John Tory, Ontario’s Conservative leader, has enjoyed a reputation for moderation and judgment. In light of this, it has come as an unwelcome surprise that Tory has embarked on a radical strategy, no less disruptive than Mike Harris' Common Sense Revolution, in his bid to lead his party to power in the upcoming provincial election. The traditional approach for a moderate opposition politician, as Tory was presumed to be, is to campaign on the defects of the sitting government, showing how it has failed to keep its promises, and capitalizing on scandals and administrative lapses.
Tory and his handlers have obviously decided that this timeworn method will not succeed in toppling Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals. Instead Tory has started a culture war. He hopes to win by injecting highly divisive hot-button issues into the campaign. The tactics are borrowed from the playbook of the American hard right.
At first glance, Tory’s proposal to provide public funding to faith based schools can be seen as nothing more than an attempt to extend to other religious denominations what Roman Catholics already enjoy.
In fact, his goal is not to engage in a debate about the rights and wrongs of public support for Catholic schools, a policy that is rooted in the Constitution of 1867. His goal is to launch a 21st campaign to stress the fault lines in Ontario society and to win power in the process.
If the Ontario government were to fund faith based primary and secondary schools, two consequences would be highly likely. First, public funding for Jewish, Muslim, Orthodox Christian and other faith-based schools would inevitably open the door to legal challenges from still other faiths and sects for the funding of their schools as well.
Analogies with the Catholic case for funding are misleading because the existence of Catholic schools, whatever one thinks of this, is constitutionally based. This means that the presence of publicly funded Catholic schools cannot be used as the basis for court challenges on behalf of other faiths. Once some other faith’s schools are funded, though, this situation would be completely altered. Tory’s proposal, if implemented, would throw the courts open to plaintiffs arguing for the support of all manner of sectarian schools.
Second, assurances from advocates for the public funding of faith based schools that this would not lead to a massive exodus of students from public schools provide cold comfort. In a rapidly evolving multi-cultural society such as Ontario’s, against the backdrop of rising assaults on secular norms in many countries, it is foolhardy to suggest that the availability of publicly funded sectarian schools would not lead to a flight from public schools.
At present, public schools are a meeting ground for people from diverse backgrounds, a key to Ontario’s success as a society that has done better than most others in realizing the benefits of diversity, and avoiding the pitfalls. Public funding of sectarian schools is bound to generate campaigns to win parents over to the idea that to be true to their faith they should send their children to a school whose students are members of their faith alone.
That Tory has his sights set on a radical debate about public education can be grasped from his flirtation with the idea of introducing creationism into the school curriculum. The Conservative leader threw this stink-bomb into the debate and then appeared to back off a little.
His mention of creationism sent a coded message to those whose religious convictions motivate them to launch a wide-ranging attack on what they see as today’s Godless, secular society.
Creationism, the idea that the earth was created by a divine-being a few thousand years ago and that humans once walked with dinosaurs, is bogus science. It has no more place in a school curriculum than the notion that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth---ideas that were once held by powerful religions whose leaders were prepared to execute those with different views on the nature of the universe.
What Tory was doing was letting religious fundamentalists know that he is not unsympathetic to their aspirations.
Beyond the fundamentalists, there are other interests at play. Look at the coalition Tory has supporting him on the funding issue. In addition to those who support public funding for faith based schools there are the advocates of public funding for private schools. It is not accidental that private schools that draw their students largely from upper middle class families see the current election campaign as a golden opportunity for their own cause.
And they are not the only ones. A campaign is in full swing in the United States to establish a new multi-billion dollar market for the private sector through the privatization of much of the public school system. Education is seen as a lucrative field in which private companies can move into the designing, managing and supplying of schools. The neo-cons and business interests who support the establishment of charter schools (some public, some private) and other privatization initiatives make the case that the public school system is an unproductive monopoly dominated by teachers and teachers’ unions. They look forward to the day when this public monopoly will be dismantled and parents will be free to “choose” the types of schools their children attend.
