There’s an issue that has been simmering for some time now on the education scene in the province of Ontario, but it appears that the heat has been turned up on the matter over the past couple of weeks and, if all goes well, it will come to a full boil in the months to come.
If all goes well, you say?
The time has come for full-fledged conversation, debate, Royal Commission—perhaps all three—regarding the issue of a fully-funded Catholic school system in Ontario. I don’t think that we’ve ever really had one…a conversation, that is. Instead, the issue lives just beneath the surface of the educational landscape here in this province and, although it breaks through to inspire provocative conversation at cocktail parties, family reunions and around the water cooler, it’s never really been fully and thoroughly addressed in the public square or, even more important, the legislature.
Well, one provincial politician did mention it once, in a roundabout way, and paid the price.
The issue of publicly-funded Catholic schools in Ontario has started to bubble up recently as the result of the Ontario government’s insistence that, as part of a new anti-bullying policy, students at any publicly-funded school in the province be permitted to form any type of support group that they choose and, more important, be able to call it whatever they wish. The monaker, Gay-Straight Alliance is the real sticking point here. On the one hand, the government feels strongly that bullying connected with sexual orientation must be identified, named and brought out into the open. On the other hand, the Catholic Church is adamant that the use of the word gay would serve to acknowledge something that its theology clearly rejects.
So, there’s been a bit of a standoff around the issue with many citing the real elephant in the room as Catholic schools accepting government money, yet wanting to live by their own set of rules and precepts.
So I say, let’s leverage the attention currently being paid to the issue and use it as an opportunity to address the bigger, more robust elephant head on. Let’s name it and begin to do something that not many seem to be willing to do: DEAL WITH IT!
We need to begin by admitting that the constitutional provision that guarantees Catholic schools access to government money has lost any real semblance of credibility in a 21st conversation about school funding. The ground has shifted substantially and the historical argument loses more of its punch with every census report. Most of the people that I know who still play the constitutional card do so with more than a little discomfort.
We also need to ask questions about the number of students that attend Catholic schools that are actually solidly connected with a Catholic Church community. It’s my sense that this number continues to decline, but we need to ask the question.
At the same time, we need to wonder why politicians are so reluctant to talk about the issue. What is it about talking about publicly-funded Catholic schools that is considered anathema?
I’ve been teaching in a Catholic school system for the past thirty years. I have very much appreciated having the opportunity to work in a culture that resonates with my own faith life, and allows me to freely use the language of that life with my students and colleagues. There is a distinct character and spirit in our Catholic schools and it would be a positive thing for many if that were able to continue.
But, the existence of publicly-funded Catholic schools is threatened, not by the power struggle between church and state that is currently playing out in Ontario. but by the lack of full and open public dialogue about what we really want our educational landscape to look like in this province. We’ve been resting on old laurels, on old arguments and a very tired sense of constitutional entitlement.
It’s time for some fresh, honest and open thinking about education, schools and the way that taxpayers money is being spent on both. We need our education leaders and our politicians to stop shying away from the issue and, instead, lead us in a democratic conversation.
And I think that the group that should be pushing hardest for the conversation is…you guessed it…the Catholic school system!
So, if you were invited to participate in a conversation about public funding of Catholic schools, what questions would you want to see on the table? What new ideas or arguments would you introduce that might shed some new light on the issue?
Stephen, I am one of those people who has always been terrified to talk about this issue, but since you have put it on the table I can’t justify remaining in hiding. I have always been one of those Catholics who just wants the problem to go away. I want the naysayers to leave us alone and pretend we don’t exist. You see, I’m afraid that if we discuss the future of publicly funded Catholic Education it will be revealed for what it is, discrimination. I have always smugly defended it as being our “constitutional right” because, after all, “it is in the constitution”, as if the constitution has the same infallibility as the Pope. I have been a “lifer” when it comes to my schooling and my career. I am a proud product of the separate school system and and an even prouder employee. My basic belief system tells me that I am a better person for having attended Catholic schools. I have been a better teacher for having “spread the word” to so many children for so many years in teaching them about our faith. I still believe that we are instrumental in the formation of people of goodness. Which begs the question; are publicly funded non-catholic schools any less instrumental in the formation of people of goodness? The answer, of course, is “no”. I am no good at reading into the political and economical aspects of the debate but I do question the position of a government that says, “You can have your own system and we will fund it. But you, you, and you go away and start up you own private schools based on your beliefs and, you can forget about any funding from us”. This is where I have doubts about the validity of the constitution and why I don’t want to talk about it for fear it will be taken away from us. I understand why it it was included in the first place but that was then and this is now. It is akin to the U.S. constitution giving citizens the right to bear arms. How do you take it away? I’m not sure but I’m thinking this latest head-butting between church and state will evoke a lot of emotional debate and the movement to change the constitution will begin, or gather momentum once again. There! I’ll bet that helped a lot didn’t it?
Thanks for plunging into this, Michael. It is interesting that most of the responses that I’ve received on this…most of them private messages…have come from people that have been a part of the Catholic system for many years. That’s one of the reasons that I think that the conversation would be more powerful if it began from within the community.
Can someone please tell me where in the Constitution it says that Catholic schools should have full public fiunding?
All I hear people say is “It’s in the Constitution” but they don’t say where.
I have read the Constitution of 1867 over and over and cannot find anything specifically on that subject.
Just spell it out for me, please.
Thank you.
http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1867.html
Article #93
Hello Stephen,
When I copy and paste that link into my browser, I get:
“The webpage can not be found”
Stephen,
The link you gave me included Chapter 93 at th end, which is why I couldn’t open it.
O.K. Below is the Chapter 93 to which you refer.
I have read this chapter, and there is no mention of public funding for Catholic schools, only very general reference to both Protestant and Catholic minorities.
Nowhere does it specifically refer to full funding for Catholic schools.
——————————————————————————————–
93. In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education, subject and according to the following Provisions:–
(1) Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class of Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union:
(2) All the Powers, Privileges and Duties at the Union by Law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the Separate Schools and School Trustees of the Queen’s Roman Catholic Subjects shall be and the same are hereby extended to the Dissentient Schools of the Queen’s Protestant and Roman Catholic Subjects in Quebec:
(3) Where in any Province a System of Separate or Dissentient Schools exists by Law at the Union or is thereafter established by the Legislature of the Province, an Appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or Decision of any Provincial Authority affecting any Right or Privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic Minority of the Queen’s Subjects in relation to Education:
(4) In case any such Provincial Law as from Time to Time seems to the Governor General in Council requisite for the Execution of the Provisions of this Section is not made, or in case any Decision of the Governor General in Council on any Appeal under this Section is not duly executed by the proper Provincial Authority in that Behalf, then and in every such Case, and as far as the Circumstances of each Case require, the Parliament of Canada may make remedial Laws for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section and of any Decision of the Governor General in Council under this Section.(50)
93A. Paragraphs (1) to (4) of section 93 do not apply to Quebec. (50.1)
Uniformity of Laws in Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
Len, below is a historical time line on Catholic Education in Ontario
http://www.ocecn.net/catholic_education/significant_events.htm
I check the time line, it appears to be correct.
If you really want to understand why Catholic schools received public funding, one has to read the history concerning the funding of public schools, the roots at both levels of government and of course the extreme bias of Protestant political leadership towards Catholics. Back in the 1860s, being Catholic in Ontario could be dangerous for one’s health. Ontario was known as Protestant country, and it resulted in Catholics living in communities separate from the Protestants. I could name quite a few towns and villages throughout Southern Ontario, that were known as Catholic towns. Starting in the 1960s, the Catholic and Protestant divide was breaking apart, to where in 2012, it is no longer the case in Ontario. Or I could tell you my own experiences as a youth, being Catholic in a Ontario Protestant town. I was lucky to have a Protestant surname, and so I was not single out as much, as my Italian friends that live down the road from me. My point is, there is a reason why Catholic schools are publicly funded and it is based on the Constitutional law.
Below is an essay, detailing the history of publicly funded schools in Manitoba.
http://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/mb_history/12/brandonpublicschools.shtml#31
“In addition to informing the development of Brandon’s Protestant school, the Ontario Protestant model of non-sectarian public schools shaped the attitude and actions of Brandon’s Protestant community towards the city’s Catholic school. During the early years of the decade the city’s tax-supported Catholic school was acknowledged as a valuable institution, but beginning in 1886 Protestant community leaders determined to discredit the Catholic school. Once this was achieved they sought to remove any obstacle to the efficient operation and development of public schools. The basis for such a system had already been created in the city’s Protestant school. The controversy over the Jesuit Estates question, which erupted in the spring of 1889, simply provided an opportunity for Protestant community leaders to press their case against Brandon’s tax-supported Catholic school and the province’s dual school system which they viewed by then as fiscally wasteful, socially divisive, and inappropriate to the broader national agenda of the Canadian community.”
It all started, because Protestant parents were sending their children to the Catholic school, because it was viewed by the parents as being the better option for a quality education for their children.
One must remember, the secular public schools has its roots in the Protestant faith values. In Manitoba, the Protestants won, for being the overwhelming majority, but in the case of Ontario, the population was more or less evenly divided, between the Protestants and Catholics. What would be of interest, to get a taste of what was happening in Ontario, is to read a book published in 1912.
“The object of this volume is to give a succinct idea of the nature and history of our Ontario School Legislation. This legislation is so bound up with the name of Egerton Ryerson that to give its history is to relate the work of his life.
It would be useless to attempt to show how our school legislation developed under Responsible Government without some understanding of its history previous to the time of Ryerson. I have, therefore, devoted three chapters to a brief account of education in Upper Canada previous to 1844.
No attempt has been made to give the history of our schools since Ryerson’s retirement, partly because no radical changes have been made, and partly because it would involve criticism of statesmen and teachers who are still actively engaged in work. Nor has any attempt been made to trace the history of University education after 1845. To do so would require a complete volume. But, as University education prior to 1844 was so closely connected with Common and Grammar Schools, it seemed necessary, up to a certain point, to trace the course of all three together.”
http://www.gutenberg.ca/ebooks/putman-egertonryerson/putman-egertonryerson-00-h.html
Also a Wikipedia article on Separate schools – “The Constitution of Canada does not establish separate school education as a natural or unconditional right available to all. Only Protestants or Roman Catholics, whichever is the minority faith population compared to the other in a community, can consider the establishment of separate school education. The separate school establishment right is not available to citizens of any other faith (such as Jews, or Mormons, or Hindus, or Muslims). In addition, the minority faith must establish that they wish to leave the public school system and create a separate school system.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_school
Rather amusing, in 2012 the public schools still reflects much of the Protestant faith values, and in fact the Protestant values has been institutionalized in the operations of schools. The question is, are Ontario secular public schools really as neutral as they purport to be?
Once again, we get to the root of the problem, and the problem is religion, There is no more divisive force than religion. We’ve seen it in Ireland, where you could be shot for being the wrong type of Christian. In my birth country of Scotland, I’ve seen violence at soccer games over religious hatred, i.e, Glasgow Rangers hired only Protestants, and Celtic hired only Catholics, and while that practice has ceased, the religious hatred and violence still continues. Also the concept of segregating children into schools of their own religion, especially when it’s PUBLICALLY FUNDED, as it is with Catholic schools, is wrong, wrong, wrong.
It’s no better than racial segregation in the U.S. south.
