The Legal Duty to Accommodate Faith and Religion in Ontario's Public

Home , Canadian online media, School prayer

The Legal Duty to Accommodate Faith and Religion in Ontario’s Public Schools: An Exploratory Case Study

Wendy A. Dunlop

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education Ontario Institute for Studies in Education University of Toronto

©Copyright by Wendy A. Dunlop 2017

The Legal Duty to Accommodate Faith and Religion in Ontario’s Public Schools: An Exploratory Case Study

Wendy A. Dunlop

Doctor of Philosophy, 2017

Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education Ontario Institute for Studies in Education University of Toronto

2017

Abstract

Ontario public schools have become a focal point—and contested sites—where the dichotomy of a proclaimed secular stance must be reconciled with the legal duty to accommodate diverse faiths and religions.

This exploratory case study examines the experiences of principals in addressing the challenge of ensuring the public school is positioned as secular, while simultaneously accommodating the faiths and religions of Ontario’s increasingly diverse, multi-cultural society. When competing rights under the Canadian Charter or Human Rights Code come into conflict it can present a complex challenge.

To provide context for this exploratory case study jurisprudence, legislation and school policy, developed post-Charter, are reviewed. With this legal framework data from interviews with twelve elementary and secondary principals from five Ontario public boards are examined to learn how the principals enact, integrate, and mobilize the duty to accommodate faith and

religion in their ‘secular’ schools. What is the impact on how schools function? How is conflict managed when religious tenets conflict with other equal but competing rights, such as sex equity, same sex relationships, or freedom of speech? Is there a tipping point—a point of ‘undue hardship’—where a principal must declare a religion-based request as deleterious to the rights of others, and thus impossible to accommodate?

The study demonstrates the legal duty to accommodate faith and religion in Ontario’s bourgeoning multi-faith society adds to the complexity of the principal’s role in ensuring the religious diversity of students and staff is recognized, included and integrated into the fabric of our public schools. The study also demonstrates the successful accommodation of faith and religion is facilitated through the principal’s mindset of inclusivity, respect for difference, engagement with the community—including religious leaders—and knowledge of the law. The growing influence of Muslims and Islam in our schools and their accommodation needs are also recognized.

Principals particularly acknowledge the new health education curriculum which has created discord with Christians and non-Christians. Opposition to content on same-sex relationships places principals in an untenable position between accommodating religious beliefs and safeguarding the rights of the LGBTQ communities. Principals are greatly challenged by the dilemma.

III

Acknowledgments

There is a part of my nature that compels me to undertake challenges that are all-consuming. It upsets the other part of me that enjoys peace and contentment. The pursuit of a doctorate would be a case in point of the former. For me, the road to earning a Ph.D. was not only challenging, winding and seemingly infinite, but truncated—several times—by life events.

Initially, I engaged in this academic process several decades ago. Regrettably, I had to abandon my inchoate goal. In the intervening time, however, I worked with teachers and administrators in Nepal, India, Australia, and Kuwait. I then morphed professionally from an educator to a lawyer. In turn, all those experiences drew me back to OISE with a renewed interest in the quest of a doctorate in education, after a twenty-five years’ absence. I am most grateful for the second opportunity which has allowed me to combine my academic interests in both law and education.

I am also grateful for the guidance of Professor John Portelli as my thesis supervisor. Professor Portelli has shown great interest and engagement in the topic of my research since I first discussed it with him, seemingly a lifetime ago. I thank Professor Portelli for his continued assistance and insight, and for enduring whatever frustration I was experiencing or expressing along the way, with great patience. The role of thesis supervisor is definitely not for the weak of heart.

Equally, I would like to express my appreciation for my committee members Justice Marvin Zuker and Professor Joseph Flessa who both contributed greatly to this academic pursuit and process. Their time and constructive input—Justice Zuker’s from a legal perspective and Professor Flessa’s from an educative one—served to ameliorate and to focus my academic work. Thank you too to Professors Bishop and Stewart who provided valuable and supportive commentary as part of the FOE committee, and to Professor Mitchell who served as Chair. You made the FOE a positive experience.

I would also like to thank and to acknowledge the public school principals who generously volunteered to take part in my exploratory case study. I appreciate the time they gave to speak to me and the insight and expertise they shared—in spite of their oversubscribed and hectic schedules. These twelve individuals are truly outstanding professionals. Anyone that may question the strength of the public school system need only read this study and reflect upon the dedication to the well-being of children which is evidenced in the principals’ words. I stand in awe.

Finally, thank you to my family and friends that lend encouragement whenever I engage in challenges that they (or I) cannot quite fathom. Thank you for simply shrugging your shoulders and getting behind whatever I am pursuing. Thank you for always being there. —Wendy

Table of Contents Chapter One: Introduction...... 1 1.1. General Focus...... 1 1.2. Historical Background...... 2 1.3. Research Problem...... ….. 5 1.4. Research Question and Subsidiary Questions...... 7 1.5. Theoretical Framework...... 8 1.6. Conceptual Framework...... 14 1.7. Significance of Research...... 15 1.8. Profile of Researcher...... 21

Chapter Two: Literature Review...... 25 2.1. Introduction...... 25 2.2. The Development and Impact of the Human Rights Code and Commission in Ontario...... 28 2.3. The Enactment and Impact of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms...... 32 2.4. The Evolution of Education Policy...... 38 2.5. The Role of the Principal in the Accommodation of Faith and Religion...... 46

Chapter Three: Methodology...... 60 3.1. Introduction...... 60 3.2. Selection of Participants...... 65 3.3. Ethical Aspects...... 68 3.4. Data Analysis...... 69 3.5. Overview of the Principal Participants and Their Schools...... 72

Chapter Four: Findings...... 77 4.1. Introduction...... 77 4.2. The Role of the Principal in the Accommodation of Faith and Religion...... 79

4.2.1. Overview...... 79 4.2.2. Review of Findings...... 82 4.2.2.1. Students and School...... 82 4.2.2.2. Staff...... 88 4.2.2.3. Community...... 94 4.2.2.4. Board and Ministry...... 99 4.2.2.5. Personal and Professional Skills/Experience of the Principal...... 103 4.2.3. Summary and Reflections...... 111

4.3. The Impact of the Accommodation of Faith and Religion on the School...... 118

4.3.1. Overview...... 118 4.3.2. Review of Findings...... 121 4.3.2.1. Students...... 121 4.3.2.2. Staff...... 124

4.3.2.3. School...... 127 4.3.2.4. Community...... 131 4.3.2.5. Issues Arising...... 134 4.3.3. Summary and Reflections...... 138

4.4. The Management of Conflict Arising and the Realization of Undue Hardship in the Accommodation of Faith and Religion...... 142

4.4.1. Overview...... 142 4.4.2. Review of Findings...... 143 4.4.2.1. Students...... 143 4.4.2.2. Staff...... 145 4.4.2.3. School...... 146 4.4.2.4. Principal...... 148 4.4.2.5. Undue Hardship...... 152 4.4.3. Summary and Reflections...... 155

4.5. The Growing Presence of Muslims and Influence of Islam on the Accommodation of Faith and Religion...... 159

4.5.1. Overview...... 159 4.5.2. Review of Findings...... 161 4.5.2.1. Prayer/Space...... 161 4.5.2.2. Religious Attire...... 166 4.5.2.3. Food/Fasting...... 169 4.5.2.4. Imams...... 172 4.5.2.5. School Programming...... 175 4.5.3. Summary and Reflections...... 177

4.6. The Impact of the New Health Education Curriculum on the Accommodation of Faith and Religion...... 180

4.6.1. Overview...... 180 4.6.2. Review of Findings...... 182 4.6.2.1. Discussions with the Religious Communities...... 182 4.6.2.2. Student Withdrawal from School...... 185 4.6.2.3. Other Actions Taken by the Religious Communities...... 188 4.6.2.4. Board and Ministry Actions...... 190 4.6.2.5. Concerns of the Religious Communities...... 193 4.6.3. Summary and Reflections...... 195

Chapter Five: Critical Analysis and Discussion...... 198

5.1 Introduction...... 198 5.2 The Role of the Principal in the Accommodation of Faith and Religion...... 198 5.3 The Impact of the Accommodation of Faith and Religion on the School...... 218

5.4 The Management of Conflict Arising and the Realization of Undue Hardship in the Accommodation of Faith and Religion...... 224 5.5 The Growing Presence of Muslims and Influence of Islam on the Accommodation of Faith and Religion...... 227 5.5.1 Introduction...... 227 5.5.2 The Growing Presence of Muslims and Islam in Ontario and Canada...... 228 5.5.3 The Accommodation of Muslims and Islam by the Principal Research Participants...... 233 5.6 The Impact of the New Health Education Curriculum on the Accommodation of Faith and Religion...... 244 5.7. Summary and Reflections...... 248

Chapter Six: Conclusion...... 267 6.1 Introduction...... 267 6.2 Practical Implications...... 280 6.3 Significance of Thesis...... 284 6.4 Limitations and Future Research...... 287 6.5 Personal Reflections and Conclusion...... 290

References...... 298 (i) Act/Regulations...... 298 (ii) Books/Texts...... 299 (iii) Court/Tribunal Decisions...... 304 (iv) Documents/Reports...... 307 (v) Journal Articles...... 311 (vi) Newspaper and Magazine Articles...... 317 (vii) Policy Documents...... 324

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Religious Accommodation Guideline……………...... 328 Appendix B: Interview Protocol…………………………………...... 338 Appendix C: Letter of Informed Consent………………………...... 341 Appendix D: Ethics Approval...... 344 Appendix E: The Role of the Principal in the Accommodation of Faith and Religion...... 345 Appendix F: The Impact of the Accommodation of Faith and Religion on the School...... 349 Appendix G: The Management of Conflict Arising and the Realization of Undue Hardship...... 352 Appendix H: The Growing Presence of Muslims and the Influence of Islam on the Accommodation of Faith and Religion...... 354 Appendix I: The Impact of the New Health Education Curriculum on the Accommodation of Faith and Religion...... 357

VII

Chapter one: Introduction and Overview

1.1. General Focus

The Ontario public school classroom has become a focal point—and at times a heated forum— where the dichotomy of a proclaimed secular stance1 must be reconciled with the legal duty to accommodate faith and religion. Further to this, it is in the school context that ‘some of the fiercest and most perplexing challenges in the governance and accommodation of religious difference’ has been made.2

My research reviews and examines the jurisprudence, legislation, and school policy that have contributed to the development of the concept of ‘faith and religious accommodation’ in our schools over time. Most importantly, it examines qualitative data gathered through interviews with elementary and secondary principals in public boards to learn how they address and balance the policy of secularism with the legal duty to accommodate faith and religion. Succinctly stated:

What are the experiences of the principals in addressing the challenges of this Hydra of dichotomous mandates; challenges on which politicians, boards of education, or the justices of the Supreme Court of Canada rarely have consensus?

1 Berger (2014) at page 105 notes the following: “The law of religious freedom led to the secularization of public education with Christian symbols and practices draining from public schools”. His use of the verb “draining” is unfortunate. The fact remains, however, that after the introduction of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, various court challenges served to re-calibrate the historic influence of the Christian religion in Ontario’s public schools in recognition of our pluralistic society. 2 Berger (2014), p. 105.

1.2. Historical Background

To provide context for and understanding of the current legal and ministerial expectations of principals in Ontario’s public schools, a brief overview of religion’s historical place in our nation and in our province is required.

On February 10, 1763, the Treaty of Paris3 marked the end of the Seven Years' War between

Britain and France. The Treaty affected all lands in dispute between the countries, including those which encompassed the future-named lands of Upper and Lower Canada. Although defeated, the French were guaranteed the right to maintain their Catholic faith. In essence, this pact served as the inchoate demarcation of Canada’s legal stance on religious freedom. From the

Treaty of Paris forward, as Justice Rand notes in Saumur v. Québec (City) [1953] 2 S.C.R:

…[R]eligious freedom has, in our legal system, been recognized as a principle of fundamental character; and although we have nothing in the nature of an established church, that the untrammelled affirmations of religious belief and its propagation, personal or institutional, remain as of the greatest constitutional significance throughout the Dominion is unquestionable...

Subsequently, the Québec Act (1774)4 strengthened the compromise between the French and

English inhabitants of the emergent country of Canada, providing assurance that Roman

Catholicism would be accommodated and tolerated in the new nation.5 It was, however, section

93 of the British North America Act (1867) [“the BNA Act”],6 the founding document of

Canada’s nationhood, which enshrined the guaranteed right to publicly funded Roman Catholic

3 The Treaty of Paris is formally entitled the Definitive Treaty of Peace, 10 February 1783, 42 Cons TS 279. Spain was also a signatory. 4 Québec Act, 1774 (UK), 14 GEO 111, c83. 5 Berger (2014), p.104. 6 Constitution Act, 1867 (UK), 30 & 31 Vict, c 3, reprinted in RSC 1985, APP II, No 5 (formerly British North America Act, 1867).

education beyond the borders of the Province of Québec and Protestant education within

Québec.7

Over time, catastrophic events such as World Wars I and II led to a re-focus and re-consideration of the treatment of ‘the other’.8 Subsequently, there were several iterations of human rights policies in Canada and in the provinces.9 It is in section 1 of the Ontario Human Rights Code 10 where Canada’s fundamental tenet of freedom of religious belief is further enshrined and declares that‘[e]very person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods, and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic, origin, citizenship, creed…’.11

7 S.93 of the BNA Act (Constitution Act, 1867) was incorporated into the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [“The Charter”]. It is the basis upon which the funding and existence of the Roman Catholic separate school system in Ontario is perpetuated. S.93 serves as a flashpoint for members of religious minorities seeking accommodation of their faith through government funding to build their own religion-based schools. As this study focusses on the accommodation of religion in Ontario’s public schools, addressing the subtext of the special accommodation of the Roman Catholic religion is beyond its scope. (See the SCC decision in Adler v. Ontario [1996] 3 S.C.R. 609 where members of religious groups challenged the constitutionality of funding for the Roman Catholic separate school system, and failed.) 8 The Charter of the United Nations came into force on October 24, 1945. In its Preamble its stated goals are ‘to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person’ and ‘to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours’. Online: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/preamble. 9 In all of Canada, Ontario is recognized as the province with the most extensive involvement with a human rights commission, legislation, and the recognition of minority rights. Howe, R. Brian. The Evolution of Human Rights Policy in Ontario.Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne de science politique, Vol. 24, No.4, (Dec., 1991), p.783. 10 Human Rights Code, RSO 1990, C.H. 19 as amended. Current Code is as of June 19, 2012. [“the Code”] 11 The Preamble to the Code, as well as its content, draws largely from the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December, 217A(III) [the “UDHC”], an international statement of rights to which many countries are signatories and which was created largely through the efforts of the Canadian and legal scholar, John Peters Humphrey . The UDHC is the basis for many of our human rights protections in Ontario, Canada, and throughout the world. The Preamble crystalizes the nature and intent of the Code’s basic tenet: to establish and nurture a climate of understanding and respect for all persons, without discrimination.

The pinnacle of the law, enacted to nurture and safeguard equal treatment and equality for all citizens, is the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [the “Charter”].12 Specifically, for the purposes of this research, it is the combination of s.2 (a), the right to freedom of conscious and religion, and s.15, the right to equal treatment before and under the law, and equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination, which are the most salient.13

It is to be noted that, paradoxically, although the right to practise one’s faith and religion has been historically secured in Canadian law and has evolved over time,14 a clear articulation of the concept and constitution of ‘faith and religion’ is not delineated. As Cotler (1982) observes:

It is somewhat disconcerting that, given the statutory protection of religion in our law, none of the human rights statutes in Canada define...religion. Nor have our courts poured any content into this term even when addressing such important constitutional issues as freedom of religion.15

12 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, CII. 13 Sections 2(a) and 15 of the Charter: 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion;... 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. 14 David Seljak in ‘Protecting religious freedom in a multicultural Canada’, Canadian Diversity, Volume 9:3. Summer 2012, notes that, ‘While there was no official state-church or “establishment” in Canada’s first century after Confederation, the mainline churches formed what sociologists call a “shadow establishment.” In broad terms, to be a (proper) Canadian, one had to be a (proper) Christian – in the same way that one had to be white or male. Indeed, throughout Canadian history, religious chauvinism and prejudice has most often intersected with racism and sexism (along with hetero-sexism, and class prejudice).’ Members of the ‘shadow establishment’ were Anglicans, Presbyterians and from the United Church. Roman Catholics, although they were legally recognized, were also marginalized. The marginalized Roman Catholics as a group included the French Canadians, as well as Irish and Italian immigrants. Other established religions, such as Mennonites, Jehovah Witnesses, and Hutterites were blatantly excluded. The power of the ‘shadow establishment’ justified express discrimination against other non- Christian Canadians: Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and Jews. Through the distaining of Aboriginal spirituality and the subsequent creation of residential schools, the ‘shadow establishment’ greatly damaged the social structure and lives of Canada’s Indigenous Peoples for several decades (p.9). 15 Irwin Cotler (1982), "Freedom of Assembly, Association, Conscience and Religion (s. 2(a), (c) and (d)”. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Commentary, Walter S. Tarnopolsky and Gerald A. Beaudoin [Eds.].Toronto: The Carswell Co. Ltd.

Nevertheless, despite a weakly defined and sometimes nebulous concept, a well-established legal duty to accommodate faith and religion has evolved through the stare decisis of numerous court and tribunal decisions. Moreover, it is also legally established that the duty to accommodate must be fulfilled up to the point of ‘undue hardship’ by a government institution, such as a public school. The tipping point for a declaration of undue hardship in a government institution may arise if there is an insufficiency of resources available and/or a resultant untenable disruption to the institution as assessed by the person in charge, such as the principal. A declaration of undue hardship, however, invites challenge when there is a well-established duty to accommodate.

