Nova Scotia providing funding & school choice
Posted by Sandy on April 23rd, 2008
During the October 2007 Ontario election, Canadians will no doubt remember the yelling and screaming about the John Tory proposal to provide public funding to some faith-based schools. You would have thought the sky was falling.
We were told that to provide independent schools with any amount of public money, and parents with school choice, would be divisive and, quite possibly, even destroy the public school system as we know it?
Destroy the system as we know it? Dare I ask: Would that be such a bad thing, particularly since the system as we know it is a system entrenched in educational practices that do not necessarily meet the needs of many children? The system as we know it also means maintaining the status quo for the benefit of teachers’ unions, trustee associations and board administrations.
So, what happens when students are not able to learn in large classes or split grades in public schools? Well, in Ontario, we pretend there are no problems, that the public system can take care of them. Well, as a retired teacher and former private special education consultant, I can vouch for the fact that it can’t and never has been able to either.
Sure, the system does its best, but it should also be prepared to look at alternative options like they do in other Canadian provinces. We already know, for example, that public money goes to some types of independent schools in B.C., as well as in Alberta (e.g., charter schools). And, low and behold, the sky has not fallen in either province. Nor, have we heard of any teacher union busting or teachers being laid off because of parent choice.
Now, we learn that on the other side of the country, the Nova Scotia Education Department is quietly going about the same process by providing public funding for some special needs students — those with IPPs (individualized program plans). The government’s website states:
The intention of this support is to provide options for students with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) or Learning Disabilities (LD) to access education outside the framework of the public school system.
That is what it is all about or what it should be about — what is right for students. And, it is my understanding that is all “parents for school choice” want — to be able to choose where their children attend based on their children’s needs — not on the needs and preferences of teachers’ unions and/or board administrations.
For further information on the school choice option see the Society for Quality Education’s website.
[...]
H/T to a regular reader for the Nova Scotia link.
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:22 am
I think that you overestimate the reaction to the idea of “independent” schools. The fuss started when a reporter asked Tory whether his independent schools would allowed to teach Creationism. It was the lack of standards that was the problem, not the concept of diversity.
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:51 am
Jim Pettit — Have to disagree with you. Tory always made it clear that public funding was completely dependent on independent schools having an approved Ontario curriculum. That was the bottom line, always was or I wouldn’t have agreed to support him on that. Also, many parents hoped it was the beginning of a school choice option for Ontario.
In actual fact, there would be nothing wrong with teaching creationism as long as it was in a World Religion class or a philosophy class. Every major religion has its own creation story and it would make a good compare and contrast exercise.
The bottom line is that I have personally analyzed most, if not all, of Ontario’s curriculum documents and there would be no problems at all to accommodate a variety of views on science or any other topic — as long as the theory of evolution formed the core of science units.
I can see that this FB issue is not dead yet by a long shot, nor is the antagonism against it — as far from diversity as one can get IMO.
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:32 pm
So the standard for quality is the Ontario curriculum? Creationism is the anti-thesis of quality education?
Hmmm. SOunds like the ranks of homeschoolers will continue to swell across the nation. As long as parents are not satisfied with THEIR OWN understanding of quality curriculum, the numbers of students in individual schools will decline , meaning less money for school boards. Of course, the creation of children themselves is also declining…
Too bad there are still so many Christians out there who know in whose hands God put the responsibility of educating their children.
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:44 pm
LWestin — Not all Christians think as you do. As a practicing Christian myself (Anabaptist tradition) I do not take the “7 days” of creation literally, but rather as a parable of how we became separated from God. It matters not to me whether it was 7 24 hour days or 700 hundred million years. From my point of view, there are only a couple of basic principles of Christianity that are absolute — involving Jesus Christ — and you know them as well as I do.
I sometimes find Christians extremely anti-intellectual and that bothers me a lot. To teach only creationism, which is a belief system and not a scientific theory, is really not a standard for quality, whether it is in a private school or homeschooling.