What we need is a modern day Martin Luther King, to bring us all together, and not segregated by religion or skin color.
Wake up people, this is the 21st century, not the dark ages. Let’s cut down these religious barriers and live together as civilized humans beings regardless of religion or race.
I say we should have one public school system for ALL children, and those who want to send their children to private religious schools, should pay for them, not expect a public handout,
Have a nice day, y’all.
I agree that this issue needs close examination. The decision to provide public funding for catholic schools comes from a time when Ontario was a very different, less diverse province. How can we, in good conscience, say all members of our society are equal and yet deny equal funding for schools of the many other faiths in Ontario. How does that make sense to the thousands of Muslims, Hindus, Mennonites, Pentecostals, etc.
The second question of course is financial. How long can we continue to fund two completely separate public schools systems. The duplication and extra expense must be immense.
Thirdly I question whether faith based schools can comfortably exist inside a public system. As the GSA debate has shown, sometimes the beliefs and practices of a faith and actions of a free and equitable society are at odds. The potential for these kinds of conflicts seem endless. Can Sihks students wear the ceremonial dagger, the kirpan, in school when knives are contraband? Can Muslim students cover their faces? And so on.
I’ve always been told that we have a catholic school system because funding for catholic schools is guaranteed in the constitution because it is considered part of French culture, one of the three founding nations. Where is the Anglican school system then? Why do we have a public Catholic system AND and public French system? The whole thing seems confusing and not very sensible.
In trying to understand this more I found this article about how the Newfoundland school system made the transitions from faith based to secular (http://www.thestar.com/article/257102–newfoundland-offers-religious-school-lessons). The fact that it’s possible to make this transition is encouraging to me. We aren’t locked into a decision made hundreds of years ago, but can actually have a discussion about how best to move forward.
My preference is that there be one strong, secular public system. If various faiths wish to set up their own schools then let them do that outside the public system. This gives them the freedom to do so with a minimum of conflict and interference from the government. It also allows the public system to move forward efficiently and with a clear vision.
As always, thanks for the thoughtful comments, Andrew! Interesting that, in Newfoundland, the educational guarantee was one of the things that drew that province into Confederation.
I’m also thinking…and I would love to get others’ insights on this, that the Catholic Bishops in Ontario may actually be longing for this issue to come to a head. It is my sense that the prospect of abandoning the agreement with the Ontario government totally and being free to set up a network of private Catholic schools would be a more appealing option to them. Haven’t heard them come out and say it; just an intuitive sense!
Very thoughtful writing. I wish everybody thinks the way you do.Thanks
Stephen,
Congratulations for hitting this issue head on. I don’t begin to understand the intricacies of the issue so would never venture too deep into the conversation. But I most certainly have an opinion
You did ask what questions needed to be asked. I have one: “What is it that makes the Catholic school system unique?” This question seems obvious yet I ask it after having spent over 10 years working as a teacher for a Catholic school board and another 10 working as a teacher and administrator in a public one. When I reflect on my own experience, the only difference I can come up with is the inclusion of liturgy and sacrament as part of the school experience. I’ve heard people state that the Catholic system does a better job of integrating character education or that it has an easier time because everyone shares the same fundamental values system. Again, when I compare my own experiences in both systems, and I am fully aware that this is my own experience, that hasn’t been the case.
Here’s hoping that the conversation starts. Cheers.
Thanks Peter! From your experience, do you think that students educated in the Catholic system miss out on anything that students in other schools might get?
When I started teaching I applied to a Teaching Apprentice Program. What I didn’t know if that by applying to the North York TAP I was also applying to all the TAP’s. Surprise! I was offered a place In the MTSSB TAP program. I called them up and explained that I wasn’t catholic and so couldn’t accept the offer. I was surprised to hear them say that wasn’t a problem. They were happy to have me, and if I wanted to teach for them, getting a pastoral reference wouldn’t be much of a problem. Since then I’ve seen many examples of families and students using the separate system to get what they want, even though they aren’t catholic, and the catholic system being quite happy to let that happen as it gave them $ and increased legitimacy. I think this dynamic strikes to the heart of Peter’s question about what makes the catholic system unique. I’m not sure how much the catholic system is really about being catholic any more, but rather an amalgam of faith based reasons with a lot of self interest mixed in.
A parent, a Catholic, and having experiences in both the public and Catholic school systems, I am in a position that I have seen both sides of the coin. I went through the public education system, because my parents thought it was the best option for my education, Back in the early 1960s, the public or Catholic system, was more than likely to tell the parents to take their kids home, or send them to the nearest institute to learn basket weaving. But not the two local schools, who work together to figure out with my parents, what would be the best school for me, and in the end it was the public school. that was willing to fight it out with the naysayers and prove them all wrong, that I was a mental defect.
But that was back in the day, when a singular public school had a lot of power and flexibility to work for the best interests of their students. I am afraid in the public education system, the school that I went to, do not exist in any form. Today, I would be labelled, and tossed in the pile of the rejects and be given a second-rate or even a third-rate education. The Catholic system does a superior job when it comes to the education of all children, and not the pet favourites of the public education system, that dares to put out in their mission statements, equal education opportunities for all students.
Bias, no but the experience of both sides of the coins. In one of the posts, the mentioned of what happened to the Anglicans? Another suggestion to look at NL, and to which both answers can be found in the historical files. Ontario today is still as ‘Orange’, as it was in the 1800s, but today it is buried so deeply – hardly anyone knows that the Ontario public education system emerged from the Protestant school system model of the 1800s, that strictly forbid Catholics from attending. However Catholics like Protestants formed like-minded communities sharing a common religion, where the local Catholic church would open up their own schools, and the Protestant church officials would open up their own school facilities. In Ontario, the Protestant school system became the winner of the day that became the foundation for the present day public education system.
I find it rather ironic, for the supporters of a single secular public education system, to argue on the basis of the Constitution, without using the historical context, of which the Constitution rests on, and the validity of the separate and public education system of why it is still enforced in Ontario. Buried deep in the historical files, are the systemic discrimination of Catholics by the Protestants who had the majority power in government and the economy. Now, that is something no one wants to talk about in 2012, and the question does it exist in the same forms of discrimination in the governing structures of government and its agencies, just buried more deeply.
Stephen is correct, the conversation has to move off the Constitution to the bigger elephant that has been ignore. Which education system does a better job in educating the children in Ontario?
I would state without hesitation – the Ontario Catholic system – based on the statistical data in the outcomes, that no one likes to discussed either. On the SQE site, the Sunshine Schools, will provide the data on the top schools in Ontario, and the majority are the Catholic schools. The stats are also displaying the superior results compared to the public education system, regarding the education of SE students, and I can go on, but that is not my point. My point is, every time the debate of separate versus public comes up, there is an underlying assumption by the supporters of a secular public education system, that the public education system is superior to a Catholic education.
As I said before, I know both sides of the coin, the public education system of today, rests on the foundation of the old Protestant school system, its faith values of being morally superior to Catholic morals. To understand, one would have to go back into history and how the Protestant values played out in 19th century Ontario, and how they are being played out in the 21st century.
Using Newfoundland and Labrador, is another cop-out, because the history of education in NL developed much differently than on the mainland provinces, and as well as there economic and political systems. There was very valid reasons why NL went secular, but when it did, the Catholic schools did not change their names, nor were the crosses or other religious Catholic symbols were removed, and in fact, the only change that happen was the way the education system was funded. In the community that I live in, at one time 4 different schools operating under 4 different Protestant religions, and all of the surrounding communities within a 150 km radius, were all Catholic schools. The only Protestant toe hoe, was the community that I live in at presently.The reason being, the community historically, was originally founded by the French, and that requires another set of history books regarding the wars between the British and the French.
I personally experience the discrimination and the benefits of being both a Catholic in a public school setting. In elementary school, I had no Catholic friends because I went to ‘the public school’ with a few Orthodox Catholics, and the only time I even seen Catholic kids, was at church every Sunday. In the public high school, I had developed and was befriended by Catholic teens who took advantage of the large extended networks of the Protestant side of town that I processed to extend their social lives. Being Catholic in a Ontario Protestant town in the 1960s, has its advantages and disadvantages. In the Ontario town that I was raised in, the ironic historical fact, the first church that was built was the Roman Catholic church, and the second church to be built was the Anglican church built in the adjacent block, when the Empire Loyalists came flooding in from United States. Of course the Anglican church is much more impressive than the Catholic church, but the new settlers were making their point, there is a new marshal in town, and Protestant values will be the foundation for this town from now on.
As to the question that Stephen posed – ” At the same time, we need to wonder why politicians are so reluctant to talk about the issue. What is it about talking about publicly-funded Catholic schools that is considered anathema? ”
The politicians have to open up that can of worms, of the systemic discrimination of Ontario Catholics in the 19th and 20th century within the framework of all the historical files, local, regional, national and globally. If anything the present day separate Catholic school system will be found valid and the only way to rendered and acknowledged the past to amend the past sins of by gone eras.
You asked the question, “are students at Catholic schools missing out on things that students at other schools might not be”… as someone who attended Catholic school, the simple answer is “no”. The issue of gay rights and Gay-Straight alliance always brings the Catholic school issue to a head, and although I see why, part of me wonders why it needs to be. The Catholic Church, and Catholic schools have never hidden their opinion on the matter, yet people seem to be shocked when they say it out loud. What’s even worse, is that people connect this with Catholic schools bullying homosexual people, which is simply not true. What people seem to forget is that, although the Catholic church has an opinion on this matter, it does not correlate for them sanctioning the bullying, harassing, or anything of the like to people who are gay.
The one reason why I believe it should be left alone is because there are still a lot of people who choose to send their children to Catholic schools. There are also a lot of people who choose to have their taxes go to the Catholic school system. While the historical reasons may no longer be relevant, to take away something from children and families now would be a greater injustice. The simple fact of the matter is that you have thousands of students still attending Catholic schooling, and if you make it an election issue or threaten to convert them to public schools, I guarantee you’re either not going to win the election or you’ll have every one of those parents defending their schools. The simple fact of the matter is that children who come out of Catholic schools are negatively effected, in comparison to children who go to public schools. Also, after spending my life in Catholic schools and hearing from my friends at public schools what was happening there, I would confidently state that bullying, fighting, and the like happened FAR LESS at my school than at the local public schools.
Hi Krista,
Thanks so much for your very passionate reply. It’s difficult to enter into this type of conversation without getting passionate…well, at least I find it difficult.
In asking the questions around this issue, I’m not suggesting that I believe that the Catholic system be abolished, but that the conversation be had, and for a variety of reasons.
As an advocate of the system, what are some of the questions that you feel need to be asked in the conversation? What areas of the debate (if we were to have one) would you want explored that, perhaps, don’t usually get talked about.
I appreciate you weighing in on this one and hope that other points of view emerge, here and elsewhere!
Also, following Nancy, if you look at sunshineonschools.ca and examine test scores, Catholic Schools are drastically outperforming public schools in almost every area. As far as education goes, they’re obviously doing something very right. Ignoring the religious context, they seem to be providing a higher quality education. If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it….
Thanks Krista,
I haven’t looked carefully at the test score data, for a couple of reasons. But, in your opinion, what are the things that account for the difference expressed in those statistics? What are Catholic schools in Ontario doing in terms of teaching and learning that is not being done in other schools? Again, if we’re willing to engage in the conversation as a province, we’re going to need to be clear on why we believe that the status quo needs to be maintained, or why it should be shifted.
