Effort to abolish Catholic schools in Alberta [CWN]

[CWN_News]

David King, Alberta’s former education minister, has launched a campaign to abolish the province’s system of separate publicly-funded Catholic schools. King supports the forced merger of …

More…

 

[Dale_M]

This is a topic on which I know little, and since I am not a Canadian (let alone an Albertan) perhaps it is none of my business. However, from my American perspective it seems strange that the government should be funding the Catholic school system (or any religious school, for that matter.)

 

[Scoobyshme]

David King, Alberta’s former education minister, has launched a campaign to abolish the province’s system of separate publicly-funded Catholic schools. King supports the forced merger of …

More…

It’s all part of a concerted effort that’s been ongoing for some time to try to destroy the Catholic Church. The Marxists, Masons, and Modernists have been trying to destroy the Church for over a hundred years now. They will fail, but they can also do great damage to many souls, which is Satan’s goal. Satan is the master terrorist. His goal is lies and murder, which is nothing new. Jesus says he was a liar and a murderer from the beginning. He uses the weak and ignorant to do his work.

 

[canadianguy1143]

This is a topic on which I know little, and since I am not a Canadian (let alone an Albertan) perhaps it is none of my business. However, from my American perspective it seems strange that the government should be funding the Catholic school system (or any religious school, for that matter.)

Allow me to give you some relevant information that may help you in this matter. It is in our Canadian Constitution that Catholic schools were given constitutional rights. Regarding funding for Catholic schools is left to the choice of the taxpayer. All taxpayers are given the choice of Public or Separate (Catholic) school funding.

 

[jamanne]

In reply to the controversy about funding Catholic schools.Many non Catholics try to get their children enrolled in the Catholic school system because every survey or study that has been done shows they out perform the non Catholic schools in almost every subject.This fact has has prompted over and over again a kind of professional envy among educators who even in Ontario have come up with the idea “if you can’t beat, them shut them down” under the guise of "unity’ ,Catholic schools also admit ,if they have space children from all other religions ,who desire a faith based education.And don’t forget Catholics are also taxpayers .the Catholic Schools were the only schools in frontier Canada and the constitution was adapted so non Catholics could be included.in the the system without having to be a Catholic i. We don’t
'have to have the same constitution as you .Our country has a different history ,here in Ontario any politician who raised the specter of dumping Catholic schools was committing political suicide REF John Tory. This year there was a group of administrators who want to ban the reporting of school performances in local newspapers because the Catholic schools always came out ahead and it made the non Catholics educators look bad.So ban the Catholics and we can all look forward to mediocrity in our public schools

 

[Dale_M]

Allow me to give you some relevant information that may help you in this matter. It is in our Canadian Constitution that Catholic schools were given constitutional rights.

CanadianGuy, I do not mean to offend nor do I want to tax your patience. However, would you be willing to explain this a bit further? If you are saying that Catholic schools are mentioned in the Canadian Constitution, would you be willing to look up a citation? I ask only because I would like to learn more about this.

If I have misunderstood you, I apologize. I realize that Americans tend to dominate discussions here at CAF, but I also realize that our government’s emphasis on separation of church and state is not shared by other countries.

Regarding funding for Catholic schools is left to the choice of the taxpayer. All taxpayers are given the choice of Public or Separate (Catholic) school funding.

Okay. Here in the US, we are giving the option of whether or not we want some of our taxes to be diverted to political campaign matching funds (which are to benefit poorly financed candidates.) We simply check a box if we want this to happen. Is the situation similar in Alberta (or Canada, generally?) Citizens are simply check a box as to whether they want their taxes to fund the secular school system or to fund the Catholic school system (or perhaps both, equally?)

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

CanadianGuy, I do not mean to offend nor do I want to tax your patience. However, would you be willing to explain this a bit further? If you are saying that Catholic schools are mentioned in the Canadian Constitution, would you be willing to look up a citation? I ask only because I would like to learn more about this.

If I have misunderstood you, I apologize. I realize that Americans tend to dominate discussions here at CAF, but I also realize that our government’s emphasis on separation of church and state is not shared by other countries.

Okay. Here in the US, we are giving the option of whether or not we want some of our taxes to be diverted to political campaign matching funds (which are to benefit poorly financed candidates.) We simply check a box if we want this to happen. Is the situation similar in Alberta (or Canada, generally?) Citizens are simply check a box as to whether they want their taxes to fund the secular school system or to fund the Catholic school system (or perhaps both, equally?)

Here we are
Constitution Act 1867 Section 93:

Education.

1. In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education, subject and according to the following Provisions:–

(1) Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class of Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union:

(2) All the Powers, Privileges and Duties at the Union by Law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the Separate Schools and School Trustees of the Queen’s Roman Catholic Subjects shall be and the same are hereby extended to the Dissentient Schools of the Queen’s Protestant and Roman Catholic Subjects in Quebec:

(3) Where in any Province a System of Separate or Dissentient Schools exists by Law at the Union or is thereafter established by the Legislature of the Province, an Appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or Decision of any Provincial Authority affecting any Right or Privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic Minority of the Queen’s Subjects in relation to Education:

(4) In case any such Provincial Law as from Time to Time seems to the Governor General in Council requisite for the Execution of the Provisions of this Section is not made, or in case any Decision of the Governor General in Council on any Appeal under this Section is not duly executed by the proper Provincial Authority in that Behalf, then and in every such Case, and as far as the Circumstances of each Case require, the Parliament of Canada may make remedial Laws for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section and of any Decision of the Governor General in Council under this Section.(50)

 

[AdvanceAlways]

This is a topic on which I know little, and since I am not a Canadian (let alone an Albertan) perhaps it is none of my business. However, from my American perspective it seems strange that the government should be funding the Catholic school system (or any religious school, for that matter.)

Historically, Canada has always funded such schools. Generally, it isn’t seen as big of a deal is something like that would state side, would be. Speaking from my experience with Canadians anyway.

 

[Dale_M]

Dakota, thanks for that citation. It seems Canada was more progressive than the US, but some 60 years. Down here, there were several attempts to restrict non-government schools, usually because of a suspicion that they promoted anti-Americanism e.g. in New York and Pennsylvania in the 1840s and 1850s, Wisconsin and Illinois in the 1880s and Oregon in the 1920s. The right to non-public education wasn’t guaranteed by the US Supreme Court until the 1925 ruling Pierce v. Society of Sisters.

 

[ConstantineTG]

This is a topic on which I know little, and since I am not a Canadian (let alone an Albertan) perhaps it is none of my business. However, from my American perspective it seems strange that the government should be funding the Catholic school system (or any religious school, for that matter.)

Ontario also publicly funds Catholic Schools. I thought they were the only ones. Not sure about Quebec. Canada was mostly Catholic in the past thanks to the French.

Here in British Columbia there is no such funding, much to my dismay. I think Catholic Schools and other private schools should at least be partially funded by the government, as they have to ensure every citizen is educated. These same funds would otherwise be spent on the same student going to public school. But I agree with no total funding because if they government pays for everything in Catholic Schools, it means they would have to say what the school can teach and do. Not good with a secular government.

 

[Timothy17]

Catholic schools make up a large part of the daily life and fabric of South-Western Ontario. I went to public school (same nightmare as anyone goes through, except a bad education to boot), and was always hearing of some new Catholic High School in town that I never even knew existed. I know they built a renound and beautiful new Catholic High School and how people were talking about how much better the resources were there. I sensed a lot of envy, rivalry and jealousy over it. We were taught in public school that the Catholic School system in Ontario was essentially governed by agreement, almost like a treaty. Recently in Ontario the “humanists” have been attacking the Catholic school system as being somehow akin to seperatistism or being against unity, etc. They claimed the UN made some moral declaration against Ontario’s dual system of public and Catholic schools.

Frankly, if my more recent experiences with public schools are any indicator, I think the Catholic school system is seen more and more as a threat to Ontario’s more progressivist-inspired educational hegemony, it being a failing enterprise. Recently I had to experience the *in-your-face *awkwardness of walking through a public high school with pamphlets posted everywhere preaching acceptance and tolerance of/for homosexuals, like some neo-moral propaganda crusade. Public schools, from my experience, spent more time indoctrinating people than authentically developing or educating them, and it appears to be getting worse.

Today, paradoxically, a High School diploma is virtually worthless in Ontario, except for perhaps being a minimum requirement for factory jobs, which don’t actually require any education. I was taught that High School was only good for getting into University or College, and that failing this (getting a “higher education,”) you were basically toast in life.

Pax,
Tim

 

[curlycool89]

Allow me to give you some relevant information that may help you in this matter. It is in our Canadian Constitution that Catholic schools were given constitutional rights. Regarding funding for Catholic schools is left to the choice of the taxpayer. All taxpayers are given the choice of Public or Separate (Catholic) school funding.

Not quite. That only applies in certain provinces (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario). Several have had their religious schools abolished (Manitoba, Newfoundland, Quebec).

David King, Alberta’s former education minister, has launched a campaign to abolish the province’s system of separate publicly-funded Catholic schools. King supports the forced merger of …

More…

It’s not going to happen. Rights to attend a faith-based school is entrenched in the Alberta Act (1905). Basically, the majority faith got to set up the “public” system, and the minority faith got the “separate” school system. The “public” systems for the most part were Protestant, and have gradually become secular. It varies from place to place though (for example, in St. Albert, the Catholic system is the “public” system and the secular one is the “separate” system because Catholics were the majority there).

To modify this, it takes a Constitutional amendment. By precedent (Newfoundland is one I can think of), this requires the Federal Parliament to pass an amendment to the Act. In a case where it only affects one province, they only require the consent of that province.

Ok, that’s the technical stuff. Number 1, the premier (Ed Stelmach) is a Ukrainian Catholic. Secondly, there’s very high public support for the Catholic systems. Thirdly, he’s the only guy making noise on this. Alberta just went through province-wide Municipal elections this past Fall, and this was not an issue. Fourthly, did I mention that Alberta is the most Conservative province in Canada? There’s not any chance of this happening.

 

[Eddie_Joe]

I was interested in answering Dale M who said "However, from my American perspective it seems strange that the government should be funding the Catholic school system (or any religious school, for that matter.) " Well I’m not Canadian either but am Australian and while Australian Catholic schools are not fully funded by the government they do receive some government funding. Catholic opinion in Australia is that Catholics are also tax payers there fore should be entitled to government support.

 

[Dale_M]

Catholic opinion in Australia is that Catholics are also tax payers there fore should be entitled to government support.

I think many Catholics in the US will agree with you. Although our government’s principle of separation of church and state prevents direct funding of religious schools, there are periodic efforts to pass some kind of education voucher plan. Such vouchers would be funds issued by the local government and allow parents to pick the school of their choice.

I’m not well informed about this topic, so will appreciate if others chime in. According to the Wikipedia article, only 10 states (and the District of Columbia) have such programs. And most of those programs are to benefit low income families or special needs children.

As recently as 2002, the legality of such voucher programs was considered questionable. This changed with the US Supreme Court ruling in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris that as long as long as the program met a five fold test, then such programs are constitutional.

The five points which must be met are:

* the program must have a valid secular purpose,
* aid must go to parents and not to the schools,
* a broad class of beneficiaries must be covered,
* the program must be neutral with respect to religion, and
* there must be adequate nonreligious options.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelman_v._Simmons-Harris

Yet despite this ruling, I don’t think there has been a concerted push from US Catholics for vouchers. But I may be wrong, and welcome information.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Dakota, thanks for that citation. It seems Canada was more progressive than the US, but some 60 years. Down here, there were several attempts to restrict non-government schools, usually because of a suspicion that they promoted anti-Americanism e.g. in New York and Pennsylvania in the 1840s and 1850s, Wisconsin and Illinois in the 1880s and Oregon in the 1920s. The right to non-public education wasn’t guaranteed by the US Supreme Court until the 1925 ruling Pierce v. Society of Sisters.

You’re aware that most of those were anti-Catholic right?

Ontario also publicly funds Catholic Schools. I thought they were the only ones. Not sure about Quebec. Canada was mostly Catholic in the past thanks to the French.

Here in British Columbia there is no such funding, much to my dismay. I think Catholic Schools and other private schools should at least be partially funded by the government, as they have to ensure every citizen is educated. These same funds would otherwise be spent on the same student going to public school. But I agree with no total funding because if they government pays for everything in Catholic Schools, it means they would have to say what the school can teach and do. Not good with a secular government.

What if people who reported they were Catholic on the Census have the money that would go to public schools instead be directed to Catholic schools?

Not quite. That only applies in certain provinces (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario). Several have had their religious schools abolished (Manitoba, Newfoundland, Quebec).

It’s not going to happen. Rights to attend a faith-based school is entrenched in the Alberta Act (1905). Basically, the majority faith got to set up the “public” system, and the minority faith got the “separate” school system. The “public” systems for the most part were Protestant, and have gradually become secular. It varies from place to place though (for example, in St. Albert, the Catholic system is the “public” system and the secular one is the “separate” system because Catholics were the majority there).

To modify this, it takes a Constitutional amendment. By precedent (Newfoundland is one I can think of), this requires the Federal Parliament to pass an amendment to the Act. In a case where it only affects one province, they only require the consent of that province.

Ok, that’s the technical stuff. Number 1, the premier (Ed Stelmach) is a Ukrainian Catholic. Secondly, there’s very high public support for the Catholic systems. Thirdly, he’s the only guy making noise on this. Alberta just went through province-wide Municipal elections this past Fall, and this was not an issue. Fourthly, did I mention that Alberta is the most Conservative province in Canada? There’s not any chance of this happening.

I imagine the Catholic schools being higher quality is a source of pride.

I think many Catholics in the US will agree with you. Although our government’s principle of separation of church and state prevents direct funding of religious schools, there are periodic efforts to pass some kind of education voucher plan. Such vouchers would be funds issued by the local government and allow parents to pick the school of their choice.

I’m not well informed about this topic, so will appreciate if others chime in. According to the Wikipedia article, only 10 states (and the District of Columbia) have such programs. And most of those programs are to benefit low income families or special needs children.

As recently as 2002, the legality of such voucher programs was considered questionable. This changed with the US Supreme Court ruling in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris that as long as long as the program met a five fold test, then such programs are constitutional.

The five points which must be met are:

* the program must have a valid secular purpose,
* aid must go to parents and not to the schools,
* a broad class of beneficiaries must be covered,
* the program must be neutral with respect to religion, and
* there must be adequate nonreligious options.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelman_v._Simmons-Harris

Yet despite this ruling, I don’t think there has been a concerted push from US Catholics for vouchers. But I may be wrong, and welcome information.

note the fourth point

 

[Dale_M]

You’re aware that most of those were anti-Catholic right?

Yes, that was why I mentioned them. However, I should also note that nativism was the key component, so not only was being Catholic seen as un-American but also the use of a foreign language for instruction (e.g. German) in schools.

note the fourth point

That would be the requirement that a education vouchers program must be neutral with respect to religion. My understanding is that this means the program could not favor the schools of one religion over the schools of another religion. As such, this puts the ruling in contrast to the situation in Canada, where one religion (sometimes Catholic, sometimes Protestant) is given preference.

 

[canadianguy1143]

Ontario also publicly funds Catholic Schools. I thought they were the only ones. Not sure about Quebec. Canada was mostly Catholic in the past thanks to the French.

Quebec used to be funded as well as Newfoundland before it ended some years ago.

Here in British Columbia there is no such funding, much to my dismay. I think Catholic Schools and other private schools should at least be partially funded by the government, as they have to ensure every citizen is educated. These same funds would otherwise be spent on the same student going to public school. But I agree with no total funding because if they government pays for everything in Catholic Schools, it means they would have to say what the school can teach and do. Not good with a secular government.

Ontario used to be partially funded through the years until 1985 when it received full federal funding. My Dad predicted that when it happened we kissed Catholic education away as it gave the Feds full authority as to what to teach. This has come to fruition during the 90s when it became public that the teachers were teaching things contrary to the faith. The President of the Catholic Teacher’s Union (OECTA), publicly stated in the newspaper that abstinence education was antiquated.

 

[Raphael72]

The federal government has nothing to do with education. the BNA Act clearly states that education is a provincial mandate.

 

[Phemie]

Allow me to give you some relevant information that may help you in this matter. It is in our Canadian Constitution that Catholic schools were given constitutional rights. Regarding funding for Catholic schools is left to the choice of the taxpayer. All taxpayers are given the choice of Public or Separate (Catholic) school funding.

That depends on the province. When NL had Catholic education, there was no such choice, in fact there were no “Public” schools. Each school board, whether Catholic or Pentecostal, Salvation Army or Integrated was funded equally on a per student basis. We as tax payers had no choice to make in the matter.

 

[CaptFun]

David King is no King David. Not even Larry David or Larry King. :nope:

Just thought of Larry the Stooge though . (face SLAP) :blackeye: "What’re ya tryin’ ta DO?!" < Moe