In the process, the public school system will be reduced to a last resort option for the poorest and least powerful segments of society. Out of this will come billions of dollars in profits for those who have had the foresight to spot a golden opportunity.
The Ontario Conservatives are not telling the electorate where the path they have chosen will lead. But we were not born yesterday, Mr. Tory. We have seen this motion picture before.
Tory and his handlers have obviously decided that this timeworn method will not succeed in toppling Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals. Instead Tory has started a culture war. He hopes to win by injecting highly divisive hot-button issues into the campaign. The tactics are borrowed from the playbook of the American hard right.
At first glance, Tory’s proposal to provide public funding to faith based schools can be seen as nothing more than an attempt to extend to other religious denominations what Roman Catholics already enjoy.
In fact, his goal is not to engage in a debate about the rights and wrongs of public support for Catholic schools, a policy that is rooted in the Constitution of 1867. His goal is to launch a 21st campaign to stress the fault lines in Ontario society and to win power in the process.
If the Ontario government were to fund faith based primary and secondary schools, two consequences would be highly likely. First, public funding for Jewish, Muslim, Orthodox Christian and other faith-based schools would inevitably open the door to legal challenges from still other faiths and sects for the funding of their schools as well.
Analogies with the Catholic case for funding are misleading because the existence of Catholic schools, whatever one thinks of this, is constitutionally based. This means that the presence of publicly funded Catholic schools cannot be used as the basis for court challenges on behalf of other faiths. Once some other faith’s schools are funded, though, this situation would be completely altered. Tory’s proposal, if implemented, would throw the courts open to plaintiffs arguing for the support of all manner of sectarian schools.
Second, assurances from advocates for the public funding of faith based schools that this would not lead to a massive exodus of students from public schools provide cold comfort. In a rapidly evolving multi-cultural society such as Ontario’s, against the backdrop of rising assaults on secular norms in many countries, it is foolhardy to suggest that the availability of publicly funded sectarian schools would not lead to a flight from public schools.
At present, public schools are a meeting ground for people from diverse backgrounds, a key to Ontario’s success as a society that has done better than most others in realizing the benefits of diversity, and avoiding the pitfalls. Public funding of sectarian schools is bound to generate campaigns to win parents over to the idea that to be true to their faith they should send their children to a school whose students are members of their faith alone.
That Tory has his sights set on a radical debate about public education can be grasped from his flirtation with the idea of introducing creationism into the school curriculum. The Conservative leader threw this stink-bomb into the debate and then appeared to back off a little.
His mention of creationism sent a coded message to those whose religious convictions motivate them to launch a wide-ranging attack on what they see as today’s Godless, secular society.
Creationism, the idea that the earth was created by a divine-being a few thousand years ago and that humans once walked with dinosaurs, is bogus science. It has no more place in a school curriculum than the notion that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth---ideas that were once held by powerful religions whose leaders were prepared to execute those with different views on the nature of the universe.
What Tory was doing was letting religious fundamentalists know that he is not unsympathetic to their aspirations.
Beyond the fundamentalists, there are other interests at play. Look at the coalition Tory has supporting him on the funding issue. In addition to those who support public funding for faith based schools there are the advocates of public funding for private schools. It is not accidental that private schools that draw their students largely from upper middle class families see the current election campaign as a golden opportunity for their own cause.
And they are not the only ones. A campaign is in full swing in the United States to establish a new multi-billion dollar market for the private sector through the privatization of much of the public school system. Education is seen as a lucrative field in which private companies can move into the designing, managing and supplying of schools. The neo-cons and business interests who support the establishment of charter schools (some public, some private) and other privatization initiatives make the case that the public school system is an unproductive monopoly dominated by teachers and teachers’ unions. They look forward to the day when this public monopoly will be dismantled and parents will be free to “choose” the types of schools their children attend.
In the process, the public school system will be reduced to a last resort option for the poorest and least powerful segments of society. Out of this will come billions of dollars in profits for those who have had the foresight to spot a golden opportunity.
