Time to pull provincial funding for Catholic schools?

[Evening Star]

Is political expediency one of the criteria for a good argument now? Is this a new development in logic?

[jacee]

That's your counter-argument? The world is unfair so we should never do anything about that unfairness?

I'll give you that I was mostly venting on this thread since the status quo seems so obviously wrong to me. The best 'argument' I can come up with after a couple of beers:

i) Even though it is not part of the Canadian constitution, I do believe that church and state should be separate. This is just a core belief that I hold. Reams have been written about this principle already so I'm not sure that it would be a worthwhile exercise for me to actually argue this belief myself from first principles on an Internet message board.

ii) Whatever Catholic schools might be doing to make their schools less Catholic, they still clearly have some affiliation with Catholicism or they wouldn't be called "Catholic schools". And MCC's posts suggest that these are not insignificant. Thus, if church and state should not be separate, as I believe, public funding should not be provided for these schools, i.e. I do not believe that people should be able to direct their tax dollars towards Catholic schools. The argument could (and probably should) end right here. But to continue:

iii) It is not as though this system is standard practice in other jurisdictions anyway so I do not think that this is simply an issue of my inability to adjust to a basic condition of the universe.

iv) Having said this, if we need to have a system in place where people get to choose where to send the portion of their tax dollars that go towards education, it seems especially unfair that the only two options are "secular public schools" and "Catholic schools". In a multicultural (and here's something that is official government policy) society, I believe that it is fundamentally unfair to allow people to direct their tax dollars towards Catholic schools but not towards Jewish schools or Hindu schools or Satanist schools or secular humanist schools etc. It is essentially preferential treatment for a particular faith. While I do not personally support a John Tory-style system of funding schools that cater to every faith-based school board, it would at least be less unjust in my eyes than the existing system.

v) I believe that fairness is a principle that has value and that when it come to matters of public policy that human beings create in the first place and have the ability to change, fairness can and should be taken into account.

I don't think what you're talking about is "fairness".

I think you are talking about 'sameness'.

Johnny cries "That's not fair" when older sister gets to stay up later, but it is 'fair' in light of their different ages.

Parents deal with this issue all the time, and 'fairness' doesn't always mean 'same'.

Catholics right to Catholic education has been protected since Confederation, and survived for many years as private schools paid for by parents and donations before public funding was gradually introduced: Since a third to half of Ontario's students were in Catholic schools, it was seen as an issue of fairness. It would hardly seem 'fair' to now remove that funding.

It would, however, improve fairness to extend funding to all religious schools.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Catholics right to Catholic education has been protected since Confederation, and survived for many years as private schools paid for by parents and donations before public funding was gradually introduced: Since a third to half of Ontario's students were in Catholic schools, it was seen as an issue of fairness. It would hardly seem 'fair' to now remove that funding.

It would, however, improve fairness to extend funding to all religious schools.

'Fair' would be offering everyone the same 'non-segregated' public school option with no special funding for religion. No special preference, no special admission, no discriminatory hiring practices, no supporting intolerant attacks based on archaic misunderstandings.

While I believe amalgamating all school boards and providing funding within the single beaurocratic body to fund different religions is a solution that is more equitable, it still leaves smaller denominations out and enforces discriminatory hiring/treatment of people who don't follow a religion perfectly.

As soon as Muslims want their own publicly funded school board, Christians are going to have a hissy fit saying that it will breed intolerance, extremism etc. All the while, ignoring the irony that their system does the same.

[Evening Star]

First definition of "fair" in the 'British Dictionary' on my Mac (Oxford British Dictionary of English, I believe):

treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination

Letting a 12-year-old stay up later than an 8-year-old is fair: the 8-year-old will also get to stay up later when he becomes 12. Thus, he is not being disfavoured or discriminated against. I don't see how this is analogous to the situation of Catholic school funding. Certainly, if everyone contributes to the same secular public school board, they would be treated equally without discrimination.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Evening Star

[August1991]

There should be no funding for religious schools in a secular society

just my opinion

what is yours?

So, you want to centralize all funding. According to you, we should have a single federal education ministry: a single Canadian Department of Education for all children, across Canada - one bureaucracy for all kids.

Let's save money! Children are all the same, no? One language. One religion. Let's have one, single State-financed CBC to tell us the news. It's more efficient, no?

Canadian children must all learn to be the same.

Why have CTV? G&M? Different newspapers. Uh, why have different languages?

---

olp1fan, do you want the State to have a monopoly on the education of all children?

Or, do you want a society where individuals - as Milton Friedman asked - are free to choose?

