Time to pull provincial funding for Catholic schools?

[jacee]

What if only one denomination gets to have their tax dollars targeted to a separate school board geared towards their own faith community, while members of every other faith and the faithless have to support a common secular school board? Is that fair?

Yup that's the issue.

We can't remove funding from the Catholic system, we can only add it for other faiths.

Edited December 16, 2011 by jacee

[Evening Star]

Post #20 suggests that it would be constitutional to stop funding Catholic schools with tax money. Politically risky perhaps.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

"Segregation" doesn't apply here as people choose which system to support and attend.

Unless one speaks of people choosing to segregate themselves by religion, which is closer to the truth, since freedom of religion is a given.

BTW, the Catholic school system doesn't mind attracting non-Catholics (and their tax dollars) who sometimes choose it because it's in their neighbourhood, or they like the "structure" or "discipline", and don't mind the Christian education because they're not doing it at home.

Segregation does apply. Catholics segregate themselves away from the secular world. If you don't call it segregation, you are avoiding the definition of segregation.

Structure and Discipline is a Myth.

As well as test scores. They score higher because they don't offer nearly as many high quality tech programs. These programs attract hands on but, not academic learners. They also kick out trouble makers because they don't "fit the catholic principles" instead of educating them.

[sharkman]

What if only one denomination gets to have their tax dollars targeted to a separate school board geared towards their own faith community, while members of every other faith and the faithless have to support a common secular school board? Is that fair?

You know, I have no idea how the Catholic school systems were started. I had never even heard about these separate school boards until a few years ago. I think we can agree that while it isn't segregation, it seems preferential. But I would imagine that private schools of other faiths would have some kind of funding open to them as well, wouldn't they? At the end of the day, Catholic schools do good work, are a benefit to society and have more success at educating kids than the public system. If if ain't broke, don't fix it.

Edited December 16, 2011 by sharkman

[Boges]

You know, I have no idea how the Catholic school systems were started. I had never even heard about these separate school boards until a few years ago. I think we can agree that while it isn't segregation, it seems preferential. But I would imagine that private schools of other faiths would have some kind of funding open to them as well, wouldn't they? At the end of the day, Catholic schools do good work, are a benefit to society and have more success at educating kids than the public system. If if ain't broke, don't fix it.

It's not like Catholic schools are even all that religious. The main difference is that you have to wear uniforms and take a Religions of the World class.

Many non-catholic parents want their kids to go to a Catholic school because they are seen as more preppy private schoolish without costing the money of one.

[jacee]

Post #20 suggests that it would be constitutional to stop funding Catholic schools with tax money. Politically risky perhaps.

The majority of the Supreme Court however, dismissed the argument, noting section 93's importance as an agreement made between the foun

ders of the nation to make Confederation possible. Since it was a political deal and not based upon the principle of freedom, section 2 of the Charter could not extend section 93 rights to other religions.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Twenty-nine_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

Like it or not, funding of Catholic education is here to stay, as it is a condition of Confederation.

Politically, the only way to make funding 'fair' is to extend funding to all religious private schools.

Some might choose to forego funding and remain private if, for example, they operate with smaller class sizes/more facilities and programs than provincial regulations will support.

John Tory wasn't wrong: He was just naive in thinking he could get a majority of Ontarians on board with such a huge change in policy over the course of one election campaign, and especially without providing more money for education overall. That, in particular, was his downfall, naively suggesting it could be cost-neutral and leaving McGuinty the opening he needed:

"I believe that taking half a billion dollars from public schools to finance private religious schools is a mistake," said McGuinty in various ads that aired yesterday.

http://www.vigile.net/McGuinty-staking-future-on

That focus could change with declining enrolments.

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/enrolment.html

[Evening Star]

But I would imagine that private schools of other faiths would have some kind of funding open to them as well, wouldn't they?

No. Not in anything close to the same way.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

It's not like Catholic schools are even all that religious. The main difference is that you have to wear uniforms and take a Religions of the World class.

Every year, destroying a child's ability to try the fun optional hands on courses like woodworking, auto and computer engineering.

