Except when the parent believes the Bible was meant as a science text. I think it could be valuable to teach the Bible as literature, but not as a science text.
Should the Federal Government create a national curriculum and national tests?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
Except when the parent believes the Bible was meant as a science text. I think it could be valuable to teach the Bible as literature, but not as a science text.
well that's a valid point, but not really an issue within Canada that I have heard about anyway
Sal, you asked about the voucher programme. Though many versions can exist, I'll describe the Swedish one.
Initially the Saami and Swedish Finns wanted the right to send their children to school in their languages. Eventually the linguist, pedagogue and language rights activist Tobe Skunab-Kangas joined in along with other language rights activists. The Christian Democratic Party then jumped on board and proposed a voucher programme according to the following criteria:
Parents would receive a voucher for each child under their care, the value of each voucher varying according to circumstances. For example, a wheelchair-bound child would receive a higher-valued voucher than one who isn't, all else being equal.
All state-owned schools must participate in the programme, and all non-state-owned schools could apply to do so. Participating non-state-owned schools are referred to as free schools.
Participating schools could not charge in addition to the voucher. Parents could cash the voucher in at the school of their choice.
All teachers at these schools must hold the appropriate teaching credentials.
Students must be accepted on a first-come basis.
Though each school is free to adopt the language of instruction of its choice and teach the curriculum in its own way, all schools must teach the curriculum and all students must sit the national exams which are in Swedish.
Though religious schools are free to participate in the programme in principle, they too are bound to accepting students on a first-come basis and not on religious affiliation and must also respect the religious freedom of each student. This essentially limits such schools to identifying themselves as religious and introdingce a compulsory course on their sacred texts as literature. As a result, many private religious schools have chosen not to opt in.
The Christian Democratic Party appealed to Article 26 (3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in its election campaign: "Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. It won the election and introduced the new system in 1993, still active today.
It also better respects Article 2 of the UDHR than the Canadian system does.
Initially the Saami and Swedish Finns wanted the right to send their children to school in their languages. Eventually the linguist, pedagogue and language rights activist Tobe Skunab-Kangas joined in along with other language rights activists. The Christian Democratic Party then jumped on board and proposed a voucher programme according to the following criteria:
Parents would receive a voucher for each child under their care, the value of each voucher varying according to circumstances. For example, a wheelchair-bound child would receive a higher-valued voucher than one who isn't, all else being equal.
All state-owned schools must participate in the programme, and all non-state-owned schools could apply to do so. Participating non-state-owned schools are referred to as free schools.
Participating schools could not charge in addition to the voucher. Parents could cash the voucher in at the school of their choice.
All teachers at these schools must hold the appropriate teaching credentials.
Students must be accepted on a first-come basis.
Though each school is free to adopt the language of instruction of its choice and teach the curriculum in its own way, all schools must teach the curriculum and all students must sit the national exams which are in Swedish.
Though religious schools are free to participate in the programme in principle, they too are bound to accepting students on a first-come basis and not on religious affiliation and must also respect the religious freedom of each student. This essentially limits such schools to identifying themselves as religious and introdingce a compulsory course on their sacred texts as literature. As a result, many private religious schools have chosen not to opt in.
The Christian Democratic Party appealed to Article 26 (3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in its election campaign: "Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. It won the election and introduced the new system in 1993, still active today.
It also better respects Article 2 of the UDHR than the Canadian system does.
Last edited:
thanks Machjo, an interesting idea.
they pay for higher education too
and it is controlled on a municipal level
But the more freedom you give a school, the more national testing standards become necessary, especially when the school gets to choose its language of instruction. This could also be a way to regain Canada's pre-WWI respect for multiculturalism which allowed German and Ukrainian Canadians to send their children to school in their own language, but this time extending it to indigenous peoples too.
Some may be surprised to find that, the Indian Act and indigenous peoples aside, some aspects of Canadian law were more welcoming of multiculturalism pre-WWI than ever sinse.
Sorry walter, But You Never Explained Your reddy. Are you saying that if a parent wants to send his child to a school that teaches that Darwin was a fraud, dinosaur bones are fake, and the earth is 6000 years old and flat (how else are all eyes to see him when Jesus returns?), that should be his right?
Difficult for the federal government to dictate a uniform curriculum as every region has its own industries and cultures that are quite different from others (at least that's the way it is in the USA). In Kentucky the equestrian industry is predominant in much of that state. In the highly urbanized areas of the Northeast it is nowhere as significant. Should kids in Brooklyn ghetto schools have to learn how to handle horses even though the only time they see such creatures in on tv? Should kids in Wyoming learn to shuck oysters when they will never see one, again, except on tv? Should kids in Miami learn about how to be coal miners??
