PaAC: I've had an idea.

I was discussing the homeschooling debate with my dad just now, over steeped tea and donuts at Timmy's, and he pointed out that Canadians who want a religious education have an alternative to secular public schools, in the form of the Catholic school board. (At least, they do in most provinces.) We discussed alternative schools within the boards of education, and I had an idea.

It is quite common now for school boards to offer alternative or magnet programs within the public school framework. That is, a school will be geared towards high-level athletes, or towards the arts, or towards science. These schools are generally opt-in; that is, there is no real catchment area other than living within the confines of the school board itself, so no one is forced to attend these schools because of what street they live on.

Why not offer a magnet school for mainstream Protestant education? That is, an opt-in school, under the public umbrella, that gives kids the religious education they would otherwise be homeschooling or charter schooling to obtain. It would be staffed by teachers within the school board who followed the same creed, and those teachers would have all the same employment standards as their counterparts in the rest of the public board. The one and only difference would be the Christian focus.

In some areas, particularly the Bible Belt, you'd probably end up with two separate systems under one umbrella. That would be fine, as long as the public, secular schools continued to operate and were reasonably located to service the population who attended them. It would give parents and students a choice within the public system, so it would no longer be necessary to go outside the public system to get a religious education. The key here is that it has to be opt-in. So long as students and parents have a choice, it doesn't violate any rights. It's only when that choice is denied that there is a violation.

Thoughts?

General apology and explanation.

I realize I've raised a lot of hackles with that last post. I'm not taking it down or changing it in any way; it is what it is and it's staying. That said, I feel I need to explain it just a little.

I do not agree with the worldview I explained in one quote. If this type of school were available to me, I would not teach in it or send my kids to it. It's not what I want for my family or myself.

I proposed an idea. I didn't feel all that strongly about it myself; if something similar were proposed in my region, where it would affect me, I would consider it and judge it at that time. I don't want to dismiss it, however, because I'm a bit of an idealist. I want people to get along. I want people to make democracy work in such a way as to maximize the number of people who feel represented in it. I don't like "us and them" polarizations, and I feel that most of the time, they're not necessary unless and until one side makes them necessary. That has happened with the Christian Right in the States. It has not happened to anywhere near the same extent in Canada, which makes this suggestion potentially viable for where I live. I don't see the point of spending billions on an education system, only to have a huge segment of the population feel it is not meeting their needs; as a teacher, my job is to do my utmost to meet the needs to my students, and I feel the need to attempt that politically, as well.

I'm sorry if I upset anyone. I do hope, though, that if I upset you, you'll be able to separate the ideas from the person. This was a debate. It was about ideas. It was not, ever, about any individual, not even myself.