The School Funding Thread- Merged

[Brad Sallows]

>Again, a PUBLICALLY funded school, no matter the religion or method of teaching, should be avaliable to the PUBLIC. No one should be treated any different.

This view persists because people insist on seeing the "system" as publicly funded rather than seeing the child as publicly funded.  We provide handouts for all sorts of stuff - health care, housing, child raising, income, etc - without requiring that the money be spent in a public "system" or attaching very many strings because we are funding people.  Get it straight.

 

[ixium]

You're arguing two different points against each other.

l'm not going to argue whether having a parent have schooling allowence or whether the child is sent to a public school. Or which one is better.

l'm arguing that right now, as the system is today, a publically funded school shouldn't be treating two different kids two different ways.

 

[UberCree]

My own opinion is anything which increases parental choice is better, this is not the ideal means of doing so, but a step in the right direction.

This is where I stand exactly

 

[glock17]

I certainly like the idea of Parental choice, but within the limitations of a civil and progressive society, I would endorse the idea of allowing Parents who wish to provide their children with a faith based education, to remove them from the public system and place them in a private school, or even home school. However, they do so at their own expense, and they must meet curiculum guidelines. Perhaps we could even go so far as to provide them with tax relief of some form, but not equal to their contribution through residential taxes. If you wish to remove your kids from our community of schools, do so, but it is your choice and you will have to fund it. We all have a responsibility, as a community, to provide for the education of our childern collectively, whether we have our own children or not. I believe the best way to use those resources is to pool them into one, non-faith based system. The kids will learn about other cultures and heritage from each other, first hand, discussions of religion could take place objectively, and celebrations of each others' culture could be encouraged rather than suppressed.

It is fair treatment for all, and that is what we should aspire to

 

[UberCree]

Here's the way I have seen schooling work best ... from my experience as a teacher and administrator in Canada and the U.S., in both Charter schools, public schools and First Nations schools.

Set a standard (provincial curriculum, certified teachers (national standard?), and the minimum standard stuff found in the provincial schools acts), set a funding level ... then let communities run with their ideas and measure their results.  If they fail don't accredit them, if they succeed their ideas will prosper.  It promotes choice, it promotes and fuels the evolutionary process and it creates more smaller schools, which are generally better for communities and student outcomes. 

One kid = one funding rate, wherever they wish to go (that meets the minimum standard). 

 

[Brad Sallows]

>within the limitations of a civil and progressive society

In short, within the confines of dogma and beliefs of which you approve.  Just because there are no articles of worship doesn't mean something is not equivalent to religion.

>However, they do so at their own expense, and they must meet curiculum guidelines.

Children have a civil right to an education.  Period.  If a political jurisdiction wishes to provide a default system open to all, great.  We still have an obligation to fund the children.  We have public health care facilities and employees without requiring that all publicly-funded treatments go through public facilities.  What's the hang-up here?*

>I believe the best way to use those resources is to pool them into one, non-faith based system.

"believe".  I suppose your beliefs - the how as well as the what - are reason, and the other guys' beliefs are superstition.

>The kids will learn about other cultures and heritage from each other, first hand, discussions of religion could take place objectively, and celebrations of each others' culture could be encouraged rather than suppressed.

Do you really know the One True Way to educate children and truly believe that every other system would be certain to poison young minds?  Do you not see the arrogance of assuming yourself to be essentially faultless and everyone else to be in some way evil?

*It's a rhetorical question.  I already know the answer: the hang-ups are the desire to impose one flavour of secular progressive religion, and to protect the turf of everyone whose job is in the public system.

 

[glock17]

>within the limitations of a civil and progressive society

In short, within the confines of dogma and beliefs of which you approve.  Just because there are no articles of worship doesn't mean something is not equivalent to religion.

>However, they do so at their own expense, and they must meet curiculum guidelines.

Children have a civil right to an education.  Period.  If a political jurisdiction wishes to provide a default system open to all, great.  We still have an obligation to fund the children.  We have public health care facilities and employees without requiring that all publicly-funded treatments go through public facilities.  What's the hang-up here?*

>I believe the best way to use those resources is to pool them into one, non-faith based system.

