The School Funding Thread- Merged

[eerickso]

Denmark now has separate school systems, however; I doubt it was the government's intention.

 

[ex-Sup]

Okay, I’m going to try this again, because obviously some things are not getting through

Yes; it is in my opinion that publicly funding religious schools are a subsidization of religion. I have stated why I hold that opinion, and provided an analogy to counter suggestions that it is not.

Fine, this is your opinion, great. My point is that the facts that you are basing your opinion on are incorrect. You state that religious schools are a subsidization of religion, but what is this based on? Where are your facts to back this up? What experience do you have to corroborate this statement? The fact is you don’t have any; according to your profile you don’t even live in Ontario. And as for your rather interesting analogy, it is once again based on opinion.
In case you missed it, I’m Catholic teacher. I work for the Thunder Bay Catholic District School Board, which reports directly to the Ministry of Education. I do not work for the Diocese of Thunder Bay, nor do I work for the Vatican. Additional teaching expectations are placed on me by my school board, which are based on Catholic beliefs, but are not dictated by the church. Yes, we deal with the teachings if the church, but we don’t work for it. This is fact.

It is not a “so be it” situation. The public (secular) school system is perfectly capable of handling the day-to-day business of “everyone needs to play nicely together” and any requirements of right and wrong that would apply equally in any school setting.

How do you know? I’m not implying that they can’t, but you cannot say for certain because you’re not in the system. The real problem arises when there is an issue that cannot be dealt with in a secular school. Unfortunately there are topics that are off-limits. In the spirit of political correctness and for fear of offending someone’s religious beliefs, public teachers need to tread lightly in some areas. I know this because I have close friends that work in the public system. How do you then deal with this? I have no such reservations; my students are the same religion as myself or choose to experience my religion. Therefore one can say that my students are gaining an advantage over their public school peers because we can discuss and examine a greater spectrum of issues.

It is the responsibility of the parents to handle non-secular moral and ethical issues. If some parents want to farm this responsibility out to some religious group – fine, but that has nothing to do with education, and nothing to do with tax money.

The facts are that some parents are, and some are not. There are so many kids out there that come from dysfunctional families…you have no idea. I don’t even know the full story because I don’t see every case in a school of 1300. I’m sure if you talked to my principal or one of the VP’s, they could tell you quite the tale. Put simply, there are kids that have no moral or ethical guidance. Where are they to get it? In a world where so many of our kids are cynical, where do we tell them that these ideas come from? Some may not always agree with them, but at least they can say that they know where religious morals and ethics are rooted. What you need to realize is that education is more than just books and academics; school has become so much more. I know because of my daily interactions with my students in classroom, the hallway and on the football field. Teachers are not just educators anymore; we are psychologists, babysitters, parental figures and much more. We are being asked to do the very things that you say we should not. In an ideal world everything happens as you describe; but this is not utopia, this is reality.
editted for grammar

 

[a_majoor]

In my opinion, the right way:

- Government provides a good (secular) police force for the public good
- If you have the means, you can hire (for example) the services of a private security firm

This is one of the few true functions of government, to protect the citizens; hence the Army and Police, as well as the State holding the monopoly on the use of force. Since governments are expanding into many areas which are not and should not be in their jurisdiction, they are squandering resources which should go to protective services, hence the need for private citizens to provide their own protection.

- Government provides a good (secular) health care system for the common good
- If you have the means, you can hire (for example) the services of a private Doctor


- Government provides a good (secular) education system for the public good
- If you have the means, you can hire (for example) the services of a private school

These are areas where there is no clear justification for government to be the provider of these services. Just because governments have adopted these services as means to buy votes does not mean this is the right thing to do. The Roman Emperors used Gladiatorial games, bread and circus's to buy off the masses, eventually diverting a large part of the treasury away from productive investments, with results we should all know.

- All private services will have some restrictions such as monitoring, accreditation, and limited powers.
- All private services must function without public money and must pay for government services such as monitoring and accreditation

Once again, one of the functions of government is to provide a level playing field for all (i.e. uniform regulation and enforcement), this concept is generally known as the Rule of Law.

