Do you support public funding for faith-based schools?

capricorn · September 1, 2007

I am a bit confused ... is it Tory or McGuinty proposing this?
I do wonder about the cost too ... not sure how many students are involved at all, in fact. Another issue would be standardizing everything from book budgets to facility standards, etc. Sometimes harmonizing costs are high, especially teachers' salaries perhaps.

I wonder how it would work if you offered it on a phase in basis ... eg, the province pick up some things like implementing its curriculum in those schools, providing program materials and resources, etc., and then other things as time goes on (buildings, etc.)

Jennie, I am not quite certain if you are an Ontario resident. If you are, surely by now you must be aware of this issue. It is John Tory's proposal not McGuinty's.

About costing a new government initiative. Isn't that always the unknown factor? We are all wondering about the same thing.

jennie · September 1, 2007

Jennie, I am not quite certain if you are an Ontario resident. If you are, surely by now you must be aware of this issue. It is John Tory's proposal not McGuinty's.
About costing a new government initiative. Isn't that always the unknown factor? We are all wondering about the same thing.

Oh I am ... but I tend to turn off my hearing when any politician speaks. It's too much of a soap opera.

Is he suggesting taking the money out of the current public system to fund the new schools under the 'umbrella'?

I would only support it if it is totally NEW money in equal per student funding as these are NEW students.

(NO funding for religious materials, except mandatory provincial 'Comparative Religions' curriculum.)

Vouchers ... NOT. That is money out of the current system spread more thinly.

Tory better not make the same misstep Mike Harris did ... he believed Tom Long's twisted propaganda ... played well in speeches ... but it was a twist of words and the money wasn't there as it said ... ... and then ... backtrack backtrack.

McGuinty is holding down the status quo then, I gather.

Wilber · September 1, 2007

From BC School Act

Seems like a reasonable compromise to me.

Edited September 1, 2007 by Wilber

Argus · September 1, 2007

Argus I must point out that you are basing your judgment on very questionable assumptions about 'foreigners' ... more than questionable ... just plain wrong ... and damaging.

What's the assumption? You must surely be aware that virtually all adult Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims - who are the people this is aimed at - are newcomers to Canada. They cling to their old ways, and try to get their children to, as well. It's difficult enough for those children to grow up in a Canadian milleau when in many cases two thirds of their classmates are also foreign born, without shoving them into ethnic schools where they wouldn't meet anyone from the greater culture around them.

Argus · September 1, 2007

Translation; give Catholics the right to publically funded schools but no one else.
Sounds fair to me. No discrimination there.

Grow up. Discrimination exists throughout society at every level on every subject. You discriminate every day in who you choose to associate with, what you choose to buy, where you choose to go. Only children whine about fairness.

The Catholic system works. It works better than the public system simply because those in charge of the public system are morons. That is the only reason I support retaining the Catholic system. Not for whatever questionable religious value it has but simply because it works. It does not ghettoize. You couldn't tell a Catholic school from a public school without someone telling you.

I am deeply suspicious of these smaller religious schools. I've heard nothing good about them. On the contrary, what tales do emerge, as from the likes of Irshad Manji's, who attended a Muslim school in Canada, are of incompetent teachers preaching hate and religious fanaticism to impressionable young minds. Catholics in Canada are secular minded. To a certain extent so are Jews, but the rest are not. Their schools would not be about education with a little religion thrown in, but religion with a little education thrown in.

Growing up in Vancouver, I attended an Islamic school every Saturday. There, I learned that Jews cannot be trusted because they worship “moolah, not Allah,” meaning money, not God. According to my teacher, every last Jew is consumed with business. -Irshad Manji

Edited September 1, 2007 by Argus

capricorn · September 1, 2007

Oh I am ... but I tend to turn off my hearing when any politician speaks. It's too much of a soap opera.
Is he suggesting taking the money out of the current public system to fund the new schools under the 'umbrella'?

I would only support it if it is totally NEW money in equal per student funding as these are NEW students.

(NO funding for religious materials, except mandatory provincial 'Comparative Religions' curriculum.)

Vouchers ... NOT. That is money out of the current system spread more thinly.

Tory better not make the same misstep Mike Harris did ... he believed Tom Long's twisted propaganda ... played well in speeches ... but it was a twist of words and the money wasn't there as it said ... ... and then ... backtrack backtrack.

McGuinty is holding down the status quo then, I gather.

Tory is proposing $400M of new funding. It's here in his fiscal plan.

http://www.ontariopc.com/documents/August_...ter_Ontario.pdf

fellowtraveller · September 1, 2007

You couldn't tell a Catholic school from a public school without someone telling you.