"believe".  I suppose your beliefs - the how as well as the what - are reason, and the other guys' beliefs are superstition.

>The kids will learn about other cultures and heritage from each other, first hand, discussions of religion could take place objectively, and celebrations of each others' culture could be encouraged rather than suppressed.

Do you really know the One True Way to educate children and truly believe that every other system would be certain to poison young minds?  Do you not see the arrogance of assuming yourself to be essentially faultless and everyone else to be in some way evil?

*It's a rhetorical question.  I already know the answer: the hang-ups are the desire to impose one flavour of secular progressive religion, and to protect the turf of everyone whose job is in the public system.

It didn't sound so bad when I read it.  I certainly didn't intend to impose any beliefs on anybody.

And arrogance is something I do have trouble with ;D

 

[warrickdll]

In general:

Education and health care both, as services, have low level delivery but with high level standardization (2 + 2 = 4, fixing a broken leg is just fixing a broken leg) and, combined with the large budget requirements, this should mean a federal responsibility.

Having high quality education and health care, regardless of the local economic conditions, is a much better way to share prosperity than transfer payments are. This works whether you are looking at it government-to-government, or government-to-citizen.

Across-the-board commitments to education and health care, along with policing and other services, are a part of the fundamentals of Canadian civilization. The guaranteed provision of these fundamentals should be a covenant between the government and the people, and the success in the delivery a testament to our culture.

However, the 1867 constitution was a reflection of the communication and organizational limits of its time (as well as the bigotry), and unfortunately the 1982 constitution is a reflection of the extreme limits of politician, bureaucrats, and lawyers.

But even limited to provincial levels the principles remain the same: If the provincial government takes care of the fundamentals, regardless of location within the province, then it leaves the other levels of government, and the people, an even-playing-field with which to prosper.



On individual economic levels:

The poorest families within our society will always have the fundamentals provided for them, and it is pointless to try to corral the rich into anything (just make sure their activities are legal and not subsidized by the public system - just because someone is rich doesn't mean they aren't cheap).

It's the people who are in the middle who get squeezed. Almost any voucher or refund system will cause those in the middle income range (especially the low end) to have to compromise on quality somewhere in their lives; it could be in their children's education, or their own health care, or somewhere else.

Voucher and refund systems are meaningless to the poor since they require (and receive) full funding. For the rich, and upper middle income earners, voucher and refund systems are just more money (perhaps simply as a tax break) since the use of the public system was never going to be their first choice anyways.

High quality delivery of the fundamentals allows the poorest among us to concentrate on fixing themselves and their economic situation; someone in the middle can enjoy the quality of their life and aspire to achieve more; and the rich do not need to be walled in to keep out the rioting masses (since the masses are pretty content).




On religion:

Neither education nor health care has anything to do with religion (the same applies for any of the fundamentals).

The government is obligated for Standard Education and nothing else in that area.

Standard Education is what the tax money is collected for. Standard Education is why the buildings are constructed. Standard Education is the reason why the students are gathered together.

The government should be concentrating on providing the highest possible quality of Standard Education. None of the tax money, buildings, or students, is there to subsidize religious indoctrination. For that, a religion has to provide its own money, its own buildings, and gather its own captive audience.

It isn't the government's job to finance (by money, tax break, or other subsidy) any religion.
It isn't the government's job to endorse or promote any religion.
It isn't the government's job to verify, approve, qualify, or validate any religion.
It isn't the government's job to provide information about any religion or to keep informed about any religion.

In short: The government has nothing to do with religion and religion has nothing to do with government.




On secularism:

It is a mistake to state that a secular school system teaches secularism - or is even about secularism.

A secular school is not the opposite of a religious school; it is simply a school without religious content or basis.
A secular school does not teach non-religious beliefs it just doesn't teach religious beliefs.

Without a secular government, or secular institutions, you do not have religious freedom; and having a separate (Catholic) public school system is corrosive to everyone's freedom.


Every time some wayward individual decides to put a "Christmas" tree up in City Hall, instead of a "Holiday" tree, they put another nail into the coffin of their own religious freedom.

