You can declare a victory if you like but I watched both shows and saw 2 totally different shows than you. I propose we have a 2 question referrendum in Ontario.

1) Do you favour the continuation of the catholic separate school system or one public system?

2) Do you favour extending public funding to private schools, religious or non-religious?

I see the polls all of the time and am totally confident that both questions would be very badly defeated. The catholic question 70% to 30% the second question 80%-20%.

Take the John Tory 2007 election as your guide. Today no parties support question #2.

Doug, those stats may be right for today, but I dare say the numbers against separate school funding were much higher decades ago. 

  During the 2007 election, when hysteria and hypocrisy over religious schools reigned, I met former Premier Bill Davis at a private social event.  I noted to him, with some irony and a bit of a chuckle, that back in my high school days he was the man we all loved to hate at my Catholic girls’ school.  He laughed too, then said seriously, “Well Doretta, Ontario is still pretty Orange.”  and he didn’t mean the NDP either.  I knew exactly what he meant.  It was worse when he was Premier.

  I say hypocrisy, because during that 2007 election our Premier kept crowing about publicly-funded schools.  Did he not remember the struggle to get Catholic school funding?? 

    I am old enough to have participated in a huge province-wide rally for funding back in the 1970’s at Maple Leaf Gardens.  The Premier and I are the same age.  I bet dollars to donuts he was there too because his father, Dalton Sr., [http://www.equalfunding.org/articles/Dr. Dalton J. McGuinty.pdf]
who was the chair of the Ottawa Catholic Board and later a Liberal MPP,  was one of the leaders working to get the extended funding that then Minister of Education Davis vowed never to give: 

  “At a rally sponsored by a Catholic high school student association that drew an overflow crowd to Maple Leaf Gardens on October 25, 1970, Minister of Education William Davis told the audience not to “hold out any false hopes” that funding would be extended. He was as good as his word…Though the Liberals and NDP campaigned in support of full funding, Davis’s Progressive Conservatives won the election.”—The Torontoist, Sept.16, 2011

Good posting Doretta and I believe you are correct.

In Ontario we have NEVER had an election issue run on choice for parents, despite the spin to the contrary of some who are the most threatened by parents having the power to choose. 

Director Spence is the most forward thinking and understanding director the TDSB has ever had. One who gets it and understands that even those without privilege are fully able to make choices for their children.

You saw what I saw in Ms. Kidder’s message - nothing.

Ms. MacDonald’s column is also correct.

For those who want a different policy for Ontario I am ready to have the vote any day. The population does not want it and we live in a democracy.

Some feel that choice is some kind of natural minority right. Sorry, it is not.

As Patrick Monahan pointed out. A resolution passed at Queen’s Park followed by a vote of parliament would end the RC system. The fact that it survives is political not constitutional. Quebec abolished its religious schools and the feds followed suit.

One hopes we won’t ever be led by governments using referenda as a means of determining public policy!  I’d also question how willing those impacted by the results of referendums would be to go along…;)

The core and driving force behind the school choice movement is religion. If we removed religion as a motivation, choice would wither quickly on the vine and everyone close to the situation understands this. The great unreported or better “under-reported” story is the radical secularization of the population in both Canada and the USA although the USA is still much more religious than Canada.

As Tim Harper, the religious writer and sometimes Star columnist writes, “the big story is the rapid rate of decline of church attendance and the consolodation of churches as the decline continues”

The desire for religious schools and the lather it creates for some people represents a panic that their religious past and traditions cannot survive the secularist juggernaut unless it is state supported and educationally infused.

American “mega-churches” only mask and paper over the radical decline underway. Some feel that only the religiousity of immigrants is propping up Christianity.

The secular population increasingly sees organized religion as a “negative force” in society hence the radical resistance to religious schools.

Notwithstanding the social gospel tradition, religiosity is increasingly associated with the conservative movement and secularism with the liberal/socialist movement. Some surveys actually show “church attendance” as the greatest divide between Republicans and Democrats in the USA.