Many non-catholic parents want their kids to go to a Catholic school because they are seen as more preppy private schoolish without costing the money of one.

They aren't.

The teachers are the same, except they hire more unqualified tech teachers and their science teachers have to be Catholic, meaning that your child may not actually be taught proper science.

The curriculum is the same, except they don't offer nearly as many optional interest based courses.

The kids are the same, except they are Catholic and forced to wear a uniform.

If you put a cow in a suit, it's still a cow.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

I think we can agree that while it isn't segregation, it seems preferential.

Are you unable to read a dictionary?

seg·re·gate/ˈsegriˌgāt/

Verb:

1. Set apart from the rest or from each other; isolate or divide.

2. Separate or divide (people, activities, or institutions) along racial, sexual, or religious lines.

Segregate -> SEPARATE people by relgious lines.

It's not racial segregation. It's religious segregation.

We are allow Catholics to segregate themselves from the rest of the secular world.

In the end, everyone who supports the Catholic system is fighting a futile fight. It is just a matter of time before it vanishes into oblivion. People are becoming less religious and more knowledgeable about how things actually work.

Maybe not in the next 20 years but, they'll be gone in the next 100.

Edited December 16, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[Evening Star]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Twenty-nine_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

All that says concerning funding is "Such rights may include financial support from the provincial governments" (italics mine). It doesn't seem like these rights must include financial support. (Did you mean to link to a SC decision as well?)

[MiddleClassCentrist]

All that says concerning funding is "Such rights may include financial support from the provincial governments" (italics mine). It doesn't seem like these rights must include financial support. (Did you mean to link to a SC decision as well?)

I don't think they actually read your response.

That was already addressed earlier.

We can pull funding. They are entitled to their own system... they can pay for it themselves.

[cybercoma]

No one is addressing the practical issue of eliminating funding for Catholic schools. They make up more than half the schools in Ontario (between both English and French boards). You would be defunding education for roughly half the students in the province. What is your solution to that problem? The only solution I can see is to stop calling them Catholic schools and absorbing them into the public system. They allow people from all religions to go there nowadays anyway. In that case, you wouldn't be pulling anything other than a name change. You would still be funding these schools. I'm sure you could close some schools and merge boards, but I don't think the province would be saving as much as people think they would be saving.

Edited December 17, 2011 by cybercoma

[jacee]

All that says concerning funding is "Such rights may include financial support from the provincial governments" (italics mine). It doesn't seem like these rights must include financial support. (Did you mean to link to a SC decision as well?)

Yes it "may", and now does include full funding, and taking public funding away just isn't likely due to public outcry.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

You would be defunding education for roughly half the students in the province. What is your solution to that problem? The only solution I can see is to stop calling them Catholic schools and absorbing them into the public system.

The Catholic system has been fighting bureacratic merges to save money for some time. In Halton, the Public board wanted to build a new office with the Catholic board for education. They catholics said no and spent millions more of tax payer dollars for their own.

The Catholic boards have been aggressively building new schools for the purpose of growing their system drawing students away from the stingy public system. The Catholic board runs deficits to build shiny new buildings (parents like shiny new) and over run their budgets, the government then forgives the debt because the board can't operate with it... Meanwhile, the public system tries to stay within its budget and does not get rewarded.

Of course the schools that were built with public money will be absorbed into a single school board. The catholics didn't pay for them. They claim they build them with money from catholic supporting parents, the reality is that millions come from general public funds because they treat schools like a business(like they treat their religion) and they are trying to drain the public system of students to spread Catholicism.

They allow people from all religions to go there nowadays anyway.

Partly true. They don't allow you to practice your religion or beliefs if they don't fit the Catholic beliefs. You can't go to the school as a muslim and practice and celebrate your holidays publicly. You won't be accepted as a homosexual or any student that doesn't fit with the catholic beliefs. The teachers will be at the forefront of this bullyish behaviour. And it's legal.