By not enforcing a secular government and institutions the door is left wide open to all varieties of non-compatible religious baggage. And while christianity has been continually modified over the last several hundred years to sell itself to a changing customer base - other religions have not been.

Our courts handle religious matters incompetently; mostly it seems due to its own interpretations of the constitution. With a fully secular government and institutions, there is less rope for the courts to hang us with, and allows us to keep our tax money free from the constant demands from organized religions' to be subsidized.





On provincial responsibility:

The provincial governments are responsible for education and health care in Canada, but they abrogate this by the use of the board system. This lack of direct control is a way for the politicians to sidestep their failures and avoid the rightful response from the electorate.

On any given news day you can here provincial cabinet ministers proclaiming:
- "Don't like what's happening? Well, it's the board that makes the decisions!"
- "Not being properly funded? Well, it's the federal government that isn't giving us enough money!".


The provincial governments are the responsible agencies and all failures in these areas are due to them. As much as I think that the federal government should be the responsible agency - it isn't. And so every time a federal politician goes on about education, or health care, you know that money is being wasted. It's about as useful as seeing those old "Burnaby.  A Nuclear Weapons Free Zone." signs. Every level of government should concentrate on its areas of responsibility, regardless of how popular the topic is.




In conclusion:


The best system is a high quality public (Standard Education) system.

Vouchers and tax breaks only give the illusion of choice when it comes to lower middle income families (and in rural areas - not even the illusion).

Trying to fix Ontario's system by funding all religious education is like pouring water on a grease fire. You can't fix a mistake by making more mistakes.

In Ontario the Liberals are rightly condemned for being hypocrites on this issue; the Conservatives are rightly condemned for being incompetents on this issue; and the NDPers are rightly condemned for being cowards on this issue.

 

[Sassy]

Why punish the catholic school system?  It's part of the BNA, so who's going to pay to get this part of the constitution struck down?  I've heard it's a great system, so why get rid of something that works?  Islam, Hinduism, Somalian Tribal Law aren't part of our history or culture so why punish a religion that is? Currently our public system is more concerned with "Diversity" ,gag me with a spoon, and mulitculture is more important than the three R's.  Left leaning do-gooders deciding what should be culled for the good of the minority currently control public schools.  Is this a good thang? NO but it's the liberal/left way.  Pandering and appeasement is their ethos, after sucking up to Quebec of course.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Education and health care both, as services, have low level delivery but with high level standardization ... this should mean a federal responsibility.

The conclusion doesn't necessarily follow.  Provincial governments don't train the drivers they licence; they publish a standard and test to it.  And while the quality of the public systems are "high" enough, both private education and private health care can provide superior outcomes.

>Almost any voucher or refund system will cause those in the middle income range (especially the low end) to have to compromise on quality somewhere in their lives

Why?  What is your chain of reasoning here - that governments would issue vouchers good for $X and then charge $Y > $X for a slot in a public school?  It is to laugh.  If we had vouchers, governments would be hard-pressed to make an excuse for anything other than a straight exchange (no additional payments necessary) for a slot in the public system.

>The government is obligated for Standard Education and nothing else in that area.

If true, that's a sufficient condition for a voucher system.  Regardless of intentions, the public system does an irregular and unsatisfactory job of preparing exceptional students to excel in subsequent education.  Any sufficiently bright child should have a shot at a more demanding school irrespective of the parents' means.

> None of the tax money, buildings, or students, is there to subsidize religious indoctrination.

That high horse has been ridden to death.  The fact is a religiously established school can be run to meet public curricular standards while expending very little time (money) on "religious indoctrination".  One would be better served objecting to the money spent on "competitive sports indoctrination" to the benefit of a select few.

>It isn't the government's job

The government's job is in part whatever the people decide it is, if they feel strongly enough about something.  The complete evisceration of government involvement in religion in any way, shape, or fashion is just frothing-mouthed fanaticism impelled by secularism-as-a-religion.

>It is a mistake to state that a secular school system teaches secularism - or is even about secularism.

I call bullshit. Too many people have proudly stated for the record their belief in schools as a tool of socialization.  Socialization is nothing but indoctrination into a set of beliefs and behaviours to suit the keepers of the system.

