babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » from far and wide   » manitoba, ontario, quebec   » ONDP and religious schools II

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: ONDP and religious schools II
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 23 July 2008 07:02 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Continued from here.

quote:
Originally posted by the grey:
Surely you recognize that it's very different taking away the majority's schools than taking away a substantial minority's schools?

I don't follow you. Québec abolished both the "majority's" (Catholic) and the "minority's" (Protestant) school boards simultaneously. There was no appreciable backlash from either. Why exactly is Ontario different? Are Ontario Catholics more pious than Québec ones?

quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
All that really happened in Quebec is that they changed the name of a bunch of school boards from "Catholic School Board of Montreal" to simply "French School Board of Montreal".

That's ridiculous, but unsurprising. For one thing, there was also an English Catholic board. It too was abolished. For another thing, linguistic boards exist all over Canada, as a constitutional right. If you want to turn your Catholic schools into French schools, that would be fine with progressive people who want to rid the public school system of religious instruction and divisions.

quote:
Catechism classes haven't gone away and nothing really changed.

That too is ridiculous, of course. Until the 2007-8 school year, students in public schools had a right to choose between a religious and non-religious course (just one course). Bill 95, passed in 2005, abolishes the religious option as of September 2008. All students in all schools (including private) will now be required to take the non-sectarian "Ethics and Religious Culture program". The Assembly of Québec Catholic Bishops has, of course, vigorously protested this move, but they also vigorously opposed the de-confessionalization of the school system itself in 1998. The power of the Church is yesterday.

In Ontario, however, I gather that the Church is almighty? Must be, from some of the terrifying posts here about what would befall the NDP if it ever grew a spine on this issue.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 23 July 2008 07:53 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Are Ontario Catholics more pious than Québec ones?

Actually, they are vastly more religious. Quebec is kind of like France in terms of having underdone a total secularization during the Quiet Revolution, plus a backlash against the the church for its role in oppressing Quebec etc...The last stats I saw indicated that something like 90% or more "catholics" in Quebec only ever see the inside of a church at weddings funerals and on Christmas Eve.

In Ontario, its a very different situation, Catholics here tend to be much more religious than the average Ontarian, they identify as more of a minority and their weekly church attendance figures are more in the 40%+ range. You may have noticed that when there has been a big emotional debate on "moral issues" (sic.) like abortion and birth control and same sex marriage - you get an earful from the catholic heirachy and laity in Ontario and other parts of English Canada - while in Quebec - NADA.

BTW: There are actually a surprising number of non-Catholics in Ontario who send their kids to separate schools - because (rightly or wrongly) the separate schools are perceived as being much more rigorous and having much higher academic standards etc... - and those kids are free to opt out of any religious stuff in school.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 23 July 2008 08:08 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

In Ontario, its a very different situation, Catholics here tend to be much more religious than the average Ontarian,

In that case, it is far more urgent that taxpayers stop funding Catholic public schools. I didn't realize how bad it was. If these schools were "Catholic" in name only, it might be seen as less of a priority. But given what you are saying about abortion and same-sex marriage and birth control, and if Catholic kids really have no right to opt out of the mumbo-jumbo, it becomes all the more important to implement this call now:

No new students in Catholic public education!

I think the vast majority of Ontarians would support that as fair and equitable.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 23 July 2008 08:37 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think that Catholics in Ontario tend to send their kids to separate schools because they have a stronger Catholic identity - not the reverse. Or, as i mentioned, a lot of people think the separate schools have much higher standards.

maybe this would be a solution. Change the separate schools into the "High Academic Standards School Board" and change the public schools into the "Lower Academic Standards School Board" then parents can choose whether they want their kids to go to schools with higher or lower standards - irrespective of religion!!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Left J.A.B.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9046

posted 23 July 2008 08:55 AM      Profile for Left J.A.B.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Or, as i mentioned, a lot of people think the separate schools have much higher standards.

Except this is absolute balony. The public board is the school system of 'last resort'. Problem children, or high needs kids, at least in rural areas are often 'encouraged' to attend the public system. The Catholic boards have no obligation to take a student. The public boards must. Saying there are higher standards is totally wrong, and laughable.