Your fervor for the State to take over large portions of the market and civil society is really based on a limited perspective. Most of Canada's vaunted "social safety net" and "public services" came into being in the late 1940's, early 1950's; decades after America's "New Deal". The perverse incentives that taxpayer funding induces has resulted in the shoddy schools and public health systems we see today, which suck up vast amounts of resources for trifling ends. Public systems exist for the benefits of themselves, as a look at the CWB should tell you; farmers forced to sell their wheat through the board are often paid at less than the world price, yet the Board is often defended in terms strikingly similar to those used by advocates of public schools or public health. With records like that it is very easy to
advocate for the Libertarian ideal of Government as the "Night Watchman" and strip away expensive and ineffectual "public" service roles.

This is about control of resources and choice. If resources are taken away from the taxpayer (i.e. their hard earned money) then their choices are restricted as well. While this proposal is not ideal, it is the one on the table, and offers a greater degree of choice.

edit to fix the quote boxes

 

[warrickdll]

...
Therefore one can say that my students are gaining an advantage over their public school peers because we can discuss and examine a greater spectrum of issues.
...
Teachers are not just educators anymore; we are psychologists, babysitters, parental figures and much more.
...

Yes. Be the best Catholic school teacher you can be - just don't do it with public money.

...
Yes, we deal with the teachings if of the church, but we don’t work for it.
...

I understand the difference, but it doesn’t matter. It is still the Catholic Church. If you don’t have the Catholic Church you don’t have Catholic beliefs and you don’t have a Catholic school board. With or without direct involvement of the Catholic Church it is still a religious school system run by a religious organization.

Okay, I’m going to try this again, because obviously some things are not getting through

>Yes; it is in my opinion that publicly funding religious schools are a subsidization of religion. I have stated why I hold that opinion, and provided an analogy to counter suggestions that it is not.

Fine, this is your opinion, great. My point is that the facts that you are basing your opinion on are incorrect. You state that religious schools are a subsidization of religion, but what is this based on?
...

What isn’t getting through to me is how you do not see any advantage for the Catholic Church in there being a publicly funded Catholic school system. It isn’t as if I’ve revealed a trade secret, or decrypted a coded message.

...
Fine, this is your opinion, great. My point is that the facts that you are basing your opinion on are incorrect. ...

If you could list the incorrect facts that my opinion is based on then I would be able to respond.

...
Re: Health Care and Education
...
These are areas where there is no clear justification for government to be the provider of these services.
...

Not that I don’t see the advantages of your system: taxes would be extremely low since, instead of providing public services, you can just hand out some money to those below a set minimum income level and everything is handled at private hospitals and private schools.

But I think it would an extreme mistake to not have public health care and public education. These should be the services expected from the government.

...
This is about control of resources and choice. If resources are taken away from the taxpayer (i.e. their hard earned money) then their choices are restricted as well. While this proposal is not ideal, it is the one on the table, and offers a greater degree of choice.

Spending public money on private schools is a big, and expensive, step in the opposite direction from which you wish to proceed.

 

[ex-Sup]

Yes. Be the best Catholic school teacher you can be - just don't do it with public money.

Your opinion once again. There is a good chunk of the population that feels that a religious education (whatever that religion may be) is important. They represent a good proportion of the public.

I understand the difference, but it doesn’t matter. It is still the Catholic Church. If you don’t have the Catholic Church you don’t have Catholic beliefs and you don’t have a Catholic school board. With or without direct involvement of the Catholic Church it is still a religious school system run by a religious organization.
If you could list the incorrect facts that my opinion is based on then I would be able to respond.