>Without a secular government, or secular institutions, you do not have religious freedom; and having a separate (Catholic) public school system is corrosive to everyone's freedom.

Again, I call bullshit.  In what concrete way has a publicly-funded Catholic school system corroded freedom?  Given that anyone can put a child in school somewhere, you can't even make the argument that there is a loss of financial freedom.

The board system is, BTW, an excellent way for communities to retain control of their schools - if it is so used.

 

[warrickdll]

...
>The government is obligated for Standard Education and nothing else in that area.

If true, that's a sufficient condition for a voucher system.  Regardless of intentions, the public system does an irregular and unsatisfactory job of preparing exceptional students to excel in subsequent education.  Any sufficiently bright child should have a shot at a more demanding school irrespective of the parents' means
...

I'm using Standard Education to indicate topic content, not topic depth. While schools of excellence could be set up in a Standard Education public system, I would suggest an improved ability in all public schools to meet the needs of their quick learners.

Private schools don’t exist to be educational oases. They exist to generate profit by direct payment and/or promoting membership in an organization that then receives money from its members.

If someone wants their child in a private school then they must be prepared to fully pay for it. I’m not advocating the end of private schools (neither is anyone else), but just because someone thinks their child should be in a school designed especially for dancers, or for actors, or for Catholics, this does not mean that they should be subsidized by taking money out of the public system. If fewer funds are needed in the public system, due to people using private systems, then this should be reflected in lower taxes for everyone.

...
>It is a mistake to state that a secular school system teaches secularism - or is even about secularism.

I call bullshit. Too many people have proudly stated for the record their belief in schools as a tool of socialization.  Socialization is nothing but indoctrination into a set of beliefs and behaviours to suit the keepers of the system.

>Without a secular government, or secular institutions, you do not have religious freedom; and having a separate (Catholic) public school system is corrosive to everyone's freedom.

Again, I call bullshit.  In what concrete way has a publicly-funded Catholic school system corroded freedom?  Given that anyone can put a child in school somewhere, you can't even make the argument that there is a loss of financial freedom.
...

Organized religions have nightmares thinking about governments becoming officially secular. One of the more devious and underhanded ways to prevent this is by promoting the myth that secularism is a set of beliefs on par with religious beliefs. That simply isn’t true. A secular system is not anti-religious, it just isn’t religious.

Any time some special interest group gets special privileges it makes all others less than they are.

...
> None of the tax money, buildings, or students, is there to subsidize religious indoctrination.

That high horse has been ridden to death.  The fact is a religiously established school can be run to meet public curricular standards while expending very little time (money) on "religious indoctrination".  One would be better served objecting to the money spent on "competitive sports indoctrination" to the benefit of a select few.
...

I agree - except about the “ridden to death”. It will be “ridden to death” when, in this instance, the Catholic Church weans itself off of tax money. You state it clearly yourself “expending very little time (money) on "religious indoctrination"” – there is absolutely no requirement to have an entire school system set aside to handle what can be handled in church at some other time during the week.

And I fully agree about sports. All inclusive sports in school are only there as part of physical fitness. If someone wants their child to be an athlete then that is done outside of school – this is exactly how we handle hockey.

...
>It isn't the government's job

The government's job is in part whatever the people decide it is, if they feel strongly enough about something.  The complete evisceration of government involvement in religion in any way, shape, or fashion is just frothing-mouthed fanaticism impelled by secularism-as-a-religion.
...

Sort of, even governments have to follow the law (but yes the laws can be changed). What needs to be stressed here is that the only reason Ontario has a Catholic school system taking tax money is because of an exclusion to allow the continued use of a 19th century law based on bigotry. Catholics didn’t like Protestants; Protestants didn’t like Catholics; the fact that this all changed seems to have been overlooked sometime in the previous century.

The only reason our governments and public institutions aren't fully secular yet is only due to massive efforts of special interest lobbying. One day Canada will get it right, and we will have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion.