From: 4th and Main | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 23 July 2008 09:06 AM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Left J.A.B.:

Except this is absolute balony. The public board is the school system of 'last resort'. Problem children, or high needs kids, at least in rural areas are often 'encouraged' to attend the public system. The Catholic boards have no obligation to take a student. The public boards must. Saying there are higher standards is totally wrong, and laughable.


Can the Catholic boards refuse students on stricter criteria than the secular boards?


From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 23 July 2008 09:11 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm not saying that separate schools actually have higher standards. I'm just saying that this is a common perception.

Why else do you think that someone who wasn't even Catholic would send their child to a Catholic school???

[ 23 July 2008: Message edited by: Stockholm ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lord Palmerston
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4901

posted 23 July 2008 09:23 AM      Profile for Lord Palmerston     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
We keep hearing from defenders of the status quo that "lots of non-Catholics" attend them. Certainly not true at the elementary level, but in high schools are there are any figures of what % of separate school students province-wide are non-Catholic?
From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 23 July 2008 09:54 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Why else do you think that someone who wasn't even Catholic would send their child to a Catholic school???

If you read the letter to Ms. Communicate, you would have noticed that a self-described "extremely anti-Catholic" parent is considering sending her kid to a Catholic school because it is reputed to have "better programs" but more interestingly, because it is "right around the corner" whereas the real public school is a "25 minute drive" away.

This disturbing scenario shows that real public schools are grossly under-resourced and that too many buildings are being dedicated to the Catholic Church.

Who ever heard of driving 25 minutes to get to the nearest public school???

These buildings must be reclaimed and turned into real public schools as quickly as humanly possible. The least disruptive way of doing it is to convert each incoming student cohort into a non-religious regular syllabus. It should start now, so that the problem can be cured within a few short years. This is truly disgraceful.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Skinny Dipper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11459

posted 23 July 2008 09:56 AM      Profile for Skinny Dipper   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Although I don't like referring to EQAO provincial test results for grades 3, 6, 9 and the grade 10 literacy test, I will this time. If Catholic schools had higher standards than public schools, the test results would be much higher. More students would be getting levels 3 and 4 (B's-70's and A's--80%+) I'm guessing that both are statistically on par +/- a couple of percentage points from each other.
From: Ontarian for STV in BC | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 23 July 2008 10:55 AM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Who ever heard of driving 25 minutes to get to the nearest public school???

Ummm, as was pointed out in one of the other threads, in many parts of Ontario it is quite common to be a 25 minute drive away from the closest school, let alone a 25 minute drive away from the closest school in a particular board.

The laws of physics require that where there are two of something, more often that not one will be closer than the other. From my parents house, for instance, the closest high school is in the public board; from where I live, the closest high school is in the catholic board. Neither of those facts indicate anything about the relative number of schools, or the resource levels the boards are provided with.

quote:

This disturbing scenario shows that real public schools are grossly under-resourced and that too many buildings are being dedicated to the Catholic Church.

The separate and public school boards in Ontario are subject to the same funding formula. The insufficiency of public resources is a problem faced by both types of boards, and won't be fixed by eliminating the separate system. Further, no buildings are dedicated to the Catholic Church; we're talking about schools run by democratically elected school boards here.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 23 July 2008 11:05 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the grey:
The insufficiency of public resources is a problem faced by both types of boards, and won't be fixed by eliminating the separate system.

Please try to hear my point. If I have to drive 25 minutes to a non-Catholic school, while the Catholic school (which I cannot possibly send my kids to because of my freedom of conscience) is right around the corner, and if both these schools were non-sectarian, then I would not have to drive 25 minutes to a public school and neither would the people who send their kids their now.

It's kind of simple math.

As for the story (repeated by a number of posters here) that Catholic schools are perceived as having "better programs" than public ones, that must be eliminated. I never said getting rid of religious public schools would solve underfunding problems. But it would certainly solve the perception that religious public schools are better than the real kind, wouldn't it?

quote:
Further, no buildings are dedicated to the Catholic Church; we're talking about schools run by democratically elected school boards here.

