Separate School Trustees had the right to collect their own levees upon those sending children to Separate schools. I can still remember when that was the case. I had understood at that time that was how their system was funded. Obviously, they needed to collect their own levees if they weren't getting common money.

The second paragraph says they are "entitled to a share" and that share is proportionate to their number of pupils as compared to the entire average number of pupils in that community. Again, not being a lawyer where I need clarification is the meaning of "entitled to a share". I don't see anything that defines how large that share actually is! It doesn't seem to say EQUAL share! It just says "a share", multiplied by the number of separate school pupils as a percentage of the student whole.

This makes more sense. If they were always entitled to an equal share then why did Bill Davis have to change anything? They already would have had equal funding!

It's not that I really care one way or the other but it does seem obvious that despite any argument as to the Catholics having some long standing historical right, to give funding to one religious group and not all the others is simple discrimination, by definition. Constitutional arguments are simply saying that we have enshrined such discrimination in our constitution!

The Reform Party wanted to institute a voucher system, where parents would get a voucher equivalent to the tax funding alloted for every child they had in school and they would have the choice to give it to any school they wished. If enough of a particular religion lived in a community to have their own school then so be it. If not, it could be used for some home-schooling fund. For mainstream schools, if parents felt there was a problem at a specific school and the administration was not listening to them they could take their voucher to another school!

Needless to say, teachers' unions were horrified at the very idea of parents getting such a choice!

Edited October 4, 2010 by Wild Bill

[capricorn]

The second paragraph says they are "entitled to a share" and that share is proportionate to their number of pupils as compared to the entire average number of pupils in that community. Again, not being a lawyer where I need clarification is the meaning of "entitled to a share". I don't see anything that defines how large that share actually is! It doesn't seem to say EQUAL share! It just says "a share", multiplied by the number of separate school pupils as a percentage of the student whole.

Today, school funding in Ontario is linked to property taxes. The ratepayers decide which school board they want to support through their portion of the educations tax. Keeping in mind that many ratepayers have no children, how can the tax collected be assigned on the basis of the number of pupils? To me, it sounds like an accounting nightmare.

For example, see the City of Ottawa's offer for ratepayers to submit their choice of which education board they support.

http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/proptaxes/general_info/school_support_en.html#P10_678

Edited October 4, 2010 by capricorn

[P. McGee]

The Reform Party wanted to institute a voucher system, where parents would get a voucher equivalent to the tax funding alloted for every child they had in school and they would have the choice to give it to any school they wished. If enough of a particular religion lived in a community to have their own school then so be it. If not, it could be used for some home-schooling fund. For mainstream schools, if parents felt there was a problem at a specific school and the administration was not listening to them they could take their voucher to another school!

Unfortunately the idea was too easy to associate with the demons of the 'extreme' religious right and privatization. Not to mention uppity private school types.

[Oleg Bach]

Church and state have always been one - we fund the religion of secularism - where kids are taught to tolerate and embrace all sorts of goodness and EVILS...so lets fund all religions seeing that they are all the same including the religion of non- religion..

[CANADIEN]

Right, I had forgotten that. I belonged to a Protestant School Board way back in the day. However, how about Alberta and Saskatchewan?

Indeed, my bad. I was under the unfounded impression that there was no separate system in these two provinces prior to 1905. I've learned something.

So we have established that the UN opinion carries no legal weight, so what other weight could there be? Moral weight? Weight of logic? Some sort of economic weight? Give me an idea of what you mean and I am sure I will come up with a decent way to dismiss it accordingly.

The only weight the UN opinion carries is that they happen to be right on the mark, amongst with many others, regarding the FACT that funding situation is discriminatory. So feel free to find ways to dismiss them, it will not change the central fact - they are right.

[Shwa]

Indeed, my bad. I was under the unfounded impression that there was no separate system in these two provinces prior to 1905. I've learned something.

There is a separate protestant board in Ontario too:

Penetanguishene Protestant Separate School Board

That I didn't know. Hmmmm....

The only weight the UN opinion carries is that they happen to be right on the mark, amongst with many others, regarding the FACT that funding situation is discriminatory. So feel free to find ways to dismiss them, it will not change the central fact - they are right.

That is why it is a tough problem. For one, the UN is an outsider organization making remarks about our internal social organization with respect to funding separate school boards and they have a point - to a degree. However, their opinion lacks the same weight as the present exigencies of the problem as we ourselves know it. Much of it political, but real enough that we are stuck with the imbalance for the foreseeable future.

[CANADIEN]

Does it?

It does. We could play semantics about what is the exact meaning of equal funding. Let's the facts talk from themselves.

