I am happy to see you acknowledge that most people believe that Dalton McGuinty won the 2007 election by attacking faith-based funding for private schools. Some people here don’t seem to believe that we had an election in which this was the major issue. The fact that McGuinty also cancelled the privte school tax credit and won the election closes off that avenue as well.

Doug take note, on the last few lines - “I fundamentally believe in the separation of church and state, as regular readers will know. Most of the time, the threat to civil society involves religious figures attempting to impose the tenets of their faith on government. But, sometimes, it also involves government bureaucrats attempting to impose their misanthropy on religion. Neither should be allowed to stand.”

The keywords are, ” government bureaucrats attempting to impose their misanthropy on religion. Neither should be allowed to stand.”

Bureaucrats imposing their set of values, Much like bureaucrats, the educrats imposing their set of values onto the students, as well as the parents. Not only imposing values, but also the final say in all things education.

There needs to be a balance in society, and where the state, the government should stopped imposing values unto the people, when it should be the people imposing the values unto the schools. The last thing that the Loyola High School needed was help in handling their ethics. In fact, it should be the public education systems, looking for help from the Jesuits, as they have been doing it for hundreds of years.

I am aware that many people think that any criticism of religion is intolerance but I do not. As Christopher Hitchens says “I am not just an atheist I am an anti-theist.” I consider religions, ALL religions, to be negative force in the world with a lot to account for including the codification of misogyny, the starting of almost all wars, the justification of slavery, the Holocaust, The Inquisition, the Witch Craze, the destruction of Aboriginal life, the Residential Schools mess, the crisis in the RC Church, the Crusades, Islamism, the Middle East crisis, and it goes on and on.

Religion has a lot to account for. This is straight up historical criticism. I don’t favour one over the other.

Lots American TV watching Canadians think we have separation of church and state in Canada.  We do not.

What Malkin is pointing out is the hypocrisy that exists.

Evading the question, of the state imposing values unto its people. It is done in such a heavy-handed way in the schools. As one who is steeped in the education bureaucracy, Doug are you not imposing your values unto us, in a heavy-handed way that insults, dismisses, and evades the questions. The issue is not about what your beliefs or values, the issue is about the state attempting to imposed an ethics course unto a private Catholic school.

Lets start with first principles. The existential question, I don’t believe in the existence of religious schools, public or private. To control this I would remove their right to grant credits at the HS level and not allow them to confer degrees at the university level. If people wanted to learn about the religion for continuing education non-credit reasons, I suppose that might be ok.

Yes, hypocrisy.

Looking back at the discussion about alternative schools, most likely Ms.Kidder is a hypocrite as well.
For her daugther to have attendended the art school Ms. Kidder must have invested in and have planned her daughter’s preparation for it.
It is hardly believable that it has just happened, that this was her daugther’s decision despite of Ms.Kidder opposition.

Good old Orwell ... some are clearly more equal than the others.

The arts school is not even an alternative school, it is a regular school with an arts focus.

Public choice = Good
Private choice with public money = bad

Hardly believable Europe? Pure speculation on your part.

It is a public school Europe, do you understand that part?

“I am happy to see you acknowledge that most people believe that Dalton McGuinty won the 2007 election by attacking faith-based funding for private schools”

You’ve busted yourself yet again Doug.

Why, just a few short threads ago you were trying to tell folks here that the McGuinty won the election based on his discussion of school choice.

Glad you came around to our way of thinking that McGuinty and his campaign team won by attacking.

I’d like to propose that the SQE team consider an experiment and go one whole week without the attempted hijacks of discussions by Mr. Little?

If we get bored or have nothing to discuss among us based on the great posts we get daily. Then by all means allow the accidental hitch-hiker attempt to influence the majority here who would NEVER buy into the man’s steady diet of outdated union talking points.

I’d like to thank the public school system for giving me all of the religious instruction I needed….and then some.

The half hour every morning of every day of my public elementary school years involved a local church person coming in to do bible study, hymn singing, and the saying of the Lord’s prayer.  In high-school also the Lord’s prayer every morning on the PA system. I still have my Gideon bible.

Wrong again Mr Sheep. People are trying to say that we have never had an election on the private school choice question. We have, it was the last 2007 election. John Tory propesed private school faith choice and was beaten to a pulp over it. Of course McGuinty attecked. It was an evil policy and it has been decided for all time with that election.

No party is stupid enough to try it again. I strongly suggest that SQE fund a poll. Not a propoganda poll with loaded questions but one for your internal use.

The Vector Polls I see all the time show 15% support private school choice. Within this about 2% of Liberals, 1% of NDPers and about 35% of Tories support the policy. That is why Tories like Bill Murdoch disavowed the policy instantly. It was killing them in the election.

You simply need to get it through your heads that public funding of private options in education is a huge political loser for whoever puts it forward.