Who said they weren't "democratically elected"? I'm sure they are and I applaud them for that. Likewise, the so-called "Holy Father" is democratically elected by the college of cardinals. And I'll bet it's even the democratic wish of many of the parents to have religious indoctrination in those schools. Democracy is pretty rampant.

They should exercise their God-given democracy privately. No one should be exempt from funding non-sectarian public schools, hospitals, roads, water... You want a Catholic or Muslim or Jewish road? Build one on your own property. Just make sure you pay your taxes for the real roads when the tax collector comes around.

[ 23 July 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Left J.A.B.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9046

posted 23 July 2008 11:12 AM      Profile for Left J.A.B.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pogo:

Can the Catholic boards refuse students on stricter criteria than the secular boards?


Absolutely! And they often do not provide special education services.

There is a huge inequity, (and here I am talking about our experience in rural Southwestern Ontario only) between the resources and the rest. Often the Catholic schools are nice new facilities. (You can get money to build a new school, but much harder, and poorer funding to refurbish and older school). Enrollment numbers do not carry the same weight in the Catholic board as they do in the Public board in terms of keeping schools open and the like.

As well many of the people, at least that I am familar with opt out of the public system because of equity reasons. For instance they don't want to have their children taught that gays and lesbian families are equal, or should even be considered a family. They like the promotion of anti-choice rhetoric and this all starts at the elementary level.

The switches to the Public system are usually disipline problems, troubled kids, or kids with educational difficulties. The Public board has no option but to take them. The Catholic board does.

The sooner there is not longer a Catholic board and the discrimination it promotes the happier I will be.


From: 4th and Main | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Left J.A.B.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9046

posted 23 July 2008 11:17 AM      Profile for Left J.A.B.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the grey:

The separate and public school boards in Ontario are subject to the same funding formula. The insufficiency of public resources is a problem faced by both types of boards, and won't be fixed by eliminating the separate system.


That is only part of the story. Many public schools in rural areas have as part of their reasons to be on the chopping block is the so-called prohibative costs of repairs and maintenance. Since the Catholic schools are often much newer, and there is far less pressure on numbers, but on providing faith based education, there is far less pressure to close Catholic schools. As well, because they are not required to accept anyone who comes to the door, they do not have to 'waste' resources on those that are problematic.


From: 4th and Main | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 23 July 2008 11:20 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why would catholic schools be newer? we are talking about a system of public and separate schools that goes back to the time of Confederation.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 23 July 2008 11:25 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It took you a few months, Stock, but you've finally become a cheering champion of Catholic schools. Think it over.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 23 July 2008 11:36 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Why else do you think that someone who wasn't even Catholic would send their child to a Catholic school???
Oh, gee, I dunno.

Maybe because there's no Muslims, Hindus, Jews, or atheists there?

Maybe because there's fewer people of colour who attend, or teach in, Catholic schools?

ETA: or gays?

[ 23 July 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Left J.A.B.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9046

posted 23 July 2008 11:37 AM      Profile for Left J.A.B.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why would catholic schools be newer? we are talking about a system of public and separate schools that goes back to the time of Confederation.

I was talking about rural Southwestern Ontario as I said. There is this whole big province outside of Toronto - you should come visit us sometime - learn our history, find out who we are.


Anyway follow the logic. Before separate school funding there often were no separate schools. After funding was instituted there was a huge spate of building of separate schools in places where there may have been a large Catholic population, but not big enough to support a financially independent school historically.

On the other hand- public schools have been in communities for generations. Some places got quick builds for the baby boomers, but those schools and the older ones have been left with only basic maintenance for quite some time. Much easier and sexier for politicians and officials to give out money for a new school with the photo friendly ribbon cutting ceremony. Actually maintaining schools is not a priority or given much consideration.

So viola - you have newer Catholic schools and crumbling public ones in communities all across Ontario.