Perfect. So, there is no reason not to have the Catholic schools become part of the larger public system, while of course retaining the faith based component of their curriculum. Either that, or lose all public funding.

Would that be fair to all? Not just Catholic schools, but any school.

jennie · September 1, 2007

Tory is proposing $400M of new funding. It's here in his fiscal plan.
http://www.ontariopc.com/documents/August_...ter_Ontario.pdf

Well, I am in favour as long as it is new money.

jennie · September 1, 2007

Perfect. So, there is no reason not to have the Catholic schools become part of the larger public system, while of course retaining the faith based component of their curriculum. Either that, or lose all public funding.
Would that be fair to all? Not just Catholic schools, but any school.

The Catholic boards and schools are part of the 'public' system now in a sense ... public funding, provincial curriculum, teacher qualifications, facility standards, etc.

There are no changes needed there, I don't think. Just other faith-based schools need to be brought in.

jennie · September 1, 2007

Grow up. Discrimination exists throughout society at every level on every subject. You discriminate every day in who you choose to associate with, what you choose to buy, where you choose to go. Only children whine about fairness.
The Catholic system works. It works better than the public system simply because those in charge of the public system are morons. That is the only reason I support retaining the Catholic system. Not for whatever questionable religious value it has but simply because it works. It does not ghettoize. You couldn't tell a Catholic school from a public school without someone telling you.

I am deeply suspicious of these smaller religious schools. I've heard nothing good about them. On the contrary, what tales do emerge, as from the likes of Irshad Manji's, who attended a Muslim school in Canada, are of incompetent teachers preaching hate and religious fanaticism to impressionable young minds. Catholics in Canada are secular minded. To a certain extent so are Jews, but the rest are not. Their schools would not be about education with a little religion thrown in, but religion with a little education thrown in.

Growing up in Vancouver, I attended an Islamic school every Saturday. There, I learned that Jews cannot be trusted because they worship “moolah, not Allah,” meaning money, not God. According to my teacher, every last Jew is consumed with business. -Irshad Manji

Argus, you have just made one of the best arguments possible for bringing all schools under provincial jurisdiction ... to provide public accountability for delivery of mandated provincial programs, teaching standards, avenues for redress of grievances, etc. Teaching religion should not include teaching hatred. I agree. I believe a respectful 'Comparative Religions' program should be mandatory.

fellowtraveller · September 1, 2007

The Catholic boards and schools are part of the 'public' system now in a sense ... public funding, provincial curriculum, teacher qualifications, facility standards, etc.
There are no changes needed there, I don't think. Just other faith-based schools need to be brought in.

You've touched on a few of the similarities but ignored the horrific inefficiencies of multiple boards. Think of the mega-millions saved by all taxpayers with a single integrated board.

And bringing in other faith based schools - which board should absorb them? The Catholics want their own show, they'd never agree to it sharing anything. And if the other faiths join the public board, what possible reason is there to not also integrate the Catholic board too?

You cannot have it both ways.....

jennie · September 1, 2007

You've touched on a few of the similarities but ignored the horrific inefficiencies of multiple boards. Think of the mega-millions saved by all taxpayers with a single integrated board.
And bringing in other faith based schools - which board should absorb them? The Catholics want their own show, they'd never agree to it sharing anything. And if the other faiths join the public board, what possible reason is there to not also integrate the Catholic board too?

You cannot have it both ways.....

I am a bit confused about what you are proposing, and what Tory is proposing.

I assumed we were talking about bringing all the schools under provincial jurisdiction.

I certainly was not talking about one megaboard ... good god! What a monster waster of money that would be! !

I think you are waaayyy off base suggesting that. There are no economies of scale to be had that will offset the cost of the changes and a new bureaucracy, horrific staffing costs in transition. Material costs are only about 20% of the budget anyway. Please!! Let's stick to something that is feasible. There already are costsharing agreements among boards. I find your slam at the Catholic boards in bad taste.

We already have a provincial 'umbrella' body ... it is called the Ministry of Education.

There is no reason why the current boards cannot continue to exist, and perhaps new boards be formed for the faith-based schools. Much easier and MUCH less costly to implement.

Edited September 2, 2007 by jennie

jefferiah · September 2, 2007

Eliminate public funding (or switch purely to a voucher based system) and let people setup whatever private schools they wish, faith based or otherwise... following rough guidelines of proper education of course.

The best post so far!!

jennie · September 2, 2007

The best post so far!!

