Reading #2: The Completion of the Separate School System, 1960-1987

            Gidney (1999) provides a somewhat chronological account of the establishment and struggles Catholic schools in Ontario have faced since the decision to publicly fund them in 1984. The complexities discussed throughout the chapter occurred in multiple fields including political and constitutional debate, financial repercussions, organizational shifts, anglophone and francophone tensions and impacts at the local school board level.

            Premier Bill Davis announced in June 1984 plans to extend full funding to Catholic high schools in Ontario. One of the greatest considerations that appeared to be an ongoing debate in terms of fully funding Catholic schools was their subsequent impact on the public school system. The Ontario Secondary Schools Teacher Federation (OSSTF) believed changed proposed by premier Davis would “result in the loss of 8500 jobs and 100 schools” (p. 129) which would further fragment Ontario’s public education system. Similarly, the Ontario Public School Trustees’ Association (OPSTA) cautioned that enrolments in public secondary schools would drop “up to 15 per cent, and as much as 75 per cent in some areas” (p. 129). In areas where there were large concentrations of Franco-Ontarians, the possibilities were even more daunting and complicated as this would essentially fragment the education system into 4 – English and French public as well as English and French separate.

The government of Premier David Peterson, introduced Bill 30 in 1986, which echoed Davis’ proposal of providing full funding of Catholic high schools. Ongoing debate surrounding the constitutionality of Bill 30 was eventually resolved and upheld by the Supreme Courts of Ontario and Canada as well as the new Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1982). Three amendments were introduced however in the hopes of settling some of the most vocal opponents: ‘designated persons’ (i.e. surplus teachers) who had “conscientious objections to being transferred to the catholic system would be offered financial assistance and retraining opportunities” (p. 137); there would no longer be conditions of access to non-Catholic pupils and all students were given unrestricted entry to either public or separate secondary schools; religious instruction would not be mandatory for non-Catholic students at separate secondary schools. In 1987, after months of intense debate and consideration, “Bill 30 was finally rendered a secure part of Ontario’s Education Act”(p. 140). Considering what a long and drawn out battle this had been, most had come to terms with the extension of separate school funding by this point and overall effects of the bill were relatively modest in the four to five years immediately following the passage of Bill 30.

It was certainly interesting to read about the struggles Catholic schools had experienced in terms of allocating funding (and attracting teachers) since many would argue that Catholic schools today are better funded than public schools with newer facilities, resources and technology. In terms of strengths and weaknesses of the article, it was refreshing to read about the history of Catholic schools being publicly funded without a debate about values or merit yet I would have liked to read more about whether or not morals and beliefs were predicted to come into conflict with provincial curriculum. Had there been plans or discussions on how to resolves such problems if they were to arise? On a larger note, is it fair that separate school education as a natural or unconditional right is still only available to Protestants and Catholics?

I found this article incredibly useful on a personal note in that I have always been interested/intrigued by the history of Catholic schools in Ontario, particularly since becoming a teacher and (very briefly) considering teaching in Catholic school boards. Many questions have come to mind since reading this article. As we know, Canada, and Ontario in particular, have become increasingly “diverse” in recent years – does that mean the government should consider funding other religious and even ethnic groups so they can establish their own school system? As a secular person who has only ever attended public school, I was interested to hear another opinion so I discussed the issue of Catholic school funding with a good friend of mine who grew up going to Jewish day school in Toronto. Though she does not believe funding (any) religious schools is the best use of government money, she did bring up an interesting point in that funding any religious school would allow the government to better monitor exactly what is being taught which is paramount.

            In considering the changes Catholic schools have implemented over the years, particularly with respect to shifting student demographics – many students attending Catholic schools observe a different faith or no faith at all – and how little teachers need to “prove” they follow the Catholic faith, I cannot help but wonder if Catholic schools are losing their credibility as a religious institution and whether these changes signal a potential end to the Catholic school system in the future. Certainly Catholic schools since Bill 30 have been mandated to allow any student to attend, but it would appear now more so than ever, Catholic schools are actually trying to attract any and all students. If a poll were taken today, would Canadians still be as divided?

Gidney, R. (1999). The completion of the Separate School System. In R. Gidney (Ed.),

From hope to Harris: The reshaping of Ontario’s schools. (pp. 124-141). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.