I'd never vote for it. Canada has 2 official languages, French nd English. Ontario recognises those 2 languages as official.
That's at the federal level. Ontario does not have French as its official language; it merely grants French a sepcial but secondary status already anyway.
At this time, the ministry of education in Ontario gives schools the right to teach local First Nation Languages IF there is the demand and resources available. IE, a teacher and a demand for the language. I have previously supplied you with the pertinant links in regard to this.
I see no problem with that. However, if a privte school were interested in offering the local indigenous language, and parents were interested in registering their children to that school, why woudl you oppose that?
At this point in time "Esperanto" s NOT a recognised "universal language", though there are some that would like it to be.
It depends on what you mean by 'recognized'. UNESCO has already officially expressed its moral support for it, and a number of countries allow it in their education systems already. In fact, Canada has joined their ranks this September. There is now an elementary school in Halifax teaching it as an optional second-language starting this year. Add to that that research shows that Esperanto can also serve as an excellent propaedeutic in the learning of other languages.
It would take away resources for other things to spend the time and money to implement the teaching of this language.
How so? If we give parents a school voucher for each child, and they are free to send their child to the school of their choice, whether they choose to have their child learn French or Esperanto would come out to the same thing price-wise. It would just be the difference between an Esperanto teacher and a French teacher. So how would this increase costs? All it would do would be to shift costs according to the free market. And of course if parents choose not to have their children learn Esperanto, or no private school chooses to participate in the voucher programme, then there would be no change. So what would be the issue with that?
The "forcing" of nonindiginous students to learn an indiginous language could also take away time and resources that could be betterspent on some other educational endevour rather than learning a language that very few actually speak.
That's why I'd stated that non-state-owned schools choosing to participate in the voucher programme would be required to offer, not necessarily teach, the local indigenous language. Now of course offering implies that the school must ensure the resources, human and otherwise, are available to deliver on the offer should parents in fact take the school up on the offer. I should add too that it was quite clear that non-state-owned schools would be free to chosoe to participate or not in teh voucehr programme. So if a school didn't like the deal, then it could continue on as it is now, receiving no government funding but teaching as it wishes, in which case it would notice no change from now. So again, where would be the issue there?
With the constant talk of educational funding shortfalls in almost every educational district in the province, the above proposal would only increase those shortfalls and add to the inequity some districts find themselves in at this time.
Howso? If a non-state-owned school should choose to participate in the voucher programme, it would get funding proportionately to the number of children it attracts. Funding for public schools would likewise drop proportionately to the number of pupils they'd lose. As such, if the school gets less funding but fewer pupils, it therefore needs less funding anyway, since it would be responsible for fewer pupils. And if it gets more funding, then it gets more pupils for it, so it would naturally balance out in the end. A voucher programme has been in place in Sweden for about 15 years now, and even the Social Democratic Party now supports it!
As for state-owned schools teaching the second-language of their choice, of course they could do so only if they can budget properly to accomplish this task, or alternatively to attract charitable donations. So again, where would be the issue with that?
Sign language is anoher specialized language that need only be taught to those that show an interest or a need. This is already taken care of.
IN some shools, yes, but if more people learnt it, it woudl help the deaf community to further integrate. In some countries, the national sign language is also one of the official languages of state!
Anyway, that aside, again, where did it say anywhere that anyone woudl force any school to teach any sign language. That woudl be a decision for the school to make based on its financial resources. So again, where would be the issue with this?
