And you post is missing what - numbers - facts - other than that it is what? PS as Geery states- You are again in error.
Catholic school board rejects ‘road map' deal
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
And you post is missing what - numbers - facts - other than that it is what? PS as Geery states- You are again in error.
So, since the Catholic school system offers a religion course, which is NOT manditory, they shouldn't get funding?
Not exactly, gerry. The Davis government extended to full funding of Catholic schools (which I support, btw). The Constitutional obligation is not for full funding.
If that was the case then you would stfu about what you don't know. Like your assinine statements concerning lactation.
Yes exactley. Alberta also funds a public seperate school system.
Is funding for the Jewish, Muslim, and other school boards equivalent? Oh, sorry, those school boards don't exist.
What's good for the goose... either they all get funding or none gets funding. Take your pick.
Been through this. Already know you have a Hard on for the Catholic system. Sucks to be you.
That they get some funding? Not equal funding though. If you go to Catholic school, your taxes pay for it all as long as it's a public Catholic school. If you're a jew sendig your kid to a Jewish school, a public option is not available so you will have to pay at least some out of pocket. That is not equal.
Not for that course, no.
Additionally, my personal opinion is that we should be funding one school board. Its a complete waste to fund 2.
But if we are funding 2, I feel we should not be funding that course, optional or not.
I could see at least 2 just solutions:
1. One school system.
2. School vouchers (maybe based on the Swedish model) or some other system that ensures equal funding for all.
So, no funding of religious courses period. I assume this will apply to any religion courses offered by the "public" school system also? Are there any other courses you wish to discriminate against?
I wonder if French Public and French Separate school boards here in Ontario's North are watching the show?
Correct. I am not aware of any myself. But they should not be funded by the school board. They can be offered if funded privately. Including the Catholic ones. My objection is not their presence but whose $ is paying for them, I also think 1 board would be more efficient than 2 (in theory at least).
Yes it is. Written into the constitution as it was a prerequisite of AB becoming a province.
I'm a native French speaker myself, and my parents had the constitutional right to send to to French-medium school in Victoria, BC. No such constitutional right for the local Salish though, even though they'd been there for thousands of years before my ancestors.
as far as I'm concerned, school vouchers would be fair enough and if market demand allows for a French-medium school, so much the better, but if not, no special treatment for French speakers in Victoria (nor English speakers in Quebec city either). To be fair to indigenous Canadians after the attempted cultural genocide through the residential school system, maybe some kind of provision that the school voucher is worth x% more if it's for education in the local indigenous language or some other compeensation of the sort.
Special rights for French and English speakers too, yet as a native speaker of both French and English, I'd be more than happy to give up my constitutional rights to French and English in favour of equality.
Remember that the constitution was written while we were sticking needles through children's tongues in residential schools because they dared speak in their mother tongues.
I have not looked at this for many years, Gerry, but I don't think that the Constitution does call for full funding. I believe that the obligation is for no deterioration from that existing in the Alberta Act of 1905. That allowed for denominational schools and provided that the funding arrangements prior must not be lessened.
Those funding arrangements under the NorthWest Territories Act of ?, a few years earlier, were that the denominational separate schools were funded by the Catholic ratepayers.
It is not something that is unchangeable, either. Newfoundland, not too long ago, abolished its denominatiol system through a Constitutional change using the expedient of a referendum, Manitoba and B.C. had, earlier than 1905 abolished their systems and they have been reinstated.
I don't recall more clearly and I am not concerned enough to spend the time on it. The United Nations has ruled that the system is discriminatory - as it surely is. It should be abolished but, while it lasts, I support full funding.
I don't know whether it still holds but I believe that the amount of religious instruction is severely limited by law.
So what is the point of it.
First of all, the Catholic school boards get the same deal as the public schools. While this article talks about Catholic schools rejecting hte deal, it isn't clear on the fact that public schools also reject the deal. In fact, only one school board has accepted the deal and that is the Toronto Catholic.
What the unions and teachers have a problem with, is that the government is asking teachers and other employees to sacrifice in order to make up for a shortage which this Liberal government caused. The teachers did not ask for a lower corporate tax rate, nor did they ask for all day kindergarten. This 'surprise' deficit was entirely predictable, and now the government is asking civil servants to pony up, and not even considering rolling back the tax breaks that this province obviously could not afford.
What the unions and teachers have a problem with, is that the government is asking teachers and other employees to sacrifice in order to make up for a shortage which this Liberal government caused. The teachers did not ask for a lower corporate tax rate, nor did they ask for all day kindergarten. This 'surprise' deficit was entirely predictable, and now the government is asking civil servants to pony up, and not even considering rolling back the tax breaks that this province obviously could not afford.