The obvious response to ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ is…’it’s broke!’.
Firstly, we have a provincial system which needs to shrink because it is costing tax payers too much money. The system has a limited capacity to do that before we have to look at the duplication having two parallel systems causes.
Secondly the people running the catholic system are very publicly opposing the policy of the government and popular opinion on a basic human rights issue. Most people in Ontario support the naming of GSAs. The ‘anti-naming’ stance must be at least confusing to gay students and maybe worse. What other possible conflicts may there be in the future? (birth control? women’s rights?).
Thirdly, most Ontarians don’t support public money for catholic schools. Newfoundland has shown that the ‘constitutional guarantee’ isn’t as lock solid as once thought.
Fourthly, having a separate catholic system throws up all kinds of equity issues. Why fund a catholic system in communities where other faiths predominate? Why only catholic, why not Muslim or Hindu or Sikh, or Protestant, etc. To say nothing of the fact that this is an institution that uses public money and openly practices discrimination in it’s hiring and selection of students. What other public institutions to we tolerate this in?
There are responses and replies to all these things, but they are all significant issues that require and deserve public debate and scrutiny. We need to ask ourselves, as a society, why we have a catholic system and what having a catholic system says about us. The answers to those questions will inform what we do next.
Can we afford to keep whatever one portion of our publicly funded system is doing right away from another part? Lets’s #endontarioschoolsegregation now. If it isn’t broken, let’s not only fix it; let’s bring it on!
Its funny, because I’m an advocate of the system not because I have a strong religious tie to the schools, but more so because I know that, on average, they do provide a far better education to students. I’ve seen it in my home town, I’ve seen it in the fact that the majority of people I knew in university (and I went to one of the top universities in Ontario) had attended either private or Catholic schools. I think people really need to stop focusing on what Catholic schools are doing wrong by having an affiliation to the Church, and more on what they’re doing right. I do truly believe they foster a better learning environment for children.
What I am going to say next is probably going to be controversial, but hey… since its opened up for discussion I might as well say it. In summary, I don’t necessarily think that the religious aspect in schooling is bad. From an early age we were constantly taught the simple things like “do onto others as you would have them do onto you”… and I know it sounds crazy but this constant reinforcement I think generated a lot more respect for fellow students, teachers, property, etc. Like I said, not to say that bullying didn’t exist, but in the local public schools, there were always issues of gangs, vandalism, violence, harassment of teachers, issues that my school never had. Not to mention, these students came from the same demographics, so they were no different then us in that sense. I think we can all agree that nowadays, the reinforcing of morals and proper behaviour by parents is drastically failing. Children aren’t taught them anymore. I think that having a school, where students spend most of their time, that consistently reinforces positive morals and behaviours, can not be a bad thing. Granted, you don’t have to be religious to enforce these types of morals, but within public school, any mention go the “Golden Rule” is labeled as religious and therefore is not even talked about. This only leads to the opposite end of the spectrum, which can be seen in the UK where I am currently living. The state (public) school system has become so bad that the majority of people will pay private fees just to send their kids to better schools. Their literacy scores are shocking (well below Canadian scores), the violence towards fellow students and teachers far more noticeable, to the point that many people are paying to send their children to religious schools now! There is so little respect from children here that it genuinely shocks me. This has also been noticed by my best friend, who went to Catholic high school with me, and is now a supply teacher here in the UK. (In the UK, state schools cannot have any openly profess any religious, even if they have some religious affiliation).
Like I said, I know that my above comment will probably be controversial, but after witnessing both sides of it, its the one observation I’ve come to.
I believe the the key is to FIX the public system
there is no reason u cant teach ethics in a public system.
another reason the catholic school system has higher test scores is because they can be selective about who they allow , any rejects go to public schools and bring down the average.
but maybe there is really something catholic schools do differently that does make for better students beyond the religious aspect , and if so that should be studied and used to improve our current public system. in fact the entire school system needs an overhaul in many ways. it has been proven that what we knew 50 years ago that was used to create our current suspect was not correct & there are better ways to learn and teach that what we are doing now.
it has been proven that what we knew 50 years ago that was used to create our current SYSTEM was not correct & there are better ways to learn and teach that what we are doing now.
The public Catholic schools do better, in part, due to greater funding per pupil.
I don’t know whether catholic schools offer a ‘better education’ than public schools, and I think that probably depends on which students you are talking about. I don’t think standardized test scores matter much and I think demographics will show that catholic school families generally higher income and education levels than their public school counterparts. What I do think is a factor in this, however, is the element of choice.
Families have to make a choice to attend a catholic school, it is rarely the default option. Just the fact that there are many families choosing to send their children affects the learning environment. This marks those students out as coming from a family who cares enough to choose something else. It is the same effect that you get with any choice families make (French immersion, arts based learning, Montessori, etc.). It says to the student that this is very important to us. It’s often then reinforced by the family commitment to make it work, to drive further, to attend fundraising activities, etc.
In my teaching I’ve also seen this dynamic used by many non catholic students to move to the catholic system. One Anglican family sent their daughter to the local all-girls catholic school to keep her focussed on her studies during her teen years. Many families have sent their children to catholic school because they think that discipline is stricter or they like the idea of structures like uniforms. I’ve also seen the catholic system used as a threat by parents who want their children to perform better.
None of these things matter much of course, but the act of making a choice to do something different does, and that may be reflected in the schools.
“Thirdly, most Ontarians don’t support public money for catholic schools. Newfoundland has shown that the ‘constitutional guarantee’ isn’t as lock solid as once thought.
Fourthly, having a separate catholic system throws up all kinds of equity issues. Why fund a catholic system in communities where other faiths predominate? Why only catholic, why not Muslim or Hindu or Sikh, or Protestant, etc. To say nothing of the fact that this is an institution that uses public money and openly practices discrimination in it’s hiring and selection of students. What other public institutions to we tolerate this in?”
First, NL a short history lesson – “The most widespread reported complaints against the denominational system were that it was needlessly expensive, did not adequately educate the province’s youth according to North American standards, and was undemocratic; although the government provided the money, church-appointed officials decided how to spend it.”
http://www.heritage.nf.ca/society/collapse_denom_edu.html
In NL, they were 7 denomination school boards operating schools, and as one is reading the link, it becomes obvious that a combination of factors and variables such as demographics and geographical landscape, the denomination education system, was becoming an very expensive funding model. However, to use NL to support the argument of an Ontario secular education system, is a false one, since Ontario along with three other provinces, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are the original provinces at the time of Confederation. The British North America Act was signed, and within the act, the rights to a Catholic education would be secured constitutionally thereafter. NL was its own nation, when NL joined Canada in 1949, that already had a well-developed education system under the denomination label of many, compared to the original 4 provinces of Confederation, who went along the pathway of evolving separate Catholic and public education system. Below, an essay showing the Catholic perspective in Ontario in historical format.
http://www.ocecn.net/catholic_education/enduring_gift.htm
Equity? How about turning the face of the coin around, and look at the inequities of the Ontario public education system? Rather amusing, when looking at it from a historical perspective to the present education model of either the public or Catholic, and compared it to the statistical data of the last 20 years, beyond the achievement data.
“The system has a limited capacity to do that before we have to look at the duplication having two parallel systems causes.”
The argument is valid, providing the duplication are of two equal values. But is it, when outcomes of the Catholic and public students are a sight to behold, and the approaches of both systems, are as different as night and day. Krista, states, “From an early age we were constantly taught the simple things like “do onto others as you would have them do onto you”… and I know it sounds crazy but this constant reinforcement I think generated a lot more respect for fellow students, teachers, property, etc.” I fully agree with Krista, because the Catholic approach and its roots are a much different beast than the public education system, that sees rights from a human rights lens, narrowing their approaches where children and their education are decided upon gender, race, sexual orientation, disability and income levels. It results in inequities that forms the conditions for behaviour of inserting their human rights, without being held accountable for their behaviour. The Catholic education system, does a much better job in ensuring their students are taught to insert their human rights along with being taught the responsibilities of the individuals, to insert their human rights. As Krista, has stated, it is the constant reinforcement of simple Christian themes, such as ‘do unto others as you would them do onto you’ that is absent from the public education system. How fair is it, when the public education system deliberately dismisses values, simply because the roots are Christian?
Many of a non-Catholic family, who have faith values outside of the Toronto region are choosing Catholic schools, when the school officials are telling parents their values are too high, or too low depending on the situation, and being accused of holding values that are teaching their children to practice discrimination. The public school officials do not state it in words, but it is in their actions and decisions that leads to parents making other choices other than a public education for their children.
So because there has been historic inequity we can’t have equity in the present? That doesn’t make any sense.
The arguments in favour of preserving a catholic system can be equally applied to any other faith, culture or system of belief. Why should catholic beliefs get their own ed system but not Jewish, or protestant, or Muslim, etc. If the argument is that Catholics were historically discriminated against, then how can Catholics now allow these other groups to be similarly mistreated?
Non-catholics are entering the catholic system not because they endorse catholic beliefs but because it is a public system that gives them what they want. If there were other public options for these families they would use them. It isn’t catholic values that attract them but public funding for something they value (same-gender schools, uniforms, elitism, traditional ed models, etc.).
I fully support the right of any faith group to set up their own school and teach their beliefs system so long as it conforms to the laws of Canada. That’s what most other faith groups have done and willingly paid for. What I don’t understand is why public money is used to support this for just one group. This is 2012 and we no longer live in a country of two solitudes. It’s time to move forward.
The issue of the Catholic and Public education systems, came up in a very slick way of the political kind, that excludes rational debate and forces people to pick their sides.
If one does not advocate the secular public education system, than that person is the bigot, against human rights, and every other adjective that puts all participants on all sides picking sides and/or avoiding the debate altogether and/or as equally devastating remaining quiet, and picking a side even if it goes against their personal values and culture of an individual. Debate takes place at the lower levels, rather than the higher levels to assert what is being said, has evidence to support it. Such things, that gay students are exposed to higher numbers of bullying than all other students. Really? Where is the support for it, compared to the evidence support that students with lesser ability – the low achievers – the ones with learning struggles are bullied at a great frequency than all other groups put together. Funny thing through, this group composed of straights, gays, gender, all races, and all incomes represents the biggest sub-group out of all the sub-groups, and yet their cries go unheeded in an education system that is suppose to be all about equity.
“But Premier Dalton McGuinty says he’s convinced Catholic educators and parents will soon accept that the goal of the law is to make schools safe and accepting places for all kids.
“McGuinty says the issue of protecting kids transcends any one faith and partisan politics, but stopped short of accusing the Tories of homophobia for opposing the bill.
Deputy PC Leader Christine Elliott says McGuinty used the anti-bullying bill to trigger a debate over the funding of Catholic schools and use it as a wedge issue against the Tories.
The New Democrats pushed to have the Liberal bill amended to make sure students could use the word ’gay’ in the name of their anti-homophobia clubs.”