The Ontario Conservatives are not telling the electorate where the path they have chosen will lead. But we were not born yesterday, Mr. Tory. We have seen this motion picture before.
15 comments:
The problem with John Tory's religious (faith-based) funding proposal is that it would give public funds to private religious schools. I have mentioned on other websites that according to what I learned in Economics 101, for every dollar a private religious school receives in public funding, that school can charge 50 cents less in tuition but still make 50 cents more in revenue. Public funding for "faith-based" schools that follow the Ontario curriculum is just a veneer for funding particular private schools. Very soon, other private schools will expect the same funding. The well-off will be subsidized by the poorer Ontario taxpayers. Students from poor families will receive a sub-standard education.
We either fund all or fund none to be fair to all.
That said, it's a tired argument Jim to appeal to roots in the Constitution of 1867. Those roots have to do with Quebec, and they moved on into the 21st century. Ontario should too.
We shouldn't be funding any religious education, as basically, we already waste funding 4 duplicate systems serving overlapping geographies and student population.
We'd be able to free up a ton of money for making student programming a priority instead of organizational structure.
This red herring masks the real problem going on pubic education in Ontario - the dual problems of a faulty funding formula and declining enrolment affecting the majority of school boards now.
You should write an article on that. Throwing more money won't address declining enrolment.
I hear people who support funding of private religious (faith-based) schools that they pay twice: through their taxes and through their children's tuition. They say that they should only pay once.
The majority of people who pay income tax in Ontario do not have chidren in elementary or secondary school. I do not have any children. Therefore, I should not have to pay the education portion of my taxes. Also, since I am fairly young, I should only pay a reduced amount of my taxes on health. I won't get into the regressive health premium tax. I hardly ever use the municipal community centres. I would like my municipal taxes reduced. Better yet, if I join a private Jewish Community Centre, I think my taxes should help subsidize the JCC. I don't play cricket. Therefore, I should get a cricket rebate.
I hate that SOB.
that man has no clue.
simply no clue
he's an arrogant prick with *apparent* sense of Human Rights, humanity, POLITENESS ... or dare I even say...
consequences of corporatized greed.
He's such a POLITICAL POSER.
"Ghosts of Rwanda": 100 days
TIFF documentary: "Shake Hands With The Devil"
Spread Love...
... but wear the Glove!
BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian ~~~
We, two, form a Multitude ~ Ovid.
~~~
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"
Home schooling moms and dads should be paid too ... after all anybody that teaches children should be renumerated handsomely ..!!!
Who will oversee the education in all of these new faith based schools? More school boards? Will these schools accept non-faith students who want to opt out of various religious classes? (especially if that school is a block away from home)
Wow, some people are quick to throw out a constitutional right as outlined at the birth of our country. Maybe someone will say that French/English bilingualism is unfair because it discriminates against other spoken languages. Will Tory throw that out as well?
.... anything to get elected.
For anyone wondering, here's Milton Friedman's last article on privatizing education in New Orleans, post-Katrina: http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=document&documentID=2254§ionID=69 "The Promise of Vouchers
By Milton Friedman
Wall Street Journal
December 5, 2005"
Now there are more private schools in N. Orleans that public schools, a complete reverse from before Katrina.
And Naomi Klein discussing the educational situation in New Orleans: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du3mpRkaz8g and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og2gYUVURAI
When I heard John Tory speak of this, all I could think of was trying to appeal to religious people while sneaking in his real agenda. Too sneaky for my taste as it ignores the Constitution Act, which I dare any politician in the US to do. However, it's probably intended, as the Straussian "noble lie" to sooth the masses..
From the law opinion, excerpt:
"The publicly funded Catholic separate school system was entrenched in 1867 to protect the Catholic community from the Protestant majority that Confederation established in Ontario. The historical purpose has disappeared now that religion no longer organizes social life, including education. Moreover, the Charter now mandates a religiously neutral public school system.