How is that different? Except the voucher thing of course ... which is just a way to take money out of the existing system.

Evan · September 3, 2007

Yes or no. What's it gonna be?

No to private faith-based schools. Including Catholic. Yes, the catholic school system is well setup and has some great facilities. It better! It's not only getting private funding but public on top of it. Of course they've got extra cash and thus are in a better state than our public-schools. That needs to change. Put that money back in the public system where is should be, which is used by the vast majority of Ontarians.

I believe creating private school segregation is detrimental to the future of our Canadian society. How many children in Catholic schools are meeting members of the muslim community while growing up? They will have to live beside and work beside people of other cultures, is it really a good idea to separate them as far as possible from those cultures?

We are a multicultural society which is divided by religions, and the government should not be supporting the creation of that divide.

If parents want to have their children study religion, than it needs to be re-integrated into the public school system with a progressive approach.

An elective program for parents to decide which religion class their children will be attending. But part of that curriculum should also be to cross-educate on cultures. Perhaps teach Muslims the most basic of views from the Christian religions and vice versa from an objective point of view. This would help us to strengthen our multicultural society, by helping the children in schools today understand their fellow Canadians tomorrow closing the gap of cultural segregation within society.

Keepitsimple · September 3, 2007

Let's keep in mind what Tory has said. As a starter, he'll consider funding only those schools who adhere to the Ontario cariculum and use certified teachers. He's also said that he'll appoint Bill Davis to fine-tune the process and figure out how to implement it. McGuinty's scare-tactics of calling this "segregation" are not surprisingly, political fear-mongering. Tory is correct in saying that this is an opportunity to bring faith-based private schools into the Public system - it is inclusive - not segregationist. Here's my two cents:

1) We should go beyond cariculum and certification. To qualify for public funding, religious teaching should be limited to a certain number of hours per week - probably on a par with the Catholic system, whatever that is. This is part of Bill Davis' job - to figure out the best way of making it work.

2) Funding is really not an issue - yes it's more expensive but only because some private faith-based schools will "join" the Public system and qualify for per-student grants according to the province-wide funding formula.....and if the only difference is that they receive 5 hours of religion a week (or whatever), then what's the big deal?

So what would you rather have? Faith-based private schools that are completely outside the public system? I fear that are Charter of Rights would actually allow something very similar to Pakistan's madrassas. Or would you rather have an environment that openly encourages newcomers to join the public system but still retain a connection to their faith?

Edited September 3, 2007 by Keepitsimple

Higgly · September 3, 2007

Personally I feel that Bill Davis was a great guy, and the party machine behind him was magnificent. I could watch Bill stand on the corner of Clinton and College and think he loved Italians.

Bill, you've done a great job. You have a lot of useful contacts. Nobody riding their bicycle up St. Gearge on a Saturday afternoon even knows who you are. It's not because you weren't good... or even great. It's because the world has changed.

We love you , Bill, but it's time to call it a day.

Evan · September 3, 2007

McGuinty's scare-tactics of calling this "segregation" ....
Tory is correct in saying that .. it is inclusive - not segregationist....

So what would you rather have? Faith-based private schools that are completely outside the public system? ... Or would you rather have an environment that openly encourages newcomers to join the public system but still retain a connection to their faith?

Tory is right. It is 'inclusive'. It brings private schools under the government wing to oversee education and help make sure that all children received a quality education that covers the issues that need to be covered.

McGuinty is right. Having the Muslim children playing in a park on X side of the block at lunch hour and the Christian kids playing on Y side of the block, while the non-denominational kids are on side W does create segregation in the community. For anybody to argue that it won't needs to look at children like my daughter and her multicultural friends, and what happens to her understanding of our society when you start breaking apart her classroom and social circle; indirectly telling her who her friends should be by example and increasing ignorance of those who she doesn't associate with daily.

The truth is, it's a controversial issue. And if it's divided 50/50 through the population, than neither are the right answer. Take a look at my above post. I commented on a 3rd alternative. An alternative which brings faith-based education under the public wing. An alternative which closes the gaps of segregation rather than increases them.

Don't think I'm saying that my idea is "The Way". But when the population is divided between options A & B, why not look further. Where's the C, the D and the E? You can't tell me that there isn't another alternative out there which could not satisfy the concerns of both sides of the dispute? Look forward, create new solutions and be progressive.

fellowtraveller · September 3, 2007

There is no reason why the current boards cannot continue to exist, and perhaps new boards be formed for the faith-based schools. Much easier and MUCH less costly to implement.