What was proposed was that other religious schools, if they chose to do so, would become part of a local public school board.  That was all it was. Period.  No vouchers, no charters, just have them be funded as part of a school board.

The teachers’ unions for the most part were silent on the issue because they would have gained a flock of new dues-paying members. The only union that voice opposition was OECTA, the Catholic teahcers’ union, likely because they would have not benefited. 

I found it very hypocritical at the time, considering all the effort they had put into getting Catholic school parents to organize to get equal funding prior to 1997, when they got it from the Harris government.

Looking back at the discussion about alternative schools, most likely Ms.Kidder is a hypocrite as well.
For her daugther to have attendended the art school Ms. Kidder must have invested in and have planned her daughter’s preparation for it.
It is hardly believable that it has just happened, that this was her daugther’s decision despite of Ms.Kidder opposition.

Unless she has TWO daugfhters that attended alternative program secondary school, Annie Kidder didn’t have a daughter attend an “arts school.” One of her daughters, at least, attended Ursula Franklin Academy. Technically, it’s not an “alternative” school, but a program-focused school that emphasizes “integrated technology.”

No special portfolio or audition is required, although the student needs to have reasonable (not stellar) grades in core subjects.  I was at one of the lowest-performing middle schools in the TDSB and we sent kids to Ursula Franklin every year. Their parents were not involved (except to give permission, and to accompany the student to the interview).

I don’t see any “hypocrisy” in McGuinty’s position, either. Neither he nor any other prominent political figure has lobbied for the removal of funding from Catholic schools—those are the “faith-based” PUBLIC schools he attended and his wife teaches in.  To extend public funding to OTHER faiths is a separate question. It is not “hypocrisy” to take the position that Catholic schools are a constitutional issue, but that other faiths do not have this argument and should not receive the same treatment. We can agree, or not, but it is a valid position, and there is nothing “hypocritical” about it.

One could infer a bit of contradiction in this condemnation of those who support Catholic schools (or public alternatives or special program schools) when SQE is ostensibly in favour of increasing choice. Why are those who embrace the limited choices available objects of calumny and ridicule? Shouldn’t the attitude be, “McGuinty, Kidder and others have embraced parental choice, let’s make it more widely available” instead of condemning their actions.

When you do, it sounds very petty. That kind of reasoning will certainly not win over the general public. There is much more room for growing public alternatives in the current environment than there is for supporting private schools, and if “choice” is to become a larger player on the scene, it’s not a viable option to vilify those who exercise choice. Is it a good thing? Then trumpet to the world, Look! Choice is great! McGuinty and Kidder do it! (without calling them names. Both are reasonably popular).

Well said TDSBNW.  SQE embraces choice for all parents, and at the same time promotes researched-based, proven effective teaching practices that lead to successful student achievement.

I agree, rather than calling people names, pointing out conflicting behaviors (do as I say, not as I do) that restrict choices for others, is fair game, however.

on a Michael Coren show Ms. Kidder said that she and her husband picked Rosedale for their daughter. She does have another child. If that child attended Ursula Franklin that too is a known school within Toronto as being for only those of high academic standing - I’m told that it’s well known among teachers in the board as well.

The hypocrisy to me is that McGuinty and co. have their own choice of religious education for their kids yet don’t allow that same thing for parents of other religions.

What was worse was the spin of how it would carve up public schools and pit religion against religion.

What McGuinty and Kidder do in their personal life is very different than what then the choices they tout for other parents. There is a hypocritical element to that, and a very selfish element at work also.

I understand TDSBNW but is it not up to those same individuals to be honest with the public about their choices? More importantly that they made those choices because they’re in a position to do so and too bad for the rest of us?

>>One could infer a bit of contradiction in this condemnation of those who support Catholic schools (or public alternatives or special program schools) when SQE is ostensibly in favour of increasing choice. Why are those who embrace the limited choices available objects of calumny and ridicule? <<

Where’s the calumny?
While they took advantage of the limited choices available to them their public position is that we don’t need choice because it fractures social cohesion.

The limited choices available to them are not available to the majority of other people.

They talk diffently from the way they walk.

Would Mr. McGuinty have chosen the public catholic school if the results and atmosphere in public catholic schools were worse than in the public schools? One could only speculate.

Popular or not, in my eyes Mr. McGuinty is a hypocrite.

“Annie Kidder is the mother of two children.  A former theatre director, she initially became involved in education through the Home and School Association at her children’s school.”

From her bio. - I recall visiting Ursula Franklin in the late 1990s and being given a tour of the school. The guide told the group that it had the feel of a private school. At the time it was a few blocks away from another school that we were told was half-empty.

It is only the constitution that saves the Catholic system. 70 percent would abolish it tomorrow.

