John Tory's pledge to fund private religious schools would have a serious, negative long-term impact on Hamilton.
By Adrian Duyzer
Published September 28, 2007
The topic of religious education has been by far the most talked about issue in Ontario's election season. Although there are more pressing issues, religion is controversial, and controversy sells newspapers.
It's not just that, though. Provincial funding of private religious schools would have a significant long-term impact on the province and its cities.
To anticipate those readers about to protest, "But the province already funds these schools, because the Catholic system is fully funded!", it's worth pointing out the differences between the Catholic system and private religious schools.
The Catholic public school system, like the non-Catholic public school system, is divided into school boards. The Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board (HWCDSB) has 53 elementary schools and seven secondary schools, serving 30,500 students in the region.
Catholic school boards like HWCDSB are large and unified, resembling non-Catholic school boards in their operating budgets and the number of students attending. This has a lot to do with the monolithic nature of the Catholic Church, which is the largest organized religious body in the world, comprising approximately one sixth of the world's population.
Private religious schools, on the other hand, are fragmented, with even small sects creating their own schools. Many of these schools are Protestant Christian, which is not a unified branch of Christianity.
Private religious schools tend to be scattered across large geographical areas. Most of Hamilton's private Christian schools are in rural areas or on the outskirts of the city.
This may be because property is cheaper in those locations or because private religious schools benefit from having their children separated from the rest of the community.
It isn't difficult to predict what would happen to religious schools if they were publicly funded. Existing religious schools would grow larger. The number of religious schools would increase, as it would suddenly become affordable and perhaps even profitable for even small religious groups to open schools.
Enrolment in public schools would drop. The more successful religious schools became, the more the public system would decline. This, in turn, would have a ripple effect across cities:
Years ago, friends of mine from Ann Arbor, Michigan, took me on a "Detroit ghetto tour" - a drive on a snowy winter's night through some of Detroit's poorest neighbourhoods.
One peculiar feature about the streets we drove on jumped out at me: the preponderance of tiny "churches" on streets otherwise populated by hair and nail salons and grimy restaurants.
I put "churches" inn quotation marks on purpose, since they appeared to be nothing more than ordinary houses and storefronts that had a sign (or just paint on a window) advertising places of worship with names like "Lucinda's House of Jesus".
I asked my guides why there were so many small churches everywhere. They explained that churches were exempt from property taxes, creating a powerful incentive for people with few economic opportunites to put a sign on their homes and invite people over on Sundays.
This taught me that when religions are given special treatment, the results can be unexpected. In this case, the results weren't just unexpected, they were also strongly negative for a city with a declining industrial base already desperate for tax revenue (sound familiar?)
Ultimately, the fairest solution, and the one that makes the most economic, environmental, and urbanist sense, would be to unify the secular public school system with the Catholic public school system.
With no major political party willing to take up that gauntlet, however, the best alternative we can hope for is the status quo, because John Tory's pledge to fund private religious schools is bad for cities like Hamilton.
By Frank (registered)
Posted October 01, 2007 10:53:18
Shouldn't this be in the Opinion section? Perhaps you should visit the Christian school associated with the church I attend. Whenever a student comes from the public system into the school, they're generally a few grades behind. Our public system has better grades because our public teachers are forced to pass people by Ontario legislation regardless of whether they merit the grade or not.
Having said that, I'm a product of a religious school myself and aside from having learned many values and possessing a greater sense of responsibility for my own actions, I don't find much wrong with the way I was educated.
As for Maestro, perhaps you would find it shocking that although you might not have agreed with Mr. Harris's politics, he had the popular vote because unlike most liberal politicians, he did what he said he'd do.
( Permalink )
Hi Frank,
Adrian is an RTH columnist and this is his column; it's not straight reporting.
As for the popular vote, the Harris Tories won the 1995 and 1999 elections with 45% percent of the popular vote - less than half. It's only because of Ontario's first-past-the-post electoral system that a plurality of votes produces a majority of seats.
Incidentally, the Liberals won the 2003 election with 46% of the popular vote. They deserve credit for taking some initiative in creating a citizen group to study electoral reform and putting an MMP referendum on the ballot for this election, though it hasn't generated nearly as much coverage as it ought.
Also, the main reason reason the Liberals had to "break" some of their election promises is that the departing Eves government had claimed the province was going to balance its budget in 2003/'04, but the actual deficit was $5.5 billion (so much for fiscal responsibility).
( Permalink )
By Voter (anonymous)
Posted October 01, 2007 13:45:21
( Permalink )
By here (anonymous)
Posted October 01, 2007 18:40:21
( Permalink )
By Ted Mitchell (registered)
Posted October 02, 2007 03:42:11
Here's an interesting quotation: A particularly troubling conclusion from the survey is that the integration of the children of visible-minority immigrants into society appears to be weaker than that of their parents.
from:www.triec.ca/index.asp?pageid=40&int=newsite/news-media/inthenews/MediaClippings/StarOct2005.htm
So, would funding religious schools make this problem better, or worse? Consequences like this do not happen overnight, they take more like a generation.
When Tory points out all the provinces that have recently made this choice, well, the jury is still out for a long while.
( Permalink )
By adrian (registered) - website
Posted October 02, 2007 09:27:17
Tory has now flip-flopped on the issue.
Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory saw the light on his faith-based school funding scheme – and it was a runaway train headed straight for him.
Faced with mutinous Conservative candidates and polls suggesting the policy would cost the party the Oct. 10 election, Tory yesterday announced a compromise that could undermine his $400 million plan to extend funding to Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Sikh, Hindu and other religious schools.
In a desperate bid to salvage a campaign in which the Conservatives trail the Liberals by up to 10 points – even though polls show voters prefer Tory to Premier Dalton McGuinty – he promised to put the policy to a free vote in the Legislature if he becomes premier.
Given that it's apparent his plan has no broad-based public support and so would never pass a free vote, this is a complete reversal.
I'm supportive of people who change their minds, although I think it's better when they do so as a result of new information, as opposed to polling results. In this case, however, I think the pejorative term "flip-flopper" is fair, given all of the Conservative attacks on McGuinty for changing his mind.
At least one thing has come out of all of this: there's no way that public funding for private religious education is going to happen any time soon.
( Permalink )
By Frank (registered)
Posted October 04, 2007 13:27:49
Ryan, Last time I checked we had more than one party in Ontario which is why if one party has 45% or 46% of the popular vote it can still win the popular vote. I'm not saying that the Eves gov't didn't cause problems what I'm saying is that when McGuinty ran for the election he had every opportunity to look into the deficit and didn't despite predictions from his own advisors that it would be bigger than he was anticipating. Also, it's interesting to note that John Tory took over the Conservative pary leadership with his own party being in debt and has since then balanced the budget... Not to mention that party policies are different now as well as there being a different leader. Holding previous "sins" of leadership against a party or the following leaders is very childish and closeminded.
Regardless, the reason Tory was suggesting equality by funding all religious schools is because of the Liberal's refusal to "defund" Catholic schools citing historical reasons. (DM actually attended a Catholic school...surprise!!!) One cannot say that we should have a secular society where religion and politics are separate and continue to fund ANY religious school including Catholic schools. By refusing to remove funding for Catholic schools, the only alternative is to fund them all. This format, by the way, is in effect in, I believe, nine of the other 13 provinces and territories and has not had the negative affect on society that Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals are suggesting.
All that aside, why are we focussing on the issue that will consume all of 400M of an increased education budget. (Contrary to DM's accusation that it will remove the money from the publicly funded system, the education budget would be increased) This is all of what 2% of the total budget. Why not focus on what should be real election issues such as doctor shortage, the repairing of the education funding formula (also promised by DM...but when?), poverty issues, crime rates, the traffic of guns and so forth. Why does it take the NDP leader coming to Hamilton to speak out on poverty issues in an area that has been shown to have one of the highest concentrations of poor people in the province?
You may call Tory's decision a flip-flop, I call it the only way to remove the issue from the Liberal microscope and allow Tory to focus on his other election promises rather than answering rapid-fire questions about religious school funding at every stop on the campaign trail. How can the public find out the rest of a parties platform short of reading the platform online (I've read both the Liberal and Conservative platforms...the NDP site was down at the time) when there's no way for the party leader to talk about them???
( Permalink )
"Last time I checked we had more than one party in Ontario which is why if one party has 45% or 46% of the popular vote it can still win the popular vote."
My point was that it's possible to win a majority of seats with less than half the votes. With Ontario's broken electoral system, the seat count bears little relation to the popular vote. (All the more reason to vote for MMP in the upcoming election!)
You also wrote that Harris won because "he had the popular vote because unlike most liberal politicians, he did what he said he'd do." In fact, the McGuinty government won with a bigger margin than either of the two previous elections (albeit still less than half the popular vote).
"Holding previous 'sins' of leadership against a party or the following leaders is very childish and closeminded."
You accused the McGuinty government of not keeping its promises. I pointed out that they had to change some of their fiscal plans because the previous government had lied about the provincial deficit situation. It's irresponsible to blame the Liberals for changing their plans without considering the context in which they made that decision.
To borrow an expression from John Maynard Keynes, they changed their plans because the facts changed.
"You may call Tory's decision a flip-flop"
Actually, I have no strong feelings about it. Tory made the right choice abandoning the idea, which he would never have proposed in the first place if he understood what voters want.
( Permalink )
By Frank (registered)
Posted October 04, 2007 15:59:23
The McGuinty government had every opportunity (as I pointed out) to research the actual deficit independent of the finance minister's account. In fact, he was told by his own advisors that he was heading into deep water. It's irresponsible to promise something based on an opposition party's account despite warnings from your own advisors. The facts actually didn't change. The facts were there. The finance minister's account was wrong, the facts were still available and it would've been an astute decision to research them...especially when making a promise like this. I regularly listen to a talk radio show on CFRB from 3-4 called Two Bald Guys with Strong Opinions. One happens to be a conservative and the other is a lawyer who was elected president of the Ontario Liberal Party in 1998 and 2000. Both agree on one thing - this issue would most likely have been voted through legislature with the existing government and it was because of misinterpretation and plain old political b.s. that this relatively minor issue has come to the forefront and is making/breaking this election when it should never have done so.
( Permalink )
By ugghhh! (anonymous)
Posted October 05, 2007 00:50:58
( Permalink )
By Frank (registered)
Posted October 05, 2007 09:51:33
haha, ugghh... the only reason i listen to that show is because it produces opposing viewpoints which, in turn, creates good discussions and provides a viewpoint that I don't normally hear. I don't base any argument I make solely on listening or researching one angle without doing significant research from the opposing viewpoint. In other words, I'm a fan of playing devil's advocate in order to promote discussion.
( Permalink )
By Genghis (anonymous)
Posted October 06, 2007 17:09:40
( Permalink )
By Yup-per (anonymous)
Posted October 06, 2007 21:58:05
( Permalink )
By Frank (registered)
Posted October 09, 2007 14:01:25
I have a big problem with this being such a big issue. I think that as Hamiltonians and Ontarians, we should be asking things like: Why did DM refuse to visit Caledonia? Why is he negotiating with people who are occupying disputed lands causing disruption and terror in the bordering neighbourhoods and paralyzing a city? What EXACTLY is Dalton Mcguinty's plan with respect to promoting and/or public transit such as our LRT system here in Hamilton? What about the Health Tax? I bet if we lowered his and the other MPP's salaries we could get rid of it pretty quickly... What's his plan when it comes to our doctor shortage? Take a listen to the interview with Scott Thompson and John Tory posted on 900CHML.com from Oct. 5. I still haven't heard Howard Hampton talking about this either. I understand he's frustrated with the media (from his rant during his last visit here) and maybe we'll hear something worth hearing today when he visits Hamilton again...but come on....These are the REAL issues. Not something that's worth a miniscule part of the provincial budget.
( Permalink )
By Frank (registered)
Posted October 09, 2007 14:02:36
Should say "...and/or funding..."
( Permalink )
By Yup-per (anonymous)
Posted October 10, 2007 01:41:03
( Permalink )
By Genghis (anonymous)
Posted October 10, 2007 16:19:09
( Permalink )
By maestro*F (registered)
Posted September 29, 2007 13:11:11
A lot of really good reasons I hadn't thought of to oppose a really bad idea. Never forget, the Harris Government tried to undermine the Public School System through staffing cuts and the imposition of standardized testing. This is just an attempt to continue to apply the Conservative-Alliance-Reform-Republican agenda through the back door.
( Permalink )