Similar to no clear articulation of what ‘faith’ and ‘religion’ actually mean, the parameters of what constitutes the point of undue hardship to an organization invites debate and controversy, especially in the context of Ontario’s bourgeoning multi-faith citizenry.16

1.3. Research Problem

Historically, when discussing faith, religion, the duty to accommodate, and undue hardship conflict about religious rights in Canada was focussed on differing views of Christianity:

Between sects of Protestants; and between Protestants and Catholics. Over the past several decades, however, changing immigration patterns have created a seismic shift in the mosaic of our citizenry and a concomitant struggle to re-order the use of space in public institutions. As a result, although jurisprudence and subsequent changes in legislation have led to the historic

Christian base being replaced by an official stance of secularism,17 debate over the place of religion in public institutions remains unsettled. As Blair (1986) observes, “Anyone who is

16 The concepts of the ‘duty to accommodate’ and ‘undue hardship’ are further discussed and clarified in sub-section 2.5., ‘The Role of the Principal in the Accommodation of Faith and Religion’. 17 The shift in Ontario’s education policy for public schools from Christian-based to secular is discussed in sections 2.2., ‘The Development and Impact of the Human Rights Code and Commission’; 2.3., ‘The Enactment and Impact of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’; and, 2.4., ‘The Evolution of Education Policy.

familiar with the history of education will be aware of how highly controversial religious education has always been” (p.7). The recognition of the legal rights of a plurality of religions has added to the complexity—and to the controversy.18

Statistics Canada indicates that that by 2017, the reality of a multicultural citizenry, along with non-Christian faiths—such as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism—will constitute one- fifth of Ontario’s population.19 The changes in demographics and the religious mosaic in Canada have been particularly evident in this province. It follows that these changes in the faith-based and religious diversity of the citizenry are manifesting in Ontario’s public schools.

In response to the demographic changes, the Ontario Ministry of Education created the policy document, Realizing the Promise of Diversity…Ontario’s Equity and Inclusive Education

Strategy in 2009.20 Emulating the province’s tradition of addressing human rights, and also in recognition of its legal duty to accommodate faith and religion in public institutions, an integral part of this 2009 document mandates that all boards of education adopt policies and procedures to facilitate the accommodation of the faith and religious practices of students and staff in their school communities.21 To further ensure boards of education act on this duty, the Ministry issued the document Religious Accommodation Guidelines (See Appendix A, p. 328) which delineates

18 Evidence of this conflict is discussed throughout Chapter Two (Literature Review). 19 Eric M. Roher (2010). A User’s Guide to Religious Accommodation in Ontario Schools. Borden Ladner Gervais Website. On-line: http://www.bld.com. 20 Ontario Ministry of Education. (2009). Realizing the promise of diversity; Ontario’s equity and inclusive education strategy, p.2. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/equity.pdf. 21 A review of the thirty-one English public school boards in Ontario indicates that all have complied with the Ministry mandate to create policies and procedures on the accommodation of faith and religion, to differing degrees, according to information retrieved from the Government of Ontario Website: Online: www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/education.html. September 15-20,2013.

expectations, procedures and examples for the accommodation of faith and religion in public schools.

Clearly, there are high expectations placed upon principals, their teachers and schools through legislation, by the courts, by the boards and by the communities they serve. Principals alone, however, were selected as participants (“the cases”) for this study because ‘unlike the classroom teacher whose responsibilities lie primarily with her or his students, the principal is accountable to teachers, parents, central office administrators and policymakers’. (Boris-Schacter & Longer

(2006), p.20). In other words, principals are the linchpins, the face of public education that connect and interact with the various stakeholders, including the students. As the leaders of their schools they ‘are pivotal to the development of excellent teaching, excellent schools and ultimately, enhanced student achievement and well-being’.22 Moreover, as the leaders of their schools principals not only have the legal duty to oversee the accommodation of faith and religion, but they also

…have a duty to foster the respect of their students for the constitutional rights of all members of society. Learning respect for those rights is essential to our democratic society and should be the education of all students. These values are best taught by example and may be undermined if the students’ rights are ignored by those in authority…23

1.4. Research Question and Subsidiary Questions

The central question of my thesis emerged from the legal context outlined above:

(1) How do principals in the public boards enact, integrate, and mobilize the legal duty to

accommodate faith and religion in their schools?

22 The Ontario Leadership Framework (2013), p.3. 23 R. v. M. (M.R.), [1998] 3 S.C.R. at para. 3.

The subsidiary questions are:

(a) Does the accommodation of religion have an impact on how public schools function?

(b) How is any conflict arising between religious and other equal, but conflicting Charter

rights managed, such as sex equity, sexual orientation or freedom of speech?

claim of undue hardship on the part of the principal due to a perceived or real lack of

resources and/or due to potential or real harm to other members of the school

community?

1.5. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical lens employed in conducting field research for my thesis is that of a ‘critical post- modernist’. This framework is

…structured in relation to…efforts to construct a mode of learning and a conception of knowledge that may enhance the possibility of collectively constituted thought and action which seeks to transform the relations of power that constricts people’s lives.24

In other words, my position is that the act of researching the interaction of people has, at its core, the aim of being transformative. Armed with a post-modernist critical framework I endeavoured to

…take into account the multiple realities that exist in the world and struggle to come to terms with how we might build educational communities based on…multiple constructions,25 as there is not a singular, ‘true’ interpretation in our multi-faceted society.

24 William G. Tierney, “On Method and Hope” in Andrew Gitlin (ed.) (1994), Power and Method, Routledge: New York, p.98. 25 Ibid. p.99.

In conjunction with this search for ‘multiple constructions’, a critical postmodernist lens encompasses the ideal of ‘caring’ about the research participants: ‘Researcher encounters need to be imbued with more than simply a desire to collect data…, [they must also] include a capacity for empathy’26 toward the research and the inequalities observed.

It follows then that a post-modernist critical lens also invites a political stance and comportment of the researcher. This political stance may necessitate ‘actively work[ing] toward changing inequalities’, as a caring, but stolid researcher serves little purpose.27 I hold the opinion that the exploration of the duty to accommodate faith and religion in public schools is an important research topic, especially because of its potential for volatility and misunderstanding. It is my hope and intent that the research findings reported in this thesis will

…enable…readers to reflect on their own lives and to help us to envision lives for ourselves and our students that exist within communities of difference and hope…hope that is grounded in understanding the present conditions and delineating how we might change them,…unit[ing] us in the belief that out of dialogue we may build transformative communities of difference.28

This is a challenging but worthwhile community-building endeavour. The re-alignment of the status quo to make space for the religious difference and practices of others is not realized without struggle and determination. As Tierney (1994) notes, the process of re-structuring ‘will be cacophonous, because disagreements over the nature of reality will abound…[T]he challenge is to work out how different realities might be accommodated and understood’ (p. 112).

26 Ibid. p.100. 27 Ibid. p.111. 28 Ibid. pp.111 & 112.

As a researcher, I am strongly convinced of the ideal that social reform which truly invites and encompasses, not just the accommodation of faith and religion, but the incorporation of a myriad of beliefs and practices into the fabric of government institutions, particularly public schools systems, will ultimately serve as a conduit for ‘realizing human potential and the values of freedom and equality,…furthering human rights and breaking down barriers to the exercise of positive freedom’29 for all members of society. This is the inherent promise of Canada’s Charter for social justice. To uphold Charter values necessitates ‘a deliberate intervention that requires the moral use of power’30 by government. This includes principals and their public schools.

My philosophical stance also encompasses and is supported by the ideals and notion of inclusive leadership in public schools. This concept, as described by James Ryan (2006) in Inclusive

Leadership, does not refer to the person or persons who have been officially chosen to lead in schools, but rather to ‘a collective process in which everyone is included or fairly represented’

(p.16). More specifically, the realization of inclusive leadership is dependent upon the three principled ideals of: influence, process, and a defined end (p.17).

According to Ryan (2006), influence signifies that all who are part of the school community has equal voice and each would have ‘a fair chance to influence decisions, practices and policies

[within]…the school…and beyond’ (p.17). Concomitantly, process denotes that ‘an array of practices, procedures, understandings, and values that persist over time’ has been purposefully and mindfully developed. In turn, these crucial foundations of influence and process of inclusive leadership, ‘promotes a very definitive end: inclusion’.

29 Howe (1991), p. 785. 30 Bogotoch (2002). “Social Justice and moral transformative leadership”, in Marshall, C. and Oliva, M. (Eds). Leadership for social justice: Making revolutions in education (pp. 19-23). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Ryan’s concept of inclusive leadership has parallels with critical theories of leadership (p.57) which ‘call[s] not for heroes but for modest men and women to step forward’.31 All members of the school community need a voice to engage in dialogue about what takes place, or should take place, in their school. This dialogue must be encouraged, supported, and developed by the school community,32particularly by the principal. Moreover, as Berger (2014) observes: ‘A pluralist democracy [such as Ontario’s] depends on the capacity of citizens to engage in thoughtful and inclusive forms of deliberation amidst, and enriched by, substantial divergence in lifestyles and world views’ (p.115).

This mindset, in turn, may sow the seeds of interculturalism, an ideal and progression from inclusion, and decidedly, beyond the limitations of ‘tolerance’ and ‘accommodation’ of the

‘other’—members of the citizenry, divergent in lifestyle and worldviews from ‘the norm’. The concept of interculturalism offers a more integrative way of interacting and creating community than our official stance of multi-culturalism33even though the latter is fortified by the legal duty to accommodate faith and religion in public schools.

31 W.Tierney (1989), Advancing Democracy: A critical interpretation of leadership. Peabody Journal of Education, 66(3), 157-175; W. Foster, Towards a critical practice of leadership (1989), in J. Smyth (Ed.), Critical perspectives on educational Leadership (London: Falmer Press) in Ryan (2006), p.58. 32 D. Corson, Emancipatory leadership (2000), International Journal of Leadership in Education, 3(2), 93-120, Corson (1996a); W. Foster (1994), School leaders as transformative intellectuals: Toward a critical pragmaticism, Advances in Educational Administration, 3, 29-51; J. Smyth (1996). The socially just alternative to the “self- managing school,” in K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallinger, & A. Hart (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership and administration (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer), 1097-1131; J. Ryan (2000), Inclusive leadership for ethnically diverse schools: Initiating and sustaining dialogue, in H. Fennell (Ed.), The role of the principal in Canada (Calgary, Canada: Detselig), 119-141; J. Ryan (2003a), Leading diverse schools (Dordrecht, Netherlands; Klower) in Ryan (2006), p.58. 33 Canada adopted a policy of multiculturalism in 1971 in order to manage the bourgeoning diversity of its citizenry. Through this policy Canada proclaims that it “…is fundamental to [its] belief that all citizens are equal. [Moreover,] multiculturalism ensures that all citizens can keep their identities, can take pride in their ancestry and have a sense of belonging…The Canadian experience has shown that multiculturalism encourages racial and ethnic harmony and cross-cultural understanding”. (Policy on Multiculturalism. Online: http://www.cic.gc.ca/English/multiculturalism/citizenship.). Over four decades later, the Canadian version of multiculturalism has proven to be a reasonable, just and humane way to help integrate new citizens. There is no

Interculturalism in its broadest sense is seen to embrace a spectrum of diversity: from social status to cultural and gender issues. Its tenet is that ethnic, linguistic, religious, socio-economic and cultural divides can be eased through dialogue and through the education of principals, teachers and their students. This intercultural ideal has the potential to usher in a new ‘formae mentis’,34 or way of thinking. Dr. Darla Deardorff (2006) defines the ability to engage in interculturalism, or intercultural competence as,

…the ability to interact effectively and appropriately in intercultural situations; it is supported by specific attitudes and affective features, (inter)cultural knowledge, skills and reflection.35

Through conscious praxis, intercultural competency is dialectically honed by the cultivation of positive interior thoughts/attitudes and culturally sensitive exterior behaviours when interacting with ‘the other’ repeatedly over time. It is an internal and external—personal change process: never completed, as we are never completed. Intercultural competency is to be incorporated and absorbed flexibly with guideposts, but with no fixed route or point of entry. It is personal, yet involves ‘the other’. It is individual, yet it is universal. It is also at the very core of the ‘ongoing debate about the future of society’, our collective society.36 Further to this, as Berger (2014) observes,

In equipping children with these skills [of interculturalism] through primary and secondary education, the state is preparing them to discharge the burdens of responsible participation in a pluralist democracy, one in which they will have the opportunity to argument being made against the official policy of multiculturalism. Rather, the argument is that interculturalism as a theory offers the potential for a more integrative way of interacting with ‘the other’. 34 Agostino Portera (2011), “Intercultural and Multicultural Education: Epistemological and Semantic Aspects”, in Carl A.Grant and Agostino Portera [Eds.] Intercultural and Multicultural Education: Enhancing Global Interconnectedness, New York: Routledge, p.21. 35 Darla Deardorff, “The Identification and Assessment of Intercultural Competence as a Student Outcome of Internationalization of Institutions of Higher Education In the United States”, Journal of Studies in International Education, Fall 2006, No.3, pp.241-266, p.4. 36 Living Together as Equals in Dignity.White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, May 7, 2008, p.5.

interact, collaborate, and constructively disagree with those whose beliefs and lived modes of life that differ from and challenge their own (p. 115).

Public schools offer a unique research environment where children ages six to eighteen are legally compelled to attend.37 These institutions of young and impressionable citizens are the ultimate laboratory and litmus test for the application and realization of the legal duty to accommodate faith and religion. Schools are the main forum where young citizens learn about their rights and responsibilities. To achieve this, it is posited that Ontario’s public schools require informed and inclusive principals to lead the way. The exploratory case study looks at the progress being made by principals, not only in the realization of their legal duty to accommodate faith and religion in their public schools, but in the creation of a school environment that is inclusive and equitable.

37 Bill 52, Education Amendment Act (Learning to Age 18), 2006.

1.6. Conceptual Framework

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Students

Staff Community (Teachers and (Religious and Support) Secular)

PRINCIPALS Enacting, Integrating, (Ontario) Human Mobilizing the Duty to Jurisprudence Rights Code Accommodate Faith and Religion in Public Schools

Skills and Knowledge Public School of Principal Board

Ministry of Education (Education Policy)

My conceptual framework for this exploratory case study draws from the idea that schools and school boards ‘exist within...[the] context of law and public policy’ (Religious Accommodation

Guidelines). The enveloping larger circle includes the the Canadian Charter of Rights and

Freedoms, the (Ontario) Human Rights Code, Jurisprudence and the Ministry of Education

(Education Policy), with double-headed arrows indicating their interconnections. The smaller

inner circle depicts who and what influences the accommodation of faith and religion in public

schools: Boards of education; staff (teachers and support); students; school community

(religious and secular); and the personal/professional skills of the principal. Again, there are

double-headed arrows depicting the interconnections. In the centre circle I have placed the

principal—the public face of public education, the one responsible for leadership and

management of the school, as well as the one who holds the formal authority.38 In my conceptual

framework the principal is connected to all elements in the two larger circles, as they are to the

principal.

1.7. Significance of Research

In Chamberlain v. Surrey District No.36 (2002), the Supreme Court of Canada [‘the SCC’] states that, ‘[r]eligion is an integral aspect of people’s lives, and cannot be left at the boardroom door’.

Arguably, nor can religion be left at the public school door. For, as Clark (2005)39 notes, ‘[f]rom a pragmatic perspective, religion seems to matter in the lives of people’. Worldwide, nearly 6.3 billion people, 72.6% of the world population, claim affiliation to a faith or religion.40 In Canada, approximately 23.2 million, or 64.4% of the citizens make that claim.41

38 The Ontario Leadership Framework (September 2013), p.5. 39 Paul Clarke.Religion; Public Education and the Charter: Where Do We Go Now?.McGill Journal of Education. Vol.40. Issue 3, Fall 2005, pp. 351-381. 40 Clarke (2005) writes that there are approximately two billion Christians (32.9%); 1.2 billion Muslims (19.9%); 840 million Hindus (13.3%); 370 million Buddhists (5.9%); 24 million Sikhs (o.4%); and 15 million Jews (0.2%) worldwide (p.360). 41 Clarke (2005) provides the following statistics for religion in Canada: There are 12.8 million Catholics (43.2%); 8.6 million Protestants (29.2%); 580 thousand Muslims (2%); 330 thousand Jews (1.1%); 300 thousand Buddhists (1.0%); 297 thousand Hindus (1.0%); and 278 thousand Sikhs (0.9%). It is also recognized that approximately 4.8 million Canadians (16.2%) profess to have no ties to religious belief. It is noted that the statistics are somewhat

Debate about the accommodation of faith and religion in mainstream, (purportedly) democratic society can be vociferous, divisive, and sometimes border on the irrational. For instance, the world in recent times witnessed the killings of contributors to France’s satirical journal Charlie

Hebdo by ‘Muslim extremists’. Under the banner of their right to free speech, the satirists chose to lampoon and to depict the Prophet Mohammad in a cartoon drawing. For many adherents to

Islam – not just ‘Muslim extremists’ - any drawing of the Prophet Mohammad is profoundly offensive. The employees of Charlie Hebdo were warned there would be repercussions if they continued to seemingly mock Islam through lampooning the Prophet. Undaunted, the contributors to Charlie Hebdo chose their right to free speech over the rights and beliefs of

(many) Muslims to have their religious tenets respected. Each side of the conflict, eschewing dialogue and conciliation, chose to make the accommodation of faith and religion a literal, deadly flashpoint.42

In Canada, societal divisiveness is evidenced in deliberations over women demarking their religious affiliation with a hijab (a cloth which covers their hair) and/or with a niqab (a cloth which covers their face). More debate has been garnered by the latter. Even Canada’s former prime minister, Stephen Harper spoke publicly against the freedom to wear the niqab at citizenship ceremonies, despite a 2015 Federal Court decision stating that it could be

dated as they were taken from the 2001 Canadian Census. Nevertheless, they provide some insight into the religious (and non-religious) makeup of Canada’s citizenry. (p. 360). 42 Matt Kwong. “Charlie Hebdo Paris shooting may deepen ‘naturalized Islamaphobia’”. CBC News. Jan. 08, 2015. Online: http://www.cbc.ca/news.; Lucas Powers. “Prophet Muhammad images draw varied reactions within Muslim community”. CBC News. Jan. 14, 2015. Online: http://www.cbc.ca/news.; Abbas Kassam. “Charlie Hebdo just meeting demand for Islamaphobia”.The Toronto Star. Online: http://www.thestar.com.; André Mayer. “Charlie Hebdo: Why the West has ‘fallen out of faith’ with free speech”. CBC News. Jan. 16, 2015. Online: http://www.cbc.ca/news .; John Cruickshank. “Why the Star won’t run the Charlie Hebdo cartoons”. The Toronto Star. Jan. 16. 2015. Online: http://www.thestar.com.; Elaine Ganley. “Europe’s Muslims feel heat of backlash after Paris terror attack”.The Associated Press.Jan. 13, 2015. Online: http://www.ap.org/.

permissible.43 Mr. Harper’s speech was made in Québec. His anti- niqab stance lent support to

Québec’s proposed Charter of Values 44 which, if enacted, would ban the display of religious symbols in public institutions, particularly the religious symbols of Muslims.45 Mr. Harper seemingly used the niqab as a divisive political tool, rather than as a starting point for civic discussion.