The Supreme Court of Canada has rejected the claim that funding the Catholic separate schools amounts to a breach of equality rights under the Charter.
Therefore, the PC proposal is not constitutionally mandated. While the United Nations Human Rights Committee considers the current funding arrangement a breach of equality under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that opinion is not enforceable.
Recent polling shows a strong preference for doing away with the separate Catholic school system in Ontario, as Newfoundland and Quebec have done. There seems to be no political mileage in promoting this option, however. Political advantage lies elsewhere, in the communities where religion and conservative social values influence voter preferences."
http://www.lawtimesnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2829&Itemid=0
Going to a one school system takes political will and the courage to do it!
Let's slay that constitutional straw horse that it is impossible because the Catholics would rise up to defeat any party with this courage to "do the right thing."
Eliminating public funding for Ontario Catholic schools is not only politically possible, but the CBC commissioned Oraclepoll Research poll this summer showed it is what the majority of Ontarians (58%) want. Both Quebec (83% Catholic) and Newfoundland (37% Catholic) managed to do it in spite of the fact they are each proportionally more Catholic than Ontario (34% Catholic, all figures 2001 Census). The sky did not fall in either province.
Non-fundamental denominational school rights for a privileged few cannot be allowed to trump fundamental equality rights indefinitely. Something will have to give. If it is not public funding for Catholic schools, then it will eventually be the integrity of our public school system as an institution that builds bridges between different faiths and cultures and helps us to forge some semblance of a common citizenry.
All education, like Canadian politics, should be secular. Let the parents that desire their offspring to receive religious instruction should go to their church/synagog/mosque and arrange for extra curricular classes for their children. Keep the schools away from religious teachings, and keep the funding for public schools only.
If Tory doesn't change his platform regarding funding religious schools, he is dead meat election time.
This is a key issue, and he has lost a lot more than he has gained.
Ontario won't take a step back into the dark ages.
We have come to this pretty pass because a gaggle of gutless politicians in all parties supported extensions to Catholic school funding. Is public funding for schools that teach that divorce, abortion and gay rights are abominations any different from ones that teach that the Old Master Painter crafted the world?
Oh by way, they're not private schools. Let's call them what they are -- parochial schools.
janfromthebruce, I think what makes it hard to scrap the religious based school boards in Ontario, is the existing of people like James Laxer who consider themselves "progressive" but don't have the courage to act and resort to vague and ridiculous excuses like theis:
"Analogies with the Catholic case for funding are misleading because the existence of Catholic schools, whatever one thinks of this, is constitutionally..."
Ontario doen't need ANY kind of religious school board: neither Catholic, nor Jewish, not Muslim, NONE! Our kids are going to live together and should learn together!
I hear a lot about proposed changes in Ontario's education. Some scream for full funding of all religious schools, others want only public schools. I like the status quo. However, if you do support the notion of only having public schools, then let's be sure they favour absolutely no religion. This would mean no prayer rooms for people of certain denominations. This would mean no outright religious symbolism. This would mean no religious holidays, including Christmas. If we're going to toss out one constitutional right, let's get rid of the whole religious thing. If universities are now forced to provide prayer rooms and such (though universities charge tuition) do you honestly believe that they won't be eventually(if they don't already exist) in public schools. Won't that discriminate against all the athiest students and their families? We should also stop playing O'Canada in the a.m in all publlic schools. God appears in the lyrics.
So now Toronto is launching Afro Centric schools. Funded by the public dollar we already have aboriginal schools, catholic schools, and gay only schools in Ontario. So much for McGuinty's one school system.
You Liberals defend our discriminatory system because it is rooted in our Constitution of 1867. America's Constitution only applied to white men which is why the 13th amendment was necessary to abolish slavery. Just because something is rooted in the Constitution doesn't make it right.
Look at how McGuinty is mismanaging the economy. Ontario has the weakest economy in Canada. Ontario is the province most likely to experience a recession in 2008.
Post a Comment