:brickwall: How many times do I have to repeat myself? As is so often quoted on this site, stay in your lane! Your clearly do not live in Ontario, nor are you an educator. Everything that you describe is simply opinion because you don't know about the situation. I'm not making my statements up, I am directly involved. I rarely pipe up about military matters on this site because I don't know. Education is different; it is my occupation.
The Catholic church does not run the Catholic school system. This is fact! The system is guided by the philosophies of the church in its moral and ethical approach, but the church does not control what we do. Maybe there was a time in the past when the church had a huge say in things (ie. when there were priests and nuns in the school), but not today. My school is run by and my bosses are the school board, who report directly to the Ministry of Education. The church does not tell me what to do in my history class, the ministry of ed does. They do tell me how to act...so if this constitutes your "church" control, then by all means.
I have provided a lot of hard evidence to support my statements. In case you missed it the first time, you can browse over to these sites:
Ministry of Ed http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/index.html
Education Act http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90e02_e.htm
All I keep hearing is a lot of opinion, supported no factual evidence. If you have such material, please provide it.

 

[a_majoor]

But I think it would an extreme mistake to not have public health care and public education. These should be the services expected from the government.

While this is your opinion, there is no reason (other than to buy votes) for the State to be involved in providing these services. Indeed, you can extend that to so many different areas, such as garbage collection, housing, postal services (originally set as a State monopoly so the State had the ability to read your mail), and so on. 

Spending public money on private schools is a big, and expensive, step in the opposite direction from which you wish to proceed.

Frankly, yes. However the current situation is untenable and the new proposal (if implemented) would also be unstable. While a larger set of parents would have more school choice, the universe of parents would not be encompassed, many more parents would be agitating for choice. Eventually governments would have to extend the system to be even more open (charter schools, vouchers etc.) in response to parental pressure.

Like I said before, other options are not on the table at this time (unless the Freedom Party was to win a majority, which does not seem to be in the cards), so we go with what is possible and extend from there.

 

[a_majoor]

Sadly, the article is reflected here; how much time and effort have we spent debating all the other issues that were so effectively smokescreened by this proposal?

http://unambig.blogspot.com/2007/10/howard-hampton-has-it-right.html

Friday, October 5, 2007
Howard Hampton Has It Right

We've all heard the sound bytes of Howard having a breakdown in front of media by now [and if you haven't, you should], and while you can question his political strategy of this lashing out, you can't really question the truth of the statement. The fact is that we here in Ontario allowed the idea [and let's be honest here, it was only the idea or principle of the thing] of faith-based funding to hijack the entire election. The issue has so dominated the campaign that an angry Hampton yelled out: "We've become the child poverty capital of Canada - don't any of you people care? Don't you care that there are seniors living in soiled diapers? Don't you care about that?"

And he's right. We allowed an issue as tiny as something which affects 3% of the population at most [if that], to possibly hand the ill-begotten Liberals and their leader-in-broken-promises Dalton McGuinty another majority government. Well, I guess that proves conservatives are principled. But we're also stupid. The fact is that bloggers like Sandy were among the few imploring us to remain focused on the real issues which have thus far escaped public scrutiny: failed Liberal promises. Whether it be the failure of the Liberals to reach environmental promises, the failure of the health care system and the implementation of a tax, or the lack of funding for autistic children, McGuinty's government may have gotten away with the biggest evasive tactic in campaign history. While we were more than ready to focus on Dalton's broken promises, the Liberal camp and the media kept slapping the public in the face with faith-based funding. And the attack was so intense that we all fell for it too. John Tory echoes our laments.

    "I share Mr. Hampton's frustration," he said. "In the end, there were other issues and we both share in common the view that Mr. McGuinty has done nothing to deserve re-election ... and so now we're into a different stage of the campaign where I think Mr. Hampton and myself are having an opportunity to talk about Mr. McGuinty's record."

So for the next five days let's really focus on that, and only that, reminding voters of just how terrible that record was.

True Blue Ontario reminds us that Dalton McGuinty has been "floating" on a campaign consisting of promises with no explanation of how to pay for them, refusing to interact with voters, and using PR photo ops to trick voters into thinking he is.

Joanne reminds us that while Dalton ignores the plight of seniors who can't find family doctors, it doesn't stop him from taking credit for helping a cancer-stricken man who refused to shake his hand.

Posted by Raphael Alexander at 7:23 AM 

 

[ex-Sup]

Sadly, the article is reflected here; how much time and effort have we spent debating all the other issues that were so effectively smokescreened by this proposal?

