Last week Ontario Progressive Conservative leader John Tory announced that if he were elected Premier he would extend government funding to non-Catholic religious schools in the province. These would include Jewish, Hindu, Muslim and non-Catholic Christian institutions. His announcement, as was to be expected, generated quite a bit of controversy. On one hand, some individuals, particularly those affiliated with the schools in question, applauded his move. It is not right, they said, that one religious group – Catholics – receives government financing for its schools while the rest do not. Others agreed with this reasoning, with a twist: in a secular state, religion should be kept out of government institutions such as schools, and therefore no faith community is entitled to taxpayer support. This is the position taken by among others Toronto’s Eye weekly magazine and by 58% of respondents to a recent poll. The third view amounts to a sort of “The way things are are the way things are†(that quote is from the character of the cow in the movie Babe) approach. It might not be fair that Catholics get full funding for their schools and members of other faiths do not, but this is the law of the land.
A clarification: the “law of the land†is actually the British North America Act. When it was written in 1867, it provided for the establishment of two educational systems in Ontario: the Catholic system and the Protestant system. At the time Protestants and Catholics were virtually the only religious groups in the province, so it was thought that this division would cover every student. The writers of the Act probably did not envision the future mass immigration of members of other faiths to Canada (or the increase in individuals not affiliated with any). Eventually the Protestant system became simply the non-Catholic, or public, system, without ties to any religion. One might thus argue that like laws forbidding people to let their horses copulate in public or requiring that a married woman obtain her husband’s permission to open a bank account, the British North America Act, or at least the portion granting Catholics their own school system, is now obsolete.
The question of school funding affects me both as a parent (albeit of a child too young to attend school) and as a practising Christian. My position on the matter is similar to that of Eye magazine: religious educational institutions, Catholic or non-Catholic, should not receive state funding. (Note: sometimes the drive to eradicate so-called “religion†from the public sphere borders on the inane; witness for example the kerfuffle over the Christmas tree in the courtroom.) The responsibility of raising my daughter in a faith falls to me as her mother. If I want to have formal religious education as an adjunct to her upbringing, I should shell out the money for the appropriate school from my own pocket, not the public purse.
On the other hand, some criticism of full funding for all religious schools strikes me as alarmist. It has been asserted that Tory’s move will isolate children from members of religions other than their own and lead to profound divisions in Canadian society. That possibility seems a bit far-fetched. A number of Catholic schools, for instance, have a considerable percentage of non-Catholic and even non-Christian students enrolled in them. Even working under the assumption that religious schools would accept only followers of their particular denomination, the fact is in today’s world children will be exposed to people of other faiths outside of school, such as on sports teams, in clubs, at part-time jobs, etcetera. Finally, not all parents, even those who go to a church or other place of worship, would choose to have their children attend a religious school. I for one would prefer that my daughter learn about her faith from me, her other family members and our church rather than from a school.
I am not sure that Tory’s position on funding of religious schools will make or break my vote in the next provincial election (I tend to alternate between supporting the Conservatives and the Liberals); there are plenty of other issues to consider when casting my ballot. Some have accused John Tory of using religious schools as a means of courting the ethnic vote. That may or may not be true, but given that over half of Ontarians do not appear to support his idea, he might rethink his plan.
I would agree with most of your sentiments, but I do believe that the alarmist (how I loath that word) criticism is not as easily dispensed with. Firstly, if the Tory move passes than the mixed nature of current Catholic schools would surely vanish with parents being able to afford to send their kids to a school that respects their faith. I cannot guess to what degree segregation will happen, but that schools will become more dogmatically segregated is to me a given. As a real world example, Northern Ireland can be cautiously cited. Even though both school system in NI are open to all faiths, the attendance of Catholic students in Protestant schools (and vice versa) is almost non-existent.
As an atheist, I have no problem with faith being part of a unified school system. Every school will have to follow a province given secular curriculum, but each individual school should be able to respond (within reasonable limits) to the religious practices of its student (by providing prayer rooms, inviting religious speakers for voluntary lectures, etc etc). The only stipulation is that whatever privileges are given to the religious students must be also mirrored in the privileges given to the agnostic/atheist students.
It is disappointing that Premier McGuinty has decided to play cynical political games by opposing the provision of fairness for non-Catholic minorities, particularly in light of the fact that his father, the late Dalton McGuinty Senior, was such a passionate advocate for public funding for independent alternative schools, including all faith-based schools. (For McGuinty Sr’s passionate plea see: http://www.equalfunding.org/articles/Dr.%20Dalton%20J.%20McGuinty.pdf )
Given that Ontario already funds well over 90% of its faith-based schools, while at the same time maintaining a vibrant secular public school system, it is really very hard to agree with those who say that funding the small remaining minorities will cause the sky to fall.
These schools already exist today, and bringing them into the public system will increase integration, and ensure appropriate regulation, while solving a longstanding gross unfairness. The families in question pay full education taxes, so money is definitely not an issue. If these children enrolled in secular public schools the money would be produced immediately with no quibble.
To Roland first: I don’t think that Canada will become another Northern Ireland simply because here there is not the animosity between Catholics and Protestants that exists there. Also, I believe that some parents will still enroll their children in schools run by religions not their own if the school is good in academic quality. Some Protestant friends of mine are sending their children to Catholic school for that reason: i.e. they think the Catholic system is academically superior and they want their kids to get the best education. The same might go for Jewish, Anglican, etcetera schools: people not part of these faiths might want to enroll their children if the education offered is better than that of the public system.
You made a good point about students’ religious activities. I don’t have any problem with student-led prayer at games, Bible clubs for students at the school, etc. What I would object to is for example mandatory prayer or Bible reading in the classroom. And yes, atheist/agnostic students should be able to start their own clubs on school grounds too if they wish. Also, I would hope that comparative religion courses would be available at least as an option in high school. This would be less a “religion” course like that offered in a religious school but more of a sociology or history course, because for better or worse, religion is and always will be a part of our society.
To Mike, I write that it “may or may not be true” that John Tory is seeking votes; I can’t read his mind. I don’t think that funding non-Catholic schools will cause the sky to fall, and I might still vote for Tory even if he does go ahead and fully fund non-Catholic religious schools; to me the funding of religous schools is not a particularly important issue for me.
I suppose our definition of fairness varies. We both think it is unfair that Catholic schools get funding while those of other denominations do not. However, our solutions differ: mine is to de-fund all religious schools while yours is to fund any that meet the right qualifications. Time will tell which view - or the status quo - will prevail.
