Canadian Secular Alliance 2011, Ontario Election Questionnaire
By FCP Leader Phil Lees
1. Do you support saving the province a minimum of half a billion dollars every year by amalgamating the public and Catholic school systems into a single, secular taxpayer funded school system for each language?
No, I do not support a forced amalgamation of the secular and Catholic systems for the following reasons:
1) The amalgamation of school boards in the province during the Harris days did not lead to significant savings. There is little evidence that amalgamating Catholic and secular school systems will achieve significant savings.
2) If the goal of an education system is academic achievement, the Catholic systems consistently perform above the secular public systems on the government standardized tests. Why would we close the system that performs well? We should learn from it.
3) The amount we spend on education has little to do with academic achievement – but parental choice does. Since 2003 spending on education has increased 53%, yet school populations have decreased. Spending more money on education has not lead to achievement, however, choice in education does.
Consider the research by Caroline Hoxby and the results of the Edmonton Public School board that proves that children in an environment that their parents value consistently perform better in school (than in a one-size-fits-all education system). Further Hoxby and the Edmonton experience demonstrates that such choice actually results in lower education costs.
Before we talk about amalgamating to cut costs, we need to assess will this lead to increased achievement. Why cut a system that is doing well – learn from it.
If government’s first priority is for the education of all children. An important part of such interest must include ‘respect for the input of parents into the education environment they feel their children would learn best’.
FCP supports the following options:
a) alternatives within the publicly funded systems that children would learn best within. This could be based upon a certain teaching pedagogy (Montessori, traditional structured classroom environment, etc), a subject emphasis (arts, science, sports, etc.) that the child relates; etc.
b) independent schools – Should a parent deem their child would learn best in such an environment and is willing to sacrifice financially for such, as a government we need to be committed to get the child to school.
c) home education environment – Long term, longitudinal studies demonstrate that children who are home schooled, generally do better in life than those who are educated in secular public, publicly-funded Catholic, or private schools. If government’s first priority is achievement, then we must not discriminate against such choices and, at the very least, provide a tax benefit for the cost of materials incurred.
2. Is it acceptable to allow religious leaders of any denomination conduct prayer sessions on public school property during school hours?
The publicly-funded education system claims to operate from a neutral secular position. – not imposing any religious beliefs. However secular humanism (the operating principle of school systems), takes the position that there is no spiritual being, no life after death, etc. Supreme Court of the United States in the Watkins case agrees that secular humanism is a religion. A system that makes decisions that are consistent with only one set of values, is not neutral, and as such leads to pushing-out all other faiths.
If our public school environment is to be truly inclusive, then it will allow for such activities, within the limitations outlined in the the Education Act. The Education Act does not allow for ‘devotional’ activities to be organized by school staff (this could be seen as imposing a particular value/faith by the system) nor during school hours /instructional time.
Therefore all faiths should be allowed to have prayer/devotional study during non-instructional time (before school, after school, lunch), with the support of parents, and they are not being organized by a staff person.
3. Should students in publicly funded Catholic schools be allowed to form Gay-Straight Alliance groups?
The school should be accountable to parents to provide the educational environment they wish for their children. All children in publicly funded schools must be respected, and such value should be enforced. However, the state should not impose a sexual agenda on schools if the parents don't want it.
4. The Ministry of Education took two years filled with extensive public consultations to create a current, relevant, and appropriate sex-ed curriculum. Do you support implementing the recommendations that the provincial government proposed in 2010?
The consultation on this curriculum did not include a broad spectrum of input. The Ministry of education admitted this. Once again, children should not be exposed to curriculum materials that parents do not agree with – hence we need to have choice in education.
5. Do you support amending the Assessment Act to remove the requirement that municipalities must grant full property tax exemptions to religious organizations, even though other charitable organizations are entitled only to a 40% rebate?
Religious organizations often provide very cost-effective space for community events and organizations (Scouts, Cobs, Guides, Brownies, etc) and are often the centre of community activity and support. FCP sees such organizations as an important resource. We would encourage greater participation of such groups in assisting with the meeting of the needs within their community.
6. Do you support eliminating all religious invocations at the start of legislative sessions?
No. This would suggest that the imposition of one faith (humanism), trumps all others. This is not consistent with our heritage, nor is it an inclusive solution.
No comments:
Post a Comment