As the parents of Ontario school children are coping with both the pleasures and pressures of March break this week a thought or two about the future of education both in this province and in North America might be in order. In Ontario education reform and the conflicts between teacher’s unions and the government, coupled with contentious issues such as tax breaks for private school students and a higher expectation of accountability - read results - that the EQAO testing procedure is intended to bring about, has created a virtual DMZ between educators, concerned parents and Queen’s Park satraps.
In Ontario the two front-runners for the Tory party leadership, Ernie Eves and Jim Flaherty sparred during the publicly televised leadership candidates debate over education issues. At the heart of the matter is the controversial issue of public funding (through tax breaks) for private schools. What makes the question exceedingly complicated is the issue of religion and education.
Already in Toronto, for example, taxpayers can choose whether their tax dollars support the public school system or the Catholic school board, a vestige of the legacy of the mid-nineteenth century school reforms of Edgerton Ryerson. Quite rightfully, taxpayers of different faiths - Muslim, Jewish, different Christian sects - who wish to have their children educated in their own religious, private schools resented having to subsidize the public school system. They pointed out that the Catholics had a choice, while they did not. Until now, it has been argued, correctly, that that was the taxpayers choice - if you chose a private school - faith based or secular, you paid for the privilege by also supporting the less affluent (or to be charitable, those satisfied with the quality of the public education system) educated through tax dollars.
Now, however, with the Ministry of Education’s curriculum being scrutinized the debate is heightened. Jewish and fundamentalist Christian schools however do not want to necessarily have the curriculum imposed upon them. Here the argument between Eves and Flaherty has it roots - Flaherty is accusing Eves of swinging in the breeze, telling both public and private schools that which they want to hear. Given the strength of the reactions by teacher’s unions, school boards and parents against how Tory educational reform has been enacted, it is certain that this issue may well decide the next election in this province.
Looking southwards to Cleveland, Ohio the issue of education and religion is also very much in the public eye, this time with the concept of education vouchers. Simply stated, vouchers allow less affluent parents to choose where to spend the money the state or city allots for their children’s education. In particular, parents can take their children out of failing public schools, beset with inner city problems, overcrowding, other such common problems, and place them in private schools. Fundamentally, a sound idea, one that is inteneded to reform America’s public chool system. The hitch? In Cleveland, as in most large American cities, most private schools are faith-based. Only 4% of children eligible for vouchers in Cleveland attend non-religious schools. Opponents of vouchers suggest that this is ufair. Also, as in the Ontario example, parents who would have scrimped to send their children to a faith based school are now gettibng the public to pay for it. As well, growing concern in Ohio, and the USA following this debate, is that with more children in private schools, the public school system will suffer even more.
Whether in Cleveland or in Toronto, whatever the taxpayer’s religious faith, it should be evident that introducing choice should force all schools - even the worst - to get better. (In comparison with the US elementary system , long ridiculed, American universities - that offer choice - rank highly internationally).
Those concerned about the future, about the qaulity of education, either as a teacher or a parent should ask their elected representative about where they stand on these issues. Unfortunately, many in our self centered society fail to see the forest for the trees. For the Toronto taxpayer, with school-age children, facing astronomic increases in university education costs, this choice of education should be embraced. All that remains is for the politicians to be open and honest about their reform plans and enable quality education for all, regardless of beliefs.
Editorial: A voice for choice in education
Arvamus
TRENDING