Alberta has had public funding for religious based schools for more than a decade and it works just fine. It doesn’t cost anything extra because a reformed funding formula was put into place. Funding follows the student. Every student is funded exactly the same amount, regardless of which school. Nobody wins. Nobody loses. If parents choose religious schools, they can. If not, they don’t have to. And one does not happen at the expense of the other. It is, basically, a good thing. As an Albertan, I can’t even relate to this being a problem! It merely demonstrate religious intolerance. Go figure!
I’m not against religious schools per se; I just don’t believe they should be funded by the state. Regarding separation of church and state, I agree it can be taken to extremes; for example, in a case in the United States, the school came down against student-led (as opposed to mandatory) prayer, and that is not right. But I don’t think the government should actively fund religion, and this is what happens with religious schools.
I wasn’t aware that by financing faith-based schools, that we were funding “religion”. I thought we were funding “education”. Whether the school’s philosophy is faith-based or faith-absent, the educational syllabus is the same. What is different are the outcomes. And most importantly, parents are more satisfied when they believe that the teachings of the school more closely reflect their own values. Its a question of choice for the parents.
Why, then, can anyone argue that the state needs to start making decisions for parents, by not giving them a choice regarding schools? What that really says is that the state implies, “We, the state, know what is good for you and your children, and to prove that we know best, we’re not going to give you any choice in the matter”. That, my friends, is the slippery slope to social destruction, because what else will the state start to decide for our families next? That’s why its constitutional at the BNA Act level.
The reason that faith-based schools exist in Canada (and in many, many,many other countries) is because the people demand them. And they are on the rise.
All I am hearing on this Ontario debate is a circular argument. The comment, “I don’t believe the state should fund faith-based schools” can be presented exactly the same from the other perspective: “I don’t believe that parents should be forced to subject their children to faithless schools”. It’s circular and fruitless.
What is not circular is the principle of a parent’s right to raise their own children the way they see it best. Its a parent’s choice regarding whether their young children wear red shoes or green socks, eat macaroni or fish, see a movie or go bowling, go to church or stay home. It’s all a matter of parental choices.
I also would like to point out that the syllabus at religious schools is not necessarily the same as that at public schools. For example, as you know, there was recently a debate about religious schools that taught creationism in the science classroom. In my view, creationism is a matter of faith and should not be part of science class. Of course not all religions believe in creationism. However, most faith-based schools have religion classes, not comparative religion (which could be found in a public school), but instruction in that particular faith. Again, in my view that is funding religion. Morning prayer, which often occurs at religious schools, is something else that I don’t believe tax money should fund.
Again, I’m not against religious schools, just public financing for them. Nothing is stopping parents from sending their children there if they are willing to pay the cost.
First, parents already pay the taxes that fund education. There is no reason why a parent can not expect that their own share of the education dollar. They contribute towards it like everyone else. There is no reason that it cannot be spent on the type of education they demand for their own children. It’s their share of the money. They are just as entitled to it as everyone else. It’s also their children, and they make the decsions when it comes to raising them.
There’s no logic of which I am aware that sustains the argument that all the education should only go to one public system. One public system doesn’t suit everyone. (One size does not fit all!) Moreover, the more generic you get, the less effective you become. Choice and variety enhances educational opportunities; it doesn’t take away from them.
Secondly, just because in Ontario the syllabus may not be the same, in many jurisdictions and countries it is. I guess that it proves that some other jurisdictions have already thought this through to an appropriate solution. This is not an issue with sufficient weight so as not to proceed to allow faith based schools. It can be fixed, and many have already done so.
I believe that seeking this new solution in Ontario for faith-based schools is a superlative political response to an increasing demand from the electorate. The world has changed. There is a new demand. The government will respond. And the more pluralistic our society in Canada gets, the more that these types of demands are going to come forward, and the more the government will have to respond.
The bottom line is that, in reality, when push comes to shove, there is absolutely no reason not to proceed with faith based schools. I haven’t heard a single argument to the contrary, except for the stand by: “I don’t like it so it’s no good”. Quite frankly, most people see through an argument like that, and will make educated choices at the polls.
Based on the principle of parental right to make the choices about what is best for their children, and upon parents right to their share of the education tax dollar towards which they contribute, not only does it make sense, it works!
I have also heard no comments about the UN rulings in 1999 and again in 2005 (as Ontario did nothing about the 1999 ruling) stating that it was blatent discrimination and there were two choices, stop funding Catholic schools, or start funding other faith based schools.
That is why I am not voting for Tory or McGuinty, since both support Catholic funding for 675,000 kids. In my mind that is really more of an issue than the extension of equal treatment to the other small minorities. In fact, if Catholic schools continue to be funded, it actually seems to make sense to treat the other equally since it is hard to justify ongoing official religious discrimination.
I will be voting Green. In my opinion anyone concerned about the religious school funding issue who supports McGuinty, whose not-so-hidden agenda seems to be defending Catholic schools, is really deluding themself, not to mention violating their own principles.
We have absolutely no hope of EVER getting rid of Catholic funding if we do not support the only political party that has made it part of their platform to eliminate Catholic funding, i.e. the Green Party.
If you put those kids who are now in private faith-based schools into the public school system, it’s still going to cost you $500 million. They have to be educated someplace and the state can’t do it for free just by sucking them into the existing public school system. There’ll be more teachers needed, more public schools to build, more principals to pay, more books to buy…. The province can’t do this for the same dollars they are now spending. People have to start to think this through a bit.
Citizens are being sucked in to believing that faith based schools are a real rotten thing and it will somehow destroy the public education system. But they cite no supporting documentation to verify these claims, because there isn’t any. If there were, somebody would have brought some forward by now.
There is very little separating the views those who are advocating religious intolerance (who are screaming not to support faith-based schools) and those who are advocating religious intolerance (like the Talaban). Religious intolerance is religous intolerance and you can’t hide it under the skirts of protectionism for an increasingly ineffective public school system.
I am looking for something more than morning radio ga-ga in this debate. And in case you’re not keeping score, I’m winning here by a long shot.
The reason I say that parents should pay for religious schools themselves even though they also pay general education taxes is because in my opinion a.) though I do think we are overtaxed and that there are services that government should not and/or does not have to provide, education is something that benefits all society so it is important that it be publicly funded, b.) government should be secular (not anti-religious, as was for example the Soviet Union, but simply not pro-or anti-religion), and as government-funded institutions schools should be as well. I’ll give you an analogy. I may, if I can find a job that I can do out of my home and that pays well enough, homeschool my daughter, not for religious reasons but because I might think it’s a better form of education. In that case I wouldn’t be using the public educational system, but I still feel it is my civic duty to pay education taxes to the public system.