+1...there are a lot more important issues to deal with in our society.

 

[warrickdll]

Re: public health care and public education
...
...there is no reason (other than to buy votes) for the State to be involved in providing these services. Indeed, you can extend that to so many different areas, such as garbage collection, housing, postal services (originally set as a State monopoly so the State had the ability to read your mail), and so on.
...

I agree that there is nothing concrete that a State has to be involved in. Collective security seems to be one of the first reasons for becoming a State so that usually is taken care of (trade comes up early as well).

I think as you form larger and larger gatherings of people you will end up in an unhealthy situation that is detrimental to everyone. It is also my opinion that an uneducated population in an industrial or technological environment is a liability: can’t train a military; can’t handle policing; can’t understand health care; can’t compete economically; and probably won’t be able to be free and democratic.

Those are the reasons that I believe education and health care have evolved over time to be collective services. You disagree; so it should be a simple matter of taking it to the electorate, either by referendum or by candidate platform.

...
...However the current situation is untenable and the new proposal (if implemented) would also be unstable. While a larger set of parents would have more school choice, the universe of parents would not be encompassed, many more parents would be agitating for choice. Eventually governments would have to extend the system to be even more open (charter schools, vouchers etc.) in response to parental pressure.

Like I said before, other options are not on the table at this time (unless the Freedom Party was to win a majority, which does not seem to be in the cards), so we go with what is possible and extend from there.

Your underlying position seems to be that the less money the government has then the more control the individual will have (also the less money the government bureaucracies will waste).

Then of the proposals present I believe you should be on the side of the government only funding (and so only collecting taxes for) the public (secular) school system. The other options present are to fund the more expensive status quo (funding both a public (secular) system and a public (Catholic) system), or the status quo and even more public religious schools, or the status quo and even more public religious schools and private schools.

 

[Shamrock]

We allowed an issue as tiny as something which affects 3% of the population at most [if that], to possibly hand the ill-begotten Liberals and their leader-in-broken-promises Dalton McGuinty another majority government.

Is it really that small?  Are only 3% of public schools Catholic?

 

[ex-Sup]

Is it really that small?  Are only 3% of public schools Catholic?

Not even close. I don't have exact numbers, but I'd venture between 35-40% are. In my city (Thunder Bay), he's how things measure up:
The Lakehead District School Board is the largest, with 22 elementary schools, 4 secondary schools and a centre for adult studies. The Thunder Bay Catholic District School Board is the second largest with 16 elementary schools, 3 middle schools and 2 high schools. CSDC Aurores boréales operates one elementary and one high school in Thunder Bay, and an additional six schools throughout the Thunder Bay District
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Thunder_Bay%2C_Ontario ya I know it's wikipedia, but I don't have a lot of time

 

[warrickdll]

>Yes. Be the best Catholic school teacher you can be - just don't do it with public money.

Your opinion once again. There is a good chunk of the population that feels that a religious education (whatever that religion may be) is important. They represent a good proportion of the public.
...

I don't believe that your chunk is big enough; if it were then there wouldn't be a problem amongst the voters of Ontario when it comes to the government spending even more taxpayer money on religious schools.

...
The Catholic church does not run the Catholic school system. This is fact! The system is guided by the philosophies of the church in its moral and ethical approach, but the church does not control what we do. Maybe there was a time in the past when the church had a huge say in things (ie. when there were priests and nuns in the school), but not today.
...

It's a religious school system and, in my opinion it should not receive any tax money. It doesn't matter how many arms’ lengths it is removed from the Catholic Church itself, it is still a religious school system - even you refer to it as a “religious education” so it seems a bit dicey to try and obfuscate that fact.

My opinions in this matter concern what I would want funded by a provincial government – so my lane, in my opinion, seems pretty clear.

 

[warrickdll]

Is it really that small?  Are only 3% of public schools Catholic?

I took it to mean the other religious schools.