The struggles for abortion, Gay marriage, etc can all be seen through this lense.

These are some of the reasons conservatives continue to seek religious funding for schools and MOST not all liberals and socialists oppose it.

http://apolyton.net/showthread.php/194189-Canada-marching-away-from-religion-to-secularization

hmmm.  It looks like the pendulum is going to start to swing in the direction of parents having school choice!  As Churchill said during WWII:  it may not be the beginning of the end, but it is the end of the beginning (or something to that effect).  We do have a long road ahead if us

You bet it is still orange tinged in many different ways in the government policies of today. More so in the education files, depending on the historical past and culture variables.

Two things came to mind, while viewing TVO programs. Equality versus elitism, and the second set when professor Allison spoke of the horizontal and vertical equity axis. She is correct in asserting it is the problem, and the need of balance between the horizontal and vertical equity axis. However, some would like all to stay on the horizontal axis, and argued on the basis this is equity.

To no surprise to me, equality versus elitism has been an item discussed throughout the 20th century. A British newspaper article, dated 1961, entitled, “Equality vs Elitism”
.http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1873&dat=19691227&id=5pQeAAAAIBAJ&sjid=gcsEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3610,6419612

A research paper of education equity, with the focus on SE. The typical example to display the horizontal and vertical equity axis, showing the extremes, where virtually the sub-groups, the individuals within the sub-groups, and as the collective whole of SE, are access to the vertical axis is limited, and conditioned upon the horizontal axis. ” Horizontal equity is interpreted as schools having equal or equivalent inputs such as funding or teacher-student ratios; whereas vertical equity assumes that different or unequal inputs may be required to attain equal outcomes—in short, that unequal students require unequal treatment (Berne & Stiefel, 1984). This version of equity requires a way to define and measure the desired universal educational outcomes of the standards-based model of education.”
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/Exceptional-Children/222678501.html

Choice is marching through the front door, or it will be in another 10 years or so in Canada. The public education system cannot sustain the pressure from the parents, and the external pressures beating their war drums of true equity versus the pseudo-equity practices to ensure the status-quo. The horizontal and vertical equity axis of the education system are so lopsided, trying to provided a education for students that is based on equity, because there is no balance of the two axis. Balance cannot be achieve, because funding is based on equal amount per student, and the use of the scarce resources models. Between the two, inequities forms inside, outside, between groups, and in so many countless ways, that choice will coming through the front doors of the education system within 10 years.

Professor Alison and Chris Spence are seeking avenues to addressed the inequities forming. Kidder and the other one, are seeking to maintain the status-quo, based on one of the oldest definitions of equity from the 20th century. It did not work than, why do they still insist it will work now?

Choice is the obvious and probably most efficient method to balance the horizontal and vertical equity axis, and maintain control over funding and budgets , as well as stop the expenditures of education policies that are pointless, if the policies produces inequities, that prevents students from reaching their potential. A good place to start are the SE and low-income students, where inequities abound, but not a whole lot of equality and equity. A lot of the policies surrounding SE and low-income students are based on elitism of others, imposing and branding the students with the labels, but does not meet their education needs.

Probably why, American low-income parents jumped on choice as their ticket for their children to a better education quality, than the one that is offered at the local school. Whenever choice was offer to SE parents, they ran with it to the school that they thought would offer their kids a real chance of obtaining an education that included a solid foundation of the 3 Rs.

The more specialized schools, the better, tending to the neglected vertical equity axis, that students have more often than not been denied, by the established education powers.

“Choice is marching through the front door, or it will be in another 10 years or so in Canada”

it’s already marched through Nancy. It’s already here and in Ontario it’s going to be less than 10 years before the taxpaying public is the catalyst that makes this happen.

“Kidder and the other one, are seeking to maintain the status-quo, based on one of the oldest definitions of equity from the 20th century.”

Don’t think so. Kidder wants to maintain the status-quo for everyone else’s children but not her own. That makes her elitist. Fooled you too.