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/05/ontario-anti-bullying-bill-passes-third-and-final-reading-with-ndp-support
Safe and accepting places for all students? Not so, for the kids with the labels other than the gay label, but until one walks in the shoes of my LD child, or the shoes of an autism student or the shoes of an ADD student, than they would truly know what it feels like to hide in the closet figuratively speaking, trapped within the closet – damn if they do and damn if they don’t. Not a week goes pass, that my 16 year old is defending students of lesser ability and their value in society, and if not she is condemning other students who take ownership of words that are exclusive words for students with disabilities.
“I am so dyslexic today”
“I am all ADD today”
“I wish I was a SPED kid”
If not the above, how straight or gay speak unkind thoughts about kids with lesser ability and make fun of them.
Safe and accepting schools? No way, but the education officials of the politico kind have not been able to figure out how to do the most possible damage, attacking their political foes and turn the students with lesser ability into a wedge issue, just like it has been done with sexual orientation.
The Catholic education system, does a much better job in having a more inclusive environment for all shapes and sizes their students come in, but it cannot be said for the public education system, that insists on having students to transform themselves into the one shape, of political correctness and where it is quite acceptable to discriminate against one group, or whole groups of people. And they call it equity.
The ironic part – it is called an anti-bullying bill. How crazy is that, when a gay-straight alliance club, more than likely all share the same values and attitudes towards students with lesser ability, for obvious reasons. No one wants the label of stupid etch on them, or the social repercussions of having lesser ability.
But in this world, being gay and straight are the status labels , and as my 16 year old who rolled up her eyes, and stated, she does not want another label, and wants to be treated with respect as an individual and the values she holds, even if the values are of polar opposite to others.
The equity policies should honour and respect the personal individual values, and not imposed other values of others, that disrespects the individual and their values.
No question that our government’s refusal to address this question is getting ridiculous. I’m a nurse, actively involved with community services. Seven years ago I got into education and human rights advocacy when my Grade 9 daughter didn’t have a math textbook because her school only had enough for half the class. The biggest waste of money, then and now, is our divided school system. The only barrier to bringing the RC and public systems together is our provincial parliament. The Constitution and the Education Act can be changed quite easily if our elected officials ever decide to respect fundamental human rights equality over non fundamental Catholic education protections. After we act to treat Catholics equally to all other groups then we can determine how and if to support educational choice. Always remember though that’s it’s far easier to give than to remove. Alberta people are starting to agitate for less choice because the special schools are ghettoizing the regular public schools. And there’s always someone looking for public funding- a bonanza. It’s a few years old, but Johnathon Kozol’s “The Big Enchilada”from Harpers 2007 (google it) presents great research about the self-selection factor. The kids who really need the benefits of great public education are the one’s most likely to be harmed by increased choice. In York region they are opening a Catholic Grade 4-8 Arts school 2 blocks from a Public Grade 4-8 Arts school. Ridiculous. Is there no respect for taxpayers?
Political will, is necessary to unite the two systems, but is impossible at the moment until the education ministry actively addressed the inequities within both system. The reason why I have mentioned the latter, because the confusion of what the education is legally charge with, the authority to deliver basic education services. The devil in the details who defines education services and no where in the school act does it state within the legal framework the quality of education services, nor the number of textbooks.
Having textbooks for only 1/2 of the classroom, does not fall under human rights, unless the student has a disability, and can prove that having a textbook, is crucial for the student’s progress.If truth be told, a school board only has to provide for the teacher, and one student text for the entire classroom. Went through that one in advocating for my youngest child who has LD, and I always had to insert my child’s rights under disability, to obtain access whenever she needed the science textbook, before the students without disabilities could obtained the science textbook.
The shortage of textbooks has everything to do with the administration of the school board, and in part the individual schools because textbooks are seen as resources, just like pencils are and the funding model and its structure. In other words the more savvy the school administration is, increase likelihood of each student receiving a textbook or even a pencil, but is governed what is in the funding pot. Just today, heard an administrator on the morning talk show, moaning about paying Peter by robbing Paul. In short, to provide one resource another resource must be dropped. and it is a dilemma that is faced by many schools. The reason is that the education system are legally charged with to provide education services, by they only need to reach the legal minimum threshold of a basic education.
The other problem that the politicians have to wrestle with, and that goes across Canada, does students have education rights, and if so what sort of rights. The right to learn to read, is one such right, that usually have the condition the right to learn to read well. It is not as simple as one thinks, but it is complicated, when the provincial education systems from the east coast to the west coast, only have to provide a basic education by providing the education services. What are the education services? Good question, especially when a class of 25 students are sharing 12 books, which is more common than what people think it is, and the unwillingness of the school boards to provide access for e-textbooks and other e-formatted material. The school board gets away with it, because they only have to provide a minimum basic education.
“The Constitution and the Education Act can be changed quite easily if our elected officials ever decide to respect fundamental human rights equality over non fundamental Catholic education protections.” But can it, because the Constitution protects and secures a right to a Catholic education, and it would mean taking away the protection for Catholics, Hard to do, where Ontario was ground zero between the power struggles between the Catholics and the Protestants, back in the late 1800s.
On the flip side, do our elected officials respect the fundamental human rights in the Charter and Rights of the Constitution? No, not in my eyes, in both education systems, but the Catholic education system does a much better job at providing education services that are respectful of the rights pertaining to education, that leads to a better quality education of students.
” The kids who really need the benefits of great public education are the one’s most likely to be harmed by increased choice. In York region they are opening a Catholic Grade 4-8 Arts school 2 blocks from a Public Grade 4-8 Arts school. Ridiculous. Is there no respect for taxpayers?”
Another can of worms? Should the taxpayers be on top, deciding what education services should be provided, ignoring the education needs of the students. It comes to no surprise, that art schools are popping up in the urban areas, judging from decades of reducing art, music programs and even physical education to mickey-mouse programs that has little education value. My child’s art program consisted of paper and paste, and colouring, and no improvements were made until grade 7. Some schools don’t even have the funding to provide paint and paper for primary and junior grades, and yet the parents remember their school days, highlighting the art and music classes. Parents want the same things for their children, and are walking with their feet to the arts schools. Meanwhile, my children were born in different decades, and I have to honestly said the quality and substance of the arts programs has gone downhill to where, I had to provide and exposed her to the arts at home.
Another can of worms that everyone loathes to discussed, is the differences between rural and urban education services, in either the public or Catholic systems. In rural areas there is little choice and often rural students make do with less, and having both systems the public and the Catholic does provide choice, that otherwise would not there if it was left up to the public education system.
Those in rural areas are currently being subsidized by the rural areas, in part, because education property taxes collected in urban areas is higher, per capita, compared to rural areas, and the cost to provide services, especially with respect to daily transportation, increases as population density decreases. Choice will still exist, in the form of public French schools, home schooling, private schooling or moving to a different catchment area.
Those in rural areas are currently being subsidized by the urban areas, in part, because education property taxes collected in urban areas is higher, per capita, compared to rural areas, and the cost to provide services, especially with respect to daily transportation, increases as population density decreases. Choice will still exist, in the form of public French schools, home schooling, private schooling or moving to a different catchment area.
Thanks to all who jumped into this conversation. It’s difficult to approach the issue of public funding for religious schools without becoming emotionally attached to positions and arguments. I appreciate the honesty and rationality with which visitors have weighed in here.
It will be interesting to see where this one goes in the media and in the legislature over the next few months. It could be that the recent attention that the issue has received will be diverted over the summer months. But, perhaps not…
I thought the idea put forth by the PCs that pushing GSAs was really just a political tactic by McGuinty to bring up public funding for Catholic schools through the ‘back door’ was an interesting one. If true, then we fell right into it didn’t we
The time has come to #endontarioschoolsegregation.
The time has come to end the practice of maintaining segregated schools and separate boards for Catholics in Ontario.
The issue is not about funding Catholic schools. It is about continuing to fund segregation of Catholics within our publicly funded system.
Continuing to maintain segregated schools and their associated boards for individual religious groups within Ontario’s publicly funded school system is no longer in the best interests of Ontario taxpayers.
Perhaps Chris – but think of the consequences as David Warren has outlined in the Ottawa Citizen.
“The separate existence of a Catholic school system is a legacy of the past, under constitutional protection that has been consistently upheld in the courts. Getting rid of it is impossible. But defunding might be politically feasible as a way to obviate that legacy, and force a merger of the two systems in practice.
Note what it would actually involve. The money for Catholic schools comes out of the pockets of Catholics and others who prefer it. This is appropriated by the province, which then declares its own unlimited authority, thereby politicizing every aspect of educational enterprise. “Policy” now rules, and one Procrustean size fits all. The policies are in turn increasingly dictated by the “experts” — in reality, the best organized lobbying forces, advancing agendas which often have nothing to do with education, and everything to do with ideology.
The losers in this bargain are the parents, the children, and the teachers. All are now answerable to the edicts of the state; none trusted to the light of their own good faith and conscience.”
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/Defunding+education+Ontario/6734825/story.html#ixzz1x1lya3uC
Moving to the Toronto Star article in today’s newspaper – an interesting poll
“Ontarians who want to scrap $7 billion in taxpayer support for separate schools outnumber those who favour it, a new poll says in the wake of Catholic objections to an anti-bullying law passed Tuesday.
The poll, conducted Monday by Forum Research Inc., found that 48 per cent of Ontario residents disagreed with taxpayer support of Catholic schools while 43 per cent agreed with a continuation of public funding. Eight per cent were unsure.”
I would not call it an overwhelmingly majority for defunding the Catholic education. I call it a near tie, but if the allegation is correct, the Liberal government is putting the idea of defunding the Catholic education system out in the open – the Catholic schools still stand at the end of day, and their portion of property tax will still be directed to the Catholic schools, and the parents would go back to the old days, where their paid part of the costs. Not just parents, but as well as other people without kids in their homes. Ontario haven’t see nothing yet, it is not about the practising Catholics, but the people who value the Catholic schools that will be coming out of the woodwork to protect the Catholic education system.
If the comments of the two articles are anything to judge from, there is some hatred directed at the Catholics, bordering on hate speech, that will ultimately bring the pro-Catholic school advocates out of the woodwork to protect the constitutional rights afforded to Catholics in 1867. It is the nasty comments that brought me firmly on the side of the Catholic bishops, and to maintain the separate Catholic education system.
Thanks, Nancy
I just think that we can no longer afford the costs of maintaining the geographically overlapping, two-system structure if we want a world-class public education system in Ontario.
Forgot to include the Toronto Star link. Sorry……….
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1206557–nearly-half-of-ontarians-oppose-catholic-school-support-poll-finds
Nancy said, “The money for Catholic schools comes out of the pockets of Catholics and others who prefer it.” Not so. Municipal taxes contribute around 25-30% to a board funding. That is the portion where property owners direct their taxes to either the public or the RC system. The rest is from general provincial taxation and federal transfers. The provincial funding formula is primarily based on enrolment, and other demographic factors. The Ed. Act requires that funding be allocated equitably to the boards and the amount transferred from the province varies in relation to the municipal portion collected. Even if no one directed their municipal taxes to the separate system they would end up with the same total funding than if everyone directed their taxes to the RC system. It’s irrelevant. The RC boards strongly encourage their ratepayers to direct their taxes to their system because it shows support for the system, but it does not effect their board’s total funding.