Just look at this joke of a modern employer that operates on pure discrimination that we have allowed to exist:

• They won't hire you if you aren't Catholic. (They'll openly tell you this)
  
• If you divorce and try to get remarried, consider your career over.
  
• You won't become a department head of curriculum (note, not divinity in the Catholic church) if you do not attend their mass on weekends regularly.
  
• You will never become a principal if you don't lead their mass.
  
• You won't be hired if they think you are gay or lesbian.
  

This would be fine if Catholics were only allowed to teach at Catholic school so they could have their system etc. But they infiltrate the public schools and start hiring only Catholics too. In my community, there was a public school teacher that was outted for spreading lies about the local public high school. She was telling her students that the easy girls, drug dealers, gang bosses etc all go to the public school. She was telling them that they'd get beat up regularly. She was Catholic, promoting the Catholic highschool as her religion demands by slandering the public school to innocent public school kids... as their public school teacher.

Edited December 17, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[Guest Manny]

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.

[Evening Star]

Yes it "may", and now does include full funding, and taking public funding away just isn't likely due to public outcry.

So you're agreeing with me that it's not unconstitutional but is just politically risky? We're on the same page then.

[Evening Star]

It's not about the money for me. It's an issue of principle. (And, yes, the existing Catholic schools could be converted to public schools without too much difficulty. Besides the name change, it would mean that religion classes would be dropped and that all the policies MCC mentions would be changed.)

No one is addressing the practical issue of eliminating funding for Catholic schools. They make up more than half the schools in Ontario (between both English and French boards). You would be defunding education for roughly half the students in the province. What is your solution to that problem? The only solution I can see is to stop calling them Catholic schools and absorbing them into the public system. They allow people from all religions to go there nowadays anyway. In that case, you wouldn't be pulling anything other than a name change. You would still be funding these schools. I'm sure you could close some schools and merge boards, but I don't think the province would be saving as much as people think they would be saving.

Edited December 18, 2011 by Evening Star

[Scotty]

It's not hard at all. I made an argument with very little difficulty.

Perhaps he should have said a good argument.

[Scotty]

I reply with an example of how the Catholic system systematically targets gays, and you just brush me off?

Wow.

It doesn't target gays, but I think the argument is that for all the 'gay friendly' agenda of the public schools it hasn't seemed to have made a damned bit of difference to the attitudes youths have about gays.

[Scotty]

It's not like Catholic schools are even all that religious. The main difference is that you have to wear uniforms and take a Religions of the World class.

Many non-catholic parents want their kids to go to a Catholic school because they are seen as more preppy private schoolish without costing the money of one.

No, most parents send their kids to Catholic schools because, aside from the religious curriculum, which is not mandatory, the schools are considered to teach values and instill a sense of discipline which is often absent in the public system.

[Scotty]

So you're agreeing with me that it's not unconstitutional but is just politically risky? We're on the same page then.

It's not politically risky, it's politically suicidal.

Remember that only half the population is inspired to vote in the first place.

You want to start out by attacking the school system of 30% of the electorate? That's 30% trooping out to the polls to vote against you. And what do you get on the plus side? Not a lot. There isn't an awful lot of sentiment out there among non-Catholics to ban Catholic schools. And what there is of it isn't strongly held.

[cybercoma]

Perhaps he should have said a good argument.

Perhaps you should actually show the flaws in the argument, instead of trolling.

[Scotty]

Perhaps you should actually show the flaws in the argument, instead of trolling.

His argument consists of "It's not fair for Catholics to get funded". That's not a good argument. That's just an expression of unhappiness. The world is not fair. So?

And you are hardly one to lecture others on proper behaviour.

[Evening Star]

His argument consists of "It's not fair for Catholics to get funded". That's not a good argument. That's just an expression of unhappiness. The world is not fair. So?

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.

Edited December 18, 2011 by Evening Star

[sharkman]

His argument consists of "It's not fair for Catholics to get funded". That's not a good argument. That's just an expression of unhappiness. The world is not fair. So?

And you are hardly one to lecture others on proper behaviour.

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

Edited December 19, 2011 by sharkman