I would agree with you, Michael, that the public school system needs improving, but I don’t necessarily think funding faith-based is the answer. I do not think, however, that funding them will cause the ruin of the public schools as some people do.
Michael, you also state that the public will start demanding the funding of faith-based schools. According to a recent Ipsos-Reid poll, 62% of respondents did not support funding these schools. As well, and here Carl and Robert might wish to take note, 53% did not like the status quo and felt that Catholic schools should be denied public tax money as well. I would probably agree with you, Robert, in that the fair thing to do would be either to fund both Catholic and non-Catholic religious schools or fund neither. Of course I personally prefer the latter option, but I think even funding all faith-based schools, Catholic and non-Catholic, is better than funding only the Catholic ones.
I suppose I am on your side, Carl, except in that I don’t think the school funding issue is going to make or break my vote (if I vote at all). But as I said in my essay, I think John Tory might want to rethink his stance, as polls suggest that even a majority of Conservatives do not support his idea.
If you want to find out real in-depth academic research about this related topic all across Canada, please see the recent book, {Bibby, Reginald.(2006). Restless Gods: The Renaissance of Religion in Canada. Toronto, ON: Stoddart Press}. Bibby’s study has blown academic brains out. It is an exhaustive emperical/statistical study. He asked the right questions, not the “leading” questions posed by Ipsos Read.
I agree everyone should pay education taxes regardless what.
I agree that the public school system needs reform.
I suggest that the rise in faith-based schools is because parents are “voting” with their feet and leaving the public system. They do not want to wait for reforms, which won’t take place in our lifetime.
Although some people like the idea of a secular society, this is not the case in Canada, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Netherlands, all over South/Latin America and others too numerous other places to enumerate here. Even Indonesia, a Muslim country, has faith-based schools, and so does India, with all its diverse religions.We are not a secular country. Maybe people want to change that, but right now that is not the system. The secular system is in America, created by the Puritans 250 years ago, after they entertained Britain at the Boston Tea Party, so that they could carry on with the Slave Trade.
There are no reasons, (economic, social, academic, bureaucratic, or other) for not funding faith-based schools anywhere in Canada that I have ever seen or heard about. The arguments I have seen presented are nothing more than expressions of religious intolerance.
Parents have always had the right to choose what is best for raising their own children. There is evidence that this was the case even before Ancient Rome and Greece. There is no evidence to disprove this wisdom of thousands of years of history.
Parents can make many choices within the public school system. There are all sorts of specially-oriented schools. There are Music oriented schools, Sports oriented schools, Art oriented schools,Gender oriented schools, vocationally-oriented schools, Drama oriented schools, even culturally-oriented schools. But public schools have no faith-oriented choices. That choice is eliminated because people have been sucked into another biggoted American belief system that was put in place to sustain, among other things, human slavery.
Funding faith-based schools does not distract in any way from any other school system, harm any other social program, or create any civil unrest. We’re talking about little children going to school, here. The province is too big to be impacted by a limited few faith based schools that will spring up. The experience in other provinces is that most parents will not opt for them.
Religious intolerance is religious intolerance, and no paint brush can white wash it.
Even the belief in a secular system is, in itself, an expression of intolerance. When push comes to shove, it is nothing more than religous intolerance.
Yes, thank you so much for joining the debate, even if we don’t always agree (if we did, what would be the purpose of a debate after all?). I suppose by a secular society I meant one in which religion and government were separate, not anti-religion.
As I said before, I don’t think the faith-based school system is a question that would cause me to change my voting behaviour. If John Tory has other policies that I like, I most likely would still vote for him; the faith-based school systems would not really come into my decision to vote for him or not (if I vote at all; though I’ve generally alternated between the Conservatives and Liberals, more often than not I’ve simply abstained from voting because no party truly satisfied me). In addition, I might consider sending my daughter to a religious school if I thought the quality of its academic was vastly superior to that of the public schools. She’s only four months old, so right now it’s not a burning issue.
Well, we’ll see what happens at the polls!
I am an over-taxed, under-paid parent with two kids and a mortgage. I work hard for my money and demand accountability, transparency and fairness by all levels of government. I send my kids to the best school I can afford that within a reasonable commuting distance from my home. Like other parents, I expect the Ontario school systems (both public and private) to properly educate children and instill the right ethics and moral values that society demands.
My contribution to this debate is as follows. I’d like to see the State play a greater role in monitoring and controlling the education curriculum of non-Catholic faith-based schools. I’d also like to see a quota system in place that would ensure some measure of religious diversity in ALL faith-based Ontario schools. And finally, I’d like ALL parents in Ontario to have more choice in the schools their kids can attend.
Thank you for contributing to the debate. I glean from your letter that you are in favour of government funding of faith-based schools. I obviously disagree with you there, but nonetheless, I see there are issues upon which we can agree.
First, for me, like for you, the school funding issue will in all probability play no role in how I vote (if I do so at all) in the upcoming provincial elections. If John Tory has a platform that impresses me, I will vote for him even if he continues to support faith-based school funding. And if his platform doesn’t impress me any more than the other man’s (which would probably be Dalton McGuinty’s), I probably won’t vote at all, and McGuinty’s opposition to faith-based schools won’t tip the balance in his favour for me.
About anti-religious sentiments, let me state that I’m not against religion (I’m a practising Christian, in fact). I don’t object to a school celebrating Christmas or Easter, for example, though I would say that if the number of students of that faith warranted it, the school should also celebrate non-Christian religious holidays like Hanauka or Diwali (Hindu festival). I also would strongly support comparative religion courses in high school.
Now I might have questions about your statements on the “right ethics and moral values.” Here religious schools might have positions on issues like abortion or gay marriage which might be controversial if taught to students. Take the issue of abortion. Now I personally believe abortion is morally wrong (though I wouldn’t exactly call it murder). However, just as I don’t think the law should reflect my view of abortion by forbidding the procedure, I do not believe that schools should be teaching that abortion is murder (as I know some Catholic schools do). I don’t think they should necessarily say that abortion is morally acceptable; that would be a value judgement too in its own way. A balanced approach might be to say that this is an issue about which people disagree and to present the opposing viewpoints without favouring any. If faith-based schools want to teach students that abortion is murder, fine, but they shouldn’t do it on the public purse.