I also must respond to statements that the RC system is better than the public system. In the past many RC boards did get higher average scores on student testing. Those differences become insignificant when results were controlled for other factors including first language, parent’s education level, and Zero scores. The Ministry consistent warns against board to board comparisons because results must be controlled for these other factors. Two years ago the Auditor General’s recommendations included having boards EQAO results tabulated excluding the Zeros. Those represent the students who did not complete the testing. A school with many Special Ed. students will appear to be inferior just because their averages are pulled down by this population.
I know many educators are not fans of the Fraser Report, but this year there were interesting findings. About 30% of the top schools were RC schools- proportional to the percentage of RC schools in Ontario. About 1/3 of the top performing schools were in areas where the average family income is lower than the provincial average. Interesting. We should investigate further whether these areas also represent higher than average proportions of ‘new Canadians”. Anecdotally we’ve all seen many newcomers who highly value education and do very well in school- is this a factor that is making public schools perform better overall? Always more interesting research to do.
Finally, consideration of how best to provide publicly funded education ought not be limited by current structures and current law. The province’s resistance to allowing stakeholders to come together to form a vision for education for Ontario in 2012 is not justifiable. In 2007 the candidate McGuinty eloquently supported public schools where all kids come together, and he said it’s not the time’ to talk of bringing RC and others together because the province had just survived the stress of the Harris years. Four years on that excuse doesn’t work.
I found an excellent report that would put many into thinking beyond, and hopefully put an end to spinning history to suit their angles.
Roman Catholic Schooling in Ontario: Past Struggles, Present
Challenges, Future Direction?
“Terri-Lynn Kay Brennan
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
University of Toronto
Abstract
Ontario Roman Catholic communities have established and maintained their own schools for
over 200 years. Yet, their struggle for survival has not come without many challenges, setbacks,
and criticisms. With the achievement of open-access at the secondary level and equal funding
across the system, many question the legitimacy and worthiness of maintaining two Ontario
educational systems. Compounded with the modern faith diversity witnessed in many Roman
Catholic schools, those challenges are coming, ironically, from both within as well as between
the systems.
Keywords: Roman Catholic Schooling, Ontario, Anti-Colonialism”
ojs.vre.upei.ca/index.php/cje-rce/article/download/708/1098
There is so many gems of food for thought in the paper, well-balanced, but a much different way of looking at it. It brought up memories, and one of them was the 2 to 3 trips yearly, to Waterloo, Ontario to visit our Aunt Mary since I was a infant.
Now picture this, a tree lined street, not far from down town Waterloo, on one side old houses of brick, spacious, and anywhere between 4 to 5 bedrooms, On the other side of the tree lined street, newer and smaller homes, that look puny compared to the big homes across the street. My aunt lived in one of the big spacious homes, and by the age of 6, I learned a new word, Protestant and my first experience of some mean kids, yelling strange names at us. Over the years, I soon learned not to stray across the street, and walk around the Protestant blocks if I knew what was good for me. On the side of the street my Aunt Mary lived on, it was the Catholic blocks. My sister and I eventually found other kids to play with, all Catholics and when we got a bit older, off we went exploring all parts of Waterloo. Every time we would arrived, the kids across the street would come out, and stare at us. It was almost as if they wanted to come across the street, but an invisible barrier was stopping them. But when we strayed over there, even with treats in our hands, and a skipping rope, they told us to beat it, if you know what is good for you. And we leave, still trying to figure out why they are acting like they are. My aunt was a kind soul, who had the squirrels feeding out of her hand, birds coming real close, and she always had candy for her grandchildren and grand-nieces and nephews. One day, I asked Aunt Mary if the kids across the street ever come to visit her, and she said no dear, because their parents will not allow it. Years later, it was confirmed when I was attending Octoberfest, and the two boys who lived across the street, now men, were also attending. The boys, confirmed it, and wanted to apologized for their behaviour. And then they teased me because I was always wearing my Sunday best when I visited. That must have been torture, and I agree. I was a farmer’s kid, quite accustomed to wearing overalls.
MY point is, the report confirmed the outward hostile attitudes of some Protestants towards Catholics in the 1960s that I experience. The report outlines the hostile attitudes of Ontario throughout the years, and what Catholics had to endure. The oddest thing, where I lived in Southern Ontario, I never experience any open hostile attitudes from any people who was of a different denomination, including the Protestants. But that does not mean it did not exist, because I was well aware of the family stories being passed down from one generation to the next, and as Catholics we had to watch our back.
It certainly seems to be at play in Ontario, when reading the news and the comments flowing out. and that attitude is the same attitude that I was exposed to on that tree lined street in Waterloo, in the 1960s.
Last paragraph of the report is worth noting:
” The struggle that Roman Catholics have put forth to be recognized as a legitimate
community who warrant the right to educate under their own guidelines is a crucial aspect to
understanding the evolution of Roman Catholic schools in British colonies around the world. The
determination and success in avoiding assimilation within the Protestant-governed territory of
Ontario is one of noted pride amongst Roman Catholic communities and the educational system.
However, with the ever-changing landscape of schools and schooling across the vast multicultural
and multi-spiritual landscape of the province, the legitimacy of Roman Catholic
schooling maintaining their unique faith-based lens on knowledge acquisition and delivery must
be questioned. The provisions for maintaining any form of education outside the secular will
always be challenged by mainstream society (Matthews et al., 2003, p. 29). Yet, since the identity of the clientele at schools is constantly changing, so too should the constitutional
framework that legitimizes an educational system that privileges one faith above all others. Even
when the Euro-centric nature of Canadian schools is deconstructed — toward revealing the
historic legacy of Roman Catholic education in Ontario — the political power dynamics that the
system still enacts on modern youth is apparent. Overarching these revelations is that the Roman
Catholic school system might offer an alternative to a secular system, but by the very nature of
its colonial assimilationist routine, it will eventually drive its clientele away. The Ontario Roman
Catholic school system needs to embark on a process of self-reflexivity to thereby acknowledge
its bias and historical position as oppressor within the defense of being oppressed. With these
actions, the voices of our most valuable clients, the youth in schools, will continue to become
empowered and valued as fully respected voices of identity from the past, in the present, and for
the future.”
“They may be in political hot water over gay-straight alliances, but Ontario Catholic schools outshine public schools in straight-up achievement, suggests a report to be released Thursday by the C.D. Howe Institute.
Of the top 29 schools in Ontario — based on a fancy formula that screens out family factors that give some schools an edge — 17, nearly two-thirds, are Catholic even though the public system is twice as large.”
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1207283–catholic-schools-more-often-score-better-than-public-schools-new-c-d-howe-report-shows
On the SQE site, it reflects the same type of numbers, favouring the Catholic system.
Nancy, count the days… they are numbered.. any excuse you want.. the catholic school board is discriminatory, and will be abolished for a single secular school board. id bet this happens in the next 5 years
Doubt it, unless the public education model and its structure cleans off their own doorstep. Designed and structured based on the 19th century historical model, the foundation that the 21 century education model is resting on. The same 19th century model that is steeped in systemic discrimination of the era, is now built-in the 21st century model. Ditto for the Catholic education system, but in the 21st century, the Catholic education system does a much better job compared to the public education counterparts. In the public education system, the students and parents are put on a waiting list, and forgotten. At least the Catholic education system, will acknowledge the waiting list, and explain why your kid is on the waiting list. So unlike the public education system – need I say more?
I don’t think this issue has anything to do with ‘which system does a better job”. These subjective or ? objective reports of differences, sucess rates etc are meaningless. A school system is primarily socially custodial. This means it purports to prepare individuals as citizens, possibly global citizens as the current era encourages. As an employee of a Catholic School Board I am witness to the sense of elitism of the catholic faith based system. It’s parochial values develop religious bigotry under the guise of virtue. The hypocracy taught, subliminal or otherwise, encourages a cult like brainwashing (based in Kantian ethics) that results in unfounded elitism but where higher order thinking with respect to general and more modern human values is discouraged. Denial is therefore encouraged, and real intellectual prowess repressed as a result.
I believe that talented students in the Catholic educational system would be severely penalized, or at least reprimanded if ever they felt safe to disclose the true nature of their thinking. In this way I find that the Catholic system uses, as with the clergy, for its own cause first and foremost. Society in general is relegated to subordinate position. The history of the Catholic Church proves that the Church has had an ongoing struggle with its relationship to general citizenry and the nature of virtue. Frankly put…The church and its educational system is a hypocrite and will always be one until something changes, until people realize the degree to which we relegate authority for educating our collective conscience to an institution which claims quite publicly advantage over us.
We require a philosophical and ethical discussion on the matter of how deducation which is publicly funded needs to evolve. Albeit the Catholic system may make worthy contribution to such a discussion should it get its ‘head out of its self admiring ass’ and become a proper and worthy global citizen.
Hi
I have only read a few responses here, (alot to go through here and I’m short on time) so hopefully I am not repeating anything that has already been stated.
I am not catholic, however I am a church goer with a strong faith in God.
I recognized early on that the quality of education (huge percentages of kids getting into universities of their choice was the main thing I looked at here)of the kids coming from the catholic schools was significantly higher than what I was seeing from the public school system. I wanted my children to experience this same education that I found to be lacking in the public system. I also wanted a ‘faith’ based atmosphere for my children that would soon be nil in the public system–case in point, this past Christmas was the first time that Jesus did not happen in the Christmas concert because they school was told it was no longer acceptable.
4 years ago I entered my oldest in the local catholic highschool and two years later my next oldest would join as well. Compared to their public school experiences in academia regards, they have flourished in the catholic system far beyond what they were doing before entering it. Although very hard in the first year adapting to a much higher expectation of homework and class participation, overall they are both doing great! Spiritually speaking, they are both flourishing as well and as mother it is a beautiful thing to peak in your 18 year old son’s room and observe him reading his Bible. Regardless of the fact that he has taken religion class at school every year for 4 years and not always ‘loved’ it, the ritual of reading his Bible at night has continued and for that I am forever grateful for the catholic system integrating that part into his life.
At this point however, we have two other children that we are endeavouring to join the local elementary catholic school in our town. Our public school has closed this past year and we were denied access because we are not catholic. It is important to note here, that we have been actively trying to enrol our children in this school for three years now (long before our public school was deemed to close) and repeatedly told that there is no room or that because we are not catholic they cannot accept us. The only condition to accept us was if another catholic child enrolled which would ultimately open up another classroom and then they may consider us. While I understand the rules etc. they have to abide by, it is very hard to accept these rules when the highschool (in same jurisdicition) is completely open to anyone (as evidenced by our two older children joining with ease).
My question is this: If we have a proven ‘likeminded’ faith, proven that our taxes are directed to the separate board, and we are able to establish that the catholic system would be a better fit for our children both academically and spiritually, then based on the Ontario constitution, should we not be given rights to attend our local catholic school? To further this question; If Ontario has only two systems funded by the government, do we not (as Canadian citizens) have the right to choose between the two regardless of religious denomination keeping within the Christian context?
This fall, we will have two children attending catholic highschool in one town, one child attending grade 7 in the public highschool in another town, and our last child in attending the kindergarten to grade 6 public school in yet another town. Thereby resulting in 3 bus schedules, 3 schools, 3 towns etc. etc. etc. As well, because we have already chosen for our children to all attend the catholic highschool (when age permits it) there are now extra transitions for our children, when all could have been avoided with being let into the local catholic school. I see this as hugely detrimental to our children’s well being and educational endeavours.