Chuck and others, I did not include the links, but the older definitions come from the world of finance and in particular the taxation system. As well as there is lots of articles and papers expounding the horizontal and vertical equity axis, in the political and legal files.

The horizontal and vertical equity axis are not discussed much within the public education system and the stakeholders. That is in Canada, but is discussed at the higher levels in the American and British education systems.

From what I could understand in the short time to learn about equity axis.  the older definitions is very much tied into the economic and market systems, that allows individuals/groups access to the vertical equity access according to the combination of income and cultural values. Kidder raises the old argument of parents with more know-how working the education system, to provide what they think is a better quality for their children. What she is actually is defending is the right of the state to restrict access to the vertical equity axis, and allow the state to provide for the students’ education needs. Parents who have the higher abilities, can still access the vertical equity axis by using their social-economic status. Thus, Kidder and her kind, are defending the right of the state, to restrict access to the vertical equity axis based on the old class cultural structure.

In the political files that I read yesterday,  along with the legal files, the vertical and horizontal axis are discussed in terms of the cultural values held by the political parties and the individuals. The more left an individual is, laws and policies are shaped around restricting access to the vertical equity axis, and the more right, laws and policies are shaped around allowing groups and individuals access to the vertical equity axis.

Interesting titbit, is that Conservative cultural values, believes,that all people should have access to the vertical equity axis, without restrictions based on social-economic status. A balance must be maintain between the various economies, finance and the right of individuals to access the vertical equity axis. Liberal cultural values limits access to the vertical equity axis, according to social-economic status of the individuals, The art of elitism as one goes further to the left of the political spectrum.

Sure, Kidder is an elitist. But that could be found out easily enough on P4E, and how individuals are treated when they dare to write an opposing viewpoint that trashes the current public education system. Better yet, the posts from SE parents wanting access to the vertical equity axis, and the responses to the SE parents’ situations.

What I never thought of until yesterday, who are the real elitists in the education system. Based on my own experiences and observations, the elitists are the people who hold cultural values that are on the left side of the political spectrum, opting for the status-quo based on the social-economic ranking of people. P4E is quite content to defend education policies that prevents parents and students to obtained an education based on their children learning needs, or the student’s individual learning needs.

When choice comes through the front doors of the public education system, it will be mean true equity, where the individuals have access to the vertical equity axis, no matter who they are, when the collective education system, cannot provide in some aspect or collectively the learning needs of the child. At the moment, choice is finding its way into the public education system, through the broken windows, holes, and cracks in the foundation. A few more leaks, bigger cracks in the foundations, and broken windows should be enough to form large divisions and widen the inequities formed on the horizontal equity axis, and the majority inside and outside of the education system, demanding access to the vertical equity axis.

The reason we have a panic for choice in some small conservative sectors is religion. We tested the 15% of Ontarians who supported the John Tory policy and 2/3 wanted religious schools, 1/3 supported more religious choice but wanted other forms of choice from Waldorf, Montessori (free) etc

The world and the nation is going through a radical secular transition. It will soon be complete. The religious will have lost because religion cannot stand up to modernization, capitalism and science.

At that point the drive for choice will have been lost.

Someone actually tried to say we have not had the definitive and final election on choice. This point would be lost on 3 political parties, none of whom support more choice and the pundits and pollsters of the province who witnessed the 2007 PC disaster on choice. You will not get the PCs to ever support choice again. They view it as a huge mistake never to be repeated.

In Ontario we have NEVER had an election issue run on choice for parents, despite the spin to the contrary of some who are the most threatened by parents having the power to choose. 

Dan were you out of the country in 2007? Everybody else thinks it was a one issue election and the Tories lost badly on that one issue.

You folks will never get anywhere working with the idea that choice is popular. It simply is not popular.

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/935/economics/horizontal-and-vertical-equity/

Nancy, I think you don’t understand horizontal and verticle equity very well.

It is the conservatives ho support horizontal and the liberal-socialists who support vertical equity.

