This is no "misstep". On the contrary, appeal to Davis seems a decent move, one that is likely to be lost on most. His end-of-term decision to extend the fuller funding to Catholic schools was a matter of justice, a late rectification of sorts of the sorry Ontario discriminatory history, a history noted in the piece forwarded here for discussion by Chris Tindal. The Globe should examine its own likely historically sorry role in promoting the century-long injustice.
The Globe rightly uses the term, 'anachronistic'. Its remedy of more spending period is not to be condemned either.
But its analysis that "separating" children leads to their "ill-preparedness" for "pluralism" is dubious. There is no pluralism without the different traditional sources & their adherents, & for most serious traditionalists a major requirement is some sort of immersion for their children in a school setting, insufficiently provided by "world religions" courses. The lesser but still adhering traditionalists depend on those taking these things more seriously.
There are other means to encourage positive direct dealing among young people of different traditions, & these should be incorporated into a funding formula allowing for religious grouping to get some partial conditional funding,
as is done just about for everyone else in Canada! What is it that makes Ontario so different & recalcitrant in this, if not remnants of its own sorry history in this matter vis-a-vis Catholics? The (albeit by now anachronistic) inclusion of Catholics was in its time part of a paradigm for the Canadian-style pluralistic inclusion that the Globe supposedly supports. Why does the Globe not summarize its own editorial history in this? We know why. Why won't the Globe cite examples of intolerance in, say, Alberta that would by its theory result from Alberta's school funding policy? There is no data to back up their claim. And re marriage prospects for students: is anyone suggesting Ontario social engineering should go that far to discourage traditionalists' marrying their own, without which their traditions might be jeopardized? Again, no living traditions, no pluralism. Of all safe places in the whole world, Ontario is precisely the best to even promote multi-traditional preservation as well as interaction. Obliterative "secular"-only policy is contrary to the best of trends current in Canada.
Now I've written copiously to GPO principals on what's needlessly wayward in its current education policy. It is good that some attention seems to have been paid to the matters I & others brought up, attenuating any negative impression that might follow from the unadjusted policy expression. But there is still enough in GPO education policy strands as they stand to safely politically distinguish ourselves as well as to offer vision. Schools, as I believe Erich Jacoby-Hawkins also mentioned, are drastically underused properties. A community-centred eco-focus for making fuller use of these ubiquitous properties should be at the heart of GPO policy (by things like vawt wind power generation, vehicle-sharing, mycellial terrain-restoration, neighbourhood composting, intensive gardening, &c &c). And fostering inter-communal togetherness in cultivating & participating at these better-used properties (& elsewhere) could be at the heart of GPO policy, in line with its already multiple references to spirituality, of which religious traditions are all indisputably repositories (if all partial --- but that's precisely why we need them all & can come together in no better place than Ontario). Perhaps by tying partial (ie for clearly non-sectarian matters) conditional (ie no excluding any willing student of whatever background) funding to required inclusion of serious environmental study & such participation, GPO would truly lead where leadership is sorely lacking now. Who better to seize the "green" agenda in education? Is it not obvious that a century of this secular schooling has assisted in getting us to the sorry state we're now in, which Greens presumably are out to rectify in their ways? And does no one understand that "secularism" in the eyes of many functions at times as a "religion" itself?
Please, fellow GPO-ers (my family in since 1983), make no appeal to recent polling stating 2-1 support for one-board. One board or many boards I don't think is all that relevant in the end. One-only diminishes "competition" (although a stupid word to use in education context), & is no guarantee for efficiency either. And if French (not discriminatory in its own way?) boards are retained, which already overlap with Catholics, where's the savings magnitude claimed? The 2-1 numbers merely reflect that there is no consensus for constitutional amendment, esp. given Ontario history in the matter. Is it not obvious that 2-1 simply reflects the current secular-Catholic split? Do not appeal to this, lest when it really might count in a few years with hoped-for imminent electoral reform, it might stick to GPO by negative association.
There are ways to "end funding" (avoid those words as well, even if GPO effectively means as much) to Catholics, but that would be by first gently partially including others, after which Catholics might no longer continue (valid, continually upheld by Supreme Court) constitutional objections. Catholics already accept broader funding. It's others who stand in the way, for differing reasons.
Daryl Vernon
York Centre
----- Original Message -----From: Edward IngSent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 9:54 AMSubject: Re: [OntarioGreens] Tory's misstep on religious schoolsCertainly is a mis-step. People old enough to remember Bill Davis vote getting pandering policy are still bitter.
Edward Ing
Mississauga South
On 7/25/07, Chris <chris.tindal@gmail.com > wrote:Sent to you by Chris via Google Reader:
via The Globe and Mail - Politics News on Jul 25, 2007
It is telling that John Tory, the Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader, has pledged to appoint former premier Bill Davis to head a panel examining the expansion of religious school funding in the province. Twenty-three years ago, in Mr. Davis's final term, he made perhaps the most dubious decision of an otherwise distinguished career by extending public funding for Catholic schools - previously provided only through Grade 10 - to the end of high school. Now, Mr. Tory is proposing to correct that mistake by making an even larger one. (Globe Insider subscribers only)
Offline 
Send Email