The lack of proximity to alternate schools leaves few options to most people, especially outside the city cores. It’s a far better idea to fix the public system then to leave children’s education to market forces.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>If someone wants their child in a private school then they must be prepared to fully pay for it.

Why?  The point of publicly-funded education is to provide an education to a child at public expense, not to sustain a public educational bureaucracy.  People who regard the system as the objective have incorrectly placed the means ahead of the ends.  The objective is the educated child.

>A secular system is not anti-religious, it just isn’t religious.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but you're hiding behind a definition and hoping no-one will notice the features of the underlying system.  The principles and arguments of anti-religionists can be directed at their own preferences: beliefs and abstract social and political ideas are just that, regardless of source.  Our ancestors formulated social rules and dressed them up as received wisdom because religion was an effective way to enforce compliance.  Nearly everyone is operating from a point of bias with respect to the values they wish inculcated in children, so the basis of objection to any particular preference is negated on grounds of hypocrisy.  There is no reason secular progressive parent A should be allowed to impose a financial disadvantage on Muslim parent B to influence behaviour.  At least the religious school supporters take the refreshingly liberal road of exerting their beliefs on their own children, rather than those of others.

>there is absolutely no requirement to have an entire school system set aside to handle what can be handled in church at some other time during the week.

You've got it backwards.  There is absolutely no basis to object to an entire distinct school system set up for no particular reason.  It's the business of those who want and use it, even if all they want is for everyone to wear green pants and skirts on Tuesdays.

>It’s a far better idea to fix the public system then to leave children’s education to market forces.

That experiment has been tried and failed.  We've thrown bags of money at public school systems over the past 30+ years, to not much real effect.  What we have are more employees with larger salaries and benefit packages.  To pre-empt any sensitive over-responses, I'm not judging who deserves what; the point is that opportunities and resources to fix the system have been repeatedly provided and the promised results have not been delivered.

 

[warrickdll]

>If someone wants their child in a private school then they must be prepared to fully pay for it.

Why?  The point of publicly-funded education is to provide an education to a child at public expense, not to sustain a public educational bureaucracy.  People who regard the system as the objective have incorrectly placed the means ahead of the ends.  The objective is the educated child.
...

An educated population is an objective much like a defended population is an objective. The government decides how it will defend Canada and provides us with the CF. While someone might prefer to be defended by Challenger MBTs, instead of Leopard MBTs, they just can’t go out, hire some mercenaries, send the bill to the government, and then reasonably expect to be reimbursed.

The government has provided the service to meet the objective; the government is in no way obligated to subsidize someone’s personal expenditures that duplicate that service – even if the same objective is met.

...
>It’s a far better idea to fix the public system then to leave children’s education to market forces.

That experiment has been tried and failed.  We've thrown bags of money at public school systems over the past 30+ years, to not much real effect.
...

Something that can be improved isn’t necessarily broken. More leadership is required from the governments responsible in order to make whatever improvements are required. This is where the board system works against us, by providing political cover for those who should be held directly responsible.

...
There is no reason secular progressive parent A should be allowed to impose a financial disadvantage on Muslim parent B to influence behaviour.  At least the religious school supporters take the refreshingly liberal road of exerting their beliefs on their own children, rather than those of others.
...

The secular system is welcoming to everyone, and so it must be the one used by the government. No religious person is denied anything by sending their child to public (secular) school – and they are certainly not financially disadvantaged in any way.



The public (secular) school teaches math, spelling, etc, in other words: the topics any certified school must teach.
The Catholic school system teaches the topics any certified school must teach, and Catholic specific content.
Once the Catholic school system is converted over to the public (secular) system they will teach the topics any certified school must teach.

No one is disadvantaged either educationally or financially. It will be up to the Catholic Church (and its members) to figure out how to teach Catholic specific content with their own means – as it should have always been.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The fact a broad social objective1 is adopted by government does not necessitate government being the only provider.  If you wish to make comparisons, find some which are comparable: we aren't permitted to hire our own armed forces, so the illustration is irrelevant.

>The government has provided the service to meet the objective; the government is in no way obligated to subsidize someone’s personal expenditures that duplicate that service – even if the same objective is met.