The constitution no longer reflects the new face of Ontario.  Nowadays there are religious people who deserve to be given the same rights as the Roman Catholics; otherwise the way our tax dollars are being spent is unfair.  Those debating this issue shouldn’t be using an unfair, antiquated constitution to make their points.

In a Vector poll we asked:

If the choice in Ontario came down to funding Catholic schools AND the schools of other faiths

Or

Not funding the schools of Catholics or other faiths which would you choose?

72 percent said fund no faith-based schools. This included 15 percent of Catholics.

Bev, I agree the constitution - with respect to the recognition of separate school boards - no longer reflects the face of Ontario.  What it reflects is the face, politics and prejudices of a bygone era.

However, the constitution remains the constitution.  Until it’s changed - no small undertaking - it’s not hypocritical to deny taxpayer funded education to all but Roman Catholics.

I’ll be honest, I would like to get rid of separate boards.  In the end, I think that’s the only “fair” fairness policy available with respect to religion.

That’s not to say there isn’t a place for faith-based *schools*.  I think there could even be room for tax-payer funded schools based on faith as long as the schooling was available to all comers.  I feel strongly, though, that the education system should not be organized around religion.

And I think this is what really sunk John Tory.  He wasn’t out there selling an education policy that mitigated religious divisions.  He was out there selling an education policy that *incorporated* religious divisions.  (Also, I don’t think he established his political base very well.)  No wonder he lost.

Good lord, I’m in agreement with a Vector poll.  I better step out for a bit ....

I agree it is the height of hypocracy to say one supports choice, public and private and then attack people who exercise their public school choice. MOST of us draw our thick line not between choice and no choice but between public and private choice. One suspects that many privatizers proclaim their support for public choice only as a stalking horse for private choice. As the other poster said you ought to be saying “good for McGuinty and Kidder for using their available choices”.

Dave, with all due respect, whether or not something is constitutional, does not mean that it isn’t hypocritical.
It’s time to update the constitution.
I’m not too sure that I would object to funding faith-based religious schools.  The base of all faiths is love and compassion for their fellow man and oftentimes for all living things.  Like anything else they some branches of all religions seem to become twisted in some sort of way…

Doug, could you clarify what you mean by “public choice” versus “private choice”?

I’m not trying to be funny.  This is a straight question.

For example, let’s there are five schools.  All five are subject to provincial standards and expectations in curriculum, methodology and staffing.  Further, all five are mandated by the province to charge the same tuition, say $10,000.  There are no further fees.

The province gives me the $10,000 but on the stipulation it can only go to one of the five schools.  I pick which school.

When I pick the school, have I made a public choice or a private one?

The question of denomination schools cannot be dismissed easily, and nor can it be change easily. The changes that have been, is based on the time that the province entered Confederation. In Ontario, the Catholic school education, have constitutionally entrenched denominational rights and therefore have publicly funded denominational separate school boards and schools.

Here are two link, that offers the reasons, based on law. One can conclude that what appears to be relatively easy, is a lot more complicated than what meets the eye. In part, and in my opinion it may boiled down to the right of a province imposing education onto their populace, that may run counter to the values and ethics of the local community, and local schools. Does any province have the right to be the only authority on the curriculum, and imposed it on all schools. I believe it does not have the right, and the decision made by the Quebec court, is in keeping with my position.

“Although the interpretation of the establishment provisions for education must vary from province to province because the provisions themselves vary, some generalizations are possible.  Every province and territory now has a non-denominational publicly funded school system.  Three provinces; Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario; have constitutionally entrenched denominational rights and therefore have publicly funded denominational separate school boards and schools.  Most denominational school boards are Roman Catholic but a few are Protestant.  Two provinces, Quebec and Newfound and Labrador, had completely denominational school systems for most of their history but recently abolished the constitutional protection of denominational rights and privileges by means of constitutional amendments. 

The right of appeal to the federal cabinet possessed by denominational minorities in all provinces except Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador has been exercised by minorities in New Brunswick and Manitoba, but without success.  It seems unlikely that a federal government would ever again even consider passing remedial legislation.  All the protection accorded denominational schools to date has been through the courts.  “
http://www.unb.ca/education/bezeau/eact/eact03.html#

“As each province entered Confederation, responsibility for education was assigned to the province subject to certain conditions designed to protect denominational rights.  Not only did the specific conditions vary from province to province but their application also varied because the rights preserved were those in existence at the time the province entered Confederation or those established after Confederation.  Once enacted, these rights could not be altered legislatively by either the Canadian Parliament or the legislature of the province.  Some denominational rights are protected through the courts and others by an appeal to the federal cabinet.  The federal government has constitutional responsibility for education in the territories.
 
