Can the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board provide a program which focuses on the values and beliefs of a particular religion?

As reported previously, Public for Alternative Community Education (PACE) submitted a formal proposal to the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board for an alternative education program. This proposal, if successful, would see the creation of publicly funded alternative education programs in grades 1 through 8. The program would provide classrooms where students would be educated within an environment that respects the belief systems of the families who choose to send their children, and encourages students to investigate and express their spiritual nature (their culture) as an integrated part of their daily work.

The program, however, would not teach religion. Program materials, such as novels, would be selected and used that are not in conflict with the values of the families. As an example, if a particular novel was a concern to many of the families, teachers would be sensitive to this issue and select an alternative novel.

The Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board has expressed interest in the possibility of providing such an alternative, however, they must proceed very cautiously. Judicial decisions in the past fifteen years (BAL v. Ontario), (Canadian Civil Liberties v Ontario Minister of Education (Elgin County)), (Zylberd v Sudbury Board of Education), have ruled that the Boards of Education cannot promote a particular religious value to all students. The PACE proposal is different in that families attending choose to send their children, and the values are not forced upon others.

In an effort to gain support for the proposal, the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board requested the Ministry of Education to review the PACE proposal and advise the Board as to whether they could legally offer such a program. The response from the Ministry of Education was, "have your lawyers examine it and let us know what they think. " The Board did just that, and at their own expense, the proposal was evaluated by legal counsel.

The response from legal counsel focused on the issue of providing a publicly funded eduational program which stresses a particular religious focus. It is the opinion of the Board's legal counsel that case law indicates the Board could be challenged in providing the PACE program. If challenged, it is believed the school district would be placed in a position which may create a great deal of legal expense for the Board and they cannot afford this.

The Board would be comfortable proceeding if the Ministry of Education demonstrated support for this type of choice within public education. Specifically, they want the Ministry of Education to answer the question, "Can a School Board offer a program that caters to the religious values of a particular culture within the community?"

The solution, preferred by the Board, would be an amendment to the Education Act acknowledging these types of alternative programs. The regulation giving the Board authority to establish different types of programs already exists. Regulation 171(7) states, " Boards have the authority to establish the numbers and kinds of schools." What needs to happen is for the government to clarify that "kinds of schools" could include schools based on cultural religious or subject emphasis (ie. arts, science). This would then provide the support needed to prevent the feared legal action against the Board. The Ministry of Education has been contacted about this issue, but have not yet responded. At the present time, the Education Officers, members of OPSEU, are on strike.

Some of the politicians supporting our type of alternative, are encouraged that under Ernie Eves government, greater choice in public education may be possible. On April 15, there is to be a cabinet shuffle and a new Minister of Education appointed. We are communicating with local politicians about our needs and how important it is to have a Minister of Education committed to strengthening public education by encouraging choice within public education.

What Can You Do?

1. Protect Your Child - Communicate with the School - take in a Family Rights Document
   As we proceed into spring, the possibility of a September program is becoming dim, however, we are working hard to keep the issue on the table. In the interim, families in public education are encouraged to communicate with the schools to prevent conflict. To protect your children, we are recommending that families take a copy of the Declaration of Family Rights Document to your school. The goal is not to harass the teachers, but to politely communicate who you are as a conservative Christian family, that you understand it is difficult for the school system to be all things to all people, and that you are trying to take a positive step to prevent conflict between the school and home as a result of curriculum material that may be offensive to your child. If you do not have a copy of the document, contact Joanne Doner at (905) 575-1103.

2. Contact the following members of provincial parliament - and request that choice in public education be a major focus of this next government:

   Brad Clark, MPP, Stoney Creek Riding
   Unit 10, 44 King Street E., Stoney Creek, ON L8G 1K1
   Ph.(905) 664-4200, Fax (905) 662-2313

   Garfield Dunlop, MPP, Simcoe North Riding, Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Education
   Mowat Block, 22nd Floor, 900 Bay Street, Toronto, ON M7A 1L2
   Ph.(416) 325-3855, Fax (416) 325-9035
   Ernie Eves, Premier Elect
   Unable to secure contact information before printing.
   If you wish to send a letter to Mr. Eves, please contact Phil Lees for contact information.

Yours in service to the children of our community,

Phil Lees, Director
Gloria Turner, Director

Top of Page
Back to Newsletter Articles
Back to HWFAC's Home Page