Tirytory

We don't pay anything for schooling..

MarylandNed

You can hold him back a year. This article discusses kindergarten but the same principle applies to older age groups.

Should you put off kindergarten for your child? | Toronto Star

One other benefit of holding kids back a year is that you get an extra year with them at home (if you or the kids want that!) and also an extra year to save for college/university.

JonboyE

About 10 years ago in Surrey School District, BC. We used to pay about $120 a semester for bits and pieces.

rivingtonpike

We have to pay for the school bus now. It's $200 for the first kid and $160 for the second. After that it's just $25 per child for school supplies. Everything else is included. We have an extraordinary PAC too who raise enough money to pay for amazing trips and activities.

Speaking of which, not sure if anyone will remember, but a while ago I posted about the 200 ish coho salmon my youngest's class were rearing. They released them into the local river a couple of weeks ago. It was realy quite moving, The kids all wrote a little "ode" to a fish! Really cute for 7 year olds.....

itsasmallworld

We live in Ontario and pay for sports but not band at high school

JonboyE

I can't remember exactly how the amounts were made up but we definitely had to pay a small amount to rent an instrument for the band.

NeilEB

Thanks all for the help - hopefully I'll find out in the next few days whether this is a likely move for me

Decisive moment

We are in the process of buying a house and are moving from the UK to an area just outside Toronto at the end of July. I have literally just got off the phone from my boys new school. First impressions are that things are ALOT more relaxed regarding school registration than they are in the UK. Kids seem to just go to the school in their catchment area.

Both my boys are also December babies, ages 4 & 8. I will be able to discuss part time hours for my youngest, which is great as if we stayed in the UK he would be starting full time school in September. I think kids start full time far too young so given the chance to keep him home a bit longer I will!

Good luck with your upcoming decisions.

Lychee

I'd say that's a fairly accurate statement. British parents are typically much more fixated on sending their kids to the perceived "right" school, and go great lengths to ensure this happens, whereas the majority of Canadian parents are more than happy to send their kids to the local neighbourhood school.

Novocastrian

Agreed. I recently sold my house. The realtor told us that since our side of the street is in a "right" school zone, we'd get more interest than our neighbour on the other side of the street who aren't.

She was wrong.

Thank God.

MarylandNed

Right and that's partly because the decision has already been made for Canadian parents. If they don't want their kids to go to the local school, they have to do something drastic like move or find the money for a private school. I think it makes for a more equal and equitable experience in terms of schooling. The other factor is how schools are funded - funding is mostly controlled by the provincial government. So you tend not to end up with huge differences between schools and so Canadians are generally happy with the local school.

Contrast this with the system in the US where your local school is still determined by where you live. However, funding is based more on property taxes so you tend to end up with good schools in wealthier areas and poor schools in poorer areas. So here it's more important to consider the area you will be living in. This just exacerbates the problem because property prices (and therefore property taxes) rise in an area with good schools as more people look to move into the area (this happens somewhat in Canada but not to the same extent because of the funding issue I mentioned). Therefore the differences between good and poor schools become magnified.

Novocastrian

If Oink were a moderator, I'd report this post to him and let him tear your flaccid reasoning apart. But he isn't and I can't be bothered any more.

MarylandNed

Go ahead and make your argument. Maybe you should read this before you do:

https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-...nadaReport.pdf

Here's a snippet:

Lessons: What can the United
States learn from Canada?

There are seven key lessons that the provincial-level education-funding experiences of Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario have for U.S. states looking to reform their school-funding systems.

First, the most significant takeaway from the Canadian experience is that a provincial- or state-level funding system can work successfully to create equity and not just in small states such as Hawaii. Ontario has a very large student population—more than 2 million—and has successfully implemented such a system.

Second, these three provinces were able to successfully transition from funding systems that looked more like those of U.S. states—where local boards set tax rates and raised some portion of funds locally—to a system funded at the provincial level with greater equality, if not total equity. This conversion debunks the idea that systematic change in school funding is not possible and that we are simply stuck with the status quo

Novocastrian

Like I said, I can't be bothered.

The US education system is f**ked up. Everybody knows that. But who cares?

MarylandNed

I was merely pointing out that both Canada and the US assign schools based on where you live. This alone would seem to make education equitable until you look at how the funding model in the US makes it inequitable. Canada's funding model seems better and makes it more equitable than in the US.

For some reason, you say that this is "flaccid reasoning" that could be torn apart. Yet you "can't be bothered" to explain why. Seems like a strange way to behave. Oh well.