Two procedures are available for amending those parts of the constitution relating to the assignment of education to the provinces and to denominational rights and privileges related to education.  The choice of procedure depends on whether the proposed amendment affects all provinces or a subset of the provinces.  Amendments that transfer power over education from provinces to the federal government are subject to provincial opting out with federal financial compensation. “
http://www.unb.ca/education/bezeau/eact/eact02.html#

Yes I can clarify it Dave. A public alternative is under the control of one of our four types of public school boards. English-public French-public Englich Catholic or French Catholic school boards. They arer non-profit democratically controlled school boards that use ONLY certified teachers. Alternatives Within this group are to be supported on a case by case basis. Private choices either profit or non profit should never receive a nickel of public money a tax credit or any type of gov’t support.I would make sure to heavily tax the private ones myself but that is just me.

Public school good
Private school bad

Doug, thank you, I appreciate your comment.

Respectfully, though, you’ve dodged my scenario.  How about humouring me on a warm June afternoon?

In the scenario I laid out, have I made a public choice, or a private one?

You are making a private choice it seems.

Thank you, Doug.  This point is a key part of my thinking.

Doug, as you are inclined to one-liners, lets go beyond the one-liners, and discuss how the authority of the province to implement and deliver education, without trampling over the rights of the individuals, groups that are protected under the Constitution. Public does not mean necessarily for the good. Nor does private mean for the good.

Can the government implement public programs, and still maintain their authority over the types of education programs?  As you have put it, taking Dave’s scenario, the individual is making a private choice, even though the choices are implemented by the government, and paid by the government. The individual is making a private choice, based on what the government is providing. Much like the selection made in other arms of government funded by the taxpayer, that allows some individual choices. Are the health decisions made by individuals of which doctor to go to, which hospital, which procedure considered private? In your eyes it would be.

What you are suggesting, and may very well be part of your ideological stance, is that government role is to controlled all aspects of individual choice, because this is for the good of all society. The individual’s actions, choices must be authorized by the government. I think it is very wrong to perceived the choices of individuals as being private choices if based on public programs. The only logical conclusion, is that you opposed the choices in the public education system, and would love to get rid of all choice in the system.

““good for McGuinty and Kidder for using their available choices”.”

I might add:  now alllow others who don’t have the means to do the same Dalton and Annie.

What these two and other like them do of course is also build their public profile of standing up for neighbourhood public schools for everyone else but when it comes to their own kids it’s an entirely different ball game.

What of the educators who teach in the public system by choose Catholic because they feel it’s better for their children.

One of the great tensions perhaps the greatest tension is the rights of the group (think medicare) vs the rights of the individual (think doctor). I instictively support the rights of the group or collective over the rights of the individual although sometimes I support individual choice. I oppose censorship foe example. To me public policy has some main directives. Mitigate and eventually destroy the class system and control the greed and avarice of the business class. Otherwise life is hardly worth living for the common people. I don’t primarily see education as a field of individual or family rights. I see education as the main tool to elevate the plight of the common people. Policies that encourage this are good policies. Policies that retard this development are bad policies. Public education supports my view of the good society. Private education reenforces all that is bad about society. Privledge and financial advantage needs to cut out of certain areas education and health lead the way.

Very easy to square the circle. Public choice good private choice bad.

Your ideals look very nice on paper, Mr. Little, but they’re not working.  You know, textbook theory vs practical application.

“To me public policy has some main directives. Mitigate and eventually destroy the class system and control the greed and avarice of the business class.”

Doesn’t other groups and individuals have vices of greed and avarice. It is not entirely the business class. There is other undesirable vices as well, besides greed. What you are suggesting, and probably is a belief, that government can control human nature, by regulating them and their decisions. However, in public education, the practice of controlling the individual, by regulations usually have unintended consequences. The cause, are the hidden biases of people, and how they governed the choices that people make.

If public education is to destroy the class system, how do your control that part of human nature that has the tendency to classify people into subsets in the many different forms. In the education system, it is seen in many different ways and in many different forms. It is because the system itself has chosen to used methods that discriminates on the basis of the subset groupings. This creates inequalities among the various types of people . No where do you see it more, than the system striving to put labels on children, before children can access services. Once the label is applied, the child must meet the criteria to obtain a specific service. It is a form of discrimination, that creates and promotes a system, of some having more services than others. It also promotes the hidden biases among the adults, and the biases are in many cases how policy decisions are based on. The school policies in turn, completes the cycle, to the labeling of the child.

It does not not matter what shape it is in, it is still a cycle of rules and regulations, attempting to control the choices of the individual. Communist governments fall because of their inherent tendency to see human nature as being bad, and trying to control the parts of human nature that impacts the governance of the whole. Special education policies are failing because it forces the child to adapt to the education system, rather than the education system adapting to the child and their needs. It is here where choice comes into play, because the system cannot or will not adapt to the individual and their needs. The very nature of the public education system, strives for compliance and is loathe to share power with the users of the system, for fear of losing their authority over education.