 

[ex-Sup]

I don't believe that your chunk is big enough; if it were then there wouldn't be a problem amongst the voters of Ontario when it comes to the government spending even more taxpayer money on religious schools.
It's a religious school system and, in my opinion it should not receive any tax money. It doesn't matter how many arms’ lengths it is removed from the Catholic Church itself, it is still a religious school system - even you refer to it as a “religious education” so it seems a bit dicey to try and obfuscate that fact.
My opinions in this matter concern what I would want funded by a provincial government – so my lane, in my opinion, seems pretty clear.

Opinion noted...I've got to go back to teaching in my publically-funded religious school right now, thanks.

 

[glock17]

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/264582

The article would seem to indicate that there is a groundswell of "Democratic" support for eliminating all public funding of religous schools, including, and I guess specifically the catholic one....good news as far as I and about 70% ( Tor Star Poll ) of my fellow citizens are concerned.

I find the comments from some of the younger students included a little disturbing, just my opinion though, don't excommunicate me for it.

 

[glock17]

What are a group of "Bishops" doing mandating the development and publishing of grade eleven text books ?

TORONTO - The Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops has given the go ahead to write the first-ever Grade 11 world religion textbook from a Canadian Catholic perspective.

http://www.catholicregister.org/content/view/1109/855/

And, it seems that these "Bishops" are starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel, which in this case, might be the train of public opinion coming the other way.

http://www.catholicregister.org/content/view/1072/849/

More fuel for the fire Folks, have at it.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/264582

The article would seem to indicate that there is a groundswell of "Democratic" support for eliminating all public funding of religous schools, including, and I guess specifically the catholic one....good news as far as I and about 70% ( Tor Star Poll ) of my fellow citizens are concerned.

I find the comments from some of the younger students included a little disturbing, just my opinion though, don't excommunicate me for it.

What are a group of "Bishops" doing mandating the development and publishing of grade eleven text books ?

TORONTO - The Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops has given the go ahead to write the first-ever Grade 11 world religion textbook from a Canadian Catholic perspective.

http://www.catholicregister.org/content/view/1109/855/

And, it seems that these "Bishops" are starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel, which in this case, might be the train of public opinion coming the other way.

http://www.catholicregister.org/content/view/1072/849/

More fuel for the fire Folks, have at it.

Glock 17,

The portions of your posts that I have highlighted, can be considered trolling and trying to start a flame war. If you're interested in serious discourse on the subject. Act like it. If you want to be a bozo and create havoc, find another site. We're not going to put up with it here. No more warnings.

 

[glock17]

recceguy

I have been reading and participating in the thread from the start, and have read some comments that might be taken as as little more inflamatory than those I put above.


If I offended anyone, I apologize, it was not my intent. I simply offered outside sources of information to support my opinion and what was supposed to be comments to inject a little levity into the discourse.

I withdraw them. And request that you refrain from calling me a "Bozo" in the future.

Have a nice day

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Read it again. You would have only been a 'bozo' if your intent was to disrupt. Then it would have been deserved.

Pretty easy to misread and misconstrue things, isn't it?

 

[ex-Sup]

What are a group of "Bishops" doing mandating the development and publishing of grade eleven text books ?

They form part of a group called ICE (Institute for Catholic Education)...the link is in one of my previous posts. ICE modifies/writes curriculum for Catholic schools. They are simply stating that a new Gr.11 world religions text will be written for the course.

And, it seems that these "Bishops" are starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel, which in this case, might be the train of public opinion coming the other way.

The article would seem to indicate that there is a groundswell of "Democratic" support for eliminating all public funding of religous schools, including, and I guess specifically the catholic one....good news as far as I and about 70% ( Tor Star Poll ) of my fellow citizens are concerned.

And so....
As for your stats, depends who you ask and where. 35-40% of the teachers in this province in the Catholic system, and in my city, over 40% of the schools are Catholic. We have a lot of non-Catholics in our system. Best to stay in your lane here. And what's with the quotes? Bishop not a legitimate title?

I find the comments from some of the younger students included a little disturbing, just my opinion though, don't excommunicate me for it.

Why, because they have an opinion on religion, specially Catholic religion? I find yours likewise...but that's just my opinion.