You reduce a family's financial freedom of action by taking what was the family's (money) in the first place, provide one service, and then add insult to injury by requiring that if the family wishes to exercise freedom of choice it must expend yet more money.  That is a wholly unsatisfactory excuse which directly erodes two fundamental freedoms: property and conscience.

I'm sure the public school system can be improved; the point is that more money evidently isn't what is needed.  Vacuous well-wishing (more leadership...to make whatever improvements) isn't a solution.  I've noted that whenever more money is announced for a public service, the public sector unions are generally first in line with their latest contract demands.  However, all of the employee compensation and motivation articles to which my attention has been drawn over the past few years note that more pay and benefits don't have much impact on employee productivity or happiness (at least not at the income levels most white collar workers already enjoy).  And we don't lack for leadership.  The educational establishment is well-credentialed and educated, from the classroom teachers to the school administration to the board offices to the provincial ministries.

>No religious person is denied anything by sending their child to public (secular) school

Yes he is.  Unfortunately the rhetorical heat is drawn by notions of indoctrination, and the practical aspects are overlooked.  A religiously established school may set its school year to suit its religious calendar.  It may set the daily schedule to suit daily observances.  It may set dress and dietary codes.  It may segregate by gender.  It may arrange facilities and physical education to accommodate notions of modesty.  It may provide on-site facilities for worship.  And so on.

There is also this: the social price of not supporting differently established schools is that demands for accommodation in the public system are made.  When the demands are not granted, there is increased social tension on the part of the applicants.  When the demands are granted - sometimes they are - there is increased social tension on the part of others.  And the demands do not end.

1. Ask around.  You won't find many parents who agree they don't care whether their children are educated.

 

[foo32]

>No religious person is denied anything by sending their child to public (secular) school

Yes he is.  Unfortunately the rhetorical heat is drawn by notions of indoctrination, and the practical aspects are overlooked.  A religiously established school may set its school year to suit its religious calendar.  It may set the daily schedule to suit daily observances.  It may set dress and dietary codes.  It may segregate by gender.  It may arrange facilities and physical education to accommodate notions of modesty.  It may provide on-site facilities for worship.  And so on.

The religious person you are talking about is the parent. Children don't have a religion, it is the parents that have the religion. It is limits of their rights as parents that are in question, and it seems clear to me that the rights of the child and setting good social policy are what is most important.  In particular, the rights of the child to the best education our society can provide.  The message of religious dogma is antithetical to that of education -- our schools are charged with exposing children to knowledge and giving them the tools they need to think critically.  If an adult wishes to harsh their melon with religious dogma that is their right, but I see absolutely zero obligation for the government to compromise the rights of the child (and pick up a big tab to boot) just to humour a handful of overly religious parents.

Furthermore, when it comes to setting good social policy, segregated religious schools (which is where we'd be going if we start expanding funding based on religion) are so divisive they can only be called poisonous.  There are a million examples:  the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland, Jews and Arabs in Israel, the Islamic madrases in Pakistan and pretty much the rest of humanity. Problems are even taking shape in the UK courtesy Tony Blair's misguided policies. Canadians should learn from the mistakes of others, and just not go there ... not even a single step.

It is also clear the Catholic church cannot be trusted as guardians of children ... and I don't just mean their history of sheltering paedophile priests.  The recent debate they had about vaccinating young girls for HPV (known to case most cervical cancers) just show how profoundly misogynistic and just plain ... wicked ... this institution happens to be.  I'll just stop here before I get much farther into a rant  :rage:

 

[Shamrock]

What?

I'm willing to bet some of that is just shooting from the hip, not intending to be informative or based on fact, rather inflammatory and opinion laden.    This, however:

It is also clear the Catholic church cannot be trusted as guardians of children ...

That's a little hard to follow. 

You do realize the Church doesn't actually set the syllabi, right?  Catholic school have to meet the same educational criteria as public schools; their teachers must be certified, just the same as public school teachers.  More than likely, Catholic school teachers have gone to teachers' college alongside public school teachers.  If Catholic school teachers aren't apt guardians, then by extension are their public school counterparts equally inept?  Or is it because of an individual's religious affiliation that he becomes inept?  In that case, should Catholics be banned from teaching even at public schools?