The problem is that each board has its own bureaucratic overhead so the system becomes less efficient. If there were dozens of private school boards, a lot of money would be wasted on their administration. So get rid of the dual administration.

It would be better if there were one system, no? Edited December 20, 2011 by August1991

[Guest Manny]

It would be better if there were one system, no?

Well I see your point but I am talking about the duplication of bureaucracy, not the ability to have separate school systems.

In my view, there can be different systems as long as they meet some standard of the academic component. The standard is set by the government, yes. With the overall intention that it gives a suitable education that puts Canadians on par people from other countries, giving them skills to be competitive in the workplace.

[Scotty]

That is not a counter argument, it's just a reality.

Indeed. But I think reality trumps wishes for fairness.

[Scotty]

That's your counter-argument? The world is unfair so we should never do anything about that unfairness?

It wasn't a counter-argument. I don't disagree that the system is unfair (at least, to other religions which want state-sponsored schools), or that it's silly, or inefficient. I don't even deny it would make more sense to have a single system.

So there.

What I am pointing out is that you can't get rid of it. It's here to stay, and that's all there is to it. The constitutional guarantees given on confederation require a Catholic school system. That's the legalistic side of it. On the other side, you've got 30% of the population whose kids attend these schools by choice. Parents, you may have noticed, tend to get fiercely aroused when anyone threatens their kids schools. No politician in Ontario is going to anger 30% of the electorate to the point ALL of them will vote against them next election. Not without a balancing "anti" group pushing them to do it.

Edited December 20, 2011 by Scotty

[jacee]

'Fair' would be offering everyone the same 'non-segregated' public school option with no special funding for religion. No special preference, no special admission, no discriminatory hiring practices, no supporting intolerant attacks based on archaic misunderstandings.

That would be 'same', in a country where freedom to be different is a basic value. It would not be seen as 'fair' to remove funding from Catholic education, though.

While I believe amalgamating all school boards and providing funding within the single beaurocratic body to fund different religions is a solution that is more equitable, it still leaves smaller denominations out and enforces discriminatory hiring/treatment of people who don't follow a religion perfectly.

As soon as Muslims want their own publicly funded school board, Christians are going to have a hissy fit saying that it will breed intolerance, extremism etc. All the while, ignoring the irony that their system does the same.

Yes I'm sure there would be a huge outcry from the right wing against funding of Muslim schools.

[Boges]

It would be better if there were one system, no?

The Amalgamation of the Toronto Megcity would indicate no.

People don't generally lose their jobs in the public sector because they are redundant.

And when they do, the person doing the cutting is seen as ruining public service.

See Rob Ford.

Edited December 20, 2011 by Boges

[MiddleClassCentrist]

So, you want to centralize all funding. According to you, we should have a single federal education ministry: a single Canadian Department of Education for all children, across Canada - one bureaucracy for all kids.

Let's save money! Children are all the same, no? One language. One religion. Let's have one, single State-financed CBC to tell us the news. It's more efficient, no?

Canadian children must all learn to be the same.

Why have CTV? G&M? Different newspapers. Uh, why have different languages?

That's a straw man if I've ever seen one.

[Scotty]

That's a straw man if I've ever seen one.

Having one language would be infinitely more efficient.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Having one language would be infinitely more efficient.

I also oppose forcing anglophones to learn the two languages.

We waste money on a language that is becomming obsolete in the grand scheme of things when we could be training kids in more useful skills like hands on worldly skills, which Ontario currently sucks at (large part due to Catholic system and hiring unqualified teachers with no actual construction, communications tech, or any other experience.)

Edited December 21, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[Boges]

I also oppose forcing anglophones to learn the two languages.

We waste money on a language that is becomming obsolete in the grand scheme of things when we could be training kids in more useful skills like hands on worldly skills, which Ontario currently sucks at (large part due to Catholic system and hiring unqualified teachers with no actual construction, communications tech, or any other experience.)

So I assume you're also opposed to public funding going to French Immersion schools.

[Topaz]

Yep.

Education benefits many aspects of society.

- Innovation

- Job Creation

- Healthier Society

- Efficiency

If we were extending Topaz's thinking, if seniors didn't have to pay for the education system, I shouldn't have to pay for their health care after 60. The look on their faces when they realize that THEY are the larger drain on taxes than education would be priceless.

In that line of thinking then,I'd say that the boomers are healthier, unless they have some inherited disease, but the younger generation by the time they get to 60 may have more health problems than the present 60 because of more health hazards in the environment, in the food and they way they drink, eat, smoke and do drugs, both illegal and prescription.

[olp1fan]

So I assume you're also opposed to public funding going to French Immersion schools.