43 The former prime minister spoke openly against a recent Federal Court decision, Ishaq v. Canada (Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 156, where the Court held that wearing a niqab while being sworn in as a Canadian citizen may be acceptable, if the individual believes it is part of her faith to do so. See: “Justin Trudeau: Tories threaten liberty by fostering prejudice against Muslims”.CBC News. Mar.09, 2015. Online: http://www.cbc.ca/news.; Terry Milewski. “Niqab controversy: Stephen Harper, Justin Trudeau wade into culture war over the veil”.CBC News.Mar.11, 2015.Online: http://www.cbc.ca/news.; Chantal Hébert.”Conservatives, Bloc adding fuel to fire in niqab debate”.The Toronto Star.Feb.7, 2015. Online: http://www.thestar.com.; Andrew MacDougall.“Niqab debate necessary – but the hysteria surrounding it needs to go”.CBC News.Mar.20, 2015. Online: http://www.cbc.ca/news. 44 For example, see the following: Clement Allard. The politics behind the ‘Quebec values’ debate. The Canadian Press, September 1, 2013. Online: http://www.thestar.com.; Philip Authier. “Quebec Values Charter 2.0: Ban against crosses, hijabs would only apply to new public employees”; The National Post, January 16, 2015; Online: http://www.news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/16/quebec; Jacques Boussinot. ‘Politicians must fight panic over Muslims in Quebec’, The Canadian Press, March 2, 2015. Online: ; Geoffrey Cameron; Don Hutchinson; and Victor C. Goldbloom.’Does Canada’s Government have the intestinal fortitude to take on Pauline Marois’ new Quebec? – Advancing a conversation about religion in Canada’s public life’. The Toronto Star, May 24, 2013, Online: http://www.thestar.com; Edward Greenspon. “PQ gives in to temptations of intolerance: Greenspon”. (August 27, 2013) Online: http://www.torstar.com; Chantal.Hébert “Even sovereigntist-friendly ranks critical of PQ’s controversial proposed legislation”. The Toronto Star, September 5, 2013. Online: http://www.thestar.com; Chantal.Hébert. “PQ divides Quebec voters with ‘values charter’. The Toronto Star, September 19, 2013. Online: http://www.thestar.com; Graham Hughes. “PQ minorities plan takes a step forward’. The Canadian Press. August 27, 2013. Online: http://www.metronews.ca; Graham Hughes. “Former Supreme Court judge to back Quebec values charter, The Canadian Press, September 24, 2011, http://www.metronews.ca; Humera Jabir. “Quebec is wrong to treat the hijab as a political tool”. October 2, 2013. The Canadian Press. Online: Humera Jabir. ‘Quebec’s xenophobic moment’. The Toronto Star, February 4, 2014. Online: http://www.thestar.com; “In Quebec, religious ‘accommodations’ debate heats up”. Insight, The Toronto Star, August 31, 2013. Online: http://www.torstar.com; “PQ gets its fingers burnt”. The Toronto Star. September 19, 2013. http://www.thestar.com; .“Quebec’s divisive secular charter draws the pushback it deserves”. Editorial. The Toronto Star. November 10, 2013. Online: http://www.thestar.com; Rick Salutin, “Quebec’s charter of values: less like Putin, more like putine”, The Toronto Star, August 23, 2013. Online: http://www.torstar.com; Haroon Siddiqui. “PQ goes all out in waging war on religious minorities”. The Toronto Star (November 13, 2013). Online: http://www.torstar.com; Haroon Siddiqui. “Philippe Couillard is in a secular charter mess of his own”. The Toronto Star (April 10, 2014). Online: http://www.torstar.com; “Turbans, hijabs, kippas in Parti Québécois crosshairs”. The Canadian Press, August 21, 2013. Online: http://www.metronews.ca; Allan Woods. ‘Quebec’s Secular Divide’. The Toronto Star. (August 31, 2013). Online: http://www.torstar.com; Allan Woods. ‘A collision of culture and religion in Quebec’. The Toronto Star, March 12, 2015. Online: http://www.torstar.com; Allan Woods. ‘PQ legislation would ban religious symbols from government offices, schools, hospitals, paper says’. The Toronto Star, August 20, 2013. Online: http://www.torstar.com. 45 Joan Bryden. ‘Stephen Harper’s anti-niqab rhetoric helps terrorist recruiters, Charles Taylor says’. The Canadian Press, March 28, 2015. Online: http://www.thecanadianpress.com. ; Chantal Hébert. ‘Stephen Harper’s niqab comments spark Tory consternation’. The Toronto Star, March 13, 2015. Online: http://www.thestar.com; Haroon Siddiqui. ‘Harper should follow our secular law on niqab’. The Toronto Star, March 14, 2015. Online: http://www.torstar.com. Joan Bryden.

The hijab too can be the centre of focus. In Québec, girls have been banned from sports teams for wearing a hijab while playing. Safety reasons were cited, but in a secular Québec religious symbols, particularly ones denoting adherence to Islam, are the underlying issues.46

These few examples of actions and reactions to religion alarm me. The exclusionary rhetoric of the current president of the United States47, along with the bourgeoning of xenophobic and racist far right groups in various parts of the world,48 alarm me even more. The recent murders of

Muslims praying in a Québec mosque, along with an Islamophobic protest outside the Masjid mosque in Toronto, implicate Canada as well.49 I am deeply fearful these ways of thinking could contaminate and erode our collective established rights, freedoms and values as delineated in our

Charter and in our Code.

Public schools are government institutions where a nascent understanding of these rights, freedoms and values can be nurtured, and where children can be shown that multiculturalism means all citizens have a right to equal space and voice and a right to have their faith and religion, at the very least, respectfully accommodated. Principals in their schools are well

46 Although there is a focus on Muslims, the religious attire of other religious groups are also questioned. “Turbans, hijabs, kippas in Parti Québécois’ crosshairs”. The Canadian Press. Aug. 21.2013.Online: http://www.thecanadianpress.com.; See also: Marc St-Amour. “Marois backs soccer officials in standoff over turban ban”. The Globe and Mail. June 12, 2013.Online: http://www.theglobeandmail.com. 47 See Doug Criss.Trump travel ban: Here’s what you need to know.CNN News. January 30, 2017.online: www.cnn.com. 48 See Elaine Ganley.Marine Le Pen calls globalization, Islam threats against France. The Toronto Star. Feb.5, 2017.online: http://www.thestar.com.; Kate Connelly.After the US, far right says 2017 will be the year Europe wakes up.The Guardian.January 21, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com. 49On January 29, 2017, six people in the Islamic Cultural Centre in Québec City were assassinated during evening prayers. Nineteen others Muslims were also shot and injured. (See Benjamin Shingler (Jan.30, 2017).Quebec premier, Muslim leaders denounce deadly mosque attack. CBC News.online: http://www.cbcnews.ca/news; Kathleen Harris (Jan 30, 2017). ‘We will open our hearts’: Trudeau urges love and unity in wake of deadly mosque shooting. CBC News.online: https://www.cbcnews.ca/news; Edward Keenan (Jan.30, 2017).The fear of hatred inspires us to stand and shout.The Toronto Star.online: https://www.thestar.com. And see Shanifa Nasser and Amara McLaughlin.Protesters outside Masjid Toronto call for ban on Islam as Muslims pray inside. CBC News. online: http://www.thecanadianpress.com.)

positioned to be the vanguards ensuring that not only educational policy is followed, but that the rights and values enshrined in our Charter and Code are rigorously defended and upheld for all students and staff members. Principals are also well positioned to be the antidote to any signs of erosion.

Canada’s current prime minister, Justin Trudeau recently expressed a hopeful and principled stance stating that ‘…Canadian liberty is all about inclusion’ and acknowledged that, although

Canada’s treatment of ‘the other’ has

...had deeply regrettable moments…the history of this country is one in which we are constantly challenging ourselves and each other to extend our personal definitions of who is a Canadian…[to acknowledge] that none of this happened by accident, and [that] it won’t continue without effort.50

In theory, as Canadians, we are all equal under the law. In theory, we share the same rights under the Charter and the Code. My concern, however, is the manifestation of equality and rights in practice—especially in our public schools. In particular, my concern is focussed on the right of each member of Ontario’s school communities to enjoy the security of practising his or her faith and religion—or freedom from religion—through inclusive, equitable and conscientious accommodation, managed and guided by their principals.

I believe that in the context of troubling current world and domestic issues, my research on the accommodation of faith and religion is important as it examines a concept that is fundamental to the understanding, functioning, and place of all Ontario’s citizens. It offers a forum for reflection on the important role the accommodation of faith and religion plays in our society: the

50 Michel Gagnon.“Let’s not forget the dark side of our ‘sunny ways’”. CBC News, October 26, 2015. Online: http://www.cbcnews.ca.

challenges; the benefits; how we are changing and adapting, and how we are creating more space for difference.

Further to this, as my research also provides an overview of case law, legislation, and historical context for the accommodation of faith and religion, it offers a starting point and context for understanding how and why Ontario’s current policies have developed regarding the legal duty to accommodate the faith and religion of its citizens, particularly of the citizens in our schools.

Additionally, the overview is intended to assist not only principals and other members of the school community to understand the educative context of the legal duty to accommodate faith and religion, but also to offer to other citizens of Ontario—both long-time and new— insight as to why religion holds a place of historical and current importance.

Finally, research conducted for this doctoral thesis through field interviews with principals, supported by a discussion of jurisprudence, legislation, current education policy, and historical context, offers what I believe is a unique approach. I found no other similar, empirical study on the duty to accommodate faith and religion in public schools conducted in a similar manner.51

51 Initially, preliminary reviews of my proposed research questioned the statement that ‘no other similar, empirical study’ on the duty to accommodate faith and religion in public schools in Ontario was questioned. Nevertheless, I continue to stand by my initial assertion. I do acknowledge that there are existing academic studies that examine the effect of conflict between religious tenets of individuals or groups and the existing hegemony of government institutions. An example would be Anne Fadiman’s (1997) The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down. United States: Farrar, Strans and Giroux. In this study, it is demonstrated that a lack of understanding between the medical community and a Hmong family from Vietnam led to disastrous results for the epileptic daughter. The medical community did not recognize or understand the family’s religious beliefs and the family reacted against American medical procedures. Fadiman’s work does not address, however, the legal or historical context of the American medical community’s actions, as my research does. Another example of the conflict between a religious group and existing hegemony is found in Dawn S Bowen’s, “Resistance, acquiescence and accommodation: the establishment of public schools in an old colony Mennonite community in Canada”. Mennonite Quarterly Review. 84.4 (Oct. 2010). Bowen’s research provides an overview of the Mennonites’ historical struggle to have their religious rights upheld in Canada. My research, however, extends beyond the tension between religious convictions and established hegemony. It exams the laws that serve to protect religious rights, how tensions have been or can be resolved

1.8. Profile of the Researcher

The orientation of the researcher’s thinking is integral to the mode and content of what is selected for investigation.52 My interest in the legal duty to accommodate faith and religion as the focus for doctoral research has evolved more from intellectual curiosity, experiences in diverse countries and from observing Ontario’s changing demographics, rather than from my own personal faith or religious convictions. As a young person I was baptised and confirmed in the Anglican Church. My familial background also includes members of the Roman Catholic and Presbyterian churches. These historical realities are not actively part of my adult life.

Nonetheless, I acknowledge that Christianity informs my personal orientation. This Christian orientation, however, has been modified and enhanced by observing the variances in faith and religious practices, and by engaging in dialogue with diverse devotees, world-wide. As a researcher, I am curious about an individual’s strength of conviction and how diverse beliefs are manifested in a myriad of ways: through ritual, symbols, clothing, fasting, feasting, public/private prayer and/or meditation. Equally, I am curious about those that eschew faith and religion; the atheists and the agnostics.

At the other end of the human spectrum, I am also curious and disconcerted about the level of controversy, anger, vitriol, and violence that can be precipitated by the existence of someone’s faith or religion. I am perplexed by the fact that religious customs such as a Jew wearing a kippa; a Muslim, a niqab; a Roman Catholic, a crucifix; or a Hindu, a bindi can create a sense of wariness, if not outrage, antagonism, and/or aggression by some non-sharers of these faiths.

through the rule of law and policies, and to what extent faith and religion are accommodated in public schools as a result of principal action. 52 Maria Piantanida and Noreen B. Garman (1999). The Qualitative Dissertation: A Guide for Students and Faculty. California: Corwin Press.

My interest in the accommodation of faith and religion has evolved over time. As a young student in public school I did not understand why a Jehovah Witness student stood outside in the hall, while the rest of us recited the Lord’s Prayer with the teacher; or why Catholics were compelled to attend a separate school and kept apart from us, the ‘regular’ students. As a teacher

I did not understand why the Christian Lord’s Prayer was suddenly removed from our morning routine; or why the Sikh’s kirpan [ceremonial sword] was exempted as a weapon in our ‘safe schools’.

In September 2000, my curiosity about faith and religion became much more acute after I became a principal of an Islamic girls’ school in Kuwait. In this Muslim country I found myself introduced to a belief system and rituals which had been completely unknown to me. Initially, I floundered in this Islamic world. Fortunately, I had many tutors and much remediation in order to learn about the faith and how it guided the lives of my Muslim students and many of my colleagues as well as the citizens of Kuwait. This five year experience not only provided me with an inchoate understanding of Muslims and the Islamic faith, but compelled me to reflect more deeply on how faith and religion is the foundation of, and integral to, the way many people lead their lives. In turn, this eventually precipitated my interest in researching the role faith and religion plays in Canada’s government institutions, particularly in Ontario’s public schools.

Subsequent studies at the University of Western Ontario in the Faculty of Law helped to build a foundation of knowledge about relevant jurisprudence, human rights and, in particular, the principles of our Charter. My pursuit of a Juris Doctor degree further developped my conviction that social justice, equality of treatment and equality of belonging, which are core

constitutional values would, in turn, form the foundation of my research. The legal right to practise one’s religion—or freedom from embracing any theism—and to have one’s choice recognized, respected, and accommodated, is an integral part of the inclusive and just society promised by our Charter, as well as by our Code. Based on these ideals, I sought to conduct research with the aim of learning how, or whether, the right to freedom of faith and religion is being protected and actively included by the people who hold the official positions of influence and power in our public schools, namely the principals.

It is important to note that through the process of recruiting principal candidates for my research, and during each of the twelve interviews conducted, I was fully cognizant of and sensitive to the fact that although I am a member of the Ontario College of Teachers and served formerly as a teacher for sixteen years, and a principal for four, I am also a member of the Law Society of

Upper Canada and have been a practising lawyer since 2009. As I conducted my research with the legal duty to accommodate faith and religion as the premise of the study, I was concerned this might create the perception of a power differential between me as a researcher and the interviewees. Therefore, I was careful to actively pre-empt and dispel any perception by the principal participants that, as a lawyer, my purpose in conducting research was to test their legal knowledge about the accommodation of faith and religion. During each interview, I ensured the principal was informed I was simply seeking data about the extent and ways religious accommodation is evidenced in the school, not whether the principal was able to articulate the law, or had a fulsome grasp of what the legal duty entails.

The goal in researching and writing this doctoral thesis is that the reader will benefit from understanding why the duty to accommodate faith and religion is an integral part of our legal and social fabric, as well as how the multi-faiths and religions of Ontario’s students and staff members are being accommodated and included by their principals in our public schools.

Chapter Two: Literature Review

In order to provide a more fulsome context and understanding of the legal and policy background which led to the Ministry of Education’s current legislation on the duty to accommodate faith and religion in public schools, where the guardianship of this duty rests overwhelmingly with the principal, the Literature Review is divided into five sections:

2.1. Introduction

2.2. The Development and Impact of the Human Rights Code and Commission

2.3. The Enactment and Impact of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

2.4. The Evolution of Educational Policy

2.5. The Role of the Principal in the Accommodation of Faith and Religion

2.1. Introduction

As the keynote speaker for the Annual Pluralism Lecture 2015 on May 29th, the Right

Honourable Beverley McLaughlin, Chief Justice of Canada stated the following, at the Aga

Khan Museum in Toronto, Ontario.

Most modern multi-cultural nations have – sometimes after great struggle and trauma – adopted the…approach of tolerance. They have rejected the responses of segregation, discrimination and exile…The only way forward…is to move forward together. Citizens may not agree with behaviours and opinions voiced by some of those with whom they share their communal space. But they are willing to allow them to voice those opinions or act as their religion or values dictate as part of the cosmopolitan ethic.53

53 “Reconciling Unity and Diversity in the Modern Era: Tolerance and Intolerance”. Email: https://ismailimail.worldpress.com. The term “cosmopolitan ethic”, as acknowledge by the Chief Justice, was coined by His Highness the Aga Khan in the October 15, 2010 in his keynote address at The LaFontaine-Baldwin Lecture in Toronto, Canada. A cosmopolitan ethic speaks to a “pluralist, cosmopolitan society,” which “not only accepts difference, but actively seeks to understand it - and to learn from it.” (p.3) The idea of cosmopolitan ethic may have some parallels to Deardorff’s paradigm of interculturalism.