When we deregulate business for one second or fail to regulate them enough in the first place we instantly get, Wall Street hedge funds and derivatives, sub-prime loans, Enron, World Com, BP oil disasters, Haliburton untendered contracts, chaotic career colleges, run away charter schools, Exxon Valdez, the 2009 recession, planes start crashing, trains go off the rails, kids toys are unsafe, I think you get the picture.

Human nature MUST be controlled or we return to the jungle.

My how this drifts from Quebec schools to Karl Marx, Mao, Stalin…

“Human nature MUST be controlled or we return to the jungle.”

Something tells me those guys already tried that.

You know your opponent is out of gas when the Red baiting starts. Ya and SQE is Hitler.low level debate.

One just have to take a look at schools, and their policies, to see that there is little taken into consideration on the individual’s needs, and lesser consideration paid to the cognitive and learning sciences as to how a human learns. It is not an easy task to control human nature, their thoughts and actions. Would it not be easier to understand how the mind works, looking through the lens of what science tells us, in the case of education?  I would even say it is cost effective, compared to the rules, regulations that are imposed from the topped down to control the choices of people. The system is forever trying to force all kinds of people into compliance who are not within the stated goals and mandates and others who are outside of the norms.

As for the return to the jungle remark, it reminds me of the rewritten version of Canadian history. It is where the first settlers of Canada, are written up as a bunch of pansies, who could not defend for themselves, much less take care of themselves. They needed government to take care of their needs. The return to the jungle, is a common remark from people that serves their best interests, by keeping the authority/governance structure in place.

Checkmate

Doretta, if I could, there’s one more point to be made.  I’ll phrase it as a question.

Who’s going to control the human nature of the people doing the controlling?

My point exactly!

Who will control human nature? Parliament,elections, civil society. Good enough for me. I will put my faith in democracy. How about you?

The majority of people have no choice inside the current public system.

Moreover, when through the dedicated efforts of some people good schools or programs have come to life the system either killed them directly or ignored them until they died a natural death.

Let’s see ... the public school in a working class neighbourhood that was using “Open Court”, the traditional school where a waiting list was forming, the “Spirit of Math” program, originally taught at the public A.Y.Jackson.
The disinterest for JUMP, the disinterest for Michel Malone teaching methods ( see “Teach Your Children Well”) bothe methods with proven results.

Why would the system cannibalize its own good initiatives?
My guess is: because it would showcase incompetence by proving that good results are possible and by highlighting the demand for such programs.

So, no I don’t think choice inside the public system with its bureaucracy and built in motivation towards the lowest common denominator is the choice that would yield results.

In order to work, choice - in whatever shape or form - has to be widely available to the vast majority of people and has to be offered in schools that are independent of the bureaucracy in the current system.

The school has to meet our Ontario standards and be open to all students.
Provided it does that, it should be funded by the province and be at liberty to achieve these standards using any teaching methods the school’s staff chooses.

“I will put my faith in democracy. How about you?”

Every time.  That’s what so great about having choices.

This one is done for today.  After the earthquake in Quebec this afternoon, and felt by many of us in Ontario, I think the good Lord (or pick your higher power) has spoken on the Quebec schools issue!

Let’s talk about some private high schools licensed by the province or TDSB - please correct me if you know exactly who gave them the licence - that seem to be mills to obtain high grades in courses required for university admission.

If that’s indeed happening in some private high schools why wouldn’t they be closed down altogether?

My guess: some of them have lawyers and enough power to raise questions.
If you want to close them down because their grades are inflated or you want to have their grades marked with a special note on the student’s academic record then you have a fight on your hands.
Then the question of inflated grades from the public high schools would come in focus and all the hell would break loose.

This is going to be a fun one to watch.

So again, .. the lack of hard standards, the lack of exit exams raises its ugly head.

Private high schools who grant Ontario secondary school diplomas are only authorized to do so by the Ministry of Education after inspection by them.
 
The rules have changed slightly and now private high schools have a “P” marked on their students’ academic records for those reasons you asked about Europe.

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/privsch/

Hmm .. on one hand it is good that one can no longer buy a high grade.

On the other hand it is the kiss of death for any legitimate private high schools that are not already well-known big names. Nobody would even consider opening a new high-school.

Unfortunately this controversy hasn’t stirred the issue of inflated grades in the public high schools the way I hoped it would do.

Well, the universities are run more and more like businesses.
So I guess that as long as the first year courses and the remedial courses are profitable - are they? -and the parents and students don’t complain about how high high-school grades seduced them into paying for university courses when they had little chance of long term success, the door is open for more grade inflation.

I guess that’s one way of doing things.