French immersion is not a religious school

[cybercoma]

French immersion is not a religious school

True, but the vast majority of French schools are Catholic (2:1).

[Evening Star]

It would not be seen as 'fair' to remove funding from Catholic education, though.

Well, why not? I've given reasons why I think it would, including a dictionary definition of "fair".

[August1991]

Well I see your point but I am talking about the duplication of bureaucracy, not the ability to have separate school systems.

Uh, that's fundamental to my point.

In my view, there can be different systems as long as they meet some standard of the academic component. The standard is set by the government, yes.

So, you admit at least different systems.

What I am pointing out is that you can't get rid of it. It's here to stay, and that's all there is to it. The constitutional guarantees given on confederation require a Catholic school system.

The Constitution. How unfortunate that we have such.

That's a straw man if I've ever seen one.

Straw man? No, it's not a straw man at all. My "straw man" is fundamental to America, and Canada.

MCC, what you call "straw man", I call "consequences".

----

In Canada, we have a federal State. IMHO, that's good. For example, provincial governments organize education, and they own natural resources. Through our provincial governments, we decide how to assume the cost of teaching children. And clearly provincial governments decide how to tax/develop natural resources - collect rents.

If the Albertan government decides to forbid Catholic schools, and let Americans take the oil, so be it.

At least there's the Saskatchewan government, or Ontario. And then - there's always Quebec.

Edited December 28, 2011 by August1991

[Guest Manny]

Uh, that's fundamental to my point.

So, you admit at least different systems.

I forgot what your point was. But here's what I said earlier in the thread.

Every household in the province pays for schools, and it gets divided up according to the student enrolment, or whatever. But the duplication of bureaucracy is what's costing more. Even in small towns, where there's only a few schools public and catholic, there doesn't need to be twice the administration.

The problem is that each board has its own bureaucratic overhead so the system becomes less efficient. If there were dozens of private school boards, a lot of money would be wasted on their administration. So get rid of the dual administration.

But I don't pretend to have all the best answers. Maybe there is a way to allow for different cultural content for a number of different groups. But it would only be an extra component, added on to what has to be the basic academic content. For example if the students take 8 courses per year, one of those is selected by the student and the parents such as catholicism, judaism, hinduism, islam. Just like high school, but starts at a younger age. The administrative fees are covered by taxes collected from those households in the community that indicate the cultural program they prefer to support.

[August1991]

I forgot what your point was. But here's what I said earlier in the thread:

Every household in the province pays for schools, and it gets divided up according to the student enrolment, or whatever. But the duplication of bureaucracy is what's costing more. Even in small towns, where there's only a few schools public and catholic, there doesn't need to be twice the administration.

Socialists (and nationalists) always argue (like you, Manny) that it would be cheaper to have one system, one bureaucracy and enjoy economies of scale. They ask: Why duplicate services? Let's gain from "bulk-buying". Let's have one system, one country.

----

1. I suspect that you don't understand business and organization. For schools, do the economies of scale really exist? (From studies that I have seen, small municipalities have lower taxes and better services than large cities.)

2. I fear that you don't understand the basis of civilized society. Is it wise to let one institution, one bureaucracy, control the education of all children? Put all the eggs in one basket. France does this. Fortunately, Europe doesn't.

In Canada, each provincial government jealously decides education, and our constitution even protects linguistic and religious minorities within a province. I think that the writers of our constitution got this right.

-----

PS. I don't want to get involved here in the question of what to teach kids but maybe what the kids learn is less important than the fact that parents are an easy touch.

Church? Union? 19th/20th century parents too often acquiesce.

Our churches once wanted to control education but it is public sector unions who now teach our kids. In Canada, whatever the province, public sector unions control education.

Maybe in the 21st century, parents will do this differently.

Edited December 28, 2011 by August1991

[Boges]

French immersion is not a religious school

So you're OK with segregation just as long as it's not done along religious lines.

What about those Afrocentric or First Nation schools in Toronto.

In New York there are Gay only schools.

[cybercoma]

In New York there are Gay only schools.

It's sick that those schools have to exist to protect gays from the humiliation and abuse that has led to them being assaulted, murdered, and driven to suicide.

[Boges]

It's sick that those schools have to exist to protect gays from the humiliation and abuse that has led to them being assaulted, murdered, and driven to suicide.

You're acting like being "assaulted, murdered, and driven to suicide" is exclusive to gay students.

Edited December 28, 2011 by Boges

[August1991]

So you're OK with segregation just as long as it's not done along religious lines.

What about those Afrocentric or First Nation schools in Toronto.

In New York there are Gay only schools.

At present, we segregate schools along geographic lines. Is that bad?