The Chief Justice further notes that there is also a line to be drawn between expressed opinions and actions that can be accepted by society in general and those that are so abhorrent they cannot be tolerated in civilized society. In between there are many gray areas. When reasonable citizens cannot agree where the line should be drawn, it is our courts and legislators that must decide what the cosmopolitan ethic can accommodate and what it can tolerate.

Chief Justice McLaughlin, through synthesizing Canadian jurisprudence in this area concluded there are three pre-conditions for sustaining a norm of tolerance for the diverse “other”: (1)

Insisting on respect for the human dignity of each person; (2) fostering inclusive institutions and cultural attitudes in civil society; and (3) maintaining the rule of law (p.4).

The recognition of the first, human dignity is the precursor to the second and third pre-conditions in a diverse and multi-cultural country like Canada. As emphasized by Supreme Court Justice

Bertha Wilson, ‘The idea of human dignity finds expression in almost every right and freedom guaranteed by the Charter. Individuals are afforded the right to choose their own religion and their own philosophy of life…’54

The second component, inclusivity, is fostered when leaders of institutions ‘understand the richness pluralism brings, and the basic ethic of tolerance it requires’ (McLaughlin, p.14).55

Importantly, the Chief Justice also emphasizes that tolerance is the mere baseline56 for societal interaction. The active acceptance and ‘embrace of the validity of other people’s experiences,

54 R. v. Morgentaler, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 30 at 166. 55 This aligns with James Ryan’s concept of inclusive leadership as discussed above in sub-section 1.5., ‘Theoretical Framework’. 56 Emphasis added.

cultures and orientations’ is required in order that we may ‘fulfil our moral obligation to understand that all lives are qualitatively equal’ (p.4).

Citing from Bruker v. Marcovitz, a 2007 Supreme Court of Canada decision, Justice McLaughlin delineates Canada’s tenet and promise of freedom of religion and equality in a multi-cultural society—a society which strives to go beyond the mere and inadequate static stance of

‘tolerance’ by those who hold power:

Canada rightly prides itself on its evolutionary tolerance for diversity and pluralism. This journey has included a growing appreciation for multiculturalism, including the recognition that ethnic, religious or cultural differences will be acknowledged and respected. Endorsed in legal instruments ranging from the statutory protections found in human rights codes57 to their constitutional enshrinement in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the right to integrate into Canada’s mainstream based on and notwithstanding these differences has become a defining part of our national character.58

It is the third component, the rule of law which is the foundation ‘upon which civilized intercourse in a diverse society rests’. This foundational underpinning necessitates ‘commitment to a culture of legality’ in order to rein in the power of the majority that tries to exclude beliefs and practices they find unpalatable, wrong, or even deviant to its norm (McLaughlin, p.15).

In the subsequent sections which focus on the Code, the Charter, case law, education policy and the principal’s role, Canada’s and Ontario’s ‘evolutionary tolerance for diversity and pluralism’59 in the accommodation of faith and religion, is reviewed and further discussed.

57 As stated above, Ontario is the province in Canada with the most extensive involvement with human rights commissions and the development of legislation in this area. A great number of the initiators of human rights legislation were representatives of minorities that had suffered the effects of discrimination and exclusion, and this “experiential factor was an important one [in] prompting them to act”. Howe (1991).pp.783 & 786. 58 Bruker v. Marcovitz, 2007 SCC 54 at para.1. 59 The use of the word ‘tolerance’ of the ‘other’ is problematic and revelatory as it points to the power imbalance in society between those citizens who are in a position to decide what is ‘tolerable’ and those who are to be ‘tolerated’.

2.2. The Development and Impact of the Human Rights Code and Commission in Ontario

Canada’s inchoate awareness of the need to enact human rights policy was precipitated by the world-wide reaction of liberal states to the discriminatory and inhumane practices witnessed during World War II in the 1940s. The war created in Canada a new ideal: ‘[I]t was [and is] the responsibility of the state, through law and through an administrative commission, to counter discrimination and provide for the social right to equal opportunity’.60

Initially, equality, or at least non-discrimination, was perceived as a societal value that would be realized through the voluntary actions of the good will of those who held power. It was not viewed as a right that necessitated laws that affected or constrained the existing individual freedoms of others, with their existing power and privilege.61

Despite initial limitations in its breadth, the principle of social rights continued to develop as

Canada became a signatory to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, following the end of WWII.62 In patterning the content of the Universal Declaration, Ontario enacted it first

Human Rights Code in June 15, 1962. Its purpose was to prohibit discrimination in signs, services, public accommodation, and union membership on such specific grounds as: race,

As Chief Justice McLaughlin states, ‘tolerance’ is the minimum expectation of civil society. And, as discussed earlier, the higher aim is the realization of interculturalism and intercultural competence. 60 Howe (1991), p.787. 61 An example of the reluctance of the law at that time to interfere with individual, established rights is found in Christie v. York Corporation [1940] S.C.R. at para. 139. In this decision, the Supreme Court of Canada held that although a Montreal bar proprietor had barred a black man from being served in his establishment, the law dictated that: “Any merchant is free to deal as he may choose with any member of the public. It is not a question of motives or reasons…he is free to do either” (Howe (1991), p. 788). 62 It is significant to note the paradox that although Canada was a signatory, and a Canadian was integral to the drafting of this important human rights document, during WWII our country interred innocent Japanese Canadians; denied refugee status to Jews seeking asylum from Nazi persecution in Europe; discriminated against domestic Jews and Blacks from participating in the lucrative war industry; paid women less than the men manufacturing the same weaponry; and deprived Native war veterans from receiving benefits (Howe (1991), pp. 788-789).

creed, colour, and place of origin.63 It was the harbinger of profound and far-reaching change in law and public policy in that it dictated ‘positive state action, in the form of human rights law and a human rights commission, to control discrimination in the private domain’.64

The Code of 1962 was updated and revised in 1981 as a result of effort and focus on public education in the dissemination of the ‘symbolic message…that social rights were basic human rights and a centrepiece of Ontario’s public policy’. As a result, it was imperative to expand the mandate of the Commission and to mold it into a ‘more pro-active and affirmative agent of rights’,65 in order to address the needs of Ontario’s changing demographics. Visible and ethnic minorities had increased from 40 per cent in 1961 to 46 per cent in 1981.66 The expansion of the

Code’s mandate was also needed to address ‘systemic’ covert discrimination in institutions which was more difficult to discern than the intentional overt acts of discrimination by individuals.67

63 Emphasis added. Ontario Human Rights Commission. Online: http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/bit-history. 64 Howe (1991) states there were three factors in the 1950s which helped to lay the foundation for the Ontario Human Rights Commission in 1962: (a) favourable structural change – Canada’s positive postwar policy on immigration which witnessed an influx of people from diverse nations, particularly to Ontario, coupled with Ontario’s rapid economic growth. From 1941 to 1961, the non-British immigrants rose from 28 to 40 per cent.; (b) adoption of an incrementalist approach to legislative change by social activists – Their methodology was to lobby for changes to the law which were ‘limited, clearly defined and reasonably attainable’, and if the incremental change did not bring ‘the chaos predicted by critics’, more amendments were sought. Incremental changes, such as the Anti- Discrimination Commission enacted for public education and the prohibition of discrimination in employment based on race and religion, both enacted in the 1950s, formed part of the 1962 Code document; and, (c) the role of the Commission was to be conciliatory, not adversarial. Monetary and criminal sanctions were to be negligible for transgressors, as were appeals to the courts for settlement. Although a fledgling and relatively toothless document, “it was appealing to minority leaders and social reformers…that saw it as a major advance over social laissez- faire...A positive means of access to social rights was now available through an informal, flexible and accessible procedure” (Howe (1991), pp.790-792). 65 Howe (1991), p. 793 66 See Census of Canada, 1961 and 1981, in Howe (1991), p.794. 67 Howe (1991), p. 794.

At the same time, there was strong opposition from several fronts.68 Various groups questioned the Commission’s power. They believed that the ‘new language of positive rights rather than negative prohibitions’69 would be the harbinger of legal and societal chaos. It was viewed by some that the introduction of affirmative action and examinations of systemic barriers would disrupt the status quo and place those that had held historical power on the defensive.70 Yet, despite opposition from several fronts, the Commission stands today as the place of mediation and arbitration where individuals who believe their rights have been infringed or violated by employers, boards of education, or individuals, can seek assistance and restitution.

The Code, as well as other legislation71 enacted to protect against discrimination based on religion, have served also to reduce Christian power and privilege in Canadian society and institutions. The ‘net effect’ has been the realization of a broader separation between church and state. Coupled with this,

[s]ecularization was embraced in Canadian public culture as part of the strategy of undermining Christian privilege and building a state that demonstrated equal access, equal distance, equal respect, or equal support to all the religions within its territory (Seljak (2012), p.10).

68 There were actually three distinct sources of counteraction and reaction to the revamped Code and Commission: Members of the legal community questioned the bourgeoning power of the Commission as its boards of inquiry and adjudicators were seen as running roughshod over traditional values such as procedural fairness; a royal commission which investigated the procedural rights of individuals before administrative agencies expressed concern about the “encroaching power of the state subverting [the] rule of law principles”; and concerned interest groups that “opposed the proposed reforms on conservative liberal grounds that important traditional rights and freedoms would be sacrificed” (Howe (1991), pp. 796 & 797). 69 Howe (1991), p.798. 70 Howe (1991), notes that the mandate and effectiveness of the Commission have been obstructed by both inadequate funding and insufficient political resolve on the part of provincial legislators. These created, in turn, ‘a gap between principle and practice’ (p.801). 71 Freedom from religious discrimination is also guaranteed in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (1988), the Canadian Human Rights Act (1985), the Employment Equity Act (1995), and the Canada Labour Code (R.S., 1985, c. L-2). In David Seljak, Protecting religious freedom in a multicultural Canada. Canadian Diversity. Volume 9:3, Summer 2012, p. 10.

To provide a clearer and broader legal context, particularly for this study, it is important to take note of section 24(2) of the Code in which the concept of ‘undue hardship’ is delineated. A declaration of ‘undue hardship’ may be made whenever there is a recognized legal duty for a government institution to accommodate. The person or persons responsible for the fulfillment of the duty and responsibility to accommodate must take all measures to do so until a deemed point of impossibility, due to the harm it may cause others or to the institution itself. Section 24(2) states that what may constitute ‘undue hardship’ is to be considered in relation to the cost of accommodation, outside sources of funding, if any, and health and safety requirements. The threshold of undue hardship is to be assessed and decided on a case-by-case basis as there are no exact, defined parameters.

When assessing whether the threshold of undue hardship has been reached, it is helpful to

consider the findings in Drawing the Line, Tackling Tensions Between Religious Freedom and

Equality [“Drawing the Line].72 The authors of this report declare that any restraints or

limitations placed on freedom of religion by the state, especially of minority groups, can only be

‘justified on robust, principled, and evidenced grounds...[and] must be subject to the most

rigorous scrutiny’ (p.3). Equally, the authors affirm that a requested religious accommodation

itself must also be subject to the same degree of ‘rigorous scrutiny’ – especially when it is

‘invoked to justify harm to others’, such as to members of the LGBTQ73 community, or to

women.

72 September 2015. This document was created by the International Network of Civil Liberties Organizations which includes the following groups: Canadian Civil Liberties Association [CCLA]; Egyptian Initiatives for Personal Rights; Legal Resources Centre [LRC]; Irish Council for Civil Liberties; Human Rights Law Network [HRLN]; American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU]; Centro de Estudios Legales Y Sociales [CELS]; and other international legal and social rights groups. 73LGBTQ is an acronym for: lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, trans-sexual and queer.

The duty to accommodate up to the point of undue hardship serves, therefore, as both a sword and a shield. In other words, although religious freedom acknowledges the right to hold certain beliefs, and that this ‘right is fundamental and must be vigorously defended,’ it does not allow for the imposition of religious beliefs on others through discrimination or harm (p.5).

In sum, in determining whether the point of undue hardship has been realized, ‘the cost’ to the organization and its members of accommodating a particular religious belief must be weighed and thoroughly canvassed by the government representative. The concomitant responsibility – or duty - is to ‘neutrally enforce and apply the laws’ (pp. 5 & 23).

2.3. The Enactment and Impact of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Serving to fortify Ontario’s human rights efforts, the legal force majeure, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted in 1982.74 Subsequent decisions by the courts, particularly those of the Supreme Court of Canada, based on Charter values, have aided in more closely delineating a citizen’s freedom to practise a chosen religion as she or he sees fit. At the same time, however, this freedom of religion may not interfere with other Charter rights, without justification. To add to the complexity, the freedom to practise one’s religion and the right to have it accommodated are recognized in the context of government institutions that are legally required to be officially secular.

74 The difference between the scope of the Charter and the Human Rights Code is as follows: The Charter “is a constitutional document. It is described as the “supreme law” in Canada because it can be used in the courts to challenge or strike down unconstitutional laws or government practices. The Charter guarantees equal rights and treatment based on a number of grounds, including race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability. The Charter only applies to the acts and conduct of government, and does not apply to the acts of, and conduct between, individuals. In comparison, the Ontario Human Rights Code applies to both private and public sectors, as well as to conduct between individuals within the listed social areas. Despite these differences, some of the general principles used to interpret the Charter can also be used in interpreting the Code, although it is not clear that the same legal tests used for the Charter should apply to the Code.” In Introducing the Ontario Human Rights Code. Online: http://www.ohrc.on.ca.

Paradoxically, this official stance of secularism in government institutions operates within a structure that was created during the time of Christian dominance.75 Mindful of these anomalies, government institutions, such as schools, have a complex duty in accommodating faith and religion while, at the same time, safeguarding the competing Charter rights of other citizens. The duty includes recognition of the rights and beliefs of agnostics and atheists, to ensure they are protected and free from the unwanted effects and influence of the religion of others.

Protection against religious discrimination, the reduction of Christian power and privilege, and the secularization of Canadian institutions, including schools, increased exponentially following the introduction of the Charter in 1982. In the SCC decision, R. v. Big M Drug Mart,76for example, made shortly after the enactment of the Charter, Chief Justice Dickson defines what freedom of religion entails. He emphasizes that a free society is one that not only accommodates a breadth of religious faiths and beliefs, but also one that

…aims at equality with respect to enjoyment of fundamental freedoms…Freedom must surely be founded in respect for the inherent dignity and inviolable rights of the human person. The essence of the concept of freedom of religion is the right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses, the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal, and the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination. But the concept means more than that. Freedom can primarily be characterized by the absence of coercion or constraint.

75 The fact that government, school, and workplace holidays take place at Christmas and Easter (Christian holy days) serve as examples. At these times, all government institutions are closed to everyone, regardless of religious affiliation. Holidays for all citizens, however, do not take place during Rosh Hashanah (Jewish), Eid Al Fitr (Islamic), or Diwali (Hindu), for example. 76 [1985] 1S.C.R. 295, at para 295. In this leading decision on religious accommodation, the SCC struck down the Lord’s Day Act, which had prohibited commercial activity (such as grocery and drug stores being open) on Sundays. The SCC held (at para 351) that the purpose of the Act was “to compel the observance of the Christian Sabbath” and impinged, therefore, on the religious freedom of non-Christians (Peter W. Hogg (2005). Constitutional Law of Canada. Toronto: Thomson Carswell).

Specific legal principles have developed as a result of important court decisions, since the adoption of the Charter. The judicial reasoning which led to these guiding principles serves to assist government bureaucrats, including school principals, in realizing their duty to accommodate and in ensuring the rights of citizens are recognized, respected, and protected.

Firstly, all Charter rights are equal and where conflict arises between two of these rights,

Charter principles necessitate a reconciliation between the two rights.77 At the same time, it is clear that the quest for the requisite reconciliation is hindered by the fact that there are few set guidelines or ‘bright-line rules’78 upon which to rely. Additionally, it is important to understand that the law governing competing Charter rights is not static and continues to evolve.79

Flexibility, finesse, and knowledge of current court decisions and subsequent changes to the law are needed.

As balancing competing Charter rights poses a challenge for the Supreme Court judges themselves, more clarity for the government bureaucrat – the principal- is derived from delineating what not to do:

(1) [T]reating any right as absolute; (2) regarding any right as inherently superior to another; (3) accepting a hierarchy of rights; and (4) approaching rights in the abstract or in a factual vacuum.80

77 The Honourable Justice Frank Iacobucci. “’Reconciling Rights’ The Supreme Court of Canada’s Approach to Competing Charter Rights”.(2003), 20 S.C.L.R. (2d).pp.137-165. 78 R. v. N.S., 2010 ONCA 670 at para 47. This decision involved the conflict of Charter rights between an accused’s right to make full answer and defence and to ‘face’ the accuser in criminal court; and the accuser’s right to exercise her freedom of religion to wear a niqab when testifying against him. There is no bright blue line as to which right should take precedence and is circumstantial in each case. 79 The shadow of the law: Surveying the case law dealing with competing rights claims. Ontario Human Rights Commission.Retrieved April 24, 2014.Online: http://www.onrc.on.ca/en. (p.2.) [“The Shadow of the Law”]. 80 Ibid., footnote 4, p.36.