See the link. It will help explain why.

Doug, the link that you have provided, is based on the taxation system. The definition that has been developed over the years, is the government’s ability to provide a fair taxation system, to collect the revenues.

It is neither left or right, because all governments must be careful to balance the horizontal and vertical equity axis, against the consideration of the economy. the market and government services being provided based on the taxation revenues.

However, moving away from taxation, entering the fields of health, education, the legal fields and other fields that takes in the collective whole,  deals with the horizontal and vertical axis in a much different way than the taxation models that concerns the sitting governments. There is less concern or even consideration of maintaining a balance of the equity axis of the horizontal and vertical kind, because it rests on the values of the rights of the individuals versus the rights of the collective whole.

From my understanding, Professor Alison is correct to point out horizontal and vertical axis in the current education system, and the need to balance it as well as the how-tos in forming policy to addressed the inequities being opposed on both axis.

As it stands now, from reading the education articles regarding equity and equality, and other fields, the Liberal culture and its values, opts for most obtaining services on the horizontal axis, and to limit the individuals access to the vertical axis. The Conservative culture and its values, opts for individuals to freely access the vertical equity axis, whenever the horizontal equity axis is not providing for the needs of the individual. and to correct the inequities being imposed by the collective whole.

In education systems, SE and low-income children are mainly restricted on the horizontal equity axis, preventing access to the vertical equity axis to tend to the individual’s education needs that are not being met. For example, a primary student who is need of a specific reading program that is not based on the approved instruction methods and curriculum, are restricted to the horizontal equity axis, preventing access to the specific reading program that lies on the vertical equity axis. The only students that have access, are the parents that have the social-economic status to enter the vertical equity axis, and avail of their individual rights in obtaining a service that is not available on the horizontal equity axis.

What is being confused, is that people who support vertical equity axis on taxation, are also supporting the more income an individual makes, the more they pay in taxes. Which is much different in other fields, including education where the liberal-socialists are opting for policies that excludes and limits the individual’s rights to access the vertical equity axis, over the collective rights of the horizontal equity axis. Governments, no matter what stripe will strive to balance both axis when it comes to economic policies and taxation, and whereas in other sectors the emphasis is to restrict   an individual’s ability to access the vertical equity axis. Where the Conservative, Liberal and Socialist governments differ, is the culture values, and has been found that right leaning governments are more likely to shaped policies, allowing the right of the individual to seek out services, beyond the horizontal equity axis.

But don’t take my word Doug, put the words of equity and equality, vertical and horizontal axis in the search engines, and start reading. It is not simple, but rather a complicated theory and practices on balancing the rights of the individuals to the good of the collective whole. If you are honest Doug, you might be surprise how many of the positions that you have in education are on the horizontal equity axis to honour the collective good, rather than the individual’s right to access education services, via through choice found on the vertical equity axis. .

It is not any different. H equity means give every school or board the same on a per pupils basis in education. V equity means giving more to those who need more. Very Marxist in fact. It means giving greater per pupil grants to poorer kids.

http://ceep.indiana.edu/finance/PDF/PB007_alternative_approach_equity.pdf

You can try to make it support choice but it doesn’t mean that.

Out of curiosity who were the “We” in “We tested 15% of Ontarians who supported the John Tory…”?
One hopes they weren’t folks with a stake in the outcome.

As has been pointed out previously it is important to determine who is sponsoring a poll in order to determine how legitimate or compelling the results will be.  Poll questions can be worded to garner certain responses.

I’d like to know the answer to that question myself John L, but I believe I already suspect that it’s a poll done by the usual suspects intended to twist and spin the public into believing something other than the truth.

The we is Vector Research for the union research group.

John you constantly confuse polling in order to brief an internal group with polling for propoganda purposes. Organization that poll so that their leaders get the “real picture” do not “push poll” by weighting the questions to get the result you want.