On another note, I could see the local catholic board saying ‘no’ to enrolling this fall in our town’s catholic school if we had intentions of sending our kids to the public highschool. However we have demonstrated that this clearly not the case.
As a frustrated parent and taxpayer paying into the catholic system, what are my constitutional rights or more appropriately stated, what are the rights of my children?
Julia
I was raised in the Catholic faith, and not a very good practicing Catholic to boot, but the values learned from the Catholic faith, kept me in good stead raising children. Julia, you did not mention the province, but in the 45 years in Ontario, before I move out East, I seen many of my non-Catholic friends go to great lengths to get their kids in the Catholic school, and they all sited the same values as you did in your post. They often asked me what they could do, short of converting to Catholicism. I told them to be honest, and be willing to transport the kids to a school halfway across town. In the smaller Ontario cities, relatively easy to do, with declining enrollment across the school boards.
But why not allow non-Catholics into the Catholic system, who have no intentions of transferring to the public system in the foreseeable future? A resounding yes , because many of my non-Catholic friends who had children attending Catholic schools, have put me to shame, that their kids were better practicing faith values than my own kids were. If practicing the faith values of the Catholic religion was the requirement rather than the holder of a Catholic baptism and confirmation, the Catholic schools would be empty, because few of the Catholics would be able to meet the requirements. The Catholic education system, should open up their doors to the non-Catholics who appreciate the values of a Catholic education, and give the public education system competition and parents who don’t have the kind of money to send the private route or the time to home school their children.
Another choice that should be open to all children, and not just the Catholic children. As for the rights of children and their education, the Catholic education system does a much better job in providing and instilling in values in children, that hold them in good stead in navigating society in this crazy world of the 21st century. The public education system, not so good in my opinion especially going by postal area codes and the dismal stats of the final outcomes of students associated with the stats. .
I believe the question is not whether protecting one religions right and excluding all others is okay, the question is why are we including religion in education. Religion has its own place, Sunday school. Public school is for real life education, math, reading, science. There is no truth behind religion only faith, and to teach children based on that is misleading at best. A child who grows up not being able to read will suffer, while a child with out religion will notice no diference in their life. It’s like growing up without Santa Claue or the Easter Bunny. People need to move out of the 19th century.
I think a school voucher system would fix a lot of the problems we have in our education system; they are doing it in Sweden and the Netherlands. Some US States are doing it as well, but the Unions keep filing injunctions and are trying to hijack it’s proper implementation through the court system, but that’s another story entirely.
If the Government does not belong in the bedroom, it doesn’t belong in a classroom either.
“On the other hand, the Catholic Church is adamant that the use of the word gay would serve to acknowledge something that its theology clearly rejects.”
Catholic theology does not reject homosexuality or homosexuals.
The Catholic Catechism states “They (homosexuals) must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”
Historically, Separate Schools in Ontario (et al) were established to give parents control over the education of their children in religious (minority) communities where such communities had a (religious) majority.
Thus, the same ‘right’ for Separate Schools in Ontario was also given to Protestants (but to no other religious groups.) And, Protestants did take up that ‘right’. (Note: My search did not turn up just how extensively that ‘right’ was used by Protestants.)
But, over time, when the Ontario Public School system morphed into a Protestant School system, as it did for many years up to about the 1980s or thereabouts, the Protestants did not continue with using those ‘minority’ rights. But, there is a remnant that such ‘rights’ were once exercised by Protestants in Ontario, in the form of one Government funded, Protestant Separate School Board in Ontario. That is the Penetanguishene Protestant Separate School Board. And it has one school. Burkevale Protestant Separate School.
Given that the ‘right’ still exists, I have wondered why the many varieties of Protestantism in Ontario do not explore the possibility of using that ‘right’ to establish their own schools. Such an endeavour would require some legal work which would attempt to discern the meaning of terms such as religious ‘minority’ and ‘majority’ and also the meaning of ‘community’ or some-such geographic jurisdiction. Perhaps there are still opportunities for those Protestant Separate Schools to be established to provide the kinds of education which dedicated parents desire for their children.
And, of course, as noted elsewhere, some form of voucher system could allow that kind of denominational choice of schools and it would also expand the development of schools to other religious denominations such as Jews and Muslims.
In the early days of our common school system some individual sects tried to secure tax supported sectarian schools. Strong leadership, particularly Egerton Ryerson, was needed to champion true community schools where all children attended. The schools were Christian and worked to ensure teachings that were acceptable to all the Christian sects. But they couldn’t bring in the Catholics who had the backing of the French legislators to keep their separated system. Ontarians never supported the division, but the provinces were combined at that time and the divisions got enshrined into the Constitution in 1867. It’s remarkable that 150 years ago we had such strong visions for bringing diverse communities together, and still now there are people wanting publicly funded separate schools for separate faiths. Vouchers do not serve the common good- they divide and they siphon public funds from those who most need them to those who most effectively ask for whatever they want. That said, a substantial per child credit for any activity that promotes learning or well being is an interesting concept. That way if parents simply cannot stand to let their child attend the community school they can use the credit towards an alternative, and all other parents can use it for extracurricular activities. I prefer this model because it is democratic- parents can use it for whatever they choose, and it supports strong communities in our multicultural, multi faith society but only publicly funding real public schools. Goal of publicly funded education is not just to educate children, it also has a role in developing peaceful communities
Peter,
Whether it be Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, or any other religious group, it is my belief that any faith based separate schools should be funded by the parents of the children attending these separate schools, and NOT publically funded.
It just makes sense that if you want your child to be taught in your religion, then it is your responsibility as a parent to pay for that priviledge, and not to ask the public, which is made up of many religions, to pay for your child’s particular religious education.
That’s only fair.
Public funding should only apply to public, non-religious schools.
Hello Len Vine @ 7:06 pm on Nov. 7/12.
Let’s look at the flip side of your suggestion.
Let’s fund schools with a religious-faith-based orientation and those who want a secularist/atheist environment, another kind of ‘religious-philosophical’ orientation, for their child’s education, then those parents should fund that kind of eduction out of their own pockets.
Peter,
I don’t see your “flip side” logic in funding (I take it you mean publically funding) faith based schools, That is so wrong.
You get into fancy language like “secularist/athiest” and “religious/philosophical” when all I am saying that parents should pay for their child’s religious education and not expect the public to pay for it.
Hello Len:
” … all I am saying that parents should pay for their child’s religious education and not expect the public to pay for it.”‘
Well, Len, there are other points of view which hold that such religious based education should be paid for by the public purse. So, why should your viewpoint hold sway over the other viewpoint?
Its not just my viewpoint, Peter.
In a recent poll by the Toronto Sun, most people agreed that there should be an end to public funding of Catholic schools.
Hello Len Vine @ 5:43 pm on Nov. 8/12
If is fine to have an opinion. Indeed, the opinion you hold may well represent the view of the majority as you imply. However, you and the others will have to find a way to implement that opinion. Because, with regard to the funding of those Separate Schools, Catholic and (one) Protestant, the Constitution will have to be changed. And the people who now have those schools will most likely have something to say about that in a variety of contexts.
And with respect to changing the Constitution, in another situation, by example, ‘opinion’ has been railing against the Federal Senate for years. But, the only way to change that entity is through a change in the Constitution. And nobody knows how to get agreement on how to proceed with that.
Hello Paula Conning @ 5:15 pm on Nov. 7/12
Please expand on the difference between a voucher system to allow parents a choice of schools for their children and ‘a substantial per child credit … they can use the credit towards an alternative [school] ..’
Hi Peter,
A voucher system is public funding for parents to pay for the school of their choice and that is not a government responsibility. It is a government responsibility to provide one fully funded school system that strives to help every child reach their potential. It is a government responsibility to fund alternatives for students who cannot ‘reach their potential’ in regular school programming. Parents can chose to not use the publicly funded system. The child tax credit I referred to is a continuation and expansion of the small credit that’s already available for limited extracurricular activities. Both federally and provincially there are small amounts available with a goal of supporting children’s health and well-being. I think the amount available should be increased to $1000 per annum and the scope of activities that qualify for it should be expanded to include education. This is a small enough amount to not encourage division into special interest schools, and it’s fair because parents who use the public system get it also. This program promotes use of community recreation and arts and helps kids from lower economic level households access the same programs that their more affluent peers can access. And it stimulates local economies and employment by increasing work in recreation as well as supporting small business in the rec. and arts sector. I’d love to see a full cost analysis as I bet the tax credit would be close to revenue neutral.
Hello Paula Conning:
“It is a government responsibility to provide one fully funded school system that strives to help every child reach their potential.”
But, on several postings, including mine on Nov. 7/12 @ 4:06 pm, it has been pointed out that the founding documents for Ontario (et al) stated that both Protestant and Catholic schools were to be funded out of the public purse. So, that is ‘two’ systems of education and not one. Thus, your statement, as noted, is your opinion. And, since it is an opinion, other opinions are equally valid. Particularly when there is a legal basis for that ‘other opinion’.
Ok Peter, one more response and I’m done as this is a wasted effort. Government legal obligation is different than philosophical consideration of government responsibility and I know you can figure that out for yourself. You want public funding based on parents wants and I want it based on students needs. Discussion about responsible stewardship of public funds is worthwhile, this isn’t
Len, below is a historical time line on Catholic Education in Ontario
http://www.ocecn.net/catholic_education/significant_events.htm
I check the time line, it appears to be correct.
If you really want to understand why Catholic schools received public funding, one has to read the history concerning the funding of public schools, the roots at both levels of government and of course the extreme bias of Protestant political leadership towards Catholics. Back in the 1860s, being Catholic in Ontario could be dangerous for one’s health. Ontario was known as Protestant country, and it resulted in Catholics living in communities separate from the Protestants. I could name quite a few towns and villages throughout Southern Ontario, that were known as Catholic towns. Starting in the 1960s, the Catholic and Protestant divide was breaking apart, to where in 2012, it is no longer the case in Ontario. Or I could tell you my own experiences as a youth, being Catholic in a Ontario Protestant town. I was lucky to have a Protestant surname, and so I was not single out as much, as my Italian friends that live down the road from me. My point is, there is a reason why Catholic schools are publicly funded and it is based on the Constitutional law.
Below is an essay, detailing the history of publicly funded schools in Manitoba.
http://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/mb_history/12/brandonpublicschools.shtml#31
“In addition to informing the development of Brandon’s Protestant school, the Ontario Protestant model of non-sectarian public schools shaped the attitude and actions of Brandon’s Protestant community towards the city’s Catholic school. During the early years of the decade the city’s tax-supported Catholic school was acknowledged as a valuable institution, but beginning in 1886 Protestant community leaders determined to discredit the Catholic school. Once this was achieved they sought to remove any obstacle to the efficient operation and development of public schools. The basis for such a system had already been created in the city’s Protestant school. The controversy over the Jesuit Estates question, which erupted in the spring of 1889, simply provided an opportunity for Protestant community leaders to press their case against Brandon’s tax-supported Catholic school and the province’s dual school system which they viewed by then as fiscally wasteful, socially divisive, and inappropriate to the broader national agenda of the Canadian community.”
It all started, because Protestant parents were sending their children to the Catholic school, because it was viewed by the parents as being the better option for a quality education for their children.