[ 23 July 2008: Message edited by: Left J.A.B. ]


From: 4th and Main | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 23 July 2008 11:41 AM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Left J.A.B.:

Anyway follow the logic. Before separate school funding there often were no separate schools. After funding was instituted there was a huge spate of building of separate schools in places where there may have been a large Catholic population, but not big enough to support a financially independent school historically.

On the other hand- public schools have been in communities for generations. Some places got quick builds for the baby boomers, but those schools and the older ones have been left with only basic maintenance for quite some time. Much easier and sexier for politicians and officials to give out money for a new school with the photo friendly ribbon cutting ceremony. Actually maintaining schools is not a priority or given much consideration.

So viola - you have newer Catholic schools and crumbling public ones in communities all across Ontario.

[ 23 July 2008: Message edited by: Left J.A.B. ]


Isn't that already a generation ago. Wouldn't it be fair to say then also that since then most new schools on the same footprint would be secular?


From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 23 July 2008 11:48 AM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Who said they weren't "democratically elected"? I'm sure they are and I applaud them for that. Likewise, the so-called "Holy Father" is democratically elected by the college of cardinals. And I'll bet it's even the democratic wish of many of the parents to have religious indoctrination in those schools. Democracy is pretty rampant.


The comparison doesn't hold. Separate school board trustees in Ontario are elected following exactly the same procedures used to elect public school board trustees in Ontario. I was unaware that the Pope was elected according to the democratic system established by Ontario's Education Act, in which, by the way, there is no role for the Catholic Church.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Left J.A.B.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9046

posted 23 July 2008 11:49 AM      Profile for Left J.A.B.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Most small town and rural communites haven't seen a new public school in several generations- at least, not just in the last 15 years.

[ 23 July 2008: Message edited by: Left J.A.B. ]


From: 4th and Main | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 23 July 2008 12:42 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Maybe because there's fewer people of colour who attend, or teach in, Catholic schools?

I'm not sure about that - a lot of the growth in the catholic population in Ontario has been as a result of an influx of catholic "people of colour" from places like the Philippines.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 23 July 2008 02:21 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the grey:

I was unaware that the Pope was elected according to the democratic system established by Ontario's Education Act, in which, by the way, there is no role for the Catholic Church.

I'll bet the Education Act doesn't mention the Crucifixion or Transubstantiation or even Jesus Christ or God or Mary!

By the time you're done, you'll convince us all that there's nothing actually "Catholic" about the Catholic schools at all!

Or, that the Catholics running them owe no allegiance to the Church!

It's just sort of like a different flavour of a secular school!

I'm happy to hear that Catholic schools in Ontario are apparently run by independent Catholics who have nothing to do with the Catholic Church, or indeed with the religion which is run by Mr. Ratzinger.

Why would anyone have a problem with this?

Thanks for the clarification.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 23 July 2008 07:29 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
There are actually a surprising number of non-Catholics in Ontario who send their kids to separate schools - because (rightly or wrongly) the separate schools are perceived as being much more rigorous and having much higher academic standards etc... - and those kids are free to opt out of any religious stuff in school.

And in many case, just because it's the only alternative. If your kid has trouble in school, or you don't like the teacher or the principal, or your kid is getting bullied at school, or your kid is becoming too close to some bullies, or . . . pick your problem, you can send him or her to the other school, that is, the Separate School. In theory they could refuse to take an elementary student, but it never happens, in our county. One of the interesting side effects is that there are enough non-Catholic elementary students that the Catholic atmosphere is becoming a bit non-sectarian. They still get the Christian ethics mixed in with other subjects, but then again, even in the public schools it is the statutory duty of a teacher to inculcate by precept and example respect for religion and the principles of Judaeo-Christian morality and the highest regard for truth, justice, loyalty, love of country, humanity, benevolence, sobriety, industry, frugality, purity, temperance and all other virtues (s. 264, Education Act). Which is not normally mentioned, while in the Separate Schools parents can actually expect it.
quote:
Originally posted by Left J.A.B.:
Saying there are higher standards is totally wrong, and laughable.

