Do you support public funding for faith-based schools?

[jennie]

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?

And the faith-based schools would agree with you, but the public curriculum is limited to academic study of world religions.

There is no need to come up with an alternative ... the alternatives exist ... It is simply a matter of funding what is.

If it's a question of looking for a CHEAPER alternative (gotcha!) ... believe me ... if it is already working and in place ... don't mess with it because that is always more costly. In reality, most private schools already use provincial curriculum, because parents demand it.

We all pay education taxes whether we "use" schools at all. It's an investment, remember?

I repeat my opinion that we should publicly fund EVERY child's education.

Edited September 4, 2007 by jennie

[Evan]

And the faith-based schools would agree with you, but the public curriculum is limited to academic study of world religions.

There is no need to come up with an alternative ... the alternatives exist ... It is simply a matter of funding what is.

If it's a question of looking for a CHEAPER alternative (gotcha!) ... believe me ... if it is already working and in place ... don't mess with it because that is always more costly. In reality, most private schools already use provincial curriculum, because parents demand it.

We all pay education taxes whether we "use" schools at all. It's an investment, remember?

I repeat my opinion that we should publicly fund EVERY child's education.

Haha! I think cost is an issue in everything when it comes to politics, and of course everybody is looking for cost effective solutions. That is not the primary reason I debate the issue. My concern is in two areas. The cost on the quality of the public system by placing public funds into private schools which already have a source of income AND are not within reach to all Ontarians. With dual source income the private schools will naturally have a higher quality of education than the public school system, especially if they are tapping into what would be public funds. Is this fair to the thousands of Ontarian families who want quality education for their children but are not in the higher income brackets which can afford private schooling? The second is the concern of segregation within the community.

As for not messing with the system that is in place, it is being messed with as we speak. We are looking at making a change which is why it is such a hot topic during the election. It is 'just an issue of funding'. But placement of public funds will have ripple effects into the system as a whole. If we were not looking at making changes which affect all the schools in Ontario it wouldn't be under such scrutiny and debate. So if we're going to make changes anyways, should we not be making 100% sure that we have reviewed every possible option?

I agree that we should publicly fund EVERY child's education. But in publicly funding, it should be through public services. The question I am trying to put in people's minds is, "Where is the public system failing families that they are opting for private schooling, and what can be done to reduce the void in the system and make our public system one that addresses these concerns?" In the end, we are providing a system which has the capacity to fund every child's education, but it also needs to meets the needs of every child. Apparently at this time it is not, otherwise families would not feel the need to turn to other alternatives.

And believe me, as I came up with my personal alternative the other day while I was drinking my morning coffee, I know that I am very much standing alone on my perspective. Or at least I have not encountered anybody else who shares the opinion. But, as the late Tommy Douglas said, "Courage, my friends; 'tis not too late to build a better world." And for this reason, I have no fear in throwing my idea out on the table, as a discussed and repressed idea is better than one that never gets evaluated.

Edited September 4, 2007 by Evan

[jennie]

Haha! I think cost is an issue in everything when it comes to politics, and of course everybody is looking for cost effective solutions. That is not the primary reason I debate the issue. My concern is in two areas. The cost on the quality of the public system by placing public funds into private schools which already have a source of income AND are not within reach to all Ontarians. With dual source income the private schools will naturally have a higher quality of education than the public school system, especially if they are tapping into what would be public funds. Is this fair to the thousands of Ontarian families who want quality education for their children but are not in the higher income brackets which can afford private schooling? The second is the concern of segregation within the community.

As for not messing with the system that is in place, it is being messed with as we speak. We are looking at making a change which is why it is such a hot topic during the election. It is 'just an issue of funding'. But placement of public funds will have ripple effects into the system as a whole. If we were not looking at making changes which affect all the schools in Ontario it wouldn't be under such scrutiny and debate. So if we're going to make changes anyways, should we not be making 100% sure that we have reviewed every possible option?