I find your comment extremely arrogant as well. As someone with two graduate degrees in curriculum theory and design and many years teaching the subject, I would never suggest I had all the answers. Yet, in the space of a paragraph you suggest parents need to be satisfied “with their own understanding of quality curriculum.”
Is it any wonder there is so much prejudice against Christians?
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:50 pm
LWestin — Not all Christians think as you do. As a practicing Christian myself (Anabaptist tradition) I do not take the “7 days” of creation literally, but rather as a parable of how we became separated from God. It matters not to me whether it was 7 24 hour days or 700 hundred million years or even if natural selection played a part in the whole process.
From my point of view, there are only a couple of basic principles of Christianity that are absolute — involving Jesus Christ — and you know them as well as I do. I put my life in God’s hands everyday and I would suggest you take the log out of your own eye before you start judging others about “the responsibility of educating their children.”
I sometimes find fellow Christians extremely anti-intellectual and that bothers me a lot. To teach only creationism, which is a belief system and not a scientific theory is really not “a standard for quality,” whether it is in a private school or homeschooling. It may be someone’s opinion but it is not a standard. If children are taught creationism, they also need to be taught evolution, if for no other reason, as a comparison of accepted theory.
Moreover, as someone with two graduate degrees in curriculum theory and design and many years teaching the subject, I would never suggest I had all the answers. Yet, in the space of a paragraph you suggest parents need to be satisfied “with their own understanding of quality curriculum.”
With that attitude, is it any wonder there is so much prejudice against Christians?
April 23rd, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Actually, I never stated what I think regarding ‘Creationism’. I merely find it interesting that on a ‘conservative’ site, there should be an assumption of the sort expressed here by commenters. What ‘I’ think is not as important as the right of parents to educate their children in the way they believe serves God best. Parents DO need to be satisfied.
My husband concurs, and he also has a Masters in curriculum (and one in History). Degrees don’t impress everybody, especially people who have met and listened to Department of Education experts expound on their latest ‘theory’ - especially when those theories include social engineering of the most blatant kind. From my own experience, this would include both the Ontario and the Nova Scotia Departments. The final judgement, MUST be left to the parents, as they ultimately will be responsible for the results (not to mention - actually have to live with them).
As a side note, without, again, expressing my own view, its a canard to relate belief in ‘Creationism’ to anti-intellectualism. As I’m sure you are fully aware, there are many well recognized , actual scientists, who dispute that the ‘accepted’ version of evolutionary theory - especially as taught in public schools, IS ACTUALLY science! (Perhaps they even have more degrees…)
April 23rd, 2008 at 6:40 pm
LWestin — While this site is a conservative site, it is a progressive conservative site and open to a variety of points of view as I try very hard to keep my own beliefs to myself.
My discussion here is that I believe, as do many of my regular readers, that parents should have school choice, whether it is homeschooling, faith-based, for special education or otherwise.
My own children went to Eden High School in Niagara-on-the-Lake when it was private and my grandchildren now attend the same Eden which is now publicly funded and located in St. Catharines. While Eden is a publicly funded faith-based “alternative” school, the FB activities are before and after the regular school day and are fully funded by the parents and fundraisers. So, it is not FB in the same sense as Catholic schools.
But, that kind of choice would be nice for a whole variety of school options. If you are interested in the Eden issue, just look under my categories and “alternative schools.”
In fact, it was a regular visitor to this site that gave me a heads-up that Nova Scotia was offering some parents some choice, which is a start in the right direction.
However, as you know, this post was not actually about faith-based schools and it was a commenter who made the remark about creationism. I have read many of the accounts of those academics who try to prove creationism is a scientific theory — from the point of view of “how things work.” A lot of what they say is based on belief and not evidence. Similarly, I have also read a lot on evolution and natural selection and find many things claimed as faith and not evidence — although it is the accepted orthodoxy at the present time.