Indeed, and that's not an argument I see as often since the province took over 100% funding.
quote:
Originally posted by Left J.A.B.:
The public board is the school system of 'last resort'. Problem children, or high needs kids, at least in rural areas are often 'encouraged' to attend the public system.

That was a problem at one time, when the Separate Schools tended to be poorer and smaller. I don't hear of that in recent years.
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Palmerston:
We keep hearing from defenders of the status quo that "lots of non-Catholics" attend them. Certainly not true at the elementary level . . .

Yes, at the elementary level too, in our county.
quote:
Originally posted by Left J.A.B.:
Most small town and rural communites haven't seen a new public school in several generations- at least, not just in the last 15 years.

Not so. You mean secondary schools, and it's true that the only really new secondary school in Port Hope and Cobourg is in the Separate system, although two others were built in the 1950s, which we tend to call new here. But we have several really new public elementary schools and not one really new separate elementary school. Next door in Clarington, which is part of our same school board, we have Clarington Central Secondary School opened in 2005.

[ 23 July 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 24 July 2008 07:48 AM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the grey:

The comparison doesn't hold. Separate school board trustees in Ontario are elected following exactly the same procedures used to elect public school board trustees in Ontario. I was unaware that the Pope was elected according to the democratic system established by Ontario's Education Act, in which, by the way, there is no role for the Catholic Church.


I'll admitt to not knowing for sure what is right now, but I do know that at least in the very recent past a letter from a priest attesting to the moral character of a prospective teacher, in at least some boards, was required. Even if it has been done away with on paper, I would be willing to bet it holds a lot of weight still.


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 24 July 2008 08:51 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Very interesting post from another thread:
quote:
Originally posted by retiredguy:
Darn, I miss all the fun stuff. First thing I have to say is, I'm not going to theorize, I'm going to generalize from my experience. Not one thing I say here can not be backed up with a real life example.

First, the Catholic system is discriminatory. They have the right to, and discriminate against qualified teachers, on the basis of their religion. No publicly funded body should have that right. There are many teachers who are Catholic teaching in the public system. But only Catholic teachers can teach in the Catholic system. This is a clear and strategy of the Catholic church in Ontario to try and ensure that Catholics teach the majority of Ontario's children, Catholic or not.

Second. If tax money is used to support Catholic schools, and Catholic schools hold compulsory masses during school hours, tax dollars are being used to fund religious services. Again, no other religion in Ontario has the right to do this. It's discriminatory and should be illegal.

Third, only the Catholic religion has the right to teach religious courses during the school day. IN grades 9, 10 and 12 Catholicism is taught for a one credit course in the Dufferin Peel board. And in that board, it's compulsory. No other religion can determine for the ministry what can be taught in 3 credit courses. The Catholic board has even rewritten the grade 11 World Religions text to conform to a Catholic perspective.

In short, the Catholic Church has taken the opportunity to have Catholic schools and turned it into Catholic privilege, taking for themselves opportunities denied every other religion in Canada.

Having taught for the Windsor Board of Education, The Timmins Board of Education and the Dufferin Peel Catholic School Board, I would also offer the following the observations. This would not be necessarily be generalized to all boards, but would be food for further exploration. I found that based on my experience with these Boards, the Catholic board was a poisoned environment for the teachers. After all the goal of a Catholic board is to produce Catholics. We wouldn't want to alienate and future Catholics by actually demanding any accountability by the students. The first day I marched a kid down to the office for a black and white uniform violation, the student actually said to me, " I don't know why you're doing this, you're going to be in the office longer than I am." He was right, and it remained true throughout my Catholic teaching career. Discipline was so much better in the public system, it was a joke. Public school students had more time for electives such as tech, art and music. By the time you subtract 4 religion courses from the 12 possible electives, Catholic students could take one third fewer electives than the equivalent public school student.

My solution.. one public school system for everyone. If parents feel compulsory religious education is necessary, ad and extra period to the day and use the resources of the school to enforce attendance. But the same opportunities should exist for all religions. If they miss extra-curriculars, tough luck. Making religion painless is a farce. I gave up tons to be a member of a small religion when I was in high school. Catholic education as practiced in Ontario is a scam.