I agree that we should publicly fund EVERY child's education. But in publicly funding, it should be through public services. The question I am trying to put in people's minds is, "Where is the public system failing families that they are opting for private schooling, and what can be done to reduce the void in the system and make our public system one that addresses these concerns?" In the end, we are providing a system which has the capacity to fund every child's education, but it also needs to meets the needs of every child. Apparently at this time it is not, otherwise families would not feel the need to turn to other alternatives.

As I understand it, the people who send their children to faith-based schools are not necessarily wealthy. This is not about the 'elite' private schools.

Nor is it about segregation, but about freedom of choice.

[Evan]

As I understand it, the people who send their children to faith-based schools are not necessarily wealthy. This is not about the 'elite' private schools.

Nor is it about segregation, but about freedom of choice.

I took a look at some faith based schools, and their costs and find things such as $3250/year, $2500/year per child. Now put yourself in a low income family with a single income, and 3 children. You can't honestly tell me that somebody who is working for $24000 a year can realistically afford $7500-10000/year. No, you don't have to be wealthy, but you definitely need to be fairly comfortable. There is a rather large population in Ontario who cannot afford private schooling.

Edited September 4, 2007 by Evan

[jennie]

I took a look at some faith based schools, and their costs and find things such as $3250/year, $2500/year per child. Now put yourself in a low income family with a single income, and 3 children. You can't honestly tell me that somebody who is working for $24000 a year can realistically afford $7500-10000/year. No, you don't have to be wealthy, but you definitely need to be fairly comfortable. There is a rather large population in Ontario who cannot afford private schooling.

I guess that is the point of extending public funding ... ensuring common standards in education, and making choice not a matter of income.

[Renegade]

I took a look at some faith based schools, and their costs and find things such as $3250/year, $2500/year per child. Now put yourself in a low income family with a single income, and 3 children. You can't honestly tell me that somebody who is working for $24000 a year can realistically afford $7500-10000/year. No, you don't have to be wealthy, but you definitely need to be fairly comfortable. There is a rather large population in Ontario who cannot afford private schooling.

What responsibility do the parents have for financially supporting their children? It is afterall the parents who make the decision to have kids. If parents think that their kids are owed a standard of education more than the basic public level supplied, they should financially provide it or if unable t do so, should make their choice to have children accordingly. IOW, don't have kids you can't afford to take care of.

[M.Dancer]

If parents think that their kids are owed a standard of education more than the basic public level supplied, they should financially provide it or if unable t do so, should make their choice to have children accordingly. IOW, don't have kids you can't afford to take care of.

Besides, it's cheaper to outsource population growth than to produce it here......

[Keepitsimple]

I'd still like to hear from someone about this......

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 than x hours per week - to qualify for per-student funding......I think this might provide a better perspective on what we are debating. Thanks.

[jennie]

I'd still like to hear from someone about this......

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 than x hours per week - to qualify for per-student funding......I think this might provide a better perspective on what we are debating. Thanks.

Faith-based schools already exist and have their own programs. Under public funding, they will be responsible for maintaining adequate student achievement of Ontario curriculum content. The public system does not regulate religious instruction. The Catholic system regulates itself according to the necessity to maintain adequate achievement. Religious instruction is entwined throughout the school day as well, so 'blocks of time allocated' doesn't adequately address the issue.

I note also that attainment of Ontario curriculum objectives includes values education - respect for diversity, cooperation, etc. that all publicly funded schools must deliver.

I see extension of public funding to all schools as a way of ensuring a common foundation for all students in Canadian values

and respect for each other, allowing for diversity in beliefs as well.

[M.Dancer]

I'd still like to hear from someone about this......

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 than x hours per week - to qualify for per-student funding......I think this might provide a better perspective on what we are debating. Thanks.

Depends on the Board. My friend teaches a religion class but it would be better described as comparative religions. His class did a dub of the Falco hit "Rock me Amadeus" but changed the lines to read "Judas Maccabeus"

Edited September 4, 2007 by M.Dancer

[fellowtraveller]

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?

There is no need for the word 'or' in the middle of the sentence. Paying for public schools and including faith based schools are not in any way mutually esxclusive. Just bring ALL the faith based schools into the public system, if they are willing to come, oblige them to teach the provincial curriculum, and allow them to teach whatever they please beyond that. Then assignement of parent taxes are not an issue.