The more boards there are, the higher the cost per student overall.

Indisputable.

Adminstartion costs, transportation, capital costs, and instruction costs- all much higher with many boards.

Your agenda seems to be to reject any argument that involves changing the staus quo with Catholic schools.

jennie · September 3, 2007

What's the assumption? You must surely be aware that virtually all adult Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims - who are the people this is aimed at - are newcomers to Canada. They cling to their old ways, and try to get their children to, as well. It's difficult enough for those children to grow up in a Canadian milleau when in many cases two thirds of their classmates are also foreign born, without shoving them into ethnic schools where they wouldn't meet anyone from the greater culture around them.

Nobody is shoving anybody anywhere. That is the point. This is totally a matter of free choice and freedom of religion .... freedom of culture. Nobody's forcing anybody to do anything. People have already made the choices ... the schools exist, the kids are there.

Your assumption that people should not "cling to their old ways" is just.plain.wrong. <_< . This is exactly what Canada IS about ... freedom to keep your heritage culture and have Canadian 'culture' too! It's wonderful this way. We're a mosaic, not a melting pot, remember? (Where did YOU go to school that you don't know this???? :blink: )

I would like to see more interaction among school communities - public, Catholic, private - i.e., neighbourhood connections.

I think these things are happening, but would happen more if all were under provincial jurisdiction, perhaps.

Edited September 3, 2007 by jennie

jennie · September 3, 2007

Let's keep in mind what Tory has said. As a starter, he'll consider funding only those schools who adhere to the Ontario cariculum and use certified teachers. He's also said that he'll appoint Bill Davis to fine-tune the process and figure out how to implement it. McGuinty's scare-tactics of calling this "segregation" are not surprisingly, political fear-mongering. Tory is correct in saying that this is an opportunity to bring faith-based private schools into the Public system - it is inclusive - not segregationist. Here's my two cents:
1) We should go beyond cariculum and certification. To qualify for public funding, religious teaching should be limited to a certain number of hours per week - probably on a par with the Catholic system, whatever that is. This is part of Bill Davis' job - to figure out the best way of making it work.

2) Funding is really not an issue - yes it's more expensive but only because some private faith-based schools will "join" the Public system and qualify for per-student grants according to the province-wide funding formula.....and if the only difference is that they receive 5 hours of religion a week (or whatever), then what's the big deal?

So what would you rather have? Faith-based private schools that are completely outside the public system? I fear that are Charter of Rights would actually allow something very similar to Pakistan's madrassas. Or would you rather have an environment that openly encourages newcomers to join the public system but still retain a connection to their faith?

I think it is wise to fund ALL children in ALL schools according to the criteria, but we have to be careful about the public system 'assuming' the responsibility for providing or delivering religious doctrine: The public system is forbidden to deliver religious doctrine, only instruction in comparative religions is allowed. We want to be sure that providing a publicly funded a 'choice' of attending religious schooling doesn't become a 'right' in every neighbourhood ... I think ... or do we ... ?

In any case, I think we need to be careful to ensure that public board's do not end up with responsibility for religion.

Edited September 3, 2007 by jennie

Evan · September 3, 2007

In any case, I think we need to be careful to ensure that public board's do not end up with responsibility for religion.

Why? Do you think the public system can't do it properly? Or that it will full under too much scrutinizing?

Keepitsimple · September 3, 2007

Can someone explain to me what the Catholic School Board teaches in the way of religion? More to the point, how many hours a day are devoted to religion? It's been a long time since I've been to school and I was always in the Public (non catholic) school system. I would imagine that any approach to faith-based funding would be modeled after the Catholic system. Faith-based schools would likely be compelled to offer similar instruction - no more - no less - to qualify for per-student funding.

Edited September 4, 2007 by Keepitsimple

jennie · September 4, 2007

Why? Do you think the public system can't do it properly? Or that it will full under too much scrutinizing?

The responsibility of the public system is not religious indoctrination, only education.

The religions must determine and maintain the standards for that.

Evan · September 4, 2007

The responsibility of the public system is not religious indoctrination, only education.
The religions must determine and maintain the standards for that.

For the sake of discussing both sides of the coin, I will say that education of religion IS in fact education. My question is that if thousands of Ontarians want their children to be studying religion as part of their schooling, do we just say, "Fine, pay for public schools." or do we try and restructure the education system to meet the demand of the tax-paying citizens and come up with an alternative which suits everybody while keeping it in the public system, so that we don't have to worry about how much of our tax dollars will be going to private schools which we don't use?