SCHOOL FOR THOUGHT

The Verdict Is In

CHOICE IS NOT ELITIST

Well the verdict is in:  Parents. Like. Choice.  TVOntario’s Steve Paikin said so quite emphatically on last night’s edition of the Agenda.   It’s not elitist either, according to Moira MacDonald at the Toronto Sun.  

The last two evenings of The Agenda (here and here) have been devoted to the topics of alternative public schools and funding for religious schools, probably two of the hottest topics concerning choice in Ontario.  The former issue has been in the media both because of the York Region District School Board’s decision to close the arts-integrated Baythorn School and the Toronto District School Board’s plan to expand alternative schools such a boys’ academy and a sports-focused school, to name a few.   The religious funding issue continues to be in the media since an individual recently decided to mount a Supreme Court challenge around the extended funding of Catholic schools in Ontario.

Supreme Court and Separate Schools— In her Supreme Court challenge, retired lawyer Reva Landau, wants to return separate school funding to how things were back at the time of the 1867 BNA Act.  In a nutshell, her agrument is that all the subsequent legislative changes to education funding were “unconstitutional” (even though they have already been tested at the SC) because that’s not what was meant by the original spirit of the 1867 Constitution.  By that logic, practically none of the constitutional rights Canadians now enjoy would be legal (e.g., women’s rights, gay marriage). Ms. Landau would not have the vote or even have the ability to argue this case in the first place because that’s how things were back in 1867. Further, she commented that Quebec made changes to their education system to eliminate separate schools—-going against the 1867 Constitution provision (even though they still fund accredited private schools to 40% of the student grant and students can still receive funded Catholic education under the public Francophone system.) So why was it OK for Quebec to act outside of the spirit of the Constitution but not Ontario? Sorry, it’s just not logical.

Alternative Schools—Chris Spence, the director of education for the TDSB, was a breath of fresh air. While the York Region board is the perfect example of the tall poppy syndrome in action, the Toronto director takes a very different attitude. (I guess to the YRDSB equity means everyone gets nothing, equally.) Expanding choices is one way to satisfy parents and students who do not fit the cookie-cutter approach at the local school.  See more in Moira MacDonald’s column. Ms. Kidder, on the other hand, espouses the “choice for me, but not for thee” attitude and did a very good job of spouting just about every myth about school choice that has been busted long ago. Creaming?  Really?  Is anyone listening to her anymore?  It was nice to see Dr. Patricia Allison, one of the authors of SQE’s demographic study of Ontario parents who choose private schools, included in the discussion.

Religious School Funding—Probably the biggest hot potato, but I really thought each panelist did an excellent job of making their case.  I just can’t agree with Ontario Green Party President, Mike Schreiner, that having one school system would save money. Been there, done that. It doesn’t.  Bureaucracy finds a way to sustain itself and worse. Patrick Daly correctly noted that it is salaries and benefits that are the biggest costs of school boards (see www.SunshineOnSchools.ca).  Gila Martow pointed out that other Canadian provinces fund religious and private schools and do just fine.  It also was emphasized that students and families of religious schools aren’t “fragmented”, as the myth goes, but the evidence is that they participate more fully in society than average. Another myth busted.

It was Paikin though that noted off the top that it’s parents who are driving the choice train.  They like it and they want it.