There are a few things that can be taught on a uniform basis - math, science, vocabulary. But culture, industry, farming in the city or sea life in the desert just won't work for kids. Let the states determine what is best for their kids.
Feds step on Provincial toes enough already and they do a good enough job of wasting our tax money as is. They don't need more suggestions from someone who's sole and real purpose for wanting changes in our education system is to get rid of the Catholic Schools.
Maybe for English and Math.
I wonder with all the news about Catholic schools how many parents nowadays would be gung ho about sending their kids to one. I realize it's prejudice and possibly wrong headed thinking, but the seed has been sowed.
I think you have the right idea. I think education should be mainly a 'provincial' matter.
So maybe when Alzheimer's sets in and the are unable to teach anymore, the make principals out of them.
What's the most dominant news we been hearing about Catholic residential schools for the past 5 or 10 years?
Maybe for English and Math.
I wonder with all the news about Catholic schools how many parents nowadays would be gung ho about sending their kids to one. I realize it's prejudice and possibly wrong headed thinking, but the seed has been sowed.
I think you have the right idea. I think education should be mainly a 'provincial' matter.
So maybe when Alzheimer's sets in and the are unable to teach anymore, the make principals out of them.
The only pertinent problem I have with the separate school system is that it discriminates by making distinctions on the basis of religion in the Constitution. I have no problem with the Catholic Faith beyond that.
Oh, you were thinking residential schools. There is an irony I suppose in rewarding the very Churches that were involved in the residential school system with a privileged status in the separate schools system.
Residential schools have absolutely nothing to do with the Separate school system (Catholic) and only a complete moron would tie the 2 together.
Still voicing your ignorance, I see.
I have no problem with ANY faith as I think it's entirely up to the individual what he wants to believe. Now as far as the residential schools are concerned I have a few questions. Maybe I've been only hearing the bad side of the news mainly to do with pedophilia and depriving them of their language and culture.............to the point where it would seem that EVERY residential school was like that. Sure there must have been some school where the nuns and teachers were kindly folks who had the kids' best interests at heart. I know the bad is pretty bad, but I can't believe it was all bad. Or was it?
I think Gerry confuses being uninformed with being ignorant. Huge difference!
Why would ONLY a complete moron tie the two together? Could not an uninformed person tie the two together?
I think Gerry confuses being uninformed with being ignorant. Huge difference!
No, he isn't "uninformed", he is willfully ignorant.
Why would ONLY a complete moron tie the two together? Could not an uninformed person tie the two together?
No, only a complete moron.
The residential school system in Canada was the Federal Governments baby. They "contracted out" the day to day running of the individual schools to, not only the Catholic Church, but also the United Church and the Anglican Church. Staying "uninformed" in todays information age would be willful ignorance or moronic. Your choice.
There's lots of stuff that we catch on the radio or T.V. that we don't give much further thought to, so have only a vague idea about it and at the time might not strike us as particularly interesting. So we don't get as far as making a choice. In post # 34 I posed a question that perhaps you can answer......................" Maybe I've been only hearing the bad side of the news mainly to do with pedophilia and depriving them of their language and culture.............to the point where it would seem that EVERY residential school was like that. Surely there must have been some schools where the nuns and teachers were kindly folks who had the kids' best interests at heart. I know the bad is pretty bad, but I can't believe it was all bad. Or was it?"
I can understand that it was not the churches that were entirely to blame but more so the individuals with a heinous agenda, but still there had to be someone overseeing these bastards and realizing the harm they were inflicting. Were they not echelons in the religious order?
Wow, just wow. You do realize that the whole purpose of the residential schools was to bring Christianity to the heathens and integrate them into modern society, to "beat" the Indian out of em, if nesasary. There was nothing noble or good about the residential school system. There was only one purpose and that purpose was to get rid of the Indian problem.
You have a severe head problem, man! Have you thought of finding yourself a competent shrink? Flying off the handle at the slightest provocation isn't f*cking normal. When I was in school we were told there is no such thing as a stupid question and no doubt you were told the same. Why is the comparison between the residential schools and the Catholic Separate asinine? I realize there are differences, but that doesn't preclude similarities there, Einstein. F**k you've already got my blood pressure up before 6 in the morning. Go read the book by Dale Carnegie- "How to Win Friends and Influence People" and quit being so F**king ignorant!