What happens to the kids with inflated expectations ... can they come to terms with lowering them, are they going to be at peace with the place they are going to find for themselves in society…

I think the inflated grades create a culture of false expectations that can start serious social problems in the future.
We are creating young men and women that have trouble standing on their own feet and finding their right fit in society.

Gee I thought if they were private schools they were good almost by definition because the invisible hand of the market would come into play and they would have no students. Now Mr Europe is complaining that Big Brother government should step in and close the ones he doesn’t like.

There is a P beside private courses on public transcrips because the public doen not really trust credits obtained in private schools which tells you everything you need to know about the public’s attitude to private schools.

What of the educators who teach in the public system by choose Catholic because they feel it’s better for their children.

Catholic schools are  in the public system!  That’s why there is no “hypocrisy” or contradiction in Kidder, McGuinty, or other people’s behaviour in choosing Catholic schiools for their children.

In Bluewater, if Wayne is correct, the student does not need to be Catholic to go to Catholic schools, so the choice is open to anybody. This is also true in Peel, I believe.

I fail to see why those who profess to want “choice” for parents vilify those parents who use those choices—in the public system!—and which other parents also have available to them. Is this a dog-in-the-manger thing?  It certainly makes no sense in terms of expanding choices for all. .We need to get more people interested in choice. The critical mass is simply not out there.

“There is a P beside private courses on public transcrips because the public doen not really trust credits obtained in private schools which tells you everything you need to know about the public’s attitude to private schools.”

Not quite the truth Doug, but why not omit a few other facts, that would get in the way of your viewpoint on what the public wants.

The next link is a letter written to the Minister’s office on the very subject. The private school in question is; “At FutureSkills students have the option of attending as full-time or part-time students through our day school, night school and summer school programs. Our flexible part time schedule, which is offered six days a week, allows students to maximize their time and achieve the best possible results.
Since our school year is semestered, students have the choice of enrolling for the entire year or for individual terms.  For those students who are looking to fast track or upgrade marks, our summer school courses are a great opportunity to complete up to four credits in two months.
Our student body includes high school students, mature students, permanent residents, students on visa and visitors to Canada. “

And a piece of the letter;
“If there is a valid reason for rubber-stamping ALL private schools, it should be made public. The “P” stamp looks like a “throwing out the baby with the bathwater” solution to this problem.
I suggest that you consider the following alternatives for controlling private schools:
•Send your inspectors out more often.•Send them randomly, without pre announcement•Regulate the teaching practices•Check teacher qualifications and their relevant experiences “
http://www.futureskills.com/articles/

Now Doug, when was the last time a private school was close in Ontario?  Or shall we have to wait until the howls reaches a certain point before the inspectors take action?

I am shocked that a group of people so wedded to the private sector are falling back on Big Brother to sort them out. The market is suppose to do that.

The government IS sending inspectors randomly to all new schools and all “problem schools” now.

To TDSBNWs point, I agree, it is the absolute height of hypocracy for people dedicated to choice to vilify people who exercise legal choice options. Yes some will say “public choice is not real choice” but it is to the people who use it including French Immersion, IB, alternatives, catholic etc. I don’t approve of all of these types of schools but last time I looked they were legal.

I think it comes down to “they should not have their choice if I can not have my choice.” Pathetic.

If we’re pathetic then why are you here Mr. Little hijacking a safe haven for folks looking to better our schools and advance the choice movement?

We’ve jumped through this dude’s hoops long enough. So much so that even some of the original posts from Malkin and Doretta speak to what Little raises as provocation.

I vote for a one week trial without Doug Little.

Doug, you evaded my questions. If private schools are such a problem, why have they not closed down any private schools, since the last 4. What area the real reasons, why the P goes on private courses?  Is it not to protect some arm of the education system?

I guess if SQE were to listen Mr Sheep, it would be the case that this is not an open forum but, in fact a closed forum where only those who agree with Mr Sheep are allowed because he can’t seem to deal with argumentation that doesn’t agree with his.

The P is there so that universities will look carefully at inflated “physics” marks at public schools that were in fact, obtained at private schools and are therefore tainted in the view of the university.

Oh sure, that “P” on the transcripts from Upper Canada College is sure going to ruin those kids’ chances of university admission.

One reason the OSSLT was brought in was because of the inflated marks on public school transcripts.Remember when to be an Ontario Scholar was a real honour? Now half the high school graduates are Ontario Scholars. Rather like Chuck’s “all our graduates are highly distinguished” anecdote.

Of course, that is not only a Canadian problem. The SAT in the U.S. requires a written essay now, for two reasons: it has to be handwritten, and so students can’t hire someone to take the test for them (a la Ted Kennedy), and secondly, universities and employers both bemoaned the inability of high school graduates to write a coherent sentence.

It’s not about public vs private—there are excellent public schools and lousy public schools (I’ve worked in one of each, and others in between), and the same is true for private schools.