We were so shocked by the results we wondered what in the world John Tory was doing. It seemed like a suicide mission. We checked with the Liberals and the NDP and they told us “yes this is what our polling shows s well, what is Tory doing, he is walking straight into the propeller blades.”

The results of the election bear out that the polls were correct. Why on Earth would anyone with kids in public schools or having no kids possibly support giving money to private schools. The only people who want public money for private schools are some “not all” of the people with children in private schools or seriously thinking about putting their kids in private schools.

John, this is a very tiny slice of the electorate. Nobody else wants it.

You show me a legitimate poll that shows the opposite. So far Ontario polls and elections bear out the idea that public money for private schools is a very unpopular idea.

McGuinty would love to run against it again and again. It is a big vote loser.

I have explained repeatedly that “the poll is not for the public and it was not released” the poll is for federations and political leaders to know the truth so they can respond to John Tory.

Polls like this one allowed McGuinty to go out and really pound JT knowing that no NDPers allmost no Liberals and less than half of Tories supported Tory’s program. The election is the proof that the poll was correct. Don’t confuse your opinion with majority opinion. The election proved that clearly it is not.

“McGuinty would love to run against it..”
Really??  See my comment above. 

Also, in response to who was who and what was what in polling:  My guess is that the poll was commission by the OSSTF and their members the ones polled.

What fascinated me in the 2007 election was how quiet the teachers federations were on faith-based funding.  If it went through, they would have gained a whole bunch of new members so I supposed it made sense for them to just wait and see what would happen. 

Most of the anti-Conservative ads were via the Working Families union (none against faith-funding).  I could not find one press release against faith-based funding put out from the teachers’s unions, except one that came out of OECTA. 

Only the Catholic teachers spoke out against faith-based funding—which I know sounds totally illogical.  Why?  Perhaps for several reasons—they wouldn’t get any new members, money earmarked for their memberships salaries would be limited, etc.  But the biggest reason was probably the backlash against any religious school funding and that might have worried them.  No funding for them, no OECTA, no raison d’etre…

Vector polling specializes on internal polling, that are not usually revealed to the public. Polling is to help to guide the business or organization in their planning of policies and strategies.

What the union says may be much different than what the public hears. A warning expounded on the Vector Polling site, in the few articles that are opened to the public. The framing of the questions become more important. especially when questions are designed to elicit the emotions rather than the answers of the rational mind. I suspect the polling conducted on the 2007 election, was not about choice, as Doug has implied in an earlier post, but to elicit an emotional reaction to the questions of faith-based schools and funding of the schools from the same public purse of the public education system.

If it was truly on choices, and the empowerment of parents to choose different education choices, other than the public education version, the rational mind would be at play, and not the emotional mind. The outcomes of the polls, would be much different that parents would like the ability and power to choose the education for their children, regardless if it included faith-based schools, or a school that promotes environmental activities as a way to engage their students.
http://www.vectorresearch.com/library.php

Doug, it is marketing, 101, and polling is considered a method of propaganda when it seeks out emotional responses rather than the rational responses, once a person considers the implications. Sure most people would say yes, to no tax increases, and say no after a set of questions that makes the suggestion that severe service cuts would take place and the employment of fees to access services, if there is no tax increases.

Vector Polling is hardly an indpendent, non-partisan, unbiased organization:

http://www.vectorresearch.com/polls_unions.php

If the poll, apparently commissioned by teacher unions, is valid and unbiased why wouldn’t it be released to the public?  Questions asked, sponsors,  context, how folks polled were selected, and so forth.  Why not share the details ?

There’d be a very different response to “Do you believe parents should have the ability to select the best school for their child” to, say,  “Are you in favour of funding for faith-based schools” yet both could be variations on a theme.  Until and unless those commissioning a poll are willing to respect and be forthright with the public they can create whatever outcomes they want.

I don’t know why you don’t get it. The poll is NOT for public consumption. NOT FOR THE PUBLIC. The pollster is told in no uncertain terms to poll the PUBLIC and come back with ACCURATE information for OSSTF to wage a campaign. The poll was never released. It is for INTERNAL USE ONLY. So the leaders can get the true picture.

The Liberals and NDP also did their own polling and it more or less confirmed the vector poll. Even there, teachers and politicians were dumbfounded. All internal polls showed the same thing. Virtually NO political support for John Tory’s position. The election showed that the polls were correct.

Parties and unions poll looking for the true information all the time. “Heated up” info is useless to them and causes strategic errors.

The part nobody could understand as they all looked at their polls is “why is he doing this if it is a sure loser and will cost him his chance to be premier?” Nobody could understand that part.

PS parents and city folk told the pollster “no way this money will come from the PS system.”

Small town and rural people told the pollster ” no way am I supporting religions other than my own with my tax dollars.”

Do a poll yourselves. You will find out that public support for private schools is very unpopular. All of your opponents have sophisticated polling that shows the idea is a vote loser.

Vouchers have never won a statewide vote in the USA. They only exist where Republican governors pushed them in anyway.

Did anybody else watch the 2007 election? Every pundit said “John Tory threw away that election and his chance to be premier on that stupid schools funding idea.”

Ever wonder why Tim Hudak nor McGuinty nor Horwath will support it. Because they all know they have no chance to win with that albatross around their neck.

The question would be

“Do you support giving public tax money to private religious schools?”.

That is the question because any political campaign will instantly call it this. The Libs and NDP will say this is what it is and the newspapers will say the same thing.

That is what they said all through the 2007 campaign and that is what it would be again today.

John Tory lost because the question above was the ballot question of the election. You might as well call it what the public will call it.

You can dress it up all you want but it won’t help. The public is strongly against this concept.

You can replay the what ifs all you want. The 2007 election took place, funding religios schools was the issue, the Tories lost badly an election they might have won otherwise and now no party will touch the idea with a barge pole.

You will never again see the tories support the concept. been there, done that got the scars.

Again - private polls

“According to “élite” analysis, when only élites (i.e., well-organized and well-heeled interests) can afford to do proper polling, they yield a disproportionate amount of influence and control over the public if they are allowed to keep the results of their polls secret.(60) This approach therefore strongly favours “access to information.” “Pluralists,” on the other hand, emphasize the opportunity that polling provides for ordinary citizens to influence the policy-making process and see nothing but good resulting from frequent surveys of public opinion. The “state-centred” approach criticizes the amount of money spent on polling by governments and bureaucrats.(61)”
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/researchpublications/bp371-e.htm

Doug, are you favouring the approach called “élite” analysis? 

I could not find much concerning Canada, except the public polls conducted for the political parties.

Five years later, it is 2012. Different times and 5 years later is a long time when it comes to the public.

Doug, have you wonder shortly after the 2007 election in Ontario, the Toronto board allows Muslim prayer services to take place at one school: if the faith-based school issue, became the catalyst to allow Muslim prayer services? 

By keeping the polls private, it allows the political entities to control the issues and influencing the public. In this case, the teachers’ unions and their pot of money reserved for the political campaigns.
,

As I have said repeatedly Nancy, I would just love to have a referrendum on this question alone because I know in advance, not only would the private religious school lose but they would lose so badly that they would not bother raising the question again for decades.

Ask yourself this quetion. Why will Tim Hudak and the PCs not even consider running on or advocating this position again?

No party will touch it because their own internal polls and their electoral experts tell them it is a guaranteed vote loser for them. english

What we’re missing here of course is how the Premier has managed to look the other way when the TDSB let religion and cultural considerations in to the school day.

Totally against what he campaigned on but, wink, wink, let John Tory win.

Since then we’ve also learned of many other schools in other boards allowing choice based on religion.

So your argument about Tory losing to McGuinty on that issue is null and void. The reality is in every individual school community.

Possibly the question should be reasked without the express claim that it’d only relate to “private religious schools”.  There are various private schools not overly focussed on religious beliefs in Ontario.

One wonders if the “religious schools” angle wasn’t overplayed.