Our Public School System

It's interesting, the new controversy that has erupted over public school funding and levelling the field of opportunity for all children. In that equally endowed schools should be available for all children in Ontario, irrespective of where they live. Children whose homes are in poverty-stricken areas of public housing, in theory, should have the advantage of the very same kind of school system as children living in middle-class areas of a city.

That sounds noble, and it sounds about right for a country that has dedicated itself to equality in every respect for its residents. So is it fair that although a school may start out with that purpose in mind, each given a like amount of public tax funding to ensure that all children are offered equal resources, there will be ongoing fund-raising from within each school for the purpose of enrichment?

Those families who have disposable income aplenty can afford to help their children raise considerably more money that can families who struggle to get by. Obviously, there is a huge disparity there. Children from comfortable backgrounds get to go on trips, enjoy a better-stocked school library, have more expensive sport equipment to exercise with in their schools than those whose fund-raising is less successful.

But all schools are not equal in fundamental ways to begin with. There are some schools with cafeterias, and some without; some with excellent gymnastic facilities and size, and some not; some with large auditoriums useful for a myriad of purposes aside from school assemblies, and some not; and some schools have truly useful libraries stocked with good reading material, some do not.

Some schools are well administered with the school principal experienced, knowledgeable and effective. The teaching staff in a particular school may have a culture of their own, of applied excellence in teaching, led by the administration which insists on it, encouraging the school's teachers to invest themselves in being good teachers.

We can go a little further afield from schools to a more primary level, and look at the families themselves. Children whose parents are disinterested in them and their level of education will not be involved in that education; irrespective of economic background, they are at a clear disadvantage. Children who never see their parents crack open a book or read a newspaper similarly.

Children who are not well fed by their parents and their nutrition lack leads to ill health clearly are at a disadvantage when they are unable to concentrate on their lessons or miss school time due to ill health. Children whose parental outlook is xenophobic, hostile to society, more attuned to low-brow concerns and events, including illicit activities, drug and alcohol use, are clearly under-serviced by their families.

Society cannot possibly undo all the harm done to children through inadequate parenting where children are left to their own devices, rarely encouraged to attend school, their most basic needs neglected, emotional support absent.

Similarly it's a fine idea to collectively raise extra funds and then allocate those funds equally among all schools, but to initiate that concept would be to defuse the enthusiasm of students in fundraising to their own advantage. Besides which, it grates on the taxpayer and parents to have to do double-duty in paying taxes plus raise school funds.

The very existence of dissimilar backgrounds and advantages is central to the issue of any society with its random assortment of character types, priorities, values, opportunities and class system, economic, social, educational, culture-driven. There is just so much that can be done to evolve a situation useful to all the various parts of a society's youth.

The rest is up to the singularity of natural endowments when each individual, despite origins and opportunities, makes a commitment to self.