 

[foo32]

What?

I'm willing to bet some of that is just shooting from the hip, not intending to be informative or based on fact, rather inflammatory and opinion laden.    This, however:

Inflammatory and opinion laden ... absolutely!  You can say I'm wrong but you can't say I'm wishy-washy or afraid of holding an unpopular opinion (and how boring these forums would be if everyone agreed with me.)  However, I'm not fabricating or exaggerating anything, so my opinions are 'based on fact' -- the conclusions one reaches from the facts, are of course, open to interpretation.

I was slamming the judgement of a school board that would even consider a decision that would put the lives of women at risk because they are worried a vaccine 'might encourage promiscuity'.  As priorities go, that is just plain warped. To be fair, the HPV vaccinations went ahead, but this would be a no-brainer for any secular school board -- to even debate the matter makes me worry.

I have no problem with any teacher's personal religious views, as long as they don't force them on the children. While I don't trust the institution of the Catholic Church, and I think I would be stupid to do so considering its history, I'm absolutely *not* making the absurd assertion individual Catholics can't be trusted around children any more than any other group ... that would exceed by far my personal limit for bigotry.  I like to at least try and stay grounded. ;D

I'm aware Catholic schools in Canada have the same basic educational criteria as other schools. I still consider *any* message aimed at religious indoctrination being put forth by an institution responsible for education to be contrary to the very purpose of education (and probably a conflict of interest as well).

 

[onecat]

You do realize the Church doesn't actually set the syllabi, right?  Catholic school have to meet the same educational criteria as public schools; their teachers must be certified, just the same as public school teachers.  More than likely, Catholic school teachers have gone to teachers' college alongside public school teachers. 

Thanks Shamrock, you just proved why extending funding to all faith based schools is the right thing to do.  All the schools will have same syllabi to teach from and will also have cerdified teachers.... 

 

[warrickdll]

...
>The government has provided the service to meet the objective; the government is in no way obligated to subsidize someone’s personal expenditures that duplicate that service – even if the same objective is met.

You reduce a family's financial freedom of action by taking what was the family's (money) in the first place, provide one service, and then add insult to injury by requiring that if the family wishes to exercise freedom of choice it must expend yet more money.  That is a wholly unsatisfactory excuse which directly erodes two fundamental freedoms: property and conscience.
...

Converting the Catholic school system to the public (secular) system will not cause parents, whose children are in the Catholic system, to pay more taxes. Taxes will remain the same and so their financial freedom stays the same.

...
>No religious person is denied anything by sending their child to public (secular) school

Yes he is.  Unfortunately the rhetorical heat is drawn by notions of indoctrination, and the practical aspects are overlooked.  A religiously established school may set its school year to suit its religious calendar.  It may set the daily schedule to suit daily observances.  It may set dress and dietary codes.  It may segregate by gender.  It may arrange facilities and physical education to accommodate notions of modesty.  It may provide on-site facilities for worship.  And so on.
...

None of that has anything to do with education; and that’s the point – nothing about education is being denied.

...
There is also this: the social price of not supporting differently established schools is that demands for accommodation in the public system are made.  When the demands are not granted, there is increased social tension on the part of the applicants.  When the demands are granted - sometimes they are - there is increased social tension on the part of others.  And the demands do not end.
...

As much as any religious organizations will try to paint themselves as victims, it will always be a mistake to setup separate schools, police forces, prisons, etc, to appease a religious organization. Any pandering to a religious organization will always lead to more demands from them.

 

[Simon]

Well, it seems that Mr Tory has decided to listen. He could have done this a week ago, either way, John Tory you now have my vote, I encourage all those interested contact your MPP or candidate, express your pleasure, and kick in $50 today, or go down and volunteer for the last week, god knows hes gonna need the help now.

Progressive Conservative leader John Tory is poised to change the message on his controversial faith-based school funding platform, Sun Media has learned.

According to campaign sources, it is expected today he will announce that if he forms the government, he would put the issue to a free vote in the Legislature, instead of insisting MPPs follow the party line.