During Catholic education week there was a shameless assembly promoting Catholic Education, where it was clearly stated that a Catholic Education was superior to any other type of education and that the students were so lucky they were getting one.

In my opinion, such shameless self promotion and bigotry should never be paid for with tax money. The current system discriminates against everyone but Catholics. And I have completely lost all respect for those who try and make themselves out as anything but privileged opportunists.

The Catholic system promotes ignorance on a grand scale, to the point where students used to seek me out to get answers they couldn't get elsewhere such as, " Do other Christians celebrate Christmas?". No lie, if you support the Catholic system, that's what you are supporting. Keep your faith, but live in the world.


[ 24 July 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 24 July 2008 09:46 AM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:

I'll admitt to not knowing for sure what is right now, but I do know that at least in the very recent past a letter from a priest attesting to the moral character of a prospective teacher, in at least some boards, was required. Even if it has been done away with on paper, I would be willing to bet it holds a lot of weight still.


I'm not sure what that has to do with the system for electing school board trustees. In any case, Catholic boards are not required to insist on such a reference; the elected trustees choose to impose that requirement.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 24 July 2008 09:51 AM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Such a requiremnt is completely undemocratic, therefore it is not the case that
1. the Church has no influence
2. the seperate school system is a carbon copy of the public one in terms of openness and democratic rule within the system itself.

From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 24 July 2008 11:09 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the grey:
Catholic boards are not required to insist on such a reference; the elected trustees choose to impose that requirement.

But it is, indeed, the one remaining link to the Church.

I am reliably advised that B.Ed. students, having spent the last four years at university failing to attend mass regularly or at all, suddenly find it necessary to sign in at church every weekend (unless they are out on placement) so they can get a pastoral letter confirming they were regular church-goers while in their B.Ed. year. It is unwise to skip mass more than once all year. Token church-goers, but that seems to be the best the Separate School system can get.

[ 24 July 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 24 July 2008 11:18 AM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:
Such a requiremnt is completely undemocratic, therefore it is not the case that
1. the Church has no influence
2. the seperate school system is a carbon copy of the public one in terms of openness and democratic rule within the system itself.

While I share in the disagreement with the policy, I don't see how it's "undemocratic." It is discriminatory, but discrimination isn't undemocratic outside the context of elections, and we're talking the hiring of teachers not the election of school board trustees here.

Further, I've never suggested that the Catholic Church has no influence; I've merely noted that the Church does not itself control the separate school boards, the elected trustees do.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 24 July 2008 01:59 PM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sorry, but that is just semantics.

The bald facts are that the seperate school system holds a place in Ontario society that allows it to discriminate in its hiring practices, preach from the school grounds, teach things that are contrary to our human rights codes and beliefs as a province and still receive government funding. Any way to slice it that's undemocratic.


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 24 July 2008 03:03 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by retiredguy:
The Catholic system promotes ignorance on a grand scale, to the point where students used to seek me out to get answers they couldn't get elsewhere such as, " Do other Christians celebrate Christmas?". No lie, if you support the Catholic system, that's what you are supporting. Keep your faith, but live in the world.

It seems anachronistic at best for progressive people to try to defend such a system. The Catholic public school system obviously has no place in a modern democratic society. It must be abolished - the only question is how to do it with minimal disruption. And I sincerely believe that "no new students" does the trick.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 24 July 2008 03:24 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
From the Lakehead University education dept. website:
quote:
Pastoral letters are a required part of an interview package with the Ontario Roman Catholic School Boards in Ontario.

In anticipation of requests for a pastoral letter, you must attend Sunday morning information sessions. You will be required to register for and attend all Sunday sessions in order to be considered for a pastoral letter from the University Chaplain's Office. This letter will complement the letter that you are expected to obtain from your home parish. You will be expected to attend Sunday services at Avila during the full academic school year....