Thanks TDSBNW, it could not have been better stated.

I did not evade anything Nancy. I was pretty clear I think. The P is to protect the integrity of public schools from the taint of some private school “diploma mill” credits.

The private schools the universities everyone is concerned about are known as “diploma mills” they are private schools. Those who support private education need to learn to defend them or disavow them.

Don’t you think the government should do their job to ensure that private schools are giving out diplomas to the same standards as a public school?  It certainly makes sense to me, since government inspects other areas such as consumer goods or inspecting the roads and bridges of a province?  Shouldn’t purchasers of private schooling and their products, be protected against shady operators of what you call, diploma mills?  How about purchasing on-line courses conducted by the provinces?  Should I not be ensure as a private citizen, that the course purchased will meet the standards of the the province that one lives in, and the standards of the province where the on-line course originates from? 

Why should anyone need to defend private or public education on the basis of the diploma or credits. Isn’t the government’s seal of approval on schools, or for that matter any product, have the value that would ensure consumers that it meets the standards? 

Likewise, public schools have their fair share of schools that have bad reputations, that may or may not be justly deserve. In my old hunting grounds of Ontario, there is schools that I would not send my own children, or recommend them to others, based on hearing only bad things from other parents, the news, and pure gossip. Here again personal bias will over-ride any concerns that the school is on the same footing, having the same standards as the school down the road.

My point is the supporters of private or public education do not need to defend or disavow schools on the basis of being a supporter of either system. In both private and public, and the many different forms in between, there is the bad and the good. However as consumers, we do expect standards to be enforced by government inspectors, to ensure conformity and compliance and more importantly, that the credit or diploma represents value that is meaningful to employers, and other education institutions.

With regard to TDSBNW’s question about why we make “those who embrace the limited choices available subject to ridicule and calumny”, the short answer is that we don’t. Our targets are those who embrace the limited choices available and at the same time support policies that make it difficult or impossible for most other parents to do the same.

Our targets are those who embrace the limited choices available and at the same time support policies that make it difficult or impossible for most other parents to do the same.

So you are suggesting that McGuinty wants to prevent other Catholic families from enrolling their children in Ontario publicly-funded Catholic schools?

That’s what “to do the same” means in this context.

Kidder let her daughter (daughters?) choose public high schools with a special program focus.  You are suggesting that she wants to prevent other families from doing this, or that she has a policy of preventing program-focused schools? I am not aware of her opposition to IB, French Immersion or other special emphases.

She is on record as having grave reservations about “alternative” public schools such as the four new ones in the TDSB, but her daughter(s) attended regular public high schools with program emphases, not alternative schools—so even that isn’t a “hypocritical” position.

What I hear you saying is that people in positions of prominence, who do not want to extend funding to other religious schools than those already covered by the constitutional issue, are villians and hypocrites because they are trying to prevent other parents from having the choices they exercised.  But they are not doing anything of the kind. They are not trying to prevent Catholic parents from enrolling their kids in Catholic schools, or parents with interests in special program areas from enrolling their kids in those schools.

You can’t have it both ways. Are choices for parents good? Then we should extend them, starting where they already exist, and when a critical mass is achieved, there may be more support for incorporating private sector options to some degree. That support is not there right now.

Are only SOME choices good? Then who is going to decide? Clearly, some posters here resent the fact that the variety of school programs available in Ottawa or Toronto are not available to them, and that they do not have the option of enrolling their children in Catholic schools (though in some boards, as noted earlier, parents of non-Catholic children do have this option).

The choice is open for parents to start alternative schools with DIrect Instruction or a “classical”  Core Knowledge curriculum, but none have tried to do so. The choices you want to see—or some of them—could be incorporated into the existing framework, but so far it has not happened—probably because not enough people want those things.

Attacking the people who are already exercising “choice” undermines your argument that choice is a good thing.

I see that I need to write more precisely. I will try to do better in future. What I meant to say is that people like Mr. McGuinty and Ms Kidder are opposed to extending choices to parents who want similar but slightly-different choices - like, say, publicly-funded Jewish schools or publicly-funded all-girls schools or publicly-funded traditional schools. They are implicitly legitimizing only certain schooling options - the ones they want for themselves. Who are they to decide what choices parents should be able to make for their own children?

Of course I support very heavy handed regulation of private schools so that it becomes onerous for them to start up or operate but I am surprised that people here support that Nancy. To them the market will just sort that all out.

McGuinty and Kidder hold the same position as the vast majority of citizens. Choice within the public system is fine but government supported choice outside the public sector is not good for ontario. The problem many people have is that they see this as an individual right. People in authority must respond to the collective.

What are you the the Borg? Resistance is futile. lol

So much for diversity or choice, you have such a narrow (union) view of education. It took a long time, but many of the world’s Communist systems have failed, seems people do like choices.