"7. The Trustees of Separate Schools forming a body corporate under this Act, shall have the power to impose, levy and collect School rates or subscriptions, upon and from persons sending children to, or subscribing towards the support of such Schools, and shall have all the powers in respect of Separate Schools, that the Trustees of Common Schools have and possess under the provisions of the Act relating to Common Schools.

20. Every Separate School shall be entitled to a share in the fund annually granted by the Legislature of this Province for the support of Common Schools, and shall be entitled also to a share in all other public grants, investments and allotments for Common School purposes now made or hereafter to be made by the Province or the Municipal authorities, according to the average number of pupils attending such school during the twelve next preceding months, or during the number of months which may have elapsed from the establishment of a new Separate School, as compared with the whole average number of pupils attending School in the same City, Town, Village or Township."

The first paragraph seems to me to be saying that Separate School Trustees had the right to collect their own levees upon those sending children to Separate schools. I can still remember when that was the case. I had understood at that time that was how their system was funded. Obviously, they needed to collect their own levees if they weren't getting common money.

Actually, the reason why Separate boards could levee money through property was that public Boards already could do the same, under the Education Act of 1859.

The second paragraph says they are "entitled to a share" and that share is proportionate to their number of pupils as compared to the entire average number of pupils in that community. Again, not being a lawyer where I need clarification is the meaning of "entitled to a share". I don't see anything that defines how large that share actually is! It doesn't seem to say EQUAL share! It just says "a share", multiplied by the number of separate school pupils as a percentage of the student whole.

Actually, it is very clear what the share is to be, that is proportional to the school population. If, let`s say, provincial funding for a public school in a given municipality with 50 students was $250 ($5 per student), provincial funding for a separate school in the same locality with 20 students had to be $100.

This makes more sense. If they were always entitled to an equal share then why did Bill Davis have to change anything? They already would have had equal funding!

The problem here is that you ignore (or don't know) what Davis did exactly, and the historical background to it. There is a (painfully long) explanation in the reference heard by the Supreme Court in 1987 on the extension of dunding, but to summarize:

Under the Act of 1861, and therefore under Section 93 of the Constitutional Act, guarantees regarding Catholic schools in Ontario applied to ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS only, that is up to Grade 6. In a 1929 judgement(Tiny vs the King), the (British) Privy Council decided that, since Continuation Schools (that is, Grade 7 to 9) were (at the time) a continuation of elementary schooling, the provisions regarding funding had to be extended to those grades as well; the same judgement, though, concluded that there was no constitutional requirement for funding beyond Grade 9. What Davis do was to extend funding to Grades 10 to 12.

(BTW, in the SCC decision in the 1987 reference case, the majority concluded that a right to funding of separate schools up to Grade 12 existed in 1867 (I disagree beyong Grade 9) and that in any case nothing in the Constitution prevented funding up to Grade 12 (and indeed, there is nothing preventing it).

It's not that I really care one way or the other but it does seem obvious that despite any argument as to the Catholics having some long standing historical right, to give funding to one religious group and not all the others is simple discrimination, by definition. Constitutional arguments are simply saying that we have enshrined such discrimination in our constitution!

In 2010, funding for one (or more) religious school systems but not other systems in indeed discriminatory. One cannot ignore, however, why this was done in the first place - to protect a minority against what was, a the time, a clearly hostile school system. That this kind of protection is no longer needed today - therefore removing the one justification was keeping the status quo - does not change the fact that the rights and priviledges granted in the Constitution should be interpreted and understood with their intent in mind.

As for the isue of what rights and priviledges were granted exactly, it is not irrelevant as it impacts on the way the public funding for Catholic schools in Ontario (or separate schools in Alberta or Sakskatchewan) can be terminated. If there were no Constitutional guarantee regarding funding, all the Provincial Legislatures would need to do is to cut funding all together (and face getting the majority of Catholics voting against any party proposing this). Since there is a Constitutional guarantee, the Constitution has to be amended through a vote of the Provincial Legislature and the Federal parliament.

Edited October 4, 2010 by CANADIEN

[Wild Bill]

It does. We could play semantics about what is the exact meaning of equal funding. Let's the facts talk from themselves.

Actually, the reason why Separate boards could levee money through property was that public Boards already could do the same, under the Education Act of 1859.

Actually, it is very clear what the share is to be, that is proportional to the school population. If, let`s say, provincial funding for a public school in a given municipality with 50 students was $250 ($5 per student), provincial funding for a separate school in the same locality with 20 students had to be $100.

The problem here is that you ignore (or don't know) what Davis did exactly, and the historical background to it. There is a (painfully long) explanation in the reference heard by the Supreme Court in 1987 on the extension of dunding, but to summarize:

Under the Act of 1861, and therefore under Section 93 of the Constitutional Act, guarantees regarding Catholic schools in Ontario applied to ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS only, that is up to Grade 6. In a 1929 judgement(Tiny vs the King), the (British) Privy Council decided that, since Continuation Schools (that is, Grade 7 to 9) were (at the time) a continuation of elementary schooling, the provisions regarding funding had to be extended to those grades as well; the same judgement, though, concluded that there was no constitutional requirement for funding beyond Grade 9. What Davis do was to extend funding to Grades 10 to 12.