So, although I will read and learn about both points of view, I’ll have to wait to find out what the truth is — meaning we probably agree on much more than we disagree, if indeed we disagree at all.
April 23rd, 2008 at 7:49 pm
John Tory could have been succesful with a proposal like Nova Scotia’s. As I see it they will provide tuition support to people who need different programming than the public system can provide to meet their ’special needs’ child’s potential. This is very different from providing funding to only faith based schools, as Tory proposed. FB schools exist to serve parents WANTS, Nova Scotia is responding to children’s educational NEEDS. It is not a public responsibility to give parents the funding for schools they want for their own reasons, be they faith based or otherwise. But, it is a public responsibility to provide education that can best help children meet their potential, and if a public school can’t do so, then some Ed. funding should be available for alternatives. The people of Ontario clearly understand this difference- as evidenced by their rejection of Tory. BTW, the Trillium Demonstration Schools are an interesting model- and having some success (based on the model of the one graduate I personally know who absolutely thrived there ;-). Did you see that Annie Kidder and People for Education today urged Queen’s Park to launch a planned working group on the issue as soon as possible, and to give it the latitude to suggest how municipalities, school boards and communities can work together to make use of school buildings.
“We need new thinking around this issue,” Annie Kidder, executive director of People For Education, told a news conference in Stratford where the report was released. “And it has to cross ministries, sectors and all levels of government.
“We have to use this potential crisis as an opportunity to break down all the old barriers.” http://parentcentral.ca/parent/article/417511
People for Education have influence with the Liberals- hopefully they can help create a system better able to meet children’s learning needs. Unfortunately, they- so far- have been unwilling to touch the funding for the separate Catholic system issue, proof that they are too much alined with the Liberals.
April 23rd, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Sorry, hit the send button too quickly. The webite for the Trillium school is http://www.trilliumpsb.ca/ and the issue to which Kidder referred is decling provincial enrolment. Hopefully a little more clear!
Paula
April 24th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Before we get all gushy about the continuing antics of People for Education’s release of their “new thinking on declining enrolment” the info. in this report is not news to any small, rural board which have been working to meet the enrolment crunch for at least a decade.
The very big difference between People for Education in 2000-2001 was that of the Harris gov’t they demanded a moratorium on school closures. Now, they’ve agreed that it’s likely necessary to close schools and looking at education differently, while calling for more funding.
page 95 of the Ministry of Finance accounting shows People for Education rec’d $56,000 from the current government.
You didn’t get all of Kidder’s quotes in context Paula. In Stratford, she said “boards wouldn’t have to close as many schools if there was more flexibily in the funding formula so that decisions about schools were based on things like education and community not just funding.” If you check out the new accommodation review guidelines you’ll see that they do exactly as Kidder suggests.
The question that needs asking is whether more money will buy quality? I don’t think so.
The other question that no one is asking is what do individual communities expect of the education system and their schools? Is achievement and education still a priority? Or are we expecting more(or less) of our schools?
Bottom-line is that we have to decide what we’re willing to support(in funding) in our schools based, not on a central government but based on individual communities and the trustees we elect to oversee those education communities.
May 12th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Don’t get too excited. It’s not like NS is actually doing anything too progressive here. We only ‘kept’ the Tuition Support program, such as it is (which is not nearly enough) after parents put up a huge fight to stop the ‘writing on the wall’ in the form of the latest Special Education report.
And even with the announcement of the “good news” that the program would continue, the Minister was careful to point out that the program was only being saved “in the short term”.
In addition, there is a three year time limit to the program. Then it’s sayonora. So, yeah, a little not enough too late, me thinks.
May 13th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Michelle — I find the Minister’s comment to reflect the “doublespeak” hear in Ontario: “until we are able to provide, in our public schools, one that is equal to it or better.”
But, as long as the kids are getting what they need in the meantime, that is the main thing. My guess is that the funding will likely have to continue beyond the three years — that the NS government is only saying that now because of the flack they are getting.
Anyway, three years is an eternity in politics.