TDSBNW, you are in the middle of it all.

If indeed as you say most people are happy with the current situation and do not want anything better, then obviously I’m the misfit.

One way or another I’ll make sure that my son gets a a good education and acquires self-discipline so that he’ll have choices 20 years from now when the social order starts to crumble.

We’ll have oodles of young people with low-skills, no self-discipline, paper diplomas and high expectations at a time when most of the jobs will be either very qualified or very low skilled, low paid service jobs.

We’ll live and see. I do hope time will prove me wrong.

Thank you for all the information and opinions.
It’s been an interesting discussion.
I’m checking out.

History is packed with elders wringing their hands about the plight of the next generation. Same in the 1960s and that decade produced the best of the best LOL. Socrates was also very concerned about the next generation and so it goes.

Nancy. I can never accuse you of using one liners that is for sure. It is those 500 liners that kill me.

Thank you, Europe for saying it so succinctly.  I did the best I could for my children as well.  It’s going to be very sad to see hoards of young adults unable to compete in a global economy thanks to the teachrs’ unions; feckless education bureaucrats; and simple-minded, uncaring politicians.  Throw in the apathy of the average Canadian and we’ve got a recipe for disaster.
We’re so wealthy here in Canada, that we sit on our well-padded derrieres way too often.  We have ourselves to thank for this mess we’ll be leaving our children in…

“I guess if SQE were to listen Mr Sheep, it would be the case that this is not an open forum but, in fact a closed forum where only those who agree with Mr Sheep are allowed because he can’t seem to deal with argumentation that doesn’t agree with his.”

Horsefeathers Mr. Little. Your posts are repetitive and offer nothing but what most parents and too many educators are thirsting alternatives from.

Malkin wrote: “people like Mr. McGuinty and Ms Kidder are opposed to extending choices to parents who want similar but slightly-different choices - like, say, publicly-funded Jewish schools or publicly-funded all-girls schools or publicly-funded traditional schools. They are implicitly legitimizing only certain schooling options - the ones they want for themselves. Who are they to decide what choices parents should be able to make for their own children?

Very well put Malkin.

They have a publically funded traditional school in Richmond BC because a large group of parents persuaded the trustees to open one. Nobody is going to hand it to you on a platter. Even in the public system it takes a lot of work.

I was asked to make a presentation to the NDP on what their position ought to be on the Catholic schools question and by extension other religions. I said for me it is easy.

During the next provincial election hold a referendum on the continued existance of the Catholic system. If it passes it continues if not, like Quebec, we involve the feds to wind it down. The same ballot would say

Should other religious groups receive funding for their schools as well?

From what I know of Ontario public opinion, we would soon be looking at one strong secular public school system.

How about it? Are you ready to put all of this + public funding of any private schools to a vote of the entire electorate? I didn’t think so.

Malkin, there are already publically funded all girl schools (Hayden Park Toronto) and traditional schools (Richmond BC). First there is VERY little demand for them and second they are not popular, almost the same thing. What goes with the traditional school, do we want straight rows, the dunce cap and the strap. Where is the line

Doug, it is not as easy as you think. Nor does Ontario have the same historical background or the optics such as an overall declining population, with many small communities scattered over a large geographic land mass. Ontario has been given a heads up from the NL experience, and the Catholic system in Ontario, has grown stronger, where it is doubtful any Ontario government would want to have a very nasty political fight trying to eliminate the Catholic education system.

“Ontario Catholics took notice. The Newfoundland transformation was viewed as a complete debacle. As one Catholic education official, who asked not to be named, puts it, “We saw how it could happen, and it put everyone in Ontario on alert.”

Ontario Catholics learned that “a good offence is the best defence.” The biggest lesson was the idea of erecting a strong and effective “infrastructure” that would be a formidable force against anyone trying to dismantle it.

Bernard Murray, who heads the Ontario Catholic School Trustees Association, says, “Catholic education in Ontario is supported by a strong infrastructure of organizations.”

That includes the Institute for Catholic Education, which promotes publicly-funded Catholic schools, the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops, parents groups, teachers’ unions, and the trustees association, which regularly lobbies provincial politicians.

Any assault on the system and “there would be a great backlash,” Murray says. He points out that Catholic education has the support of all three main parties in Ontario.”

http://www.thestar.com/ontarioelection/article/257102

Of course all of that is true, nobody disputes that. It is the people who don’t want it and have said so in poll after poll by reputable firms. I still don’t see anybody saying yes Doug, we have so much confidence in religious and private schools that we agree there ought to be a vote on that. Private schools are stuck at 5.7 % in Ontario where they have been for decades.

Public funding of private or religious education would get crushed in a referendum exactly the way John Tory was crushed when he even suggested it.