And what do you base this on?
Of course I wonder how the money the Church adds to the pot impacts that 'efficiency'.
Should Catholic schools in Ontario continue to be publically funded?
- Thread starter JamesDouglas
- Start date
Of course I wonder how the money the Church adds to the pot impacts that 'efficiency'.
So public school offices aren't well furnished? It's been years since I stepped onto any school board offices, so my memory doesn't really count, but it certainly was nothing special, no should it be. I'd be happy putting them up in Prefabs and see how they like it.Has nothing to do with religon but building 2 systems and segragating isn't cheap. The real discussion is can we afford to sacrifice our children's education, while spending money to build school board offices made out of teak and granite. All in the name of "possibly" an ancient children's story.
Ya I'll find out when I pass, I'll try to post you guys when I get there.
Could care less who is teaching. I go to the store and the clerk can't do simple math. Maybe not a big deal not having to use your brain to think. I know 35 years ago the universities were complaining we couldn't write a sentence
.
Guess we still can't.
.
Guess we still can't.
The difference between what I wrote and this is what?This isn't accurate. Quebec went from a model where publically-funded schools were either Catholic or Protestant (and most Protestant schools were indeed Anglophone), to a model where publicly-funded schools are officially nonreligious and either Anglophone or Francophone. It's a total change for virtually everybody, albeit some Catholic schools have shown varying degrees of urgency (read: none) in actually implementing many of the changes. Many Protestant schools were already Protestant in name only, as most Quebec Jews will tell you.
Yes that was the minority in Québec.Also, I assume by your last sentence you meant that Quebec's Protestant schools were heavily concentrated in the vicinity of Montreal
True I didn't spell it out in excruciating detail. But given what I posted prior to this it should be clear that given the realities on the ground there is going to be nothing legislative, hence those who object are going to have to attempt something on their own and are going to run into significant constitutional problems. See #6.It's also flatly untrue that Ontario would have any harder time (in legal or legislative terms) getting a constitutional amendment passed than Quebec or Newfoundland did. On the other hand, the political will doesn't exist because groups like OECTA have a disproportionate financial interest in electoral politics
Peculiar since some of the finest private schools and Universities are denominational.Forget about everything else, my kid went through school with the school telling the students they can't afford textbooks.
All in the name of a "belief", based on storytelling.
What is peculiar about it, money=education. Wasted resources=poorer education.Peculiar since some of the finest private schools and Universities are denominational.
What separation between church and state? Canada is not the U.S.A. and even there it was about protection of religion from the state.what happened between separation between church and state?
Which means what? That if a system that a substantial number of people want was abolished against their will, that what was left standing would have more money?What is peculiar about it, money=education. Wasted resources=poorer education.
Perhaps I misunderstood but it seemed that previously you were arguing that the poor education was because it had a religious component.
No I think that a dual system is less efficient than one (economies of scale ), the crime would be in sacrificing education for an unproven "belief".
John Tory tried to address this issue, but paid for it big time. I'd say most Ontarians are for the status quo regardless of how right or wrong it is.
Education and health is where the lion's share of tax dollars go. Both need more $. I see taking a hard look at the dollars spent on overhead vs production vital in today's world. Politics isn't about what is right or wrong...but that is another nerve.John Tory tried to address this issue, but paid for it big time. I'd say most Ontarians are for the status quo regardless of how right or wrong it is.
John Tory tried to address this issue, but paid for it big time. I'd say most Ontarians are for the status quo regardless of how right or wrong it is.
It isn't clear to me that there are economies of that scale in education. The private system certainly hasn't tended towards consolidation.No I think that a dual system is less efficient than one (economies of scale ), the crime would be in sacrificing education for an unproven "belief".
Why does it need to be proven? It's well established with great longevity and very popular.No I think that a dual system is less efficient than one (economies of scale ), the crime would be in sacrificing education for an unproven "belief".
Here are some more details:Violation of human rights. Pretty clear one. This, from the UN:
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/89...478238be01c12570ae00397f5d/$FILE/G0641362.pdf
"The State party should adopt steps in order to eliminate discrimination on the basis of religion in the funding of schools in Ontario. "
Your holy book is no protection from criticism on moral grounds.
"On November 5, 1999, the United Nations Human Rights Committee condemned Canada and Ontario for having violated the equality provisions (Article 26) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Committee restated its concerns on November 2, 2005, when it published its Concluding Observations regarding Canada's fifth periodic report under the Covenant. The Committee observed that Canada had failed to "adopt steps in order to eliminate discrimination on the basis of religion in the funding of schools in Ontario."
It really goes against everything Canada supposedly stands for, how can we have laws prohibiting employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of religion, yet the Ontario government has laws that favour only one particular religious group, Catholics, and discriminates against all others when it comes to public funding of faith based schools.
I'm surprised that this issue isn't pressed and publicized more, especially considering that poll after poll consistently finds that 70-80% of citizens are against publically funded Catholic schools. It's actually quite shocking that we allow this to happen in Canada, it sounds like something that the government of a third world country with a history of human rights violations would do.
This at least sheds some light on the situation, certainly more than Arthur's Turret's-like uttering.Here are some more details:
"On November 5, 1999, the United Nations Human Rights Committee condemned Canada and Ontario for having violated the equality provisions (Article 26) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Committee restated its concerns on November 2, 2005, when it published its Concluding Observations regarding Canada's fifth periodic report under the Covenant. The Committee observed that Canada had failed to "adopt steps in order to eliminate discrimination on the basis of religion in the funding of schools in Ontario."
It really goes against everything Canada supposedly stands for, how can we have laws prohibiting employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of religion, yet the Ontario government has laws that favour only one particular religious group, Catholics, and discriminates against all others when it comes to public funding of faith based schools.
I'm surprised that this issue isn't pressed and publicized more, especially considering that poll after poll consistently finds that 70-80% of citizens are against publically funded Catholic schools. It's actually quite shocking that we allow this to happen in Canada, it sounds like something that the government of a third world country with a history of human rights violations would do.
Needless to say you cite them because you feel it strengthens your position, but honestly why does anyone give a hoot what the U.N. Human Rights Committee states when few of its member states have anything near the civil rights Canadians enjoy?Here are some more details:
"On November 5, 1999, the United Nations Human Rights Committee condemned Canada and Ontario for having violated the equality provisions (Article 26) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Committee restated its concerns on November 2, 2005.
i mean 'state' as any government institution, i haven't read the charter in awhile so i don't exactly remember what it says, but i know religion has no place in politics. I don't want to hear about god in public school just like i don't want to hear about science in a church (not that i go to church anyways) do they still make you swear on the bible in court? what if i don't believe in that book? does it mean anything then?What separation between church and state? Canada is not the U.S.A. and even there it was about protection of religion from the state.
with all these religions saying you will go to hell for not believing in their brand of god, it safe to assume everyone is going to hell.
Which religions in particular are you referring to. Something tells me you haven't actually studied them or read any of their their religious texts.i mean 'state' as any government institution, i haven't read the charter in awhile so i don't exactly remember what it says, but i know religion has no place in politics. I don't want to hear about god in public school just like i don't want to hear about science in a church (not that i go to church anyways) do they still make you swear on the bible in court? what if i don't believe in that book? does it mean anything then?
with all these religions saying you will go to hell for not believing in their brand of god, it safe to assume everyone is going to hell.