One must remember, the secular public schools has its roots in the Protestant faith values. In Manitoba, the Protestants won, for being the overwhelming majority, but in the case of Ontario, the population was more or less evenly divided, between the Protestants and Catholics. What would be of interest, to get a taste of what was happening in Ontario, is to read a book published in 1912.
“The object of this volume is to give a succinct idea of the nature and history of our Ontario School Legislation. This legislation is so bound up with the name of Egerton Ryerson that to give its history is to relate the work of his life.
It would be useless to attempt to show how our school legislation developed under Responsible Government without some understanding of its history previous to the time of Ryerson. I have, therefore, devoted three chapters to a brief account of education in Upper Canada previous to 1844.
No attempt has been made to give the history of our schools since Ryerson’s retirement, partly because no radical changes have been made, and partly because it would involve criticism of statesmen and teachers who are still actively engaged in work. Nor has any attempt been made to trace the history of University education after 1845. To do so would require a complete volume. But, as University education prior to 1844 was so closely connected with Common and Grammar Schools, it seemed necessary, up to a certain point, to trace the course of all three together.”
http://www.gutenberg.ca/ebooks/putman-egertonryerson/putman-egertonryerson-00-h.html
Also a Wikipedia article on Separate schools – “The Constitution of Canada does not establish separate school education as a natural or unconditional right available to all. Only Protestants or Roman Catholics, whichever is the minority faith population compared to the other in a community, can consider the establishment of separate school education. The separate school establishment right is not available to citizens of any other faith (such as Jews, or Mormons, or Hindus, or Muslims). In addition, the minority faith must establish that they wish to leave the public school system and create a separate school system.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_school
Rather amusing, in 2012 the public schools still reflects much of the Protestant faith values, and in fact the Protestant values has been institutionalized in the operations of schools. The question is, are Ontario secular public schools really as neutral as they purport to be?
Thank you, Nancy for your very detailed reply, and for the history of religious education in schools in Ontario and elsewhere.
My experiences throughout my life have taught me that there is no more devisive force among people than religion. Religious hatred has been the cause of more violence then any other factor,other than racial violence.
Ireland, which eats sleeps and breathes religion, and every aspect of public and private life is entreched with religion. People have been killed fo being the wrong type of Christian.
“Love thy neighbor,, as long as he’s the same religion” as you, seems to be the doctrine in Ireland.
I’m just mentioning Ireland as one example of how devisive religion has made people, plus the children are taught this hatred by theri parents, so the animosity goes on and on.
They go to religiously segregated schools. When I lived in Toronto, I used to work with a guy from Northern Ireland, and he told me that he didn’t meet his first Catholic till he was 21 !
My first wife, who was Protenstant had a granny who was Catholic, and who kept up her religion prvately in an otherwise Protestsnt household. When she died, she was given a full Catholic funeral, as she has requested, but not one of the Protestant famiiy attended her Catholic funeral.
The general concensus aong the familywas “I wouldn’t step foot in that Fenion place”.
When I married a girl of a different faith from me, my mothr never spoke to me again, which I thought was very sad, so stong were her religious prejudices.
You can talk all you like about religious rights on both sides, and why historically all these regulations were created, but the bottom line is that religion divides people.
I know many people who only socialize with people of the same religion as their’s.
What Bill Davis did in the 1980s by including public funding for Catholic scools, was wrong, wrong wrong, no matter, no matter what happened in previous years regarding religious discrimination.
2 wrongs don’t make a right.
Former PC leader John Tory, concerned over inequity in school funding, ran in the 2007 provincial election on a promise to extend public funding to all religious schools – a comprimise that was soundly rejected by voters , and later by his own party.
According to a recent article in the Toronto Sun, most Ontarians want an end to public funding for Catholic schools, and I totally agree with that sentiment.
I can understand your bitterness Len, but the Catholic and Protestant divide started back a 500 years ago, in Europe. The onset of politicizing religion, that led to the common masses to adopt, stay the status-quo, or learn to be tolerant to others with various faith. My first ancestor to land on the shores of Canada in the 1750s was a man, who was escaping Ireland to avoid the ire of both the Protestants and the Catholics. Why? He married a Catholic girl, not of his status too boot. What can you do, when love is in involved?
My point is that the history cannot be dismissed. And more so in Canada, because the various Christian faiths have always been welcome in Canada. However, Catholics from the onset, were force to maintain a separateness of others with various faiths. Keep it in the light, that the first early churches of Ontario were Catholic. Even in my own home town in Southern Ontario, the first church was the Catholic Church.The Protestants did not show up, until 50 years later. Keep in mind, the Protestant leading citizens were of the upper British class, usually of the military stripe and if not, the merchant class. All processing the Protestant values that have already been institutionalized within the governing frameworks of the early governments in Canada.
Furthermore, due to the French and the British crowns fighting with each other for over 100 years in Europe; the French culture and its language became forever tied to the Catholic faith. Much of it compliments of the political policies of the time, that were mainly Protestant values being imposed on every one. At the federal level, it is where one learns the tolerance of the early federal politicians. At least on the federal level, policy was decided by Protestant values nor Catholic values. What is important, to understand is the historical backdrops, the events of the provinces and the regions.
The provincial Protestants politicians in Ontario, have historically had the upper hand, from the days of early governance and its structure. Ryerson, “At an early age he was strongly drawn toward that militant Christianity preached by the early Methodist Circuit Riders, and at the age of eighteen joined the Methodist Society. This step created an estrangement between Ryerson and his father, who already had two sons in the Methodist ministry. Ryerson left home and became usher in the London District Grammar School, where he remained two years, when his father sent for him to come home. After some further farming experience, the young man went to Hamilton to attend the Gore District Grammar School. He was already thinking of becoming a Methodist preacher, and wished to prepare himself by a further course of study. During his stay in Hamilton under the instruction of John Law, he worked so eagerly at Latin and Greek that he fell ill of a fever which nearly ended his career.”
http://www.gutenberg.ca/ebooks/putman-egertonryerson/putman-egertonryerson-00-h.html
The Methodists, who are now the United Church, who played a pivoted role in Canada. In the Canadian Encyclopedia, a brief history. “Under Egerton RYERSON, founding editor of the Christian Guardian, Methodists became involved in Upper Canada politics as a result of their determination to deny the Church of England’s claim to be the colony’s established church (see ANGLICANISM). Support for religious and civil equality did not lead to political radicalism and Ryerson’s early sympathy for William Lyon MACKENZIE and the Reform Party soon waned. In both the REBELLIONS OF 1837 and the 1844 election, when loyalty was an issue, Ryerson and most Methodists followed a moderate path. Its concern for community life made the Methodist Church the most “Canadian” of denominations and encouraged Methodists to view their church as a nation-building force.”
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/methodism
The Methodist Church, certainly were the early leaders in education. Night schools for the adults (the settlers) was a common feature. However, no matter how it is look, the Methodists had politicized education and the common schools.
Further down in the article, “With the settlement of western Canada, the Methodist Church endeavoured to hold the allegiance of Canadians migrating westward and of British settlers, and to promote the assimilation to Protestant Canadian culture of the thousands of non-Anglo-Saxons who poured into the West before WWI. This endeavour was closely associated with the SOCIAL GOSPEL. Many Methodists saw increased state intervention in economic and social life as essential in establishing the Kingdom of God on earth. The Methodist Church and most members were vociferously patriotic during WWI, a struggle they believed would purge the nation and prepare the way for a new social order. At the end of the war, several church bodies adopted Christian socialist platforms, but subsequent rejection of such policies testified to the church’s dominant conservatism. When the Methodists entered the new UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA in 1925, they carried both radical and conservative traditions with them. At that time the church had 2061 ministers, 418 352 members, and many adherents.”
The 2012 Ontario Public Schools, and likewise across Canada are schools and its systems and structures knee-deep in Protestant values of the ‘nation building’ kind. Where today, history is being revised as we speak, to turned the early Methodists into some type of early social interventionists. The traveling Methodists in Early Canada, went to areas where there was no established churches. The settlers welcome them with open arms, and they came armed with not only meeting the spiritual needs of the people, but as well as establishing health and education needs. Just like the Anglican or Catholic missionaries. The Methodists were in direct competition with the Anglicans, in who will be top dog. In Ontario, Ryerson introduced the political component, to become the top dog and even though the Methodist Church did not become top dog in Ontario, it succeeded to institutionalized the Methodist faith values in the public social institutions of Ontario. Eventually stripping all other faith values of the various Christian denominations from the secular public schools.
Today, the public education system in Ontario is not at all inclusive, when it comes to the policies. that have the values of one – the Methodist Church. Why Len the comments made by you – “It just makes sense that if you want your child to be taught in your religion, then it is your responsibility as a parent to pay for that priviledge, and not to ask the public, which is made up of many religions, to pay for your child’s particular religious education.
That’s only fair.
Public funding should only apply to public, non-religious schools.”
The public education system is not secular as it is purported to be. The Methodists values of old is very much part of the 21st century public education system. No different than the provincial politicians in Ontario, who virtually set up the public education system to become a political entity, where education is a political process. All credit goes to Ryerson and the Methodist Church, where children education needs are met through the political policies, using the old time values of the Ryerson Methodists.
Being Catholic, the Catholic schools offers one thing that the public schools do not offer, the children are seen as unique human beings, and not as human beings with deficits that comes with costs. In chapter 5, “He sets out by defining education, and although his definition is not scientific in a psychological sense, it is essentially correct—it points to the school as an agency to promote good citizenship. “By education I mean not the mere acquisition of certain arts or of certain branches of knowledge, but that instruction and discipline which qualify and dispose the subjects of it for their appropriate duties and employments of life, as Christians, as per sons of business, and also as members of the civil community in which they live.”
Ryerson then points out that in Upper Canada the education of the masses has been sacrificed to the education of a select class. He wishes to see a system of universal education adapted to the needs of the country. “The branches of knowledge which it is essential that all should understand should be provided for all, and taught to all; should be brought within the reach of the most needy and forced upon the attention of the most careless. The knowledge required for the scientific pursuit of mechanics, agriculture, and commerce must needs be provided to an extent corresponding with the demand and the exigencies of the country; while to a more limited extent are needed facilities for acquiring the higher education of the learned professions.” The Report sets forth a great array of proof drawn from the United States, Britain, Switzerland, Germany, and other European countries, to show that the productive capacity of the people, their morality and intelligence, are in direct proportion to their schools and institutions of learning. Ryerson lays down as fundamental that any system adopted for Upper Canada must be universal in the sense of giving elementary instruction to all and practical in the sense of fitting for the duties of life in a young country. He goes to considerable trouble to show that in his view the practical includes religion and morality, as well as a development of the merely intellectual powers.”
http://www.gutenberg.ca/ebooks/putman-egertonryerson/putman-egertonryerson-00-h.html
The education becomes secondary to the moral development of children in Ryerson’s time. Much like today in the public education system across Canada, compared to the Catholic schools where moral development was secondary to the education needs of the children.
Isn’t the war continuing on today in the global context? That is the public schools still continuing to carrying on the traditions and values of the original concepts of public education originating from Europe based on Protestant values, that was knee-deep in engaging a political war with the various Protestant sects on who will be the top dog. The Catholics were not invited to the party, but the Catholics did ensure that Catholic schools continue to exist, because they used their political and social capital, a force to be reckoned with by maintaining a seat at the political table, going back to the early days of the Roman Catholic Church. It is why, there is provisions in the BNA act of the right of Catholics maintaining their own school systems. After all they were a minority in Ontario back in the days of Ryerson, and was the largest minority that carried global political and social capital. Still is today, in the backrooms of the political processes.