(BTW, in the SCC decision in the 1987 reference case, the majority concluded that a right to funding of separate schools up to Grade 12 existed in 1867 (I disagree beyong Grade 9) and that in any case nothing in the Constitution prevented funding up to Grade 12 (and indeed, there is nothing preventing it).

In 2010, funding for one (or more) religious school systems but not other systems in indeed discriminatory. One cannot ignore, however, why this was done in the first place - to protect a minority against what was, a the time, a clearly hostile school system. That this kind of protection is no longer needed today - therefore removing the one justification was keeping the status quo - does not change the fact that the rights and priviledges granted in the Constitution should be interpreted and understood with their intent in mind.

As for the isue of what rights and priviledges were granted exactly, it is not irrelevant as it impacts on the way the public funding for Catholic schools in Ontario (or separate schools in Alberta or Sakskatchewan) can be terminated. If there were no Constitutional guarantee regarding funding, all the Provincial Legislatures would need to do is to cut funding all together (and face getting the majority of Catholics voting against any party proposing this). Since there is a Constitutional guarantee, the Constitution has to be amended through a vote of the Provincial Legislature and the Federal parliament.

Merci, M Canadien! It's starting to make sense. I'm not entirely convinced about every specific point but overall I'm beginning to understand, thanks to posts like yours!

[CANADIEN]

There is a separate protestant board in Ontario too:

Penetanguishene Protestant Separate School Board

That I didn't know. Hmmmm....

Me neither... And there were probably more in the past. looks like one case where the parents just like the school (maybe not even for religious reasons in some cases), while other ones may have fallen due to lack of enrolment or just deciding to join the public system.

That being said, the guarantees under section 93 of the Constitutional Act of 1867 seem to apply to Roman Catholic School Boards only, not (technically) to a Protestant Board. That being said, I doubt that the Government would go and cut funding to one Portestant Board if they are not willing to do anything about the Catholic Boards.

[DrGreenthumb]

No religious school should be funded by taxpayers at all. The voucher idea is stupid, and I hope that never happens. This would only further spread the ignorance that is taught at fundamentalist religious schools. There are enough 6000 year old earth rapturists in the west already. I'd rather that the state not fund "education" like that. Any religious school funding is a direct drain on the already overtaxed public school budgets. The money we could save on not funding religious schools could probably properly fund free university courses for any Canadian who wanted to further their eduction. Put the money into the real eductaion system.

[Shwa]

... Any religious school funding is a direct drain on the already overtaxed public school budgets. The money we could save on not funding religious schools could probably properly fund free university courses for any Canadian who wanted to further their eduction. Put the money into the real eductaion system.

So presuming that separate school funding is stopped in Ontario and all the separate school boards are reverted to regular old public schools, where will we save by not funding?

Separate School Boards - Ontario

In Ontario School Boards that are funded for the province are divided in Roman Catholic separate school jurisdictions (29 English Catholic, 8 French Catholic) coexist with non-denominational public school jurisdictions (31 English Public, 4 French Public) throughout most of the province. There is only one Protestant separate school jurisdiction in Ontario, the Burkevale Protestant Separate School, operated by the Penetanguishene Protestant Separate School Board.

[DrGreenthumb]

So presuming that separate school funding is stopped in Ontario and all the separate school boards are reverted to regular old public schools, where will we save by not funding?

Separate School Boards - Ontario

Running two parallel systems has got to be way more expensive than only running one. We would also be better off not funding fake education based on weird superstitions.

[Shwa]

Running two parallel systems has got to be way more expensive than only running one. We would also be better off not funding fake education based on weird superstitions.

It could be, but not by any significant proportion of the whole. However, when we talk about "weird superstitions" are we talking religion or politics?

[Molly]

So presuming that separate school funding is stopped in Ontario and all the separate school boards are reverted to regular old public schools, where will we save by not funding?

Separate School Boards - Ontario

There's signifigant savings to be found just in busing alone. For a good long time our short, dead-end road with 20-ish houses (many occupied by retired/childless) saw 7 buses every morning and every night. That's just dumb.

[Shwa]

There's signifigant savings to be found just in busing alone. For a good long time our short, dead-end road with 20-ish houses (many occupied by retired/childless) saw 7 buses every morning and every night. That's just dumb.

True. But they might need more buses to account for more students. Or each separate school that is reverted to public, will still require buses where they did before.

Another area is administration where some large savings could be realize. But with the obscene bureaucracy of the Ontario education system...