If they are not willing to join the public system, they can still go private. i think though that you'll find people of faith are from the same financial demographic as any other group, and the mainstream simply cannot afford the cost of private schools.

It comes down to a central question: what is the role of government in education?

I think it is this: obligatory participation by every child to age 16 in a standard provincial cuuriculum,taught by provincially certified teachers.

Going further, it serves us all to have the most persons possible partcipating in a single, quality system - not a fractured, angry and financially segregated community of learning.

[M.Dancer]

Just bring ALL the faith based schools into the public system, if they are willing to come, oblige them to teach the provincial curriculum, and allow them to teach whatever they please beyond that. Then assignement of parent taxes are not an issue.

Sperate schools follow the provincial guidelines. It is a sensible option for parents who want a little more discipline in school and a little less touchy feely PC nonsense.

[Higgly]

Sperate schools follow the provincial guidelines. It is a sensible option for parents who want a little more discipline in school and a little less touchy feely PC nonsense.

Nonsense. You don't have to be religious to understand discipline. Faith-based schools are a polarising presence in our society and should be privately funded by the parents.

[M.Dancer]

Nonsense. You don't have to be religious to understand discipline. Faith-based schools are a polarising presence in our society and should be privately funded by the parents.

The impact of the touchy feely management style and their response to discipline can be seen in the recent report about Jordan Manners death. Of course you don't have to be religious to have discipline. It's just that the public system in Toronto sees discipline as a human resource proplem. Got a bad kid? Send him to a different school. God forbid you have clothing issues, you would not want someone to suggest that the clothing problems target minority youth. And you certainly don't want too many suspensions of minority youth, lest they think you are a racist.

At this point, the only system that seems to have the will to deal with violence and to ensure that the classrooms are calm and an attitude of respect exists is in the seperate system. And this is (one of) the reasons why so people of all races and walks of life are choosing to have their kids educated in the Catholic boards.

[Higgly]

If the system has problems, then address them. Religion has no place in the schools. Religion belongs in the home and the place of worship.

[M.Dancer]

If the system has problems, then address them. Religion has no place in the schools. Religion belongs in the home and the place of worship.

The system has problems, they get addressed.The problems don't go away.

Meanwhile, there is a system that works. Those who don't like aren't forced to go there and I see no reason to force people to send their children to one that doesn't work.

[Higgly]

Meanwhile there is a system that works? Sure if you belong to the right faith. My God. It's saint Dancer among the philistines. We'll build a shrine to you up at Midland. right handy to cottage country too.

[M.Dancer]

Meanwhile there is a system that works? Sure if you belong to the right faith. My God. It's saint Dancer among the philistines. We'll build a shrine to you up at Midland. right handy to cottage country too.

Thank you. Make sure the plumbing works. I wouldn't want it compared to a Toronto school.......

[M.Dancer]

What this looks like is that management (who come in all colours) are so afraid of being labeled racist that they even supress crime reporting.

Earlier this week, C. W. Jefferys hired a new principal, Jim Spyropoulos, after it was alleged that the former principal never notified police about allegations that a female student was sexually assaulted on school grounds.

Another teacher I know mentioned that the way schools are reviewed puts pressure on the admin to not discipline kids.....if too many black kids get suspended the schools stands out like a nail needing a good hammering. What we have are schools so intent on being inclusive of other cultures and using the most modern PC philosophy that they forget that most parents regardless of their social, racial or religious background want their kids to be in a safe environment and that trouble makers are dealt with firmly. If this means expelling the child, then expel the child. Better a kid be on the street than the opportunities for dozens are corrupted and endangered by his presence.

[Higgly]

Thank you. Make sure the plumbing works. I wouldn't want it compared to a Toronto school.......

Sure. What the heck. We'll Call it the M. Dancer Madrassa.

[mikedavid00]

Yes or no. What's it gonna be?

