PaAC: I've had an idea.
Aug. 17th, 2006 02:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
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?
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?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-17 07:49 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-17 09:04 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-17 09:16 pm (UTC)I'm trying to think of how to explain it. Let's say you have 30 desks in your classroom, but you have 40 kids you need to teach. You put them on "tracks" so that at any given time you only have 30 kids in your class, but you rotate them out. So, at one point you'll have groups A B & C there while D is at home, then group A goes home, D comes in - so you had B C D. Then B goes home, A comes back in so you have A C and D, and so on. You're teaching the same number of students, using the same number of resources (desks) but using "time" to your advantage so that you can fit everyone in.
Obviously, you don't have kids in the same *class* rotating tracks like that - because that would be a nightmare to teach, wouldn't it? - but the school does this basic concept with classrooms, books, equipment, etc.
And then, obviously the only way to make sure that the required 180 days (or whatever it is now) are being met is to extend the year since every 9 weeks or so you have a three week break.
Does that make sense?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-17 09:21 pm (UTC)That's probably the best explaination I've heard, certainly better than any of the local news stations has given. They just keep repeating that you can fit more kids in the classrooms without explain how.