I have enjoyed reading the comments that many people have made. As a student taking Law and being in the Catholic school system, this topic has recently popped up as an assignment. Of course I’m just stating my opinion, but if anyone can remember that in the old days way….. before I was even born that public schools used to have a very religious beginning until, the government decided to take praying among other things faith based rituals out of the school system. But getting back to the issue. It seems that most people know why the Public funding of Catholic schools began in the first place,( the constitution), but the question is, should Catholic schools continue to be funded while other faith based schools are not in Ontario. Is this just? The answer of everyone should be no (without bias)!
The fact is that no religious school should be funded publicly, and the Catholic school system is not superior than any other, the same things that go on in the public school is even worse in the Catholic but only on the down low! Drugs are all up in the school Cant count the many drug related incidents that have taken place already and the school year just began. There are many wonderful people no doubt about that, but if you have not realized morally or how ever way one may put it students don’t even follow the religious standards the Roman Catholic church/school believes in or attends church regularly.
I don’t want to drag on although I could, with that said in closing Look around, the majority of the population in Ontario and Canada for that matter is Catholic (therefore amending this section of the constitution doesn’t look promising) they aren’t the minority anymore, one figure i got from a website showing the amount that a person wanting to send their child to a private school/faith based is
$9,700 – $24,800 per year and the prices don’t get lower than that, compared to $60 admission in a Catholic school (ponder that amount) every time you make up some excuse to justify the funding of this school system, am I benefiting from it yes i dont pay thousands of dollars to enroll in school but I’m still not going to rectify why this inequality(under sec 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) still continues. I would read up on my history, and whether religious or not to read the Great Controversy- Ellen G White. God bless.
Ellen,
I agree entirely with your statement:
“The fact is that no religious school should be funded publicly.”
Sorry Danielle, I think I called you Ellen because that was the name at the end of your letter.
My apopogies.
“. It seems that most people know why the Public funding of Catholic schools began in the first place,( the constitution), but the question is, should Catholic schools continue to be funded while other faith based schools are not in Ontario. Is this just? The answer of everyone should be no (without bias)!”
Perhaps, most should continued to read the history of Ontario and Canada. There is a good reason, perfectly aligned within the political parameters, nationhood, and the emergence of common schooling for all where the battle lines were drawn who would be in control of education in Ontario.
That said, the lines at the provincial levels were drawn on religion and language. Protestant versus Catholicism and French versus English. Complex, where Ontario is knee-deep, still wading in the waters of the 19th century Ontario politics, in the 21st century. The foundation of the public education systems, rests in Protestant values, with shades of anti-Catholicism and anti-French whereby, the Ontario public education system, followed the route of the British system, by institutionalizing systemic discrimination against all opposing religions and languages, other then Protestant faith values and the English language. A compromise was reach in the 19th century, and ergo the the Catholic and Public education systems were born. The compromise, is still evident in the 21st century, where the righteous defenders of one secular public education system continue to used the old biases and prejudices of the 19th century to justified their stances in the 21st century. By dismissing the Constitution, of where the British North American Act is the anchor and the roots of the Constitution, one is asking Canadians and in particular Ontarians , to cede their constitution rights to the State, in all matters of education.
In a paper, Riding the Protestant Horse – ” The Orangemen, however, were not the first to take up the alarm against the possible re-establishment of separate schools in Manitoba. That dubious honor rests squarely with the Liberal party of Ontario. From the beginning in 1889 Liberals in Ontario had responded hastily, warning that on no account could they support any form of federal veto of the Manitoba legislation.
Sir Richard Cartwright had immediately advised the party’s leader, Wilfrid Laurier, that they could never sanction disallowance of the Manitoba legislation. Equally, Sir Richard was certain that the Conservative government at Ottawa, led by Sir John A. Macdonald, would veto the proposed Manitoba legislation. The position of the Liberal party would then be clear: “The Ontario men on our side and, it may be, some of the Maritime members, must vote to support the authority of the province … the Ontario men must vote against disallowance in any shape.”8
Ontario politics were never simple. Even without the influence of the Manitoba school question, J. D. Edgar was convinced that Sir John A. Macdonald would “take the Catholic vote” at the next election.9 Moreover, Edgar believed that certain elements within the Liberal party, namely J. S. Charlton and the Toronto Globe, forced the Catholics to support Macdonald. Only D’Alton McCarthy’s pronounced opposition to separate schools prevented Roman Catholics from switching over completely to Macdonald. Edgar therefore suggested that the Liberal party ought “to arrange matters” in such a way that “we will largely make Sir John responsible for … [McCarthy’s] bitter language about race and religion.” Although he thought that it might be possible to use McCarthy for Liberal party purposes, Edgar did not mislead Laurier into believing that the Liberal party would permit the re-establishment of separate schools in Manitoba. The Liberal party, he explained, was “fundamentally antagonistic to state-aid to education of the slightest sectarian character, let alone separate schools.”10 Thus, the issue was not really provincial rights at all. It was the Liberal party’s old antagonism toward separate schools and the inevitable tendency of most Liberals to share the views of D’Alton McCarthy on the school question and to support the actions of Greenway and Martin in Manitoba. The simple dichotomy by which some historians once explained the politics of the 1890s by contrasting a tolerant Liberalism with an ultra-Protestant Conservatism thus requires serious reconsideration.
From the beginning of the unrest over the Manitoba school question, Wilfrid Laurier was especially suspicious and greatly distressed by the antiFrench and anti-Catholic feelings within his own party. He, too, regarded the activities of D’Alton McCarthy not as an expression of Ontario Toryism, but of a more general sentiment that had long been growing in Ontario. “Despite all their pride and feelings of superiority for the rest of mankind,” Laurier explained to E. J. Hodgson, ”
http://www.cchahistory.ca/journal/CCHA1986/McLaughlin.htm
As one can see, it is complex. It was the Ontario Liberal party of the 19th century, that took up the banner – “No separate schools”, and a small fraction of the Conservative party. I learned that that the small fraction from Conservative political parties in NA, was the origins of the far right. In the United States, very anti-Catholic and anti-French, whereas in Canada, a political compromise was reach. The Canadian pie was divvy up, and education systems were developed in each province, with the ‘Ryerson model’ hailing from Ontario, having great influence over the development of other provincial education systems west of Ontario. Ontario influence over education matters in the 21st century is alive and healthy. Whatever goes down in Ontario, the other provinces are sure to follow and mimic Ontario.
In the Canadian Encyclopedia – ” The characteristic conviction of the school promoters was that mass schooling could be an effective instrument for instilling appropriate modes of thought and behaviour into children; in their minds, the purpose of mass schooling did not primarily involve the acquisition of academic knowledge. School systems were designed to solve a wide variety of problems ranging from crime to poverty, and from idleness to vagrancy.
Educators related these potential and actual problems to 3 main causes: the impact of constant and substantial immigration; the transition from agricultural to industrial capitalism; and process of state formation in which citizens came to exercise political power. While all 3 of these causes played key roles in the minds of school promoters across Canada, the relative importance that each educator attributed to them depended on the regional and cultural context in which the school promoter functioned.”
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/history-of-education
“One result was that school promoters in Ontario often adopted an anti-American and anti-Republican stance which included opposition to the employment of teachers or textbooks from the United States; from their perspective, a society born in revolution had to be viewed cautiously. Instead, they imported certain components of Irish schools; most notably, the Irish readers which had been written to accommodate a Protestant and Catholic population. This strategy also made sense in that Irish immigrants formed the majority in mid-19th century Ontario.”
The Irish in Ontario, the history itself is of great interest, where anti-Catholicism and anti-French had solidified in Ontario. The political fraction within the Ryerson education gang, would have like to have obtained all lands being held by the Church, for purposes of education to be given to the Protestant public education system – the common school for one and all. Most of them belong to the Orange Lodge and the Protestant Protective Association. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Protective_Association
If one considers having a separate Catholic education system an inequity as many have expressed. But before bashing the Catholic education system, and by extension Catholics and their faith values, one should be studiously attending to and cleaning house of the historical past in Ontario as to the reasons why there is two education systems in Ontario. The third one being the French education system. Language and religion that cannot be separated. If the Catholic education system goes, the French education system has to go, judging from the arguments hailing from opponents of the Catholic Separate Education system.
Inequities replacing the historical inequities is not the way to go. A compromise that acknowledges the inequities of both sides. Some say the first great compromise in Canadian history, was inserting the constitutional rights of Catholics having separate education systems. A compromise, even though the inequities existed, it solved the question of having all children educated. Mass schooling became a reality.
One problem i have with a publicly funded Catholic school board is that it can exclude other Christians children from attending. If it’s a public system, shouldn’t parents be able to send their children to these schools, perhaps especially when they come from a very similar Christian background? I am surprised by the number of parents above who are not Catholic but were able to send their children to Catholic schools because my local Catholic school (Toronto) says it will absolutely not admit my children. They are baptised, but that doesn’t matter. Is this fair? I don’t know.
Catholic school boards have the legal right to discriminate on the basis of religion in elementary school enrollment and employment and advancement of teachers at all grade levels. Some boards, particularly those in areas of declining enrollment, choose to permit non Catholics to enroll. The constitutionally supported rights of catholic boards are quite broad and rather bizarre in Ontario in 2012. They are exempted from our Ontario Human Rights Code because they existed prior to confederation. Successive provincial governments have done nothing to modernize Ontario’s publicly funded education system. The PCs tried to extend funding to other faiths as a 2007 campaign issue and the public rejected this so strongly that they had change course before the election. The public wants one school system. Only the Greens support this. We’ll see if it becomes an issue again the next election. My own view is that it is a public responsibility to offer schools in both official languages and to ensure that all schools welcome all students and honor all protected fundamental human rights. That mean no religious discrimination. Faith based education is a parental want, not an educational need, and thus does not require public funding.
Paula,
I agree completely with your closing comment:
“That mean no religious discrimination. Faith based education is a parental want, not an educational need, and thus does not require public funding.”
Therefore Catholic parents who want their children to have a Catholic education in a Catholic school, should pay for it themselves.
We should put an end to this fiasco of public funding for Catholic schools NOW !
When will the people of Ontario stand up to this discrimination. There is so much duplication in having two coexisting publicly funded school systems. The Roman Catholic Schools continue to build new multi-million dollar buildings where other schools have declining enrolment. What a complete waste of money. The UN has declared this system as unfair and discriminatory.
Now is the time. Just because something is in the constitution, doesn’t make it right.
I agree with you entirely, Kevin.
Religious discrimination is wrong, period.
Isn’t the obvious resolution to support choice (i.e. fund all private schools – faith-based and non-faith-based)? This would both eliminate discrimination and still provide some competition for the existing, and apparently under performing, public system and their unions. Perhaps this can become a real issue for debate during the next provincial election!
That was the issue John Tory ran on, and he lost the election.
I believe the exact oppositie is the answer. If catholics want theri children to receive a catholic education, then they alone, the parents, should pay for it, not the taxpayer.
NO FAITH BASED SCHOOLS SHOULD BE PUBLICALLY FUNDED.