From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Skinny Dipper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11459

posted 24 July 2008 03:36 PM      Profile for Skinny Dipper   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It sucked seeing the poor saps go partying Saturday night and then wake up Sunday morning, walk in -30 degree Celcius weather to go a 20 minute church service. When I think about it, it sucked being in Thunder Bay. I can't believe I actually complained about the 78.5 cents per litre gas price.
From: Ontarian for STV in BC | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Skinny Dipper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11459

posted 24 July 2008 03:40 PM      Profile for Skinny Dipper   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Lakehead was great. The people were nice in Thunder Bay. I felt so isolated living in Thunder Bay. There is no neighbouring town to go to on the weekend. My cell phone didn't work outside Thunder Bay.
From: Ontarian for STV in BC | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 25 July 2008 04:56 AM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:
Sorry, but that is just semantics.

The bald facts are that the seperate school system holds a place in Ontario society that allows it to discriminate in its hiring practices, preach from the school grounds, teach things that are contrary to our human rights codes and beliefs as a province and still receive government funding. Any way to slice it that's undemocratic.


It isn't semantics, it's English. Any way to slice it, none of those things are undemocratic. (And note that I'm not opposed to prohibiting discrimination in hiring pratices, restricting preaching from school grounds, and banning teaching things contrary to the human rights code. I'm just opposed to shutting down the system.)


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 25 July 2008 06:31 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's like being opposed to exploitation, racism, sexism, political repression, aggressive war, police brutality, disease, and starvation, but being opposed to getting rid of capitalism.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
reglafella
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15348

posted 25 July 2008 09:03 AM      Profile for reglafella     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think it would be a good idea if we were to disband the separate school system.

But then how would Catholic School trustees finance vacations and clothing and so on? We aren't going to expect them to start paying for their own perks out of their own pockets, are we?


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 25 July 2008 09:24 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
And I sincerely believe that "no new students" does the trick.

Well I'm all for Taliban religious studies in Ontario and Quebec. I think our democratic society is poorer in the absence of those voices for progressive theocratic feudalism. Besides, Catholics bug me to no end.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lord Palmerston
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4901

posted 29 August 2008 04:05 PM      Profile for Lord Palmerston     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Michael Prue won't come out for abolishing Catholic school funding, but wants to have a debate on the issue.

http://www.thestar.com/article/471537


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 29 August 2008 07:59 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Maybe he'll benefit from the Labour government's initiative of expanding publicly funded "faith" schools:

quote:
Ministers are being urged to stop faith schools in England selecting pupils and staff on the basis of their religion.

Accord, a new coalition of secular and religious figures, wants the government to stop state-funded schools engaging in what they say is "discrimination".

It argues that all children should have equal access to good local schools and that segregating them on religious grounds harms community cohesion.

The government argues faith schools can help boost standards in deprived areas. ...

In September 2007, Schools Secretary Ed Balls said the government would open more faith schools where there was parental demand. ...

Children's minister Kevin Brennan said faith schools were a long-established part of the state school system in England.

"Parents should be able to choose the type of education and ethos they want for their children. The bottom line is that faith schools are successful, thriving, popular and here to stay."


Maybe that's the key to electoral success?

ETA: Sorry, I should have provided the link, and I think I'd like to repeat the most disturbing sentence in the previous article:

Parents should be able to choose the type of education and ethos they want for their children.

Now there's social democracy for you.

[ 29 August 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
bagkitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15443

posted 29 August 2008 09:12 PM      Profile for bagkitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Tempest. Teapot.

I was always under the impression that minority confessional schools were originally protected under the BNA Act and that their continued existence was just recognition of a historic compromise.

As one who survived the Calgary Separate (Catholic) Schools experience, I am left thinking of them as a particularly unsuccessful anachronism, one that is not worth spending political capital on opposing.

I am not so foolish as to claim that their continued existence is fair, but then again, few compromises are fair in the long run.

I just look back on my experience in them as a great training ground for skepticism, a certain amount of anti-clericalism, amusing anecdotes pointing out why nuns should not be given authority (much less disciplinary discretion) over children and fond memories of driving teachers totally batshit by pointing out contradictions during catechism class.