I also guess (am I right?) that you think the public school system should be improved. I agree with you 100% there. I suppose we have points in common, but others in which we differ.
The state should be teaching us Reading, wRiting and aRithmetic. Parents should be parents and do their own religious indoctrination. If the state is going to be in the ethics business, then why are parents required?
This issue is about children. How would little children, attending a faith-based school, become indoctrinated into something so evil that it would require the banning financial support for these schools? The evil is NOT having these schools, because, as has been pointed out previously, society could be one without limits as to what is right and what is wrong. It turns into a society where the individual declares what is right and wrong (individualism) and those limits can become extreme, as it did for Hitler, Charles Manson, or the Taliban. Those are all out-of-whack because someone with some type of values said so. If we allow everyone to impose their own values, who is on the sidelines acting as referee, declaring the “social out-of-bounds?” Other people who are also out-of-bounds?
When those children attending a faith-based school become adults, they are going to decide for themselves anyway, whether its abortion, gender controversy, dope, gambling, or what ever. That’s the nature of the human condition. It’s not as if faith-based schools have weird hypnosis and mind-bending techniques being employed through torture, so as to threaten and permanently maim the children. Let’s get serious here. This is about little children going to school and learning to read, write and do arithmetic in an environment that teaches limits to the human condition.
Religion in Canada needs to be supported. It contributes to social stability, helps people in times of great joy and great sorrow, and so forth. We’re talking main-line religion here, not the fanatic Charles Mansons. By main-line, I mean groups like Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and so forth. There isn’t anything wrong with any of these and everyone knows it. And the little children attending those schools will become model citizens.
Having said that, I am not suggesting that children in non-faith based schools won’t become model citizens either. What I am saying is that faith-based schools are no threat to society, no threat to Canada, Ontario, or anyone else. These are just children. The joy is that they will grow up and have good values through which they can guide their decision making for life. And they will build a great and improved Canada!
How can any rational human being suggest that it is not in the state’s interest to support this, or that this is somehow wrong?
Finally, when the next person suggests that the parents can continue to do this, but use their own money to do it, I need to remind you that the tax money IS their money, and belongs to them too. So let them choose.
1) The Tabilan exists only in a religious capacity and has very strong limitations on what is right or wrong, so lumping them on the side of individualism is dishonest. They are more fervent kin to Southern Baptists
2) Charles Manson ran a cult in which all members showed him absolute devotion - essentially the purest and strictest form of a religion. Lumping him on the side of individualism is also dishonest.
3) Who are you to decide what is main-line? Is it determined by numbers? If so, then you may have to fun a school for the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints, who are showing up in Canada in increasing numbers. As you may be aware, sect leader Warren Jeffs is now on trial for felony charges related to polygamy and an accomplice to rape against a minor. Yet, here is a cohesive religious group with very strict morals who do run their own private schools. To deny them funding under a pro-religious school regime would make you guilty of the same religious intolerance you keep accusing your opposition of promoting
I can’t even begin to respond to your comments because they are really another thead of conversation. While your comments appear to be related, you’ve basically thrown the baby out with the bathwater, dismissed this matter, and you aren’t willing to go to the underlying issue. That’s fine if you don’t want to go there, but doing so does not contribute towards furthering the understanding on this topic.
You STILL have not addressed the fundamental question. What is wrong with little children going to a school of their parents’ choice, and learning a little bit about the values within that family unit, using their parents share of contributions to public funds?
All the details you, (and others as well), have raised around that issue are merely fluff, and while they still may be issues, they can be, and have been addressed in other provincial jurisdictions using many different schemes.
It isn’t a matter of whose values are right and whose are wrong. It is a matter of the parents’ right to educate their children within a framework of values that will suit that family unit. What ever that is. Not your values. Not mine. Certainly not the government’s.
Only theirs.
I have no problem with parents putting children in any school. I just don’t want to have to pay for someone to go to a school that explains to them why I am the devil for not sharing their faith. That is hardly in the public interest. Moreover, parents shouldn’t be relying on total strangers to instill values on their children.
In our Catholic church we had Sunday school - a place where children in a regular school system could come and be indoctrinated on their own time and their own dime. As far as I can tell a lot of those children turned out better than the ones who went to Catholic school. Many Muslims and Jews already send their children to equivalent weekend education. What is wrong with this approach?
Since you seem so bent on supporting the Public School system, let’s just go there for a minute and show you how dumb it really is. When you start to examine its underlying philosophy – which, of course, nobody wants to do because of the monsters in the closets, it reveals itself as a pathetic little beastie thing.
The public school system is offensively oppressive. It oppresses talk about a deity, whatever God or god the parents believe in, and in doing so, it offends people. Basically, “You can’t talk about God in the classroomâ€. Any system that restricts discussion on any topic is oppressive. As soon as you are into an oppressive mode, there is very little separating our Canadian public school system from the Taliban, North Korean government, Pinochet, or any other oppressive regime. You will recall the Nazis and Communists burned books. Oppression is oppression. Using your own argument, where does this stop? What values get oppressed? What is so great and so special about the Public School system that it has a right to oppress thought and open discussion on any topic in the world, including about God? (Being so oppressive a school system doesn’t sound like such a great school system, does it?).
Public school systems say, “Oh, we can’t talk about God because our children, in the public school, might learn something new and that wouldn’t be a good thing for the Public school system’s children. You will certainly contaminate them all if you talk about God here. Please go away and start your own school so you don’t contaminate us. Oh, by the way, you can’t have your own tax contributions to achieve it either, because we need your money to keep our own oppressive system in place, and to keep you in your place. Good bye.â€
Now you’re going to jump in and start saying, “Well, the Christian School System will oppress discussion on Gays and Abortion and ..whatever…†Unfortunately, that isn’t the case. The difference is that these topics are at least brought up and students are free to bring them up and teachers can discuss them without being fired. The discussions may be biased, but there is no oppression, and in the end, people will make up their own minds anyway. That is a very different approach from “You can’t talk about it. Period. And if God gets discussed, the teacher will be fired.â€
The unfortunate truth is that in Public Schools you can talk about outrageous beliefs like Elvis is still alive, Dracula was a vampire, Ghosts inhabit the Opera House, and even belief in the reptile creatures ruling the world, but you can’t talk about the concept of a belief God. It’s pathetic, and it’s so “yesterday.†How sad for them in the Public System, and how refreshing to explore open alternatives.
Cynapse, please do share your wisdom, besides with the fear mongering you have already introduced. Why should parents, who pay income and property taxes, not get to use those taxes to teach their own children within the value system that works for that family? Please do tell. The entire country is waiting to hear it.
I don’t know what public schools you’ve been to, but it’s pretty clear to most people that a child with a turban on is probably a Sikh (or Muslim) and he’s not being suppressed for doing it. We also discussed bible stories vs Greek mythology in my English class, so clearly you are exaggerating. In the University of Waterloo, we had to endure one of the “flock” who stated on several occasions that anyone who did not follow Christianity was doomed. You also claim that religious schools allow for an open debate on these topics and that certainly wasn’t my experience. Their discourse went something like this: “Gay are evil. End of story”.
You’re going to accuse me of dodging until you hear the answer you want, so let’s just stop, ok? The record of “religious” schools throughout the world is plain as day and if you don’t want to see it then I can’t help you.
Perhaps you can answer a question for a change. I repeat:
“In our Catholic church we had Sunday school - a place where children in a regular school system could come and be indoctrinated on their own time and their own dime. As far as I can tell a lot of those children turned out better than the ones who went to Catholic school. Many Muslims and Jews already send their children to equivalent weekend education. What is wrong with this approach?”
Your statements are totally without foundation. You can continue to say them, but not many people are listening. They are mere rantings of an angry person with an axe to grind.
A poll conducted by the Strategic Counsel for The Globe and Mail and CTV found that 71 per cent of respondents oppose funding for faith-based schools. Sixty-three per cent of Catholics, whose schools are already government-funded, opposed extending funding to other faiths, as did 74 per cent of Protestants and 69 per cent of visible minorities.
Interesting. Rural and medium city protestants are far and away going to be the big winner if there is religious funding, as they’ll be able to receive government money separate themselves from the unwashed masses. Why then do they oppose such measures? Could it be they see what I’ve already spoken about (and pro-religious school people have ignored)?
The Poll conducted by the Strategic Counsel obviously did NOT include respondents from territories with State funding for both Public and faith-based schools. The respondents to the poll were Ontario residents who either fear changes to the existing system (fear of change), or are blinded by their own primordial anti-religious sentiments (antipathy towards Islamic or other non-Christian people).
Michael has a point. Religious non-Christian taxpayers are presently forced to fund public schools and at the same time are also forced to use their after-tax dollars to pay for private faith-based schools. That’s not fair. Taxpayers should be given a choice.
My earlier recommendation on a quota system within faith-based schools would address your point about segregation from the “unwashed masses”.
Since these measures are going to affect Ontarians, who else besides Ontarians should be sampled? For statisticians in the audience, another article on the same poll explains the sampling method:
The survey of 850 Ontarians was conducted from Sept. 13 to Sept. 16, and is considered accurate to within 3.4 percentage points, 95 per cent of the time.
There is nothing unfair about having to pay for boxing yourself away from the general public. There are approximately 1700 private schools in Canada catering to all kinds of specials needs from militaristic training to religious indoctrination. In all cases it could be said that the parents merely want their children taught in accordance with the values that apparently can’t be properly disseminated via home parenting. If that is the case - pay for it!
Regarding diversity quotas in curriculum-focused schools, would this not defeat the entire purpose of the schools? Why, for instance, would a private Christian school want to admit Muslims or Jews? The parents of these schools supposedly pay good money (up to $18,800 on tuition alone, according to a recent report from the Fraser Institute) to have their children instructed in CHRISTIANITY. They don’t want to hear about Islam’s objection to usury or about the contributions Jews have made to Western development. What they want to hear is that Jesus Christ died for our sins, abortion is wrong, gays are going to hell and all non-believers will burn on judgment day. What is the government planning to do - offer a few students from other faiths up as whipping boys? That’s not practical.
In many Commonwealth countries (outside of perspective of many myopic Ontarians who participated in the poll) state funding of non-Catholic religious schools is the reality.
In these countries, Christian kids attend Muslim schools, Sikh kids attend Catholic schools, and Jewish kids attend public non-religious schools. The societies are no more or no less segregated that present-day Ontario. In these societies, there are gay Catholic boys and and lesbian Islamic girls. The State manages a uniform educational curriculum and sets standardized exams. Religious tolerance is the order of the day. The quota system that you describe as not being “practical” is in place and it works. I should know, because I am a non-Catholic who attended Catholic schools outside of Canada from age 4 to 17.
There are many compelling reasons for the separation of religion and State, but an entirely secular education system (or a State that actively prevents its citizens from attending religious schools) may prevent many students from building good behaviours (such as honesty, integrity, respect for elders, charity) or to critically assess the merits or practical application of what you may refer to as religious dogma.
Why should the state force our kids to rely solely on their parents or on secular public schools to impart the kinds of moral values required for the effective functioning of a civilized society?
You are definitely right about one thing. My work is uphill all the way. But, hey, I’m in great company. A lot of great people have dedicatd their lives towards advancing anti-biggoted causes — Ghandi & Martin Luther King among them. One-hundred fifty years after the American Civil War there are still many American people who still want to advocate racial biggotry (as recent news stories indicate). Just because those numbers are still overwhelming doesn’t make it right.
If you took a poll in Germany in 1938, I think that most of the people there would have expressed support for the Nazi movement. That didn’t make it right, it just meant a lot of people were duped into biggoted stupidity.
Same going on here. Hopefully more parents can use their own tax contributions to build faith-based schools, so that our children can be taught to get rid of this hatred and biggotry towards other humans, using a education system that is not based upon oppression.
I therefore have a question to everyone participating in this forum: why do you feel or not feel religious education is necessary or at least very important in imparting your values - moral, religious, etcetera - to your children? I suppose I presume that I, with the help of my family, my church and my friends (including those not of my particular faith), can impart those values to my daughter or any future children I have. Again, she is only four months old, so as she grows I may change my mind and decide to enroll her in a religious school, with my own money, if I feel strongly that she needs a religious education. But I am just wondering why those of you in this forum feel that your children need or do not need a religious education in order to acquire your values.
Thank you,
Emilia
I may send my kids to church, but for the same lazy reason that most parents do - I want someone else to do the heavy lifting. There is this severely incorrect belief that if you send your kids to the big church/mosque/synagogue and let them slap down a bunch of restrictions that they will somehow turn out to be good people. But just because some man in a hat is shouting instructions at a kid doesn’t mean (s)he will follow them.
Moreover, kids know how to game the system. My favourite example comes from grade 8 in Catholic school. Most of us were content to quietly comply but there was this one girl who couldn’t wait to proclaim her superior faith at every turn. 1 year later - guess who gets pregnant first? Her explanation was “immaculate conception”, which her parents at least publicly believed. Most of us thought it had more to do with that long haired rocker boyfriend. This is hardly an isolated example.
Finally, parents must admit the long-term reason why they send kids to these big houses for indoctrination of canned morals - afterlife. Christians are told from a young age that if they do not follow the rules they will go to hell. Radical Muslims are told that if they do follow the rules they might end up in heaven with 72 virgins. Religion and all other forms of superstition stay alive by capitalizing on human prospection.
I guess my feeling is, as you stated in an earlier post, the role of the school is to teach reading, writing and ‘rithmetic (and French and history and geography and so on) rather than ethics. Now I see nothing wrong with a school holding a can drive for needy families or a fundraiser for kids in Third World countries. However, I do object to requiring high school students to complete 15 weeks (or whatever the rule is now) of community service in order to get their diploma. That is because instilling ethics should not be the realm of the public school system; rather, it should be that of the parents, the church (if the parents wish) and the larger community.
So my view is that morality, whether based on religion or not, is the purview of the parents and not government-funded schools.
P.S. I had a chuckle over the “immaculate conception” of your classmate. Well, maybe it was technically an immaculate conception: there have been cases of women getting pregnant without having actual intercourse but having semen deposited on the outside of their vagina. But I don’t think that’s how the Virgin Mary got pregnant.
My response to your easy question: “why do you feel or not feel religious education is necessary or at least very important in imparting your values - moral, religious, etcetera - to your children?”
Like most other Canadian parents, I spend insufficient time with my kids. In fact, I’d say my kids’ teachers spend much more time communicating with my kids than I do. Equally important is the fact that most families spend only one hour per week in at their place of worship. This is not enough time for serious religious instruction.
Children in schools are faced with all kinds of information- including unstructured statements from their equally impressionable colleagues and friends. This social interaction is referred to by some social scientists as the “hidden curriculum”.
I want my kids to have a complete, undistorted understanding of my faith- which can best be delivered through a formal classroom environment- with homework and examinations. As they grow older, I expect their studies to include exposure to comparative religions. (In fact, their existing curriculum teaches this topic).
Like the respondents to this discussion thread, I believe that Ontario’s education system should produce informed and responsible citizens who can rationally assess and understand the diverse, multi-cultural and multi-religious society they live in. However, unlike some of the commentators, I don’t believe the role of the State is to force private funding of ALL religious education.
There must be rational limits to implementing the separation of religion and state. An outright ban on State funding of religious education does nothing to eliminate extremism. I’d argue that it exacerbates the problem.
Thank you for your response. I’m kind of new at parenting, so I always like to hear from other parents on how they deal with various issues.
I see sharing your faith with your children is important to you; I feel the same way about my daughter. Again, at least at this point I don’t think for me it’s necessary to provide her with formal religious education at a school. Even if I did, I would face the problem that as far as I know there are no schools of my denomination in Toronto.
I know that some people who want their children to have a formal religious education have turned to homeschooling. For me that’s probably not feasible; once my maternity leave is over I will have to return to work full-time. I also don’t know whether I would have the ability or drive to homeschool my daughter. And if I did homeschool I most likely wouldn’t do it solely to teach her about our faith. However, homeschooling would give me the advantage that I could teach her what I believe rather than what a particular teacher does. Then again, as she gets older she will get exposed to ideas other than mine, especially since I have friends and even family members of many different religions (and ones who belong to no religion at all).
Anyway, thank you again; I appreciate both you and Cynapse sharing your perspectives.
I’m not a theologian, so obviously a religion teacher would know more about my faith than I do. But I would rather have my daughter taught at a church Sunday school or other class, where maybe I have more “control” over what is being taught, than in a school.
Sorry for flogging this issue, but I couldn’t resist drawing your attention to a recent article in Saturday’s National Post newspaper. Its about a Vaughn subdivision known as “Peace Village”. The vast majority of the 260 homes in this subdivision are owned and occupied by members of the Ahmadiyya sect- essentially a group of Pakistani immigrants whose children now comprise 80% of the nearby public school.
You stated in your original posting that “…religious educational institutions, Catholic or non-Catholic, should not receive state funding.” The reality is that at lunchtime on Fridays, the kids kick off their running shoes and use the public school gym as a place of worship. The kids speak the Urdu language at the Teston Public School, and its your tax dollars that’s going to pay for the required bi-lingual, Islamic teachers of this school - and the ESL teachers as well.
The Teston Public School may not have Islam as a subject on the curriculum, but the reality is that it is essentially a faith-based school, paid for by you and me. Expect to see many more examples of this phenomenon in the future.
Just to point out, once again, that it’s THEIR tax dollars as well, not just yours and mine.
I just had a chance to read the article in question. It’s ironic because I’m planning to move out to that area so I can have some land and maybe some animals as well (and the fact I’m part Italian means I’ll feel “at home” there).
Nowhere in the article did I see anything about Islam being taught as a subject. Regarding the use of the gym for the students to pray, I don’t have a problem with that, just as I don’t mind if Christian students use the facility for Bible clubs or, as I mentioned earlier on, if atheist or agnostic students wish to have their own clubs. It is not student-led religious activities that I am writing about but religion being taught as a subject (here I’m not talking about comparative religion courses but those that attempt to instill a particular faith in the students).
So again, I don’t see anything about Islam being part of the curriculum, but maybe we should keep an eye on it.
To take care of personal bias, I’ll let you know I’m in college for a degree in Illustration Arts and I’m looking to become a teacher. My family background, there’s a lot of teachers, at least 8 in my immediate (cousins, aunts, uncles) background, 4 more that are retired.
Moving along - I have noticed that the trend among those who want religious schools to stay publicly funded argue that it’s the same as public schools, just with the added bonus of teaching your religion to your children. I understand that there is a hidden curriculum, mostly evolving from the fact that children act as they see adults behave, ergo adults monitor how they act morally and ethically around school children as a precaution. Coming from the teacher-oriented background that I do, I need to make this clear:
Teachers do not teach your (or anyone else’s) morals.
Not now, not ever. They do not, should not and most of them will not teach a religion, a particular way of thinking (ex: All Jews are evil, gays are bad, religion and/or social denomination is always right). You would be appalled at how many parents come to the teacher and get upset saying “you should teach him/her that…†No. No, they really shouldn’t.
Parents seem to think all teaching, of any kind (religious, moral, ethical) falls on the teachers shoulders, but it doesn’t. Parents need to do something called “parenting†- they need to be the one to teach their children those things, and it’s scary how many parents feel that teachers absolve them of doing any parental duties whatsoever. It’s a really detrimental line of thinking.
And I would also like to put in this thought about publicly funded religious schools. I don’t feel that they should be funded, for many reasons that people have already stated but this is one that really synchs it for me. Religious schools shouldn’t be publicly funded and really can’t be, because they are not universally, publicly available. As a teacher, I must be a Catholic to work at a catholic school which makes sense given what they’re teaching, but that’s exclusive, bigoted and narrow minded, and it closes off a huge job market based on religious discrimination, something that is illegal in Canada. As a student, I must also be a Catholic to attend the same school. But what if I’m not? Not only am I paying taxes for a service I don’t use (which I don’t mind at all) but one which I CAN’T use, not now, not ever (that is a problem).
So if this service is not universally available, and they have very obvious restrictions based on religion, why is it publicly funded? I can’t attend it, even if I wanted to, I am actually barred from going there. This is the main reason why it shouldn’t be publicly funded. Furthermore, I saw a comment a while back about art schools, sports schools and other specialty schools publicly funded. One, these schools aren’t specializing in moral teachings, which is intensely personally/familial and should be dealt with at home. Two, having gone to an art school, I would like you to realize that we aren’t publicly funded, not one bit. Our high school gets $0 from the government, everything is fundraising, and there is a mandatory fee for all students attending.
Thank you for your comments. I agree: parents, not teachers, should be responsible for a child’s religious and/or moral upgrading. If parents want teachers to share in that role, then they (parents) can shell out the money from their own pocket and pay for a religious school for their children.
I could debate this issue for hours. Your comments about teachers’ values are accurate. Best wishes in your teaching career. You probe intelligent topics so I can predict that your students will do very well under your guidance.
Unfortunately, your other comments are based on a limited experience with faith based schools (Ontario model). Faith based schools need not be exclusive.
Where I live, faith based schools are fully publicly funded, and UNIVERSALLY AVAILABLE to anyone who chooses to attend. In fact, the Alberta School Act specifies that no parent can be refused entry to any school that receives public funding in Alberta, except for two limitations: No room in the school or the child needs a very specialized program which is not available (like costly medically fragile students.)(Special education programs don’t fit this). Where numbers warrant, groups can approach a school board to set up a special school which is faith-based.
Also, in Alberta it doesn’t cost a nickel extra because all funds follow the student, including administrative costs, transportation, bla bla bla. There is a formula for everything, and has worked like a charm for over a decade. Every household pays the same tax rate, which is provincially set. ALL money is re-distributed by the province through formulas that equalize remoteness, etc.
In progressive societies, educated and progressive people can establish procedures that work for everybody, so that parents have more choice. A single system is choiceless, bad practice, and not necessary in today’s environment. That’s why we have more than one political party.
It’s time Ontario citizens perhaps considered becoming leaders of educational reform instead of remaining stuck in the last two centuries. Recent demographics indicates that Ontario has more need for inclusive education than we do in Alberta and it time Ontario stepped up to the plate.
If 9-11 has taught us anything, it should have taught us that we are way beyond a need for tolerance and understanding regarding faith. We need to deeply respond to faith as a vehicle which needs to be addressed in society, not something to be contained in a closet by powerful elements in order to make appear invisible to society somehow. Basically, in this issue, one either sides with an oppressive regime, or one opposes it. There’s nothing in the middle. I prefer not to side with a Hitler because I don’t like how that started and how that ended. There’s not much separating the faith-based education issue with the objectives of a regime like Hitler’s, when you think about it long enough.
Thanks for this opportunity to help educate others about this issue.
Micheal
I didn’t know about Alberta schools, and for that, I’m sorry. I just assumed (which was wrong) that given the article and responses, the debate was mostly about schools in Ontario. Thanks for pointing out there are different systems and with enough tweaking, they can work. May I ask if there are other schools of faith that one can attend in Alberta? Say, a Mahayana Buddhist school, or a Theravada Buddhist school? Maybe even a school that also teachers the thoughts and practices of Jainism or Jain Dharma? If there is, then I proudly bow and take off my hat to Alberta.
On a hunch, if there isn’t, then it’s still religious descrimination. If you accept to teach one faith certain schools, you need to accept teaching another faith in another school. If you allow Christianity to be taught through a classrom, respect other religions and give people the option of choosing another. Which, of course, would cost way too much money. It’d be impossible to make all religions available to all students in all distrects with different schools.
I noticed that your students are allowed to attend any school they wish, which is certainly a step ahead of Ontario. I would like to point out this site to you: http://www.hrs.ecsd.net/careers/aboutc.html
I did this because here, it clearly shows what is needed in an application to a christian based school as a teacher - Pastoral Reference Form. Though your students are universally able to attend, the same doesn’t apply to teachers. Again, I’d like to say this, very simple: This is hiring discrimination based on religion, and that is illegal in Canada. End of story. You can’t turn someone down from a job based on their religion or lack of religion.
And 9-11 I suppose taught both of us different things. I study history (I know, a little geeky but it runs in our family to take minors or even major in history) a fair amount, and continue to do so. As humans there is a long history of brutal religious wars that spanes nearly 2,000 years and were the cause of billions of peoples’ unecessary deaths. But by 1875 and the 1890’s, Religious wars were on the decline and what took it’s place was Territorial or Political wars, which is what most of the wars in the 20th century were about. 9-11 has shown me the powerful, terrifying grip religion has on people to do terrible things is just as strong as ever, despite our supposed “advancement” - we are no better than men 2,000 years ago, foaming at the mouth demanding reprimends or death for their own particular diety. There may be compassion taught in christianity, but history is no liar, and there have been (and there still are) terrible terrible things done in it’s name.
Also I take offense to your Hitler comparison - it’s a logical fallacy. It’s a false or invalid analogy, because it’s distorting what may be essentially true. You dislike how Ontario is handling the presence of Christian schools in it’s board and used a Hitler analogy. It’s true that Hitler used strict military tactics; but that fact alone cannot serve to parallel the situation in the school board - unless the school board has hired secret police agents (Gestapo), puts dissenters into horrific concentration camps, institutated mass extermination plans and has taken over all forms of media (arts, books, tv, radio, newspaper) to subdue the general population.
Christian morality and ethics ARE part of the Toronto Catholic District School Board’s religious education curriculum. What makes you think that teachers should NOT be responsible for teaching moral aspects of the Catholic faith to students?
The reason why is the same reason that I stated in my first post (I’m pretty sure it’s that one). Teacher’s should not be burdened with teaching children morals - oh yes, teacher’s certainly uphold them: Politeness, etiquette, respect, generosity, fairness. But they are not the ones to sit down and teach the why’s, who’s, when’s and where’s of these things.
The moral’s of the teacher (Or school board in this case) are not going to be imposed on any child and nor should they be. Teaching children morality and moral values, in any way shape or form, christian or not, lies to the parents. A teacher is there to teach children mathematics, language, spelling, aristry - they are not replacing the parent’s job.
The moral aspects of the Catholic faith, far as I can tell, are the ideal moral aspects that everyone has. The ones I mentioned earlier, and truth, honesty, compassion, forgiveness…we can all agree these are good things. The ultimate goal is to produce good, fair and intelligent people to go out into the world, christian or not. I wouldn’t care if it was taught in the Catholic faith, the Hindu faith, the Muslim faith, so long as PARENTS are teaching their children positive morals.
To summarize, very plainly, a teacher helps a parent by teaching their child many things which parents these days don’t have time for, but a teacher is NOT a replacement. Some things need to be handled in the family, by the family.
With regard to teachers playing a role in children’s moral education, I don’t see any problem with this as long as the parents are paying for this via private school (religion-based or not) tuition. But I still believe that parents, not teachers, are the ones who should be at the forefront of imparting moral values to their children.
However, not all parents are great moral examples to their children (ex. a man who beats his wife). In such a case a caring and dedicated teacher, whether working from a religious framework or not, could serve as an excellent role model for students, even if he or she is not specifically teaching morality.
Schools might also indirectly teach ethics by providing opportunities like can drives for needy families, collecting money for disaster victims in the Third World and so on (I don’t agree with mandatory community service, however; in my view that doesn’t inculcate altruism but the notion that you only give to others in order to gain something for yourself).
But in the end, teaching morality falls to the parents.
Beyond personal choices of faith, the fact that faith schools go against every grain of a “secular Canada” we see ourselves as, I think a huge issues is inequality. I hear so many Canadians talk about equality, how equal we are, or when thing are unequal in our society. I think it should be made very clear:
Democracy in Canada has never been based on principles of equality. It has been based on principles of egalitarianism.
Even if anyone of any religion and any background can participate, it does not name it equal. Usually in the history of Canada when the cry goes up for equality it usually means a majority wishes to enforce its power over a minority, and sometimes the charge if inequality is brought up so minorities can override most universal rights (aka: Exceptions are made for THEM, but not others).
In school terms, lets talk equality, and I’ll cite France as an example. Everybody will learn the same thing at the same time of day and be treated the same way. Then what that would actually do would be to put immigrants at a great disadvantage. So in our schools there are classes, special programs, which deal with the needs of those immigrants. Technically speaking, it’s not equality because of specialization, but it is egalitarian. It’s giving the same opportunities.
So really, Emilia Liz, aside from the fact that religious schools of any kind (except things like Sunday school, paid for and run by JUST the church, not publically funded) are non-secular and as I mentioned in earlier posts, violating human rights ; the idea that you would be comfortable sending your daughter to a school knowing it was “vastly superior” to the education given at a public level, really depicts an un-egalitarian view.
Perhaps it is “equal” access, and the “equal” opportunity within the Christian (or Hindu or whatever) community, offering differing level of education is un-egalitarian. Instead of spending that money just on your daughter, as so many parents do, wouldn’t that money be better spent advancing public education as a WHOLE, and then letting the parents teach faith on their own time? It would clearly benefit your daughter to have better public education, but many other students too.
Just a thought, I’d like to hear what people have to say.
Thank you for the response. Perhaps I was not clear in my essay or the comments that followed, but if I chose to send my daughter to a private school of any kind, religious or non-religious (say, a Montessori school) I would fully accept the fact that I would not only pay for it out of my own pocket but continue to pay taxes to the public school system as well. I believe that public education benefits everybody in society, even if I never use the public schools for my own family.
That being said, I am not convinced that private school education is vastly superior to that offered by the public system. There was a study done some years ago (reported in the National Post) which found that yes, private school students did score higher than average on academic tests but this advantage was due not to the schools themselves but to the fact that private school students had parents who were in general better educated and more likely to be concerned about their children’s education.
So maybe I should clarify myself and say that not only should religious schools not be publicly funded but that parents who enrol their children in them should still pay tax to the public system.
Emilia Liz
Aside from that, I understand the presence of private schools or children with needs, as I stated before: I support egalitarian uses of school systems to aid people who show greater need. And now, as I’m noticing between 4 different school boards in ontario, the exact opposite is happening. Instead of taking these needs into account, they’re forcing them into regular classes, to teachers who aren’t trained to deal with severe behaviour issues.
However, using a system to try and get a child ahead of the game seems a little redundant. For 5,000$, for each student, a whole lot of good can be done for the public school. Then our public school system wouldn’t be in such a decline, and the need for schools used to “give children an edge” would be a non-issue. The last part is probably my two cents about the entire system. And it is manditory to pay taxes even if you are in private school, there was never any leeway in that regard.
Cheers,
Fiona
Thank you again for taking part in the discussion.
I agree completely that integrating some special needs students into the mainstream system is misguided, even if done with the best of intentions. Of course it depends what the special need in question is. For example, a child in a wheelchair would in most cases have no problem taking part in regular classes as long as the classroom is architecturally designed for the chair. On the other hand, children with severe behavioural problems are much more difficult to integrate. As you state, sometimes teachers are simply not trained to deal with them. Many behaviourally challenged students as well end up disrupting the class and the other children’s education and wasting everybody’s time. These students perhaps would be better off in small classes with teachers trained to deal with their needs.
Furthermore I don’t think there’s a “one size fits all” approach to deciding which special needs kids can be put in regular classes. Children with purely physical disabilities in most cases can. On the other hand those with intellectual and/or emotional handicaps are a more complicated issue. For instance, I have an adopted cousin with Down syndrome. Unlike a child with severe ADD, say, she would not necessarily disrupt a class, but I really don’t see the point in enrolling her an enriched physics class. However, she would probably benefit from being with the mainstream students in a phys-ed class; there she probably wouldn’t do any better or worse than they would.
Emilia Liz