The Question of Religious Education Funding in Ontario’s Schools

On Friday John Tory announced he would be stepping down as leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative party, after a humiliating by-election defeat to Liberal Rick Johnson in the riding of Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock, near Peterborough. The by-election was held after PC MPP Laurie Scott agreed to step aside and allow Tory to run in an attempt to gain a seat in the legislature, after he was defeated in his home Toronto riding of Don Valley West in the 2007 election. The rural Kawartha Lakes riding was considered a lock, after Scott had defeated Johnson in 2007 by 10 000 votes, but Tory’s career as party leader fizzled as lost by 906 votes. I almost feel bad for him.

The 2007 election was largely dominated by the single issue of funding for religious schools, after one of the most curious and self-defeating policy gaffes in recent memory. John Tory came out in favour of extending public funding to religious schools beyond the Catholic School Board, provided they met the criteria laid out by the province. This issue was met with huge backlash, and Tory later retreated to the promise of a ‘free vote’ if elected. Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty argued in favour of the status quo, with Catholic schools the only non-secular institutions receiving public funds, and the provincial Greens argued for a singular, unified secular board in Ontario. This is a large part of the reason why I supported the Greens.

To fully understand the issue, as with any issue, one must understand the history behind them (thus the importance of learning history). When Canada was created with the signing of the British North America Act in 1867, there were two dominant groups in the country; English Protestants, mainly in Ontario, Nova Scotia, and parts of New Brunswick; and the French Catholics, residing mainly in Québec. Education was inherently religious in nature, and incorporating and assimilating children into these dominant Christian faiths was seen as beneficial for society. Taken to the extremes, this resulted in Residential Schools, where native children were taken from their homes and indoctrinated with western values; abuse that we are still apologizing for.

But over the coming years, immigration increased, and from different parts of the world. Society diversified, and multiculturalism became an official national policy. The ‘English Protestant’ board gradually transformed into the inclusive, secular board we see today. A ruling by the provincial court in 1994 even officially declared the board secular, after certain religious groups asserted that the public education provided was ‘humanist,’ and ran in opposition to their views. Even in Québec did society become more secular, after the Quiet Revolution of the 1970s, with their school systems eventually becoming two secular systems, one serving the English population, and the other the French. Ontario and Alberta remain the only two provinces providing funding for Roman Catholic schools.

For those of us born in the 1980s in Ontario, fully funded Catholic schools will seem like the norm, but it must be realized that it wasn’t until 1985 that funding for Catholic schools was fully extended to include grades 11-13 to create a fully funded Catholic board. Waves of Catholic immigrants in the 60s and 70s had created an electorate that was 1/3 Catholic, and all three parties were vying for these votes. This decision came about after numerous court cases on various aspects of religious education had been filtering through the Ontario courts since 1928.

Mr. Tory is right. To continue to fund, at the expense of the public education system, only one separate school board providing education to one religious group is unjust. It is even a practice condemned by the United Nations, as it runs in contravention of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, for discriminating in favour of one faith over others, even though it has repeatedly been declared not a violation of Section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. With the ever changing face of Ontario and ever shifting societal values, public institutions must reflect these changes. Especially institutions fostering the development and growth of our children. By placing all children at an equal level in an inclusive, secular education system, they are all able to learn from each other and we best suit the needs of society. The opportunities and experiences presented to these pupils learning together is one of greater inclusiveness and social harmony. By dividing children and bussing them around the city based on religious lines will only lead to a further divided society.

A certain amount of upheaval would surely result from reducing our education system to one single publicly funded board, but in the interests of providing the best level of education for all of Ontario students, this is a step which must be taken. Similar factors were faced by the people of Newfoundland, with their public schools divided amongst many different Protestant denominations (and no secular board), and half-empty buses were shuttling students all across the cities to reach under-funded schools. A 1997 referendum in the province, moving to reduce the schools to one single public board, garnered 73% support, and has led to a better school system for all of Newfoundland’s students. With changing provincial values and demographics, and positive results seen in other parts of the country, Ontario must follow suit.

Russel MacDonald

The Fear of Learning

If there is one place that a child should feel safe it is at school. Education is invaluable and every child should without any question be able to learn in a safe environment.

Why is it then that in the past week two there have been stories of death and violence involving innocent children in and on their way to school?

From last week’s school collapse in Haiti to this week’s violent attack involving the spraying of acid at a group of Afghani girls and teachers on their way to school in Kandahar, it is children who are taking the fall for the problems of others.

The attack in Kandahar is however more than just an attack on children. This was an attack organized by a cowardly group of men trying to prevent young women from going to school. These people can hide behind whatever religious or ideological guise they want but all they in actuality stand for is sexist misogyny.

The two questions that arise out of this are obviously: why are women mistreated in Afghanistan and secondly, and more importantly, what can be done?

The why is unfortunately the easier question to answer. Violent acts are always rooted in fear and the truth is that these men are clearly afraid of women. The scary part of this is that these attacks are far more systematic than they might appear from the outside. This was not a random act of violence but rather part of an orchestrated attempt to scare girls away from education. The sad part is that it seems to be working. According to reports out of Kandahar today the attacks have achieved their goal of frightening girls out of attending school. But why do groups like the Taliban not want these girls going to school?

Once again the answer is fear. The key to control over a group of people has always been to keep them uneducated. Educated women would no doubt learn new words like equality and women’s-rights. If women in Afghanistan ever learned these things they would understand that the Taliban’s Islamic costume is hiding a monster within.

In a way this event shows how far Afghanistan has come since the fall of the Taliban from power. These girls were, despite the violent act, on their way to school; a place they wouldn’t even come close to when the Taliban were in charge. When they were the status quo the Taliban were able to conceal their true character but since being ousted from power the Taliban have been reduced to their true essence. They are revealed through this act for what they really are; terrorists. This is beyond doubt an act of terrorism where the goal is to force people into an action through violence. So how is this stopped? Girls have been scared into staying home, so does this mean the terrorists win?

The way to stop terrorism is not to give in and give the terrorists what they want. Instead a way must be found to get these girls to school safely. There must be someone in Afghanistan that could do this; someone who’s primary interest is “fighting terror.”

Sound familiar?

Foreign troops from around the world are stationed in Afghanistan in the so called "war on terror", so where are they when blatant acts of terrorism like this one are taking place?

In a quote from Matthias Tomczak, the Australian convenor of the Support Association of the Women of Afghanistan (SAWA), he says that “one of the forces that actually are working against a solution are the foreign troops because they can't distinguish between Taliban and civilians and often hit civilians and people are afraid of them.”

The problem is clearly that the people who are supposedly fighting terrorism are equally terrifying as the terrorists. If the interest was truly in peace and eradicating the terrorists, protecting innocent civilians and denying terrorists from achieving their goals should be at the top of the list. Perhaps protecting these girls and making sure schools and the roads leading to them are safe would be a better, more peaceful solution for coalition troops than using the same violence and fear tactics used by the terrorists.

If these attacks were happening on American or Canadian soil, whatever necessary measures would be taken to assure the continued security and education of students. Why should Afghani students be treated any differently?




Will Grassby