Frankly, I think more societal harm is caused by tying statutory holidays to Christian feastdays... and even on that issue I would prefer to see legislation guaranteeing several "optional" statutory holidays that employees can use, if so desired, to observe whatever religious holidays are of relevance to them than in trying to reform the existing calendar.

Overturning historical compromises in order to achieve a totally secular society is just not a battle that particularly interests me.


From: Calgary | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 28 October 2008 07:31 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Taking this discussion out of the ONDP leadership thread:
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
The Catholic public school system obviously has no place in a modern democratic society.

Well, one or two people in Ontario don't understand Quebec either.

I'm trying to think of something that would make you understand how Ontario Catholics feel. (Not easy for me either, being a miserable sinner.)

Far-fetched analogy: suppose Quebec had decided, 130 years ago, that synagogues would be exempt from municipal taxation only to the extent of the first 600 square feet, on the facetious grounds that, in 1867, this was the average size of a shul.

Suppose Quebec Jews had campaigned for 110 years to reverse that blatantly discriminatory (not to mention anti-semitic) rule, and twenty years ago they had succeeded.

Suppose that the anti-semites had been nursing their grievance and cursing their defeat for the last 20 years, and had come up with a new idea: the rationale for exempting churches from municipal taxation is because they also serve a community function, being a site for weddings, funerals, fund-raising teas, and many other events which were once seen as religious but are now non-religious community events. Therefore, only one church in each community should be exempt from municipal taxation: the largest one, or the one of the largest denomination. Either way, what they mean is: the Catholic Church. All Protestant churches, synagogues and mosques should pay municipal taxes, they propose.

Is that something Quebec Solidaire should support?


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 28 October 2008 07:49 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:
Therefore, only one church in each community should be exempt from municipal taxation: the largest one, or the one of the largest denomination. Either way, what they mean is: the Catholic Church. All Protestant churches, synagogues and mosques should pay municipal taxes, they propose.

Is that something Quebec Solidaire should support?


Poor analogy, Wilf. In your hypothetical example, Québec solidaire and indeed all democratic-minded citizens should condemn the religious discrimination of the past and present, condemn the transparently theocratic scheme to make the church tax exempt, and remind the authorities forcefully that Québec long ago built secular publicly-owned community establishments in every neighbourhood called CLSCs (in English, "local community service centre") which provides a host of health, social, and recreational services.

So, not the church - not any church - but the CLSC - secular, publicly owned, tax exempt.

Anyone who feels the deep-seated spiritual need to conduct "fund-raising teas" only among co-religionists and far from those of the "wrong" faith should be free to do so - and pay their freight every penny of the way.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 28 October 2008 07:57 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Unless those feudal religionists happen to be waging jihad against secular socialists trying to ram women's rights down their throats. Then the madrassas have our full financial and moral support
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 28 October 2008 08:00 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hey, Fidel:

Q: What do they call a penguin in the Sahara desert?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

A: Lost.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 28 October 2008 08:04 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I was merely pointing out the fine print caveat to your own rule. Carry on - and ignore yours truly, chilly willy.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 28 October 2008 08:22 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ok, I'll carry on.

Wilf's analogy fails on another front. Suppose the ostensibly public and secular schools in Ontario were really façades for Protestantism, the largest faith, and the end of Catholic public schools was really a tool to bestow an educational monopoly on Protestant churches. That's kind of the scenario Wilf painted in his Québec example.

Well, I don't know - if that's the nature of public schools in Ontario, then the religionists must be chased out of there. The answer is not to "let a hundred varieties of God-worship contend, generously financed by the public purse", nor even two varieties.

In Québec, ten years after abolishing all religious-based public schools, the government, in this very school term, banished the residual optional religious courses which occupied a couple hours each week, replacing them by a single uniform moral and social course which surveys religions without pandering to any of them.

The bishops screamed, of course, but there was no echo. Their anachronistic cry hovered briefly over Mount Royal, then vanished like so much morning mist in autumn.

Ontario - arise! This is the 21st goddam century, after all.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 28 October 2008 08:48 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So how do you feel about Punjab as an official language in Canada in addition to French and American?
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca