|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 12, 2007 18:12:25 GMT -5
Do you preffer public funded religious schools or public school only?
My opinion is straight forward. I don't care for any religion of any kind and I believe that under no circumstances should public money be used to fund religious based education. If the parents want to immerse their children into their particular religious indocrination then let them pay for it through their own pockets. This includes the special status for Roman Catholics. The "quality of education" question aside, an integrated school system for everybody serves to integrate our society.
What is your opinion?
|
|
|
|
Post by habmeister on Sept 12, 2007 18:52:55 GMT -5
not sure how public dollars can fund religious schools, it would open a whole can of worms with every single religion wanting their own school. two steps back imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 12, 2007 19:16:23 GMT -5
The Catholic schools have been around for years so I guess there's a precedence set here. As an aside, I found kids who attend Catholic schools to be well mannered and, well, just better kids.
I heard of a school here in Ontario that follows a set curriculum but allows kids to practice their religions in separate rooms prior to classes starting. Once that's over everyone learns the same material.
I'm not sure how the Catholic schools are funded. Do they get more than redirected taxes from parents? If this is the sole source of income then it wouldn't be so bad.
Yet, while I'm a Catholic myself, I think there should be one school and one standard that applies to everyone. If I find the name of the school I mentioned earlier I'll post it. Seems to be a pretty good model.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 12, 2007 21:08:34 GMT -5
Well I grew up in a denominational school system, which was funded by the provincial government. When I was going to school, if you were Catholic you went to school in a Catholic school with the "brothers" (if you were a boy) or the "sisters" (if you were a girl).
I am not Catholic. I am Anglican. But we didn't have a school for just Anglicans. We had schools for protestants (which were mostly Anglicans and Uniteds - but other denominations attended as well). The Pentacosts had their own school. The Seven Day Adventists had their own school .... and it breeded contempt - especially during sporting matches.
The the Mount Cashel Sexual Abuse Scandal (a Catholic orphanage) came to light, stories of abuse at school, and the cost of running such a system eventually spelt the end of the system .... we had a referendum in September 1997 (I graduated in 1990) and 73 per cent of the population voted to scrap the 277 year old denominational school system.
Now when I was going to school I had a choice (albeit I had to fight for that choice) if I wanted to study religion ... we were forced to do it up to grade 10, but I wanted to do gym and I wanted various other courses and religion was stopping me from doing it. I had to get my mother to write a letter opting me out of the religion course. I do not feel my education suffered from being in such a system - (and I feel the system we have now is in udder chaos ... I read that it is now going to be all proof-based and optional to learm multiplication tables!! WTF!!!). I guess the state can't run the system properly either ...
... below is an article from MacLean's.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 12, 2007 21:12:01 GMT -5
Newfoundlanders Vote for New School System
It was a classic dustup - one that some wags dubbed "the premier versus the Pope." When he announced just six weeks ago that his government would hold a referendum on whether to scrap Newfoundland's 277-year-old denominational school system, Premier Brian Tobin, a practising Roman Catholic, boldly took on the leadership of his own church. It was high time, he argued, to give parents - not the clergy - ultimate responsibility for public education. In response, Catholic priests across the province warned the faithful that Tobin's government was doing nothing less than kicking God out of the classroom - and welcoming in the secular and the profane. Last week, it was the premier who prevailed, when 73 per cent of voters signalled their desire to replace all church-run schools with a single, government-run education system. Flush with victory, the premier exuded Christian charity, while making it clear that the time for debate was over. "I think we have a responsibility to reach out to those who had a different view," Tobin told Maclean's. "In the new vision we're embracing, nobody is excluded, everyone is included."
But however decisive Tobin's victory, not everyone agreed with his assessment of the result. Among the dissenters was Alice Furlong, vice-chairman of the Catholic Education Association in St. John's. In the words of Furlong, the majority of Newfoundlanders have "voted to strip away and crush our rights." She adds that she cannot understand why Catholics, who account for 37 per cent of the province's population, as well as other religious minorities, will not continue to be allowed their own schools where numbers warrant. That is something currently guaranteed to Newfoundlanders by the Canadian Constitution, which must be amended before the province can implement the changes. "If this were done to another minority in Canada, there would be outrage," said Furlong. "Can you imagine if every Canadian could decide that Quebec should not have French as its first language?"
There is little doubt that, if Parliament approves a constitutional amendment, Tobin will have sparked an epochal shift in his province's education system. In other provinces, Protestant schools eventually became public and nondenominational, albeit existing alongside publicly funded Catholic schools in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec. But secular schools never gained a foothold in Newfoundland. When the province joined Confederation in 1949, Newfoundland's schools were controlled by seven denominations: Catholic, Anglican, United, Moravian, Presbyterian, Salvation Army and Seventh-day Adventist. Under the Terms of Union, each was granted constitutional protection to run schools, a right extended to Pentacostals in 1987. Last week's vote paves the way for eliminating those guarantees, and setting up a provincially run system as early as September, 1998.
It is not the first time Newfoundlanders have voted on the issue. In 1995, Tobin's predecessor, Clyde Wells, held his own referendum on a much milder proposal to reduce - but not eliminate - church control over education. After a narrow 54 to 46 per cent victory for the Yes side, the Newfoundland legislature called on Ottawa to amend the Constitution accordingly. Although the amendment easily passed a free vote in the House of Commons, 35 Liberal MPs voted against it. A majority of senators also balked, stalling the amendment for six months before sending it back to the Commons with some changes. But last December, the House gave its final approval to the original amendment, handing the province greater control over education while still guaranteeing denominational schools where numbers warranted.
Following last week's referendum, the Newfoundland legislature passed a resolution asking Ottawa to amend the Constitution once again, allowing Tobin to proceed with his even bolder bid to entirely abolish church-run schools. But despite the premier's decisive victory at the polls, such an amendment is expected to come under even closer scrutiny in Ottawa. That is because the ticklish issue of minority rights has also been raised by a similar request from Quebec, whose national assembly voted in April to replace denominational school boards with linguistic ones by September, 1998. Eugène Bellemare, a francophone Liberal MP from the Ottawa area, is among those who say he is likely to vote against both the Newfoundland and Quebec proposals - in part because of the precedent it would set, in the event of secession, for anglophones in Quebec. "I'm concerned about minority groups who can be pushed aside because of a provincial referendum," says Bellemare. "It guarantees survival of the strongest."
Despite such concerns, most political observers agree with Tobin's own assessment: in the end, Ottawa will have little choice but to respect the wishes of Newfoundlanders. That is precisely the sort of leverage Tobin had sought when he called the vote on July 31. The premier was clearly angered by a Newfoundland Supreme Court injunction, won by parents' groups, that halted plans to close or restructure 80 Catholic and Pentacostal schools, and lay off almost 470 teachers. Faced with the court decision, he launched a spirited battle that reminded many of his 1995 campaign as federal fisheries minister against Spanish overfishing on the Grand Banks. "I think this injunction made Tobin see red," says Bill Rowe, a onetime Liberal cabinet minister and host of Newfoundland's most popular open-line radio show. "If he's taken on, he likes to battle back and win."
The premier also had clear indications that a strong victory was within his grasp. Recent opinion surveys had shown a healthy majority of Newfoundlanders in favor of a public school system. In large part, say analysts, that reflects the secularizing forces that have been at work throughout Western society. But in Newfoundland, there were additional factors at play. The Mount Cashel scandal of 1989, which saw several priests convicted of sexually molesting young boys in their care, has eroded confidence in religious authorities. And for more than two decades, there has been a steady drop in school enrolment, from a peak of 163,000 students in 1972 to 106,000 last year. That decline has put pressure on the government to consolidate resources and avoid administrative duplication.
However divisive the issue, the margin of Tobin's victory cannot be denied - a victory that many observers also chalked up to the premier's refusal to waffle on an important question. Memorial University political scientist Mark Graesser, who has done polling on the issue for 20 years, notes that Tobin showed voters that he was willing to offer a clear, radically different vision of public education. Rowe, who shares that assessment, says that callers to his show expressed another sentiment as well. "Even as the two sides debated," he says, "they registered their fatigue with the issue, and their desire to see it resolved." For politicians and religious leaders tempted to second-guess the referendum results, that is a message they ignore at their peril.
Maclean's September 15, 1997
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Sept 12, 2007 21:16:23 GMT -5
not sure how public dollars can fund religious schools, it would open a whole can of worms with every single religion wanting their own school. two steps back imo. It's happening in half the provinces and seems to work. Alberta goes so far (maybe other provinces as well) as to provide funding via charter schools. It isn't "religious schools" that are being funded, but faith-based schools that will have to follow a standard curriculum -- something different than what is being bandied about by the Liberals (the Conservatives are just reactionary, and are slow at that). Interestingly, the faith-based schools have, on average, higher educational standards (that is, students test higher) than public schools. Our adorable Premier has promised smaller classes, and now full day kindergarten. Where, perchance, are the classrooms going to come from? Already even new schools wind up with students in portables. An idea: fund all schools equally: Public, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Protestant. Each school is given x dollars per attending child and told that standard curriculum must be followed (readin' writin' & 'rithmatic) and that scientific study must give a balanced approach (HA: sure, creationism may be taught, but equal time must be given to evolution; at the same time, enviromentalism may be taught, but equal time must be given to global warming denials alternative theories. oh . . . let me be clear where I stand: my children attended, by my choice, public schools. If people want to influence theier children's education and the "terrible socialist school sysstem" they should become involved in it, not avoid it. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Sept 12, 2007 21:18:41 GMT -5
I'm not sure how the Catholic schools are funded. Do they get more than redirected taxes from parents? If this is the sole source of income then it wouldn't be so bad. Used to be a person would direct their school taxes to the board of their choice. Then the Harris government (I think) changed things so that all school taxes went into one pot, and the provincial government funds both equally (ie: on a per-student basis). |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Sept 12, 2007 21:25:28 GMT -5
Now when I was going to school I had a choice (albeit I had to fight for that choice) if I wanted to study religion ... we were forced to do it up to grade 10, but I wanted to do gym and I wanted various other courses and religion was stopping me from doing it. I had to get my mother to write a letter opting me out of the religion course. I do not feel my education suffered from being in such a system - (and I feel the system we have now is in udder chaos ... I read that it is now going to be all proof-based and optional to learm multiplication tables!! WTF!!!). I guess the state can't run the system properly either ... I went to public elementary and Catholic high school (no wonder I'm so messed up!). Had to take a religion class in high school. In grade twelve "we" (that is, the entire grade 12 class of guys) revolted against the religion class and refused to go. At a called meeting we were told that we could excerise our right to not attend but that we would not be graduated for doing so. So we all attended . . . may as well have been part of the late 60s campus riots for all that went on in the class after that. Final marks were based on an essay "Why Religion Class is Important". Lots of 50s: I don't think any guy had a positive thing to say, but because we did the required work could not be failed. True story. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 12, 2007 21:29:18 GMT -5
Interestingly, the faith-based schools have, on average, higher educational standards (that is, students test higher) than public schools. I have to agree. I am not sure of the statistics , but just from observations of the Newfoundland population, I saw more kids when I was in school going on to do degrees, and scoring higher in science and mathematics. (It seems to me that every 2 years or so now the government is fiddling with the math program and parents are complaining that it is too hard... I notice it is never little "Johnnie" who is the problem, no it has to be the curriculum.  ) If we are clearing up viewpoints ... then I think the Bible is a glorified Aesop's fable. A few mens strories on how one should treat their fellow man. Good stroies, good morals ... but I don't believe half of it was true. Growing up, I had to recite the Lord's Prayer before every school day began... I respect religion, I want my children to study religion and make their own minds up. I believe in God, and feel that one does not have to be religious to connect with God. I also think that our children should (at their discretion) have the option to study the different religions of the world to better understand the uniqueness of other and interact with less unknowns. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Sept 12, 2007 21:43:39 GMT -5
If we are clearing up viewpoints ... then I think the Bible is a glorified Aesop's fable. A few mens strories on how one should treat their fellow man. Good stroies, good morals ... but I don't believe half of it was true. Growing up, I had to recite the Lord's Prayer before every school day began... Time to dredge up the religious thread again?  My perspective (I think I've said already): some is ancient world-view trying to understand from a pre-scientific basis of faith, some is religious instruction, some is instruction on how to deal with fellow man, some is how to interact with a God who is understood in a certain way. Understanding is not static. The New Testament is a continuation of the understanding of the revelation of God through Jesus. The question: is Jesus who He said He was? The problem then becomes "who's understanding or interpretation is right. Enter . . . the institutional church -- the biggest problem with Christianity . . . the biggest problem, actually, with every religious or faith-group. In fact, institutionalism is the biggest problem with every group. You will find close-minded fundamentalists in the scientific community as well: "I believe and that's that". Need to keep an open mind, everyone. That would be, I think, at our discretion, until a certain age. If we want our children to be well-rounded then they need to know what each faith or religion believes. Primary place of religious learning is the home, not the school. Unfortunately, the secular school system is indoctrinating against religious ideas rather than for understanding of religious ideas |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Sept 12, 2007 23:57:31 GMT -5
It's happening in half the provinces and seems to work. Alberta goes so far (maybe other provinces as well) as to provide funding via charter schools. It isn't "religious schools" that are being funded, but faith-based schools that will have to follow a standard curriculum -- something different than what is being bandied about by the Liberals (the Conservatives are just reactionary, and are slow at that). Interestingly, the faith-based schools have, on average, higher educational standards (that is, students test higher) than public schools. My there's a lot of similarities here. I'm with HA on this, because religion, or at least an overly strong belief in one's particular 'religion', causes so many of the world's ills. I attended a Catholic elementary school. When my Grade 7 class graduated to secondary school (grades 8-12) a much higher percentage ended up in the 'smarter' divisions of Grade 8. By Grade 12 any such advantage had disappeared and, in fact, many of my Catholic colleagues were social disasters. We surely had a higher percentage of addicts than would be expected. The problem as I saw it, was that the discipline in the Catholic school was so strong that when the inmates were finally released into the real world, without a chaperone to keep them in their place, they tended to go wild. Makes sense. Unfortunately too much of the Catholic, and Islamic world is all about control by others. So funding this path of disaster is not a good idea. Let the zealots fund themselves. Religious beliefs can be adequately provided by parents and 'supervisors', in an after school setting. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Sept 13, 2007 6:14:34 GMT -5
religion, or at least an overly strong belief in one's particular 'religion', causes so many of the world's ills. But let's admit that "religion" -- or " antireligion" -- is taught in our school system . . . or should I just say a particular world-view or belief system that is contrary to what many people believe . . . and opposite views are derided, not discussed as possible. There isn't even a "some people accept this alternative/opposite view" but rather "how can people believe this? They are wrong wrong wrong!" I didn't see that at all. Howver, I do know many who were in the public school that headed that direction because they were given no direction/had no moral compass (anecdotal evidence at best, I know). I also know many teens-now-adults who rebelled from their parents faith and strictures . . . I'm not sure how much the school system had to do with that as much as legalistic religious morality that was strongly dictated. Too much of the world is all about control by others . . . inside and outside religion. Human nature? Not sure, but can't just blame religion. Sure. They are. But why should they also fund a system that is opposed to their belief systems? I do not wnat to see the school system fragmented -- the public system needs some improvement but in our society everyone should have opportunitiy for a quality education. Quality also should include balance. Most definitely. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 13, 2007 6:57:50 GMT -5
religion, or at least an overly strong belief in one's particular 'religion', causes so many of the world's ills. But let's admit that "religion" -- or " antireligion" -- is taught in our school system . . . or should I just say a particular world-view or belief system that is contrary to what many people believe . . . and opposite views are derided, not discussed as possible. There isn't even a "some people accept this alternative/opposite view" but rather "how can people believe this? They are wrong wrong wrong!" I know I posted this little story before but I'll rehash it ..... the thing I did not like about "religion" classes (in my denominational school setting) was that there was no time given for discussion of opposing views. You were told what an aspect of religion was, you were to digest it, memorize it, then rehash it on a test ... Not for me. I was always questioning. Asking why other religions had such doctrines (5 pillars of Islam for instance), how they came to be, what proof exists that things are as we are told ... (maybe my teachers were glad to see me get exempt from religion class). But one such "event" happened to me and it wasn't even in religion class.... I was taking advanced literature in grade 8. We were doing poetry and my teacher was sitting on the edge of her desk reading a poem and she was getting all dramatic about it .. (what I mean was she was putting her heart into it like she was auditioning, and emphasizing specific syllables) ... all the while she was doing this she was looking out the window. After she was done she asked the class what the poem was about .... no one raised her hand and she saw that I was in "daydream" land (truth be told I was staring at her legs ..hey I was 14, shoot me!) ... I looked up, looked the poem over briefly and said "I believe the author is overusing metaphors trying to relate the life cycle of a tree to a person's life" .... She said not quite. I went back to daydreaming. Then she asked for other opinions. No one answered so she started to talk about my answer and how it was close but not complete and went on a spiel on how whenever she sees a tree she can't help but to think of God, and how there has to be a God to create something so beautiful. In previous classes she had done this before, took something abstract that could mean anything to anyone and turned it into a religious meaning. So I said that is her opinion, some people just see a tree and that she as a teacher should not be shoving her viewpoints down our throat and should let us determine and defend what we get from a poem or story. She flipped. Said I am always questioning her belief system and I spent the next few hours in the principal's office defending my stance .... one of the few times I had detention, but I still think I was right. (my mother didn't, she didn't ... but I had a feeling the principal was sympathetic to my reasoning) |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Sept 13, 2007 7:26:50 GMT -5
You're rights, Skilly . . . people can see God in anything if they look hard enough.
In a U of M English class the professor could see the Garden of Eden in everything -- and I mean everything -- poem, story, Shakespeare . . . you name it. It became a joke. And how did one get an "A" in the final exam? Mention the Garden lots.
Sad, really.
Me, I'd rather think and be challenged than swallow everything blindly. Which is why I appreciate this site for it's openness and tolerance to good discussion and debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by duster on Sept 13, 2007 11:15:49 GMT -5
I was educated in the Canadian, French lycee and British school systems. Each had a completely different approach to religion, imo.
In the Lycee system, religion was seldom mentioned unless it was in the context of something else e.g a literary figure who happens to be from a religious order such as Francis of Assisi. I think the idea was to encourage reason as part of the educational process and not blindly follow. Philosophy classes that covered the Enlightenment focused more on the move away from the Age of Faith in the 17th and 18th Centuries being a good thing as a whole. Not having religion in the curriculum hasn't affected the standard of education one bit.
In Britain, you were an Anglican whether you wanted to or not. You would think that my Muslim ( Iranian and Arab - mainly Saudi) schoolmates would have been opposed to the idea but, au contraire , they seemed to enjoy the mandatory Sunday service immensely and their interpretation of the Bible certainly provided interesting insight. There's nothing like watching a Saudi prince sing Anglican hymns with enthusiasm. It's almost Pythonesque. At the Prep and Public School level, I think the Brits used religion as a vehicle to introduce western culture, ideas and "British values" in particular, to others. It was a very effective tool for assimilation. Things have changed lately I understand.
Then there was the Canadian system. Living in Ottawa when I came back from Europe, there was a bewildering array of school boards, each publicly funded. Picking a high school for Grade 13 was an adventure in Byzantine politics. I didn't think someone from a Catholic school board was better educated compared to his Protestant counterpart so I didn't understand the logic behind it at the time. The system seemed just like a big turf war where no one agreed. Much like religion itself.
To me, one system for all with higher standards would work much better with particular emphasis on the three Rs especially and the elimination of multiple choice exams. Religion is a personal choice. A school trustee may beg to differ however.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 15, 2007 10:46:18 GMT -5
Prepare for war believer!  religion, or at least an overly strong belief in one's particular 'religion', causes so many of the world's ills. But let's admit that "religion" -- or " antireligion" -- is taught in our school system . . . or should I just say a particular world-view or belief system that is contrary to what many people believe . . . and opposite views are derided, not discussed as possible. There isn't even a "some people accept this alternative/opposite view" but rather "how can people believe this? They are wrong wrong wrong!" . Surely you are not even remotely suggesting that something like "creation" should be given equal time? Creation, resurrection, one God, many gods, saints, devils, blood letting, virgnin sacrifices and a million other beliefs are just that, "beliefs" and nothing more. Created by and for ones particular religion. That would be, I think, at our discretion, until a certain age. If we want our children to be well-rounded then they need to know what each faith or religion believes. School system should never, ever waste resources to teach children about peoples belief system. The extent of "teaching" should be that there many are religions out there and that some people prefer to believe in them. That's it. Beyond that, it's up to the parents to teach the children their belief system. Of course, the child should be protected by the Charter of Human Rights if the parents belief system abuses them. No child should be abused by his parents beliefs. That includes circumscision, clitorectomy, blood transfusiions, dress codes (burkas and the like, kirpan) and unusual behaviour outside the norm of society. Primary place of religious learning is the home, not the school. Unfortunately, the secular school system is indoctrinating against religious ideas rather than for understanding of religious ideasAthiesm, agnostics and religion given equal time. Children shoudl be told that some chose to believe in a particular relgion and they can choose not to believe in anybodies religion. Of course, if we were to be fair to the child, then there should be more emphasis given to not believe seeing that the child is subjected to the parents religion 24/7. A secular society should always strive to be fair. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Sept 15, 2007 12:48:59 GMT -5
Prepare for war believer!  Did I say equal time? I thought I said presented as alternative belief system, and not just derided or insulted. . . . or ones particular world-view. “I’m right /you’re wrong” is close-minded whether it be a religious or an anti-religious bias. But that is exactly what school systems do. Whether a secular belief system or a sacred belief system, whether scientific or quasi-scientific basis (see the discussion on global warming/climate change taught as “truth”), a particular belief system is taught. I suggested nothing different: Primary place of religious learning is the home, not the school. Unfortunately, the secular school system is indoctrinating against religious ideas rather than for understanding of religious ideasAn anti-religious bias is evident. Or let’s be honest: it isn’t a public school system, because the public has little input. It is a secular school system. In fact (I wish I’d kept the article) the president of the Alberta Teacher's Union just suggested that neither parents nor politicians should expect to have any input into what is taught – after all, teachers are the professionals, and, by extension I guess, know what is best for little Johnny. That I’ll grant you. But Quite the list there. Unusual behavior outside the norm of society? What’s that? Norms change over the years -- and not all for the better. Exactly. But religion (I’d rather “religious studies”) is not given equal time . . . or any time at all! Heck, I don’t even think equal time should be given in a public system – just an acknowledgement that some people have different ideas . . . and that that’s OK. No one should cram religion down the throat of a child. Nor should anyone cram anti-religion down the throat of a child. so, does that mean that a child from a non-religious home should be given more of an emphasis because he isn’t subjected to religion at all, or because he is subjected to anti-religion at home? After all, ;D |
|
)