An awareness that the ‘contextual approach is critical’, as Charter and human rights ‘do not exist in a vacuum’,81 helps to mitigate, if not avoid conflict between competing rights.82

A differentiation must also be made between perceived and actual conflict between competing

Charter rights. If an impingement is only perceived, there is no violation, as illustrated in the decision in Chiang v. Vancouver Board of Education83 In Chiang, a Christian librarian claimed her religious rights were violated when a teacher-leader of a gay rights group handed out rainbow stickers and gay rights pamphlets to be displayed in the library. The British Columbia tribunal found there was no nexus between the librarian’s religious beliefs and the alleged adverse treatment she received through being asked to display the gay rights material. The violation of the librarian’s religious rights was deemed to be more perceived than real, and there was no actual harm to her through the distribution of the material.84

Further to this, the courts have curtailed the right to act on religious beliefs when the person claiming the right to religious freedom toxically intertwines it with section 2(b) of the Charter,

81 Ibid., p. 4. 82 Adding to the intricacy of balancing Charter rights, whenever there is only a de minimus, or trivial impingement, then that right is less likely to be protected. In Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, (2004 SCC 47 (CanLII), [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551). for example, the SCC outlines when a de minimus impingement of a right may be acceptable. Although the property owners in this decision had the recognized right to dictate how apartment renters maintain the order of their balconies, it was deemed there was a de minimus intrusion on the property owner’s rights when the court ordered that practising Jews could build a sukkah [temporary shelter] on their balconies during the week-long religious celebration of Sukkot. The right to practise one’s religion is not ‘inherently superior’ to the right of the property owner, but the ‘harm’ of the sukkah on the balcony was only minimal and temporary for the property owners. 83 2009 B.C.H.R.T. 319 at para 115. Although this decision was made in a human rights tribunal in another province, it is still persuasive in Ontario. 84 On the other hand, if the rights of the school gay community had been denied through banning the distribution of rainbow stickers and pamphlets, this would have been an actual violation. In this decision the tribunal emphasized there is a duty upon the principal and the school to protect and acknowledge the equal rights of the gay students and staff, in conjunction with the duty to accommodate the religious beliefs of the librarian.

the right to freedom of expression. In Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15,85 a

Christian teacher’s public writings maligned Jews and their religion. The teacher, Ross, was deemed by his board unfit to teach children and he was fired. The SCC held that Ross’ actions

‘poisoned the educational environment for his Jewish students’,86 but also noted that Ross’ right to freedom of religion as a Christian, and freedom of expression had also been impinged because the Board had fired him. In order to balance competing rights, the Board was compelled to provide employment for Ross, but not in the classroom so as to ensure students were protected from his anti-Semitic views. In Ross, the SCC underlined the ‘breadth and importance of the guarantee of freedom of expression, no matter how unpopular or repugnant the expressed views might be,’87 and that ‘[f]reedom of religion is subject to such limitations as are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals and the fundamental rights and freedoms of others’.88

Another example of balancing conflicting Charter rights is found in R. v. Keegstra.89 Keegstra was a public school teacher in Alberta who was charged under the Criminal Code of Canada

[‘the CCC’] for actively promoting hatred against an identifiable group, members of the Jewish faith. Mr. Keegstra conveyed anti-Semitic thoughts and teachings to his students by claiming that the Holocaust and annihilation of millions of Jews was a fabrication and part of a Jewish conspiracy aimed at destroying Christianity. Mr. Keegstra ensured his beliefs were

85 [1996] 1 S.C.R. 825. 86 Op. Cit., footnote 70, p.5. 87 Ibid., p.12 88 Ross, at para. 72. 89 [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697.

communicated to his students through testing them on their opinions of Jews and the students’

understanding of Keegstra’s theories.90

It was by only the slimmest of margins, that the right to protection of members of the Jewish faith under s.15 trumped the free speech and religious rights of Mr. Keegstra under sections 2(a) and

2(b). The SCC’s rationale in making its decision was,

[l]imitations upon hate propaganda are directed at a special category of expression which strays some distance from the spirit of s.2(b), and…restrictions on this kind [of expression] might be easier to justify than other infringements of s.2(b).91

From the decision in Keegstra, it is clear that when addressing the right to freedom of faith and

religion the courts have found that the ‘freedom to hold beliefs is broader than the freedom to act

upon them’,92 when such actions would impinge upon the rights of others. At the same time,

however, the section 2(b) right to freedom of speech is also vigorously upheld by the courts.

Conflicting rights dictate a perpetual balancing and re-calibration on the part of those responsible

for accommodating and safeguarding these rights. Moreover, it requires an ‘acute sensitivity to

context.’93 The balancing of Charter rights is a challenging task, not only for the tribunals and

the courts, but for all in positions of responsibility in government institutions. Notably, several

90 In arriving at its decision, the SCC considered, not only sections 2(a) (freedom of conscience and religion), and 2(b) (freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication), but also section 15 of the Charter whereby ‘Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination…’. 91 Op. Cit., footnote 70, p.12. 92 Trinity Western University v. British Columbia College of Teachers, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 772 at para 29. In this decision, the SCC upheld the Christian-based university’s religious rights to have their students sign commitment letters that whereby they agreed to abstain from pre-marital relationships and same-sex relationships. The judicial reasoning was that an educator is expected to teach objectively and refrain from inculcating students with personal views, especially those which would be in conflict with Charter values of equality, or that would impinge upon the rights or beliefs of others. Interestingly, when Trinity Western College attempted to establish the same criteria for law students, the courts held against them. This decision, however, has been appealed. 93 Op.Cit., footnote 70, p.9.

judicial decisions have been made as a result of the ‘tension between religious rights and the right to be free from discrimination’94 which have arisen in situations pertaining to schools and to education. A selection of these decisions is discussed in section 2.4., ‘The Evolution of

Education Policy’, and in 2.5., ‘The Role of the Principal in the Accommodation of Faith and

Religion’.

2.4. The Evolution of Education Policy

The two references in the Education Act95 itself regarding the place of religion in schools is found in subsections 51.1 and 2, (Religious instruction) and under ‘Miscellaneous’ in Part 11.1 which outlines the Charter right of a student to exercise his or her freedom of religion, or to be protected from the unwanted effects of the religious beliefs of others.96

Regulation 298 (Operation of Schools – General)97 of the Education Act, specifically section 4

(Opening or Closing Exercises)98 and sections 28 and 29 (Religion in Schools),99 delineate more fulsomely the expectations for the place of religion in Ontario’s secular public schools.

94 Ibid., p.18. 95 R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2, s. 51 (2), p.55. 96 51.(1) Subject to the regulations, a pupil shall be allowed to receive such religious instruction as the pupil’s parent or guardian desires or, where the pupil is an adult, as the pupil desires. R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2, s. 51 (1). (2) No pupil in a public school shall be required to read or study in or from a religious book, or to join in an exercise of devotion or religion, objected to by the pupil’s parent or guardian, or by the pupil, where the pupil is an adult. 97 R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 298, s. 11 (1) (as of September 1, 2014). 98 SECTION 4.1. (2) THE OPENING OR CLOSING EXERCISES MAY INCLUDE THE SINGING OF GOD SAVE THE QUEEN AND MAY ALSO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF READINGS THAT IMPART SOCIAL, MORAL OR SPIRITUAL VALUES AND THAT ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF ONTARIO’S MULTICULTURAL SOCIETY: 1. Scriptural writings including prayers. 2. Secular writings. O. Reg. 436/00, s. 1. (3) The opening or closing exercises may include a period of silence. O. Reg. 436/00, s. 1. (4) In the following circumstances, a pupil is not required to participate in the opening or closing exercises described in this section: 1. In the case of a pupil who is less than 18 years old, if the pupil’s parent or guardian applies to the principal of the school for an exemption from the exercises.

Opening or closing exercises in public schools may include scriptural or secular writings (or simply silence), as long as they are reflective of the multicultural makeup of Ontario’s citizens and ‘impart [its] social, moral or spiritual values’. Classes on religion are permissible, but schools may only instruct about world religions, not indoctrinate or proselytize about any religion in particular. Students may be exempted from participation in opening exercises and/or a course on religion.

The Ministry of Education’s current mandate for religious neutrality, and at the same time inclusivity in the opening exercises of public schools, reflects a profound change from its historic Christian roots. It was as a result of the 1988 Court of Appeal decision in Zylberberg v.

2. In the case of a pupil who is at least 18 years old, if the pupil applies to the principal for an exemption from the exercises. O. Reg. 436/00, s. 1. 99 28. (1) A board may provide in grades one to eight and in its secondary schools an optional program of education about religion. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 298, s. 28 (1). (2) A program of education about religion shall, (a) promote respect for the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and (b) provide for the study of different religions and religious beliefs in Canada and the world, without giving primacy to, and without indoctrination in, any particular religion or religious belief. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 298, s. 28 (2). (3) A program of education about religion shall not exceed sixty minutes of instruction per week in an elementary school. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 298, s. 28 (3). 29. (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), a board shall not permit any person to conduct religious exercises or to provide instruction that includes indoctrination in a particular religion or religious belief in a school. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 298, s. 29 (1). (2) A board may enter into an agreement with a Roman Catholic board that permits the Roman Catholic board to use space and facilities to conduct religious exercises or provide religious instruction for the purposes of the Roman Catholic board. O. Reg. 191/04, s. 9. (3) A board may permit a person to conduct religious exercises or to provide instruction that includes indoctrination in a particular religion or religious belief in a school if, (a) the exercises are not conducted or the instruction is not provided by or under the auspices of the board; (b) the exercises are conducted or the instruction is provided on a school day at a time that is before or after the school’s instructional program, or on a day that is not a school day; (c) no person is required by the board to attend the exercises or instruction; and (d) the board provides space for the exercises or instruction on the same basis as it provides space for other community activities. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 298, s. 29 (3). (4) A board that permits religious exercises or instruction under subsection (3) shall consider on an equitable basis all requests to conduct religious exercises or to provide instruction under subsection (3). R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 298, s. 29 (4),

Sudbury Board of Education100 that the mandatory recitation of the Christian Lord’s Prayer, a fixture in Ontario’s public schools for over a century, was declared unconstitutional and permanently removed from opening and closing exercises.

In Zylberberg, an Application was brought against the Ministry of Education’s Regulation 292 which required public schools to open (or close) each day with either the recitation of the

Christian Lord’s Prayer (or other ‘suitable’ prayer) and/or the reading of Scripture from the

Christian Bible. Regulation 292 also ‘accommodated’ children who were non-Christians or non- believers by ‘permitting’ them to stand outside the classroom door while their classmates participated in the religion-based daily rituals. The Court of Appeal held that the regulation was unconstitutional and a violation of the religious beliefs of other denominations. Moreover, the

Court found Regulation 292 served to stigmatize, embarrass, and ostracize those students who opted out of the norm by ‘choosing’ to stand in the hallway. As Hogg (2005) notes,

…the regulation [was not] saved by a pupil’s right to be exempted from the religious exercises. The regulation still exerted an indirect coercion on pupils to participate, because of the pressure to conform to the majority’s norms…(p. 943)

In other words, Regulation 292 compelled students that were non-Christians to join in Christian ritual to appear to fit in. 101

The removal of the Lord’s Prayer from the morning exercises furthered the process of uncoupling Christianity and Christian ritual from the public school system. The Ontario

100 1988 CanLII 189 (ON C.A.) 101 Following Justice Dickson’s rationale in R v. Big M Drug Mart and the unconstitutionality of the historic Sunday closing, the Court of Appeal found in Zylberberg that Christian prayers and readings ‘served to inculcate Christianity among public school pupils and was inconsistent with the multicultural reality of modern Canada’. Berger (2014), p.109.

Ministry of Education did not appeal the Zylberberg decision, and subsequently removed

‘religious exercises’ from its regulations.102 The Ministry continued, however, to require two hours weekly of ‘religious education’ in public schools. This mandatory program was

Christian-based. Non-Christian students were granted exemption from attendance, if a parent requested this religious accommodation. Again the Ministry was challenged on constitutional grounds.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association103 [the ‘CCLA’] deemed the mandatory two-hour religious education class—with or without an exemption by the principal—a violation of the rights of non-Christians. The Ontario Court of Appeal concurred with the CCLA and found

Regulation 292 in its entirety to be unconstitutional.104 As Hogg (2005) explains:

The Court concluded from the legislative history of the regulation and the curricula that were placed before it that the purpose of the regulation was the indoctrination of Christian belief, as opposed to education about many religions. The Court followed Zylberberg to hold that the regulation was an unconstitutional attempt to impose the majority’s Christian beliefs on all school children, and that it was not saved by the provision for exemption, which parents would be reluctant to utilize for fear of embarrassing their children. (p.943)105

102 Hogg (2005) notes at p.943 that Regulation 292 was enacted in 1944 and was not challenged in the courts until 1990. 103 As a watchdog for civil liberties, the CCLA uses their network to monitor and report on current issues—both locally and at the international level. They also partner with law firms and the academic community to enable and to inform advocacy work through essential research. Since the 1960s, the CCLA has defended civil liberties through legal action and intervention, including at the Supreme Court of Canada. (From the CCLA Website. Online: https://ccla.org.) The CCLA also actively discourages Boards from permitting the historic distribution of Gideon Bibles to public school students. See CCLA E-Bulletin September 2013. Online: https://ccla.org. 104Canadian Civil Liberties Association v. Ontario (Ministry of Education), (1990), 71 O.R. (2d) 341 (C.A.). 105 The Court noted that a course that examines religions in a neutral way, and one that does not promote any one religion, or assume the superiority of any one religion, would not violate the guarantee of freedom of religion. (Hogg (2005), p. 944.) The Province of Québec initiated such a course in 2008: Ethics and religious culture (Éthique et culture religieuse), [ERC]. The ERC was realized as part of the recommendations found in the Bouchard and Taylor report, “Building the future: a time for reconciliation. Report of the Consultation Commission on Accommodation Practices Related to Cultural Differences” (2008). The report was commissioned by the Québec government, but it and its recommendations were subsequently shelved, with the exception of the ERC. The ERC is mandatory at all school levels. The program has not been universally accepted because of its lack of Christian focus (in particular, Roman Catholicism.) Parents who believed their religious rights were being thwarted by the ERC, petitioned the courts. In its decision, in SL v. Commission scolaire des Chȇnes, [2012] I SCR 235, the Court held

Following the decisions in Zylberberg and CCLA v. Ontario (Ministry of Education), the

Government of Ontario and the Ministry of Education adopted a more active, nuanced, and focused interest in making significant steps to endorse and to stimulate equity in the province’s schools and classrooms. The policy document, Ontario's Equity and Inclusive Education

Strategy,106 introduced to all school boards in 2009, is an example of such steps.

The basic tenets of this document are that members of the school community must move from

‘beyond tolerance to acceptance and respect’ (p.1) of one another. Through such positive action the Ministry ‘aims to close student achievement gaps by identifying and eliminating any biases, barriers and power dynamics that may limit students’ prospects for learning, growing and contributing fully to society. (p.11). Moreover, the expectation is that school boards, public school principals and staff will actively promote a school system that reflects a milieu where

‘students are encouraged and supported in efforts to promote social justice, equity, antiracism and antidiscrimination in schools and classrooms’(p.52).107

In the document it is noted, however, that despite a discernible, increasing number of students from numerous faith-based and religious groups, only twelve boards of the thirty-one (English) public boards had developed policies or guidelines that focused on religious accommodation.

that the ERC is constitutional and that part of enlightened citizenship for students is to develop knowledge and understanding of the various faiths and religions of the non-Christians in their classrooms. (Berger (2014), pp. 108- 110. 106 Ontario Ministry of Education. (2009). Realizing the promise of diversity; Ontario’s equity and inclusive education strategy, p.2. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/equity.pdf. 107 To emphasize the core importance of the document, the then Minister of Education Kathleen Wynne proclaimed that, ‘[e]mbracing diversity and moving beyond tolerance to acceptance and respect will help us reach our goal of making Ontario’s education system the most inclusive in the world’ (p.2). The core foundation of the document rests on the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the provincial Code of Conduct (p.13) Policy/Program Memorandum No. 128, December 5, 2012.

Further to this, of the twelve boards that had developed policies, only three were viewed by the

Ministry as ‘comprehensive’ (p.9).

Due to both the paucity and lack of quality, the Ministry subsequently mandated that all school boards develop a religious accommodation policy and to implement it in their schools (p.25).

The Ministry next introduced Policy/Program Memorandum No. 119 on April 22, 2013 which outlined the mandatory, provincial-wide approach to be adopted (p.9). Section 5 specifies that all boards must create a written policy that addresses the accommodation of religion in their schools.108 To assist the boards of education with the development of specific policies and procedures for the accommodation of religion, the Ministry produced a prototype document for the boards to follow: the Religious Accommodation Guideline [‘the Guideline’]. The Guideline delineates the requisite legal framework for schools and principals to follow and the various religion-based requests and needs to be considered.109 It explicitly acknowledges that

[a]ll school boards exist within a broader context of law and public policy that protect and defend human rights.…[Policies pertaining to the accommodation of faith and religion] reinforce both federal and provincial legislation, and also help ensure that the freedoms they set out are protected with the school system.

108 S.5. School board policies on religious accommodation must be in accordance with the Charter, the Code, the requirements stated in Policy/Program Memorandum No. 108, “Opening or Closing Exercises in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools”, and in sections 27–29 (“Religion in Schools”) of Regulation 298, as part of their equity and inclusive education policy and implementation plan. Accordingly, boards are expected to take appropriate steps to provide religious accommodation for students and staff. 109The framework is as follows: i. School Opening and Closing Exercises; ii. Leaves of Absence for Religious Holy Days; iii. Prayer; iv. Dietary Requirements; v. Fasting; vi. Religious Dress; vii. Modesty Requirements in Physical Education; and, viii. Participation in Daily Activities and Curricula. Also the guideline includes the section, Unresolved Requests and the use of dispute resolution; examples of Significate Faith Days; and Schedule “A” of the Guidelines entitled ‘Guidelines for Kirpan Accommodation’. A copy of the Guideline is attached as Appendix A (p. 328).

The Guideline aligns with the legal requirements, rights, and duties found in both the Charter and the Code.110 The content of the Interview Protocol developed for the purpose of interviewing public school principals draws significantly from the Ministry of Education’s

Guideline and is attached as Appendix B (p. 338).

Appendix ‘A’ of the Guidelines focuses solely on the Sikh religion and provides specific directions for the accommodation of the kirpan, the ceremonial sword which some devote Khalsa

Sikhs wear as part of their religious belief111. Historically, there has been conflict between the religious right to carry a kirpan and the right to public safety and security. This especially created conflict in the ‘safe schools’ context. Two specific school yard incidences involving kirpans, one in Ontario and the other in Québec, led to applications to court for resolution.