NO and that is why I'm not voting Conservative. I also feel that John Torry is more NDP than conservative. So I'll choose no one. Hopefully the immigrants will vote in Dalton becuase the immigrants will determine the winner of this election. The only thing is that immigration is not in the hands of the prov. gov't so their #1 concern is moot.

Who knows what they'll do.

[mikedavid00]

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

See Jennie that's the problem with Liberals like yourself. You have all these grand opinions and ideas, but you REFUSE to keep yourself posted and educate yourself on certain issues.

I read all these responses just shaking my head (except for a few).

I will profess that religion/cultural schooling (becuase culture is on the curriculem) will be the second most dangerous thing to happen to Canada beside trudeua introducing out immigraion policy.

And you will say 'well you are just a racist becuase you are affraid of what you don't know and change'.

But see Jennie. that's where you are wrong. WE DO KNOW. WE KNOW THEM TOO WELL. WE ARE FRIENDS WITH THEM. WE KNOW THEIR MINDSET AND WHAT THEIR GOALS IN CANADA ARE AND WHY THEY ARE HERE. Some people here aren't dumb. They see the bigger picture in all this.

But you have to be very cosmopolitan and very well read to understand these concepts.

Mark my words, in 20 years, after several incidents, they will not be building Sikh schools physically close to Muslim schools for 'safety reasons'. When the kids graduate from highschool they will be SO ghettoized in their culture, they will graduate with verbal accents, they will then lobby for their own universities and then demand that their race get a certain portion of of all jobs after school. And they will loby for more special rights so only teachers are that of their own religion and culture.

The above scenario in history has proven over and over to destroy countries and cuase civil war. Canada is paving the way to nothing but racial segregation and disaster.

Is this the Canada you want to live in?

[Evan]

I also feel that John Torry is more NDP than conservative.

I think he's looking more Liberal myself. Or maybe it's the other way around and McGuinty is looking more Conservative. Geez, I just can't tell anymore. It think they should just both go buy purple shirts.

[jennie]

See Jennie that's the problem with Liberals like yourself. You have all these grand opinions and ideas, but you REFUSE to keep yourself posted and educate yourself on certain issues.

I read all these responses just shaking my head (except for a few).

I will profess that religion/cultural schooling (becuase culture is on the curriculem) will be the second most dangerous thing to happen to Canada beside trudeua introducing out immigraion policy.

And you will say 'well you are just a racist becuase you are affraid of what you don't know and change'.

But see Jennie. that's where you are wrong. WE DO KNOW. WE KNOW THEM TOO WELL. WE ARE FRIENDS WITH THEM. WE KNOW THEIR MINDSET AND WHAT THEIR GOALS IN CANADA ARE AND WHY THEY ARE HERE. Some people here aren't dumb. They see the bigger picture in all this.

But you have to be very cosmopolitan and very well read to understand these concepts.

Mark my words, in 20 years, after several incidents, they will not be building Sikh schools physically close to Muslim schools for 'safety reasons'. When the kids graduate from highschool they will be SO ghettoized in their culture, they will graduate with verbal accents, they will then lobby for their own universities and then demand that their race get a certain portion of of all jobs after school. And they will loby for more special rights so only teachers are that of their own religion and culture.

The above scenario in history has proven over and over to destroy countries and cuase civil war. Canada is paving the way to nothing but racial segregation and disaster.

Is this the Canada you want to live in?

Take your meds and call me in the morning

... Seriously mikedavid you need to stop the blatant racism here please ...

And the stereotyping and labelling of everyone in order to make up things they never said to suit your own perceptions.

I am not an admirer of any political party, and I certainly never said the things you said I would say .

You are taking this too personally.

I do not wish to be addressed by you in the future.

Edited September 5, 2007 by jennie

[jennie]

I think he's looking more Liberal myself. Or maybe it's the other way around and McGuinty is looking more Conservative. Geez, I just can't tell anymore. It think they should just both go buy purple shirts.

I can't see Tory looking NDP ... but maybe his sudden largesse (at least in policy) with the extension of education funding has people wondering.

I would be worried though, because RogersMedia always had great ideas but could never quite make money on them!

A agree ... Purple shirts allround!! ... can't tell one from the other anymore!!