In Ontario, the religious right to wear a kirpan to school was recognized by the Ontario Human

Rights Commission [OHRC] in Pandori v. Peel Board of Education in 1990.112 The religious right for a student to wear a kirpan on school property, however, did not become a legally settled

110An internet search for the Ministry’s mandated board policy guidelines on the accommodation of religion for all thirty-one (English language) of Ontario’s public boards of education indicates the majority of the boards has responded to the Ministry of Education’s mandate and adopted, to varying degrees, the structure and content of the Religious Accommodation Guideline. Although the principals interviewed represent only five of Ontario’s thirty-one public boards, in preparation for this qualitative study I reviewed the policies and procedures created by twenty- eight of the thirty-one boards. No documents for the District School Board Ontario North East (Timmins); Moosonee District School Area Board (Moose Factory); or Renfrew County District School Board (Pembroke) were located through an internet search. In contrast, boards, such as York Region, Toronto, Durham (Whitby), Greater Essex (Windsor) and Thames Valley (London) have produced elaborate and detailed documents. This may reflect the extent of religious diversity in their catchment areas. 111 The kirpan is one of the five items a devote Sikh is expected to wear. The other four are: the kesh (uncut hair); the kangha (wooden brush); the kara (metal bracelet); and the kachera (type of under garment). 112 Board of Inquiry, July 6, 1990 BOI 90-008. The decision was upheld by both the Divisional Court and the Ontario Court of Appeal. Leave to appeal to the SCC was denied. The human rights tribunal in Pandori found that the school regulation banning kirpans on school property was over-reaching, did not attempt to exercise its duty to accommodate the religious beliefs of the Sikh student, and denied the student his Charter right to freely express his religion. Further to this, the tribunal held that the school board and the principals were capable of creating guidelines which would ensure the safety of all school members, while upholding the religious rights of Sikh students.

matter until the Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in Multani v. Commission scolaire

Marguerite-Bourgeoys.113 The Multani decision served to reaffirm Ontario’s position on the right to carry kirpans in schools, and set the precedent for the rest of Canada.

As Mackay (2008)114 notes, ‘…the justices were unanimous in the view that the values of diversity and inclusion clearly trumped the minimal threat to school safety posed by a properly sealed kirpan’. The board of education was unable to substantiate its argument that kirpans in schools lead to violence, that banning kirpans was a ‘reasonable limit in pursuit of school safety’, or that it was unfair to other students that were not allowed to bring weapons to school

(pp.49-50). As the Honourable Justice Charron reasons at paragraph 76,

Religious tolerance is a very important value of Canadian society....If some students consider it unfair that [a Sikh student] may wear his kirpan to school while they are not allowed to have knives in their possession, it is incumbent on the schools to discharge their obligation to instill in their students this value that is...at the very foundation of our democracy."115

113 [2006] 1 S.C.R. 256, 2006 SCC 6. In Multani, a 12-year-old orthodox Sikh boy, a student in Québec, accidentally dropped his metal kirpan in the school yard on November 19, 2001. One month later, his parents received a letter from the school board’s lawyer authorizing the kirpan at school providing the parents agreed to secure the kirpan inside the boy’s clothing to assure the safety of other students. The parents accepted this agreement both as a reasonable accommodation and recognition of their Sikh faith and religious rights. Two months later, however, the governing school board gave notice that it refused to ratify the agreement as the provincial Code de Vie (code of conduct) prohibited weapons in school, and the board deemed the kirpan a weapon. The compromise offered was the student could wear a symbolic kirpan as a necklace, or carry one made from wood. The parents viewed the compromise as a violation of their son’s religious rights under the Charter. Their dispute went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. The justices of the SCC were united in support of the Multani’s argument. In their opinion, the proposal of a substitute kirpan violated both the student’s 2(a) (freedom of religion) and s. 15 (equality) rights under the Charter. The infringement of his rights could not be justified under s. 1. Although the school board’s decision was based on a pressing and substantial objective (a reasonable level of safety at school) and the decision was rationally connected to this objective, it could not be shown that the prohibition minimally impaired the student’s religious rights. The student demonstrated to the court that he genuinely believed wearing a kirpan was part of his religious obligations. The path to the SCC court decision to accommodate the kirpan was much more arduous in Multani than in Pandori. 114 Wayne Mackay. “Safe and Inclusive Schooling – Expensive…Quality Education – Priceless. For Everything Else There are Lawyers!” Education and Law Journal; Jul 2008;18,1;ProQuest pp. 21-55. 115 Mackay (2008) concurs with the SCC’s decision. The accommodation of diversity and religion through the recognition of the right to wear a kirpan in school is not incompatible with student safety. Mackay argues accommodation may, in fact, nurture a safer school environment. ‘Diversity properly accommodated in the schools produces a sense of...belonging that is conducive to a safe and welcoming environment’. In turn, the safety factor is ‘a further reason to support inclusion’. In other words, according to Mackay, the accommodation of religious practices, inclusion and safety have a symbiotic relationship (p.50).

2.5. The role of the principal in the accommodation of faith and religion

Scarfo and Zuker (2011)116 are unequivocal in emphasizing the importance and impact of the law in and on education:

Education has never been so hyper-legalized. For better or worse, our laws permeate the management and operation of our schools in ways that can astonish the uninitiated. Educators should want to know the law because doing so helps them act reasonably and preventively. Law-informed educators, teachers and leaders are in a better position to avoid or minimize conflict and costly litigation. Knowing the law allows educators to limit their liability. And knowing the law allows educators…to serve as our society’s informed “gatekeepers” for legislative and legal school policy.

Mackay (2008) further observes that since the enactment of the Charter in 1982, ‘the impact of the law on education has expanded greatly [and] equality jurisprudence…has developed, provid[ing] a beacon guiding educators toward the provision of more inclusive and respectful education environments’ (p.23).117

The SCC itself states that schools and educators have a fundamental role in the nurturing of religious tolerance and understanding in children, and in fulfilling the legal mandate to accommodate faith and religion as there is a recognized ‘duty to foster the respect of their students for the constitutional rights of all members of society’ and this is ‘best taught by example’.118 Mackay (2008) also notes that our multi-cultural society, which is rapidly becoming

116 Nick J. Scarfo and Marvin A. Zuker (2011), Inspiring the Future: New Teacher’s Guide to the Law, Thomson Reuters: Canada, pp. ix and xi. At p.x, Scarfo and Zuker also note that principals ‘hold the keys to unlocking legal literacy for their teachers’. 117 Regulation 298, in section 11, “Duties of Principals” provides a more bureaucratic and non-nuanced description of the principal’s role: 11.(1)The principal of a school, subject to the authority of the appropriate supervisory officer, is in charge of,(a) the instruction and the discipline of pupils in the school; and (b) the organization and management of the school. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 298, s. 11 (1). His or her duty to accommodate faith and religion is part of the designated “management” role 118 R. v. M. (M.R.), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 393 at para.3.

more diverse, offers new quandaries for deciding ‘reasonable accommodation’119 when the boundaries of what this constitutes continues to expand and invite debate. At the same time, as noted above, Mackay argues that the effort a principal makes to ensure his or her school is inclusive of all members [and their individual needs] can also lead to the realization of a safer school.120 His views on requisite inclusivity and its link to a more peaceful and secure environment supports that of Ryan (2006). Moreover, it also reflects the aim in the Education

Act “[t]o create schools in Ontario that are safe, inclusive and accepting of all pupils”,121 and schools which will act ‘in accordance with the principles of dignity, individualization, and inclusion’ of all members of their religious communities (Religious Accommodation Guidelines, p.3).

119 In the Religious Accommodation Guidelines, in the section ‘Guidelines for Administrators’, it states that ‘board schools will make reasonable efforts to accommodate’ faith and religion-based requests regarding the provision of prayer space, dietary restrictions, fasting, religious dress, modesty requirements for dress in physical education classes, and participation in daily activities and curriculum. In addition, all staff and students ‘should be allowed’ these rights ‘without having to undergo any unnecessary hardship’ (pp. 7-10). The words ‘reasonable’, ‘should be allowed’ and ‘unnecessary hardship’ have been italicized as the precise meaning and delimitations of these terms are not clear. Although the Guidelines state that ‘decisions will be made in accordance with the principles of the Code’ (p.10), the use of the conditional ‘should’, as in ‘should be allowed’ wrongly indicates that some aspects of religious accommodation are optional. The Guideline, however, somewhat clarifies the Ministry’s position when it notes that ‘[t]he right to freedom of religion...is not absolute’ and that ‘[b]oard[s] will limit practices or behaviour in its schools which may put public safety, health, or the human rights and freedoms of others at risk’ (p.10). There are no examples provided of what the possible risks are. 120 Mackay (2008) emphasizes that “…the failure to properly accommodate diversity, in its many manifestations, is a significant cause of student frustration, alienation and withdrawal. This, in turn, can lead to acting out in ways that are disruptive and that lead to discipline problems…Diversity in itself does not pose a threat to school safety, but not responding properly to this diversity can lead to disruption and, in extreme cases, violence” (p.48). 121 Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2, (Current May 30, 2017) Part XIII BEHAVIOR, DISCIPLINE AND SAFETY 300.0.1 The purposes of this Part include the following: 1. To create schools in Ontario that are safe, inclusive and accepting of all pupils. 2. To encourage a positive school climate and prevent inappropriate behaviour, including bullying, sexual assault, gender-based violence and incidents based on homophobia, transphobia or biphobia. 3. To address inappropriate pupil behaviour and promote early intervention. 4. To provide support to pupils who are impacted by inappropriate behaviour of other pupils. 5. To establish disciplinary approaches that promote positive behaviour and use measures that include appropriate consequences and supports for pupils to address inappropriate behaviour. 6. To provide pupils with a safe learning environment. p.229

Mackay (2008) adds, however, that although inclusivity may be the intent of a principal, his or her basic orientation and training may lead him to concentrate on ‘the collective good and to be generally more comfortable in limiting individual rights in the name of the larger good’ (p.24).

This mode of school management Mackay argues, can no longer stand.122 Educators ‘must now operate within a much more extensive and complex legal framework, including the Charter...[in which] schools provide a unique context for balancing competing rights’ (p.24).

That is the principal’s great challenge: To be inclusive and accommodating of broad diversity and religious accommodation needs in a public school, while balancing the competing Charter and Code rights of all members. Meeting the challenge of inclusion and accommodation must be not only ‘done properly’, but ‘with adequate resources’ to support this challenge (Mackay, 2008, p.22). Paquette (1989) supports and adds to Mackay’s argument:

Discussion of the intended and perceived goals of public policy, of course, is always warmed by a realization that the stakes include both issues of fundamental social purpose and scarce, contested public resources… Education programs can only work where policymakers, parents, children, and educators want them and believe they work and the second sine qua non is power – power to launch, shape, guide and improve minority education programs. Power is founded on the ability to direct resources, that is, money, time, and above all, human commitment” (p.447).

If resources are perceived as (or are) inadequate, a principal and public school may be placed in an untenable situation, compelled to make a declaration of undue hardship concerning a religious request . At the same time, however, the principal may find a claim of undue hardship is

122 Mackay (2008) remarks that, “In some respects, courts and tribunals have become the default system for failed policy in schools…” (p.23). I would add that policy may not be at the root of the failure. It may be the result of a lack of nuanced implementation.

becoming more and more difficult to justify in our multi-faith society:123 ‘…[A]s minorities…edge their way relentlessly toward becoming collectively a majority, minority issues

– and pluralist social policy – [will] gain a formidable political momentum’ (Paquette (1989), p.448). This, in turn, will move the markers of what may be claimed as ‘undue hardship’ to an organization.124

The boundaries of what constitutes the reasonable accommodation of diverse religious beliefs and ascertaining an organization’s point of undue hardship, are not facile ‘concept[s to] either…define or to enforce’.125 At the same time, as the Ministry of Education emphasizes in its Religious Accommodation Guideline, ‘[t]he right to freedom of religion is…not absolute’.126

In other words, the duty to accommodate faith and religion does not automatically trump other equal, but competing Charter and Code rights.

123 Justice Sopinka notes that even when there is conflict involving the duty to accommodate religion and there is an inchoate claim for undue hardship, the principal must “…establish that actual interference with the rights of other employees [or students], which is not trivial but substantial, will result from accommodating measures. [O]therwise, minor interference or inconvenience is the price to be paid for religious freedom in a multi-cultural society” (Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud (1992)). 124In Central Alberta Dairy Pool v. Alberta (Human Rights Commission) [1990] 2 SCR 489., Madam Justice Wilson, writing for the majority, is helpful in describing some of the factors which may constitute a justified claim of undue hardship. These include: “…financial cost, disruption of a collective agreement, problems of morale of other employees, [and] interchangeability of work force and facilities. The size of the employer’s operation may influence the assessment of whether a given financial cost is undue or the ease with which the work force and facilities can be adapted in the circumstances. Where safety is at issue both the magnitude of the risk and the identity of those who bear it are relevant considerations. This list is not intended to be exhaustive and the results which will be obtained from a balancing of these factors against the right of the employee [or student] to be free from discrimination will necessarily vary from case to case”. 125Khan (1997), p. 309. 126 Section E. LIMITATIONS TO RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATION The Board is committed to preventing and eradicating within its school community discrimination and harassment based on enumerated grounds set out in the Code, including creed. The Board supports freedom of religion and an individual’s right to manifest his/her religious beliefs and observances. The right to freedom of religion, however, is not absolute. The Board will limit practices or behaviour in its schools which may put public safety, health, or the human rights and freedoms of others at risk. As well, the Board will limit practices or behaviours in its schools that are in violation of other Board policies. These decisions will be made in accordance with the principles of the Code.

There are other factors the principal need consider. If public education is the ‘foundation of a prosperous, caring and civil society’, a foundation which ‘provides students with the opportunity to realize their potential...[as] caring citizens who will add value to society,’127 and the public school itself is ‘a living statement of a culture of values that forms a part of the consciousness of every social member’,128 then when may a public school principal deny a student’s right to religious accommodation, separate him or her from the school’s ‘culture of values,’ and declare a point of undue hardship in the interests of the majority’s well-being?

The SCC’s paradigm of state neutrality as a ‘governing principle’ provides some guidance whenever one is charged with the responsibility of resolving issues related to religious diversity as “[t]he concept of state religious neutrality in Canadian case law has developed alongside a growing sensitivity to the multicultural makeup of Canada and the protection of minorities”.129

Expressly, the SCC has consistently ‘stressed the importance of neutrality130 in the public school system’.131

127 Education Act Education Act R.S.O. 1990, C.E. 2: 0.1(1) A strong public education system is the foundation of a prosperous, caring and civil society. 2009, c. 25, s. 1.(2) The purpose of education is to provide students with the opportunity to realize their potential and develop into highly skilled, knowledgeable, caring citizens who contribute to their society. 128 William Foster (1986). Paradigms and Promises. Prometheus Books: New York, p.10. Foster also notes at p.22 that ‘[p]ublic schooling is not a neutral endeavor that can only promulgate the values [of some]…it [must] reflect the demands of the wider society’ 129SL v. Commission scolaire des Chȇnes [2012] 1 SCR 235 (para. 21 in Berger 2014, p.117). Berger notes on p. 118 that judicial decisions indicate a shift from the use of the word ‘toleration’ to that of ‘neutrality’ and that ‘…one may conclude that the concept of state neutrality has succeeded toleration as the guiding virtue in the legal treatment of religious difference’. 130Notably, Berger (2014) dismisses ‘neutrality’ as a fallacy. He states that the ‘invocation [of neutrality] relieves the legal system of the burden of its own cultural and historical contingency’ and that ‘…the language of neutrality appeals to a power myth that underwrites contemporary law’ (p.119). Subsequently, Berger concedes that ‘…substantial political good can be achieved through a commitment to state neutrality and even-handedness in the treatment of religion” (p.120). 131SL v. Commission scolaire des Chȇnes para 54, in Berger (2014), p.117.

Berger (2014) adds nuance to the concept of neutrality writing that, although ‘the state must be neutral in its treatment of religion; it need not, however, be neutral about the nature of a good society’. In other words, state neutrality—the neutral stance of the public school principal— should not necessitate ‘resil[ing] from the pursuit of the conditions necessary for a just and ethical common world’ (p.121) for all members of the school community.132

To provide a penultimate conclusion to this section on the role of the principal a brief overview of two Supreme Court decisions, Chambly (Commission scolaire regionale) v. Bergevin133 and

Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No.36, 134 as well as a decision from the Ontario Superior

132 Berger (2014) further notes that, ‘[e]ducation – and particularly public education – has become a crucible for the relationship between state and religious diversity, a principal site for contemporary debates about the meaning of secularism and the management of religious difference’. Berger also points out how educational institutions have historically served to actively suppress religious difference. For example, the creation of residential schools for our indigenous peoples illustrates how state-sponsored interference can lead to the destruction of cultural and religious difference (p.105). 133Chambly (Commission scolaire regionale) v. Bergevin [1994] SCR 525. This decision outlines the challenges in accommodating diverse religions in a secular school system. In this example a Jewish teacher in a public school lost pay for taking a day off to celebrate the religious holiday of Yom Kippur. The teacher believed the penalty of lost pay was in violation of his Charter rights. The SCC concurred. The Court also found that the school holiday calendar was biased towards Christians and protected only this religious group. Moreover, the Honourable Justice Cory observed that teachers who belong to the majority of Christian groups ‘…do not have to take any day off for religious purposes, since the Christian holy days of Xmas and Good Friday are specifically provided for them in the calendar. Yet, members of the Jewish religion must take a day off work in order to celebrate Yom Kippur. It thus inevitably follows the effect of the calendar is different for Jewish teachers’. Although there may have been no discriminatory intent in the creation of the school calendar, ‘the effect of the calendar [was] to discriminate against members of an identifiable group because of their religious faith’ (Khan (1997), p.311. Emphasis added.) The decision, however, was not all-encompassing of every non-Christion member in the school. The SCC also notes that, if the holy day of Muslims (Friday) were to be recognized as a weekly day off, this could constitute undue hardship to the public school system. [I]f the religious beliefs of a teacher required his or her absence every Friday throughout the year, then it might [emphasis added] well be impossible for the employer to reasonably accommodate. 134 Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No.36 [2002] 4S.C.R. 710 at paras. 19-21. This decision is illustrative of how competing rights must be weighed and considered in the school system: the freedom to exercise religious rights under s.2(a), and the right to freedom from religion under s.2(a), in the context of s.15 equality rights. Initially, as a result of pressure exerted upon it by a group of parents with anti-gay religious beliefs, the Surrey school board decided not to approve three books for the school libraries because the stories were about same-sex parents and their families. The lower courts held that the views of religious parents should not impact the decisions of a secular board, and the books should be included in the library. The SCC took, however, a more nuanced approach. It agreed that the books on same sex parents should be in the library, but also recognized that religious views have a place. The reality of a secular school system is such that it ‘…could not be used to deny equal recognition and respect to other members of the community…if a school is to function in an atmosphere of tolerance and respect’.

Court of Justice, Hall (Litigation Guardian of) v. Powers,135 serve to illustrate the breadth of the legal duty to accommodate faith and religion for which the principal is responsible and are summarized in the footnotes.

The reasoning in the Hall decision is especially instructive for principals to be aware of the broad spectrum of beliefs and manifestations within each identified and formal religion. This acknowledged absence of uniformity and unanimity reinforces the importance of making decisions for accommodation on a case-by-case basis. A religious claim may be the sincerely held belief of an individual, or unique to a particular sect, but not reflective of the general

Most importantly, the SCC emphasized that as participants and members of a public system where the student body is comprised of various religious and non-religious beliefs, children are faced with the reality that the values and beliefs they bring from home ‘are not necessarily shared by their classmates’. This interaction with diversity introduces children to difference and ‘allows [them] to be taught what tolerance involves’,134 through recognition of the religious rights of others while, at the same time, preserving their own religious beliefs. As the SCC elaborates, ‘When we ask people to be tolerant of others, we do not ask them to abandon their personal convictions. We merely ask them to respect the rights, values and ways of being of those who may not share those convictions. The belief that others are entitled to equal respect depends, not on the belief that their values are right, but on the belief that they have a claim to equal respect regardless of whether they are right. Learning about tolerance is therefore learning that other people’s entitlement to respect from us does not depend on whether their views accord with our own. Children cannot learn this unless they are exposed to views that differ from those they are taught at home’ (para. 83). The SCC’s promotion of ‘tolerance’ in this decision is less expansive than Ryan (2008)’s ideal of inclusivity, the Honourable Chief Justice McLaughlin’s argument in her 2015 keynote speech at the Aga Khan Museum, or the decision in SL v Commission des Chȇnes (2012) which promotes state neutrality. 135 Hall (Litigation Guardian of) v. Powers 2002 CanLII 49475 (ON SC). Although the Hall decision originated in the Catholic school system, the holding is also of relevance to public school principals when making decisions that involve conflicting Charter and Code rights. It is also instructive of the fact that everyone in the school community – including students themselves - has rights under the Code and the Charter. In this decision, the graduating class was holding its celebratory school prom. A student, Hall requested permission from the principal to bring his male partner. His request was denied. Hall was told that attendance at the prom with a same sex partner would contravene the tenets of the Catholic Church. The Board agreed with the principal’s decision. Undaunted, Hall sought an interlocutory injunction from the court to estoppe the Principal’s decision and to allow his male partner to attend the prom. The injunction was granted, accompanied by a pointed rebuke of the principal’s and the Board’s discriminatory actions: ‘Exclusion of a student from a significant occasion of school life, like the school prom, constitutes a restriction in access to a fundamental social institution’. The Court also acknowledged that adherents to Roman Catholicism, similar to members of other religious groups, do not hold uniform beliefs in general. There is no uniform ‘correct’ Catholic response to the acceptability of same sex relationships. Therefore, due to this diversity, the Court held that, for many Roman Catholics, inviting a same sex partner to a school function does not interfere with their religious rights and tenets. Finally, although s.93 of the Canadian Constitution guarantees Roman Catholics the right to establish and control separate schools, the right to control who could attend school dances was not in effect in 1867. Further to this, the Court found that the prom had no connection to religious meetings; was not part of the religious education curriculum; was not held on school property; and its purpose was not educational.

membership. In other words, as stated above, there are no ‘bright-line rules’ to guide the principal.136

The jurisprudence offers legal guidelines for principals and their schools in accommodating faith and religion, but what are the practical considerations and the on-the-ground realities of leadership and management in successful realization?

The Ministry of Education’s handbook, The Ontario Leadership Framework (September 2013)

[the ‘OLF’] offers some guidance. The ‘key concepts’ presented are: 1: Leadership (‘the exercise of influence on organizational members and other stakeholders toward the identification and achievement of the organization’s vision and goals’; 2. Management (‘an integral part of leadership...[which] focuse[s] on processes and procedures that keep the organization running smoothly...in an adaptive way’); and, 3. Authority (‘formal authority rests with leaders such as principals, vice-principals and aspiring leaders’, but other community members (teachers, parents and students) ‘can and do provide leadership’ (p.5). The idea of shared authority or

‘shared leadership’ is ‘rooted in Ontario’s commitment to educational equity and inclusion and safe schools with a positive school climate...providing equitable opportunities to influence the school...[and] decision making by ...voices typically...not heard’ (Leithwood (2012) in the OLF, p. 6).

The OLF also emphasizes that ‘successful’ school leaders must be ‘responsive to the diverse nature of Ontario’s communities’ (p.7). To be ‘successful’ and ‘effective’ the OLF describes the

136 Nonetheless, despite a lack of clarity, as Khan (1997) points out, although ‘problems can arise if the school principal or education authorities show inflexibility,’ the relative paucity of cases in higher courts suggests that reasonable religious accommodations and decisions are being made by principals in public schools. p.312.

requisite personal attributes required by the principal: optimism, emotional intelligence and problem solving abilities (p.6).137

In ‘What are Seven Important Questions about Leadership?,’ John MacBeath argues that more is needed as school leadership itself is ‘a subversive activity’. Being a subversive in the school system does not mean so much ‘breaking the rules’, but purposely opposing the ideas of the status quo and ‘asking hard, uncomfortable, and uninvited questions’ about assumed power and privilege, and how public space is used. In essence, a ‘good’ principal does not accept facile acquiescence to the presumptive and historic ‘this is the way we do things around here’ (p.27).

Instead, ‘the way we do things around here’ includes providing space for the religious practices and requirements of all members of ‘the other’.

More precisely, citing Giroux, MacBeath equates effective principals with possessing the ability to see beyond the ‘grand narrative’ of the norm. Rising above the grand narrative is strengthened through a stance of inclusivity. Both MacBeath and Giroux caution that rising above the bonds of the status quo is seldom achieved by the principal alone, but is ‘generally in a context where there is collegial resilience and confidence in the direction of travel’138 (p.28). In other words, principals need to nurture the mindset and cooperation of school staff. In essence, through

137 In the OLF the Ministry of Education also outlines five core leadership capacities: 1. Setting Goals (working with others to ensure goals are ‘SMART’ – specific, measurable, attainable, results-oriented and time-bound); 2. Aligning Resources with Priorities (ensuring financial, human, teaching, professional learning resources are tied to priorities (student achievement and well-being); 3. Promoting collaborative Learning Cultures (enabling schools, communities and districts to work together to learn from each other for improved teaching, student achievement and student well-being); 4. Using Data (to identify trends, strengths and weaknesses); 5. Engaging in Courageous Conversations (to challenge current practices and fostering innovation to improve student achievement and well- being), p.8. 138 Giroux (1992), p.45 in Griffiths and Portelli (2015), p.28.

‘influencing the goals, motivations, and actions of others’, 139 the principal endeavours to include all members of the school community in this ‘act of subversion’. Most importantly, the principal is the guide in developing ‘at least a nascent understanding of critical consciousness’,140 the realization and knowledge that changes to the status quo are necessary to equitably accommodate the diverse religious needs of others.

In this discussion it is also helpful to reflect on Sharp’s (1980)141 definition of hegemony. For

Sharp, hegemony is

[a] set of assumptions, theories, practical activities, a world view through which the ruling class exerts its dominance. Its function is to reproduce on the ideological plain the conditions for class rule and the continuation of the social relations of production.

Oakes and Sirotnik (1983) add that hegemony is not a natural state of being, ‘but continually established [and t]he result is the development of social attitudes that unquestioningly accept things as they are.”142 A perpetuation of the status quo jeopardizes the ideal of inclusivity and flouts the requirement to accommodate all faiths and religions. Moreover, the perpetuation of the established hegemony is the antithesis of the equity promises intrinsic to the Charter, the

Code, and the Education Act and the antithesis of the legal duty to accommodate faith and religion in Ontario’s public schools.

139 Cuban (1988), p.xx in Griffiths and Portelli (2015), p.35. 140 Darrin Griffiths. What Should Educational Leadership Programs Look Like?. In Griffith and Portelli (2015), p.215. 141 R. Sharp, 1980. Knowledge, Ideology and the Politics of Schooling: Towards a Marxist Analysis of Education. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, p.102. 142 J. Oakes and K. Sirotnik. 1983. “An Immodest Proposal: From Critical Theory to Critical Practice for School Renewal”. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, Montreal, Canada, p.99.

Although a principal is accountable to his or her employer, the school board, and a core aspect of the job is to follow policy and procedure, Wang in Griffiths and Portelli (2015) maintains there is a facet of accountability which is as equally important, but much less clear: the moral component. Wang defines this moral component as ‘an inner-directed accountability’. It is guided by the trinity of ‘integrity, passion, and moral responsibility’. These characteristics, in turn, are adjoined to ‘a strong sense of equity and justice’.143 An inner-directed accountability substantiates ‘why [the principals] are doing what they are doing’. A principal’s accountability is not, therefore, merely based on ‘data-driven decision-making, but about recognizing and overcoming the underlying problems that continue to plague public education’; problems which encompass how to equitably ensure the accommodation and inclusion of ‘the other’ (p.42).

Nelson et al. (2013) describe equity as ‘an epistemic framework’ whose core purpose is ‘to shed light on inequalities and injustices’, which in turn addresses the dilemma of true equal distribution of institutional benefits (p.42). Such praxis144 by a principal not only strives to ensure that equity ‘does not just rub shoulders with equality’ (p.50), but that equity is realized for every member of the school community. As Ibrahim (in Griffith and Portelli, 2015) further explains,

Being equal under the law...is an integral step for justice but does not guarantee fairness. If equality is procedural, it merely ensures that everybody has the same or is treated the same; as a praxis, equity is a wide-awake internal mechanism that ensures that procedures are fair (p.50).

143 Nelson, Palonsky, and McCarthy define ‘equity’ as ‘a concept directly related to justice, and includes the idea of equal treatment under natural law or rights, without bias or favouritism’ (2013, p.42). Arguably, this definition aligns with guarantees for equal rights for all citizens under the Charter and the Code. 144 ‘Praxis’ is Paolo Freire’s word for the melding of ‘theory’ with ‘practice’, Ibrahim in Griffiths and Portelli (2015), citing Freire (2000) at p.50.

Rawls (2001) adds to this argument by stating that ‘for justice to deserve its name’, unequal distribution of institutional benefits, validated by ‘by some significant or ethical principal...must

[be] expect[ed]’.145 In other words, the legal duty to actively create space for non-Christian religions may make their accommodation in schools appear favoured, and Christianity marginalized.

Banks (2014) identifies four stages of school reforms which invite the realization of equity.

1. Contribution level (focusing on heroes, holidays, and culture) 2. Additive level (focusing on themes and perspectives without changing structure) 3. Transformation level (focusing on changing structure and on multiple perspectives and approaches) 4. Social action level (where structure is changed and students, teachers, and school leaders are asked to make decisions on important social issues and take action to help solve them.146.

In working toward the achievement of these ascending school reforms and equity, principals

‘are pivotal on-the-ground leaders’, and their decisions on how to undertake their role and responsibilities profoundly impacts ‘the degree to which students feel recognized, respected, accommodated, and safe in their schools’.147 The pursuit of this complicated ‘growing inclusion’ on the part of the principal necessitates ‘daily dedication’ to its realization.148An equity principal would view exclusion of any school community member as ‘non-negotiable’.149

145 J. Rawls (2001). Justice as fairness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cited by Awad Ibrahim. Why Should School Leaders Take Equity Seriously in Their work?. In Griffiths and Portelli (2015), p.51. 146 Banks, J. (2014). An introduction to multicultural education, 5th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson. Cited by Awad Ibrahim. Why Should School Leaders Take Equity Seriously in Their work?. In Griffiths and Portelli (2015), p.54. 147 André P. Grace. How Can Educational Leaders Support Sexual and Gender Minority (SGM) Students in Our Schools?. In Griffiths and Portelli (2015), p.73. 148 D. Griffiths (2013). Principals of inclusion: Practical strategies to grow inclusion in urban schools. Burlington, ON: Word & Deed Publishing Incorporated and Edphil Books, p.xxi, cited by André P. Grace in Griffiths and Portelli (2015), p.73. 149 James Ryan. What is Inclusive Leadership?. In Griffiths and Portelli (2015), p.114.

Coupled with the above, the principal also needs to be ‘critically educative’.150 This entails not only understanding the circumstances as they exist, but also taking decisive action to change them and ‘acknowledging that students cannot be forced to fit the system but that the system must adapt to the changing needs and demographics of those within it’.151A key element in becoming a critically educative principal, as described by Dewey (1933), is open-mindedness in asking questions about and to all members of the school community. Dewey views open- mindedness as striving to ‘learn...the facts about an issue, law, policy, practice, tradition, and situation [as they are] essential to learning how to enact and sustain a fair, just, free, and caring school and society’.152

As described above, the role of principal is complex, diverse and political. Guided by the framework of numerous board and Ministry policies and procedures, based in the law, principals are in the centre of the educational vortex deciding ‘who gets what, when, and how’.153

Principals, however, cannot control everything that may affect the school community as the school itself ‘does not exist in a vacuum’. It is buffeted by decisions of its board, the Ministry, local, provincial and federal governments, and by the flotsam and jetsam of world events. Or, as

Griffiths and Portelli (2015) maintain, ‘...the human nature of the project means that [principals] cannot control the variables’ of the socio-political environment, and therefore ‘cannot predict the outcomes’. The complexities involved in the role of principal necessitate ‘judicious, conscious,

150 W. Foster (1986). Paradigms and Promises. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.p.185, cited by Carolyn M. Shields. What is Educational Leadership?. In Griffiths and Portelli (2015), p.83. 151 Carolyn M. Shields. What is Educational Leadership?. In Griffiths and Portelli (2015), p.83. 152 John Dewey (1933). Open-mindedness and education. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, cited by Kristin Shawn Huggins. How Are Educational Leadership and Deficit Thinking Connected?. In Griffiths and Portelli (2015), p.215. 153 H.D. Lasswell (1965). Politics: Who gets what, when, and how (9th ed.). Cleveland, OH: Meridian Books, The World Publishing Company, cited by Sue Winton and Katina Pollock in ‘How Can Educational Leaders Contend with the Political Aspects of Their Role?’ in Griffith and Portelli (2015), p.261.

critical and creative leadership’, if the principal’s goal is social justice – equity and inclusion for all students and school community members. Arguably, these attributes and goals are not superseded or realized through the simplistic guidance of formulaic ‘best practices’ (p.287).

This may include the ‘guidance’ for ‘best practices’ offered in the OLF itself. Kowalchuk (2017) contends that the OLF creates conflict for principals as they must ‘navigate the tension between the leadership practices they know that support social justice and the tenets of the OLF for which they are held accountable’.154

In sum, not only do schools and educators have a fundamental role in nurturing religious tolerance, principals themselves, as part of the hierarchy of educational authorities and the face of public education have the legal duty and moral responsibility to ensure the ‘sincere beliefs based on religion or conscience’155 of the students and staff in their schools are accommodated.156 Moreover, the principal is ‘duty-bound to take “reasonable steps’ to accommodate a protected individual or group up to the point of “undue hardship”’.157 This is all to be accomplished by the principal from a stance of secular neutrality in the context of understanding the conditions for the creation of a ‘good society’ that is inclusive, equitable and socially just. It is a complicated and nuanced duty to fulfill.

154 For an in-depth analysis and critique of the limitations of the OLF, see Kowalchuk’s 2017 doctoral thesis, Principals’ Engagement with The Ontario Leadership Framework to Enact Social Justice Leadership: Reflection, Resistance, and Resilience’. 155 ‘Conscience’ can include a system of beliefs which is not theocentric. It is defined by Madam Justice Wilson as ‘personal morality which is not founded in religion’ (Khan, 1997, footnote [6]). 156 It is to be noted that the legal obligation of the ‘duty to accommodate’ implies that there is someone who requires assistance to have his religious beliefs accepted and space provided, and there is also a counterpart who has the state power to assist with this person’s accommodation and space. The duty to accommodate implies there is a power imbalance. As Berger (2014) writes, ‘[l]egal toleration is a kind of ad hoc response to difference…[T]oleration concedes [similar to the duty to accommodate]…from…the existence of a normative position on the side of the tolerator’ (p. 119). 157 Khan (1997), p.308.

Chapter Three: Methodology

3.1. Introduction

The choice of research methodology is greatly dependent upon the ‘purpose and nature of the inquiry’, as well as necessitating insight into the ‘philosophical foundations’ upon which the research methodology is based.158 For this reason “an exploratory case study” framework was selected. This form of research allows for the investigation and exploration of ‘situations in which the intervention being evaluated has no clear, single set of outcomes’ (Yin, 2003) in

Baxter & Jack (2008), p.548). The philosophical foundation of the exploratory case study method rests on a constructivist paradigm as “[c]onstructivists claim that truth is relative and that it is dependent on one’s perspective” (Stake (1995) and Yin (2003) in Baxter & Jack (2008). p.545). This method is ‘built upon the premise of a social construction of reality’ (Searle (1995) in Baxter & Jack (2008), p.545).

According to Yin (1984), the purpose of exploratory case studies can be to explore any phenomenon in the data which draws the attention of the researcher and ‘to open up the door for further examination of the phenomenon observed’. In essence, the ‘unique strength’ of the case study form of research is ‘its ability to deal with a full variety of evidence – documents, artifacts, interviews, and observations (Yin, 2008, p.11 in Merriam, 2009, p.47).159 Stake (2006) adds that the larger number of cases in a study, and the more diverse each is to the other, ‘the more compelling an interpretation is likely to be’ (Stake, 2006, pp. 5-6 in Merriam, p.49). Zainal

158 Sharan B. Merriam (1998), Qualitative Research A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Fransisco: Jossey- Bass, p.5. 159 Merriam also notes that Yin (2008) sees an advantage to exploratory case studies in that they ‘tend to spread the net for evidence widely, whereas experiments and surveys usually have a narrow focus’. Further to this, for “how” and “why” questions Yin (2008) maintains the case study ‘has a distinct advantage’ (p.46). Ergo, his claim supports the use of the case study method to explore answers to my central investigative question, ‘How do principals in the public boards enact, integrate, and mobilize the legal duty to accommodate faith and religion in their schools?’.

(2007) states that case studies are useful as they ‘observe data at the micro level’. Further to this, she concurs with Yin’s (1984) description of the case study research method “as an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of evidence are used” (p.23). Colton & Covert (2007) add that ‘[c]ase studies tend to be more expository in structure than research papers or formal reports. In essence, they tell a story—describing the situation, what happened, and what the information may mean in a larger context...’ (p.372).

It is important to clarify what characterizes a case study: It is ‘the unit of analysis, not the topic of investigation’ (Merriam, 2009, p.41). In my study the units of analysis (or ‘cases’) are the principals in Ontario’s public schools; the topic of investigation (or ‘phenomenon’) is the legal duty to accommodate faith and religion.

Through being ‘anchored in real-life situations’, the outcome of a case study is ‘a rich and holistic account’ of the phenomenon. Moreover, the case study method

...offers insights and illuminates meanings that expand its readers’ experiences. These insights can be construed as tentative hypotheses that help structure future research; hence, case study plays an important role in advancing a field’s knowledge base. Because of its strengths, case study is a particularly appealing design for applied fields of study such as education...An applied field’s processes, problems, and programs can be examined to bring about understanding that in turn can affect and perhaps even improve practice...and informing policy” (Merriam (2009), p.51).160

160 Merriam further describes the advantage of an exploratory case study as a research tool: ‘[A] case study might be selected for its very uniqueness, for what it can reveal about a phenomenon, knowledge to which we would not otherwise have access. Abramson (1992) underscores the values of unique or atypical cases. “First, since such data are rare, they can help elucidate the upper and lower boundaries of experience. Second, such data can facilitate...prediction by documenting infrequent, non-obvious, or counterintuitive occurrences that may be missed by standard statistical (or empirical) approaches. And finally, atypical cases...are essential for understanding the

Zainal (2007) adds to Merriam’s merits of case study research by noting that it ‘allows the exploration and understanding of complex issues’ and serves as a strong method, especially when ‘a holistic, in-depth investigation is required’, as it allows the researcher to extend ‘beyond the quantitative statistical results and understand the behavioural conditions through the actor’s perspective’.

Stake (1981) writes that knowledge obtained through the case study method can be differentiated in four distinct ways from knowledge obtained through other research means. According to him, it is:

•More concrete – case study knowledge resonates with our own experience because it is more vivid, concrete, and sensory than abstract

•More contextual – our experiences are rooted in context, as is knowledge in case studies. This knowledge is distinguishable from the abstract, formal knowledge derived from other research designs.

•More developed by reader interpretation – readers bring to a case study their own experience and understanding...

•Based more on reference populations determined by the reader...[U]nlike traditional research, the reader participates in extending generalization to reference populations (in Merriam 2009, pp.44-45).

It is curious, as Merriam (2009) notes, that the case study method does not rest on proscribed ways to collect data or for data analysis. A decision to conduct qualitative case studies is linked to the reality that I am more ‘interested in insight, discovery, and interpretation rather than hypothesis testing’. A qualitative case study offers “interpretation in context” (Cronbach, 1975,

range or variety of human experience, which is essential for understanding and appreciating the human condition”’ (p.190 in Merriam (2009), p.46).

p.123), and as Yin (2008) elaborates, it ‘is a design particularly suited to situations in which it is impossible to separate the phenomenon’s variables from their context’ (pp. 42-43). Moreover,

...detailed qualitative accounts often produced in case studies not only help to explore or describe the data in real-life environment, but also help to explain the complexities of real-life situations which may not be captured through experimental or survey research (Yin, 1984 in Zainal, 2007).

The core elements of qualitative case studies are what Merriam describes as particularistic, descriptive and heuristic.

Particularistic means that case studies focus on a particular situation, event, program, or phenomenon. The case itself is important for what it reveals about the phenomenon and for what it might represent. This specificity of focus makes it an especially good design for practical problems – for questions, situations, or puzzling occurrences arising from everyday practice...Descriptive means that the end product of a case study is a rich, “thick”161 description of the phenomenon under study. Heuristic means that case studies illuminate the reader’s understanding of the phenomenon under study (p.43-44).162

Shields (2007) too makes a strong argument for the use of qualitative case studies. According to

Shields, this methodology should ‘qualify as the gold standard’.

The strength of qualitative approaches is that they account for and include difference – ideologically, epistemologically, methodologically – and most importantly, humanly. They do not attempt to simplify what cannot be simplified. Thus, it is precisely because case study includes paradoxes and acknowledges that there are no simple answers, that it can and should qualify as the gold standard” (p.13 in Meriam 2009, pp. 52-53).163

161 Merriam notes at page 43, that the term ‘thick description’ originates from anthropological studies and depicts ‘the complete literal description of the incident or entity being investigated’. 162 Stake (1981) expands on the heuristic benefit of qualitative case studies. ‘Previously unknown relationships and variables can be expected to emerge from case studies leading to a rethinking of the phenomenon being studied. Insights into how things get to be the way they are can be expected to result from case studies ( p.47 in Merriam, 2009, p.44). 163 Stake (2005), Eisner (1991) and Erikson (1986) concur with Shields’ ‘gold standard’ assessment of the qualitative case study’s contribution as a research method. “Readers can learn vicariously from an encounter with the case through the researcher’s narrative description (Stake, 2005). The colorful description in a case study can create an image: “a vivid portrait...” (Eisner (1991), p.199). Further, Erickson (1986) argues that since the general lies in the particular, what we learn in a particular case can be transferred to similar situations. It is the reader, not the researcher, who determines what can apply to his or her context” (in Merriam, 2009, p.51).

For my exploratory case study I employed a semi-structured, face-to-face interview approach. I chose this methodology as it offers, as described above, the opportunity to study research problems through inquiring into the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem. This form of research is based on the view that reality is constructed by individuals interacting with their social world (Meriam, 2009), and focuses on building a complex, holistic picture, through reporting detailed views of informants (Cresswell, 2007), amassed by employing the four components of exploration, explanation, description, and prediction (Marshall and

Rossman,1995). Hence I viewed it as the most appropriate method for collecting data from the oral words of principals themselves about the accommodation of religion in their schools.

As the qualitative case method focuses on ‘what people experience and how they interpret the world’164, it offers the possibility to provide rich, detailed information and insights into how principals accommodate the various Code and Charter rights in their school community, with the advantage of being able to draw out details and anecdotes from the principal participants.

I was particularly keen on conducting research face-to-face and keeping telephone interviews at a minimum. As Cresswell (2007) explains, ‘…qualitative researchers use an emerging qualitative approach to inquiry, the collection of data in a natural setting sensitive to the people and places under study, and data analysis that is inductive and establishes patterns and themes’.

Moreover, ‘the final written report or presentation includes the voices of participants, the reflexivity of the researcher, a complex description and interpretation of the problem, and it extends the literature or signals a call for action’ (p. 37). I believe that face-to-face qualitative

164 M.Q. Patton (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., p.70.

research promotes a more human aspect to gathering, analyzing, and reporting on data. As Gitlin

(1994) more fulsomely elaborates:165

By dealing in voices, we are affecting power relations. To listen to people is to empower them. But if you want to hear it, you have to go hear it, in their space, or in a safe space. Before you can expect to hear anything worth hearing, you have to examine the power dynamics of the space and the social actors.

Second, you have to be the person someone else can talk to, and you have to be able to create a context where the person can speak and you can listen. That means we have to study who we are and who we are in relation to those we study.

Third, you have to be willing to hear what someone is saying, even when it violates your expectations or threatens our interests. In other words, if you want someone to tell it like it is, you have to hear it like it is.

The intent of this dialogue is not to discover absolutes, or “the truth”, but to scrutinize normative “truths” that are embedded in a specific historical and cultural context. In this way, taken-for-granted notions can be challenged as educators work to better understand schooling.

In sum, the exploratory qualitative case study method of research fits well with my overall academic approach and my professional roles as an educator and as a lawyer. Most importantly, through speaking with individual principals I believe I was able to uncover important data that will contribute to a better understanding of the inherent importance of the legal duty to accommodate faith and religion, and what the next steps on the continuum of inclusivity and equity might be not just to the benefit of all members of our public school communities, but to our province of Ontario, and to Canada as a whole.

3.2. Selection of Participants

The aim was to interview twelve to fifteen principals, ‘based on expected reasonable coverage of

165 Andrew Gitling (ED.) (1994). Power and Method – Political Activism and Educational Research. Routledge: London, pp. 15-16, 20, 185.

the phenomenon given the purpose of the study’ (Patton, 2002). The number of interview participants, however, changed as predicting where a ‘point of saturation or redundancy [might be] reached’ (Merriam, 2009) in the obtainment of data is difficult to predict. Lincoln and Guba

(1985) further elaborate on this idea of saturation by explaining that,

[i]n purposeful sampling the size of the sample is determined by informational considerations. If the purpose is to maximize information, the sampling is terminated when no new information is forthcoming from new sampled units; thus redundancy is the primary criterion.166

The data provided by the twelve principal participants met this primary criterion.

In order to make contact with a sufficient number of research participants, principals were recruited using the following sources: (a) through contacting fellow doctoral students at OISE who are also public school administrators; and (b) through assistance provided by Professors

Portelli, Ryan and Flessa. Once I made initial contact with potential participants, I then employed the ‘snowball’ sampling method (Patton, 1990) to recruit more interview candidates until the requisite number was attained. I did not seek out principals who had a particular interest or expertise in the topic of my research, but simply participants willing to be interviewed.

My plan was to aim for a balance of male and female principals in both urban and rural elementary and secondary schools. Coupled with this, I also aimed to interview principals of schools where the student body is primarily homogenous and where it is more multicultural.

Any restriction on a particular principal volunteer being interviewed was dictated by the time and expense involved in travel to his or her school location.

166 Y.S. Lincoln and E.G. Guba, (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, p. 202.

Although the aim was to have a balance between male and female participants, representing an even number of elementary and secondary schools, as the chart on pages 75 and 76 illustrates, the actual number of principals are comprised of five (5) males and seven (7) females. Four (4) of the principals (two (2) males and two (2) females) are in secondary schools, and eight (8) are in elementary schools (three (3) male and five (5) female).

The interview questions that were employed are those outlined in the Interview Protocol and attached as Appendix B (p. 338). As previously indicated, the questions in the Interview

Protocol are based on the Ministry of Education’s policy directives, as outlined in the Religious

Accommodation Guideline which is attached as Appendix A (p. 328).167

It is important to note that although all the principal candidates are current employees of boards of education in Ontario, each participant was interviewed as an individual entity, and not as an agent or representative of a particular board of education. Permission to participate in the study was neither sought nor granted by any board. The fact that each principal participated as an individual, may have had the additional benefit of providing licence for the interviewees to speak more freely.

Interviews with the principal candidates began on March 16, 2016 and were completed on April

29, 2016. The length of the interviews ranged from forty-five to ninety minutes and the interviews took place in the venue that best suited the individual principal. The majority was

167 The Guideline specifically references s.15 of the Charter which protects freedom of religion, the Code which protects an individual’s freedom from discriminatory or harassing behaviours based on religion, PPM No. 119, “Developing and Implementing Equity and Inclusive Education Policies in Ontario Schools”, PPM No. 108, “Opening or Closing Exercises in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools”, and R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 298, “Operation of School-General”, ss. 27-29, under the heading “Religion in Schools”.

conducted in the individual principal’s office during school hours; two interviews took place in my law office in downtown Toronto; one interview was in the library at OISE; and one was conducted by phone.

With the signed permission of each participant, all interviews were audio-recorded and then transcribed into hard copy to facilitate data analysis. Each participant received an emailed copy of his or her interview transcript for approval as to form, content, and use in this study.

3.3. Ethical Aspects:

As a researcher, I am responsible for the well-being of the research participants and responsible for obtaining informed and written consent from each one. My letter to each principal participant, which outlines the purpose of my research on the duty to accommodate faith and religion, is attached as Appendix C (p. 341). In the letter I seek the written consent of all participants. Every principal received a copy of the signed consent, and the originals are stored in a locked filing cabinet in my home.

Further to this, in order to protect the anonymity of each principal, I assigned pseudonyms and ensured that any comments or anecdotes that may identify a particular school, a board of education, or the participant him/herself, has been sufficiently altered to safeguard privacy, while at the same time, not jeopardizing the integrity of the content.

At the commencement of the interview I assured each principal participant that what was revealed to me in our discussion would remain strictly confidential. As the Law Society of

Upper Canada dictates that what is revealed by a client in any oral or written interaction must remain confidential, I have a professional understanding of and respect for this concept and applied it as I conducted qualitative research for this exploratory case study.

3.4. Data Analysis

The recorded, semi-structured interviews were first transcribed and the transcripts reviewed in their entirety to provide an initial overview of the data collected. There were then different stages to the analysis of the data.

In the initial stage of analysis, along the margins of each transcript I made preliminary notes about the content. From there I began to organize the data through preliminary analysis which involved ‘consolidating, reducing, and interpreting what people have said’.168

After re-reading the transcripts and continuing adding to my notes, coding was the next stage:

The ‘process of dividing data into parts by a classification system’.169 Once the data was classified, the ‘constant comparative method’ of data analysis was employed. This methodology involved

…comparing one segment of data with another to determine similarities and differences. The overall object[ive]…[was] to identify patterns in the data. These patterns [were] arranged in relationships to each other... (Merriam, pp.29-30).

An important aspect of qualitative research is that the method is inductive. In other words, unlike positivist research that ‘deductively test[s] hypotheses’, qualitative research is conducted with

168 Merriam (2009), pp.175,176. 169 J. McMillan and S. Schumacher (1993). Research in education: A conceptual introduction (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins College Publishers, p. 486. (Merriam 2009, p.61).

the intent of ‘build[ing] toward theory from observations and intuitive understandings gleaned from being in the field’ (Merriam (2009), p.15). Through the induction method, data from interviews and observations were ordered and re-ordered into greater themes ‘as the researcher moves from the particular to the general’ (Merriam (2009), p. 16). The themes aligned with questions from the interview protocol, with the exception of two sub-themes that emerged and will be discussed below.

The qualitative interview data was sorted and categorized by hand into broad categories of religious accommodation using the Excel program in order to provide a visual overview of the answers to the research questions, and to encapsulate details of the themes as presented by each participant. Next, the data were thematically coded and this involved two stages. Firstly, the data was coded into broad categories that parallelled the study’s conceptual framework and the research questions (Merriam, 2009). Next, in order to more fulsomely illustrate and enrich a particular theme, I needed to re-read the transcripts to locate specific quotes from the participants.

I found that creating a comprehensive chart of themes and sub-themes was akin to putting together a complex jigsaw puzzle, without knowing what the final picture would be. Also, the

‘pieces’ of the puzzle were located at various and random points. Despite the sequential and planned order of the interview protocol, the randomness of the human element intervened.

Added details to a participant’s initial answers were sometimes provided post ipso facto in the course of the interview. Nevertheless, during the process of my data analysis I decided not to make use of the NVivo program. Instead, I chose to take the opportunity to comb through the

transcripts several times in the search for nuance and insight, and to provide myself with the opportunity to recall the specifics of the face-to-face interview with each principal candidate. As a researcher, I prefer to be intimately immersed in this iterative process.

Finally, in order to augment the internal validity and credibility of my study, I engaged in member checks or respondent validation through obtaining input and feedback from some of the principal participants. This form of check and balance “is the single most important way of ruling out the possibility of misinterpreting the meaning of what participants say and do, and

[their] perspective…on what is going on”. It is also a means of recognising and correcting any preconceptions and misconceptions of the researcher (Merriam (2009), p.217).

In analysing the data the broader themes that emerged were, for the most part, directly connected to the questions asked: (a) the role of the principal in the accommodation of faith and religion;

(b) the effect of the accommodation of faith and religion on the school and on individuals; (c) the management of conflict arising when the accommodation of faith and religion impacts on other

Charter and Code rights; and (d) the realization of undue hardship when requests for the accommodation of faith and religion cannot be met.

As the interview transcripts were repeatedly reviewed and scanned, however, two sub-themes also emerged and merited discussion: (a) the impact of the new provincial sex education curriculum;170 and (b) the growing presence and influence of Muslims and Islam.

170 The sex education curriculum was last updated in 1998 by the Ministry of Education. The new version is to be taught to students in grades one through twelve and specific topics are expected to be taught at each level. The following is a basic outline of the content:

3.5. Overview of the Principal Participants and Their Schools

The interviews of the twelve principals, conducted between March 16th and April 29th of 2016, were premised on my initial research questions. The major question of my research is: How do principals in the public boards enact, integrate, and mobilize the duty to accommodate faith and religion in their schools? The subsidiary questions are:

(a) Does the accommodation of religion have an impact on how their schools function?

(b) How is any conflict arising between religious and other equal, but conflicting Charter

and Code rights managed, such as sex equity or freedom of speech?

claim of undue hardship on the part of the principal as agent of the public school board

and Ministry of Education?

Grade 1-Students will be taught the proper names for body parts – something child-abuse investigators have long urged. They will also learn how to recognize non-verbal signals, such as facial expressions and tone of voice, to better communicate with others. Grade 2-Students will learn about bodily changes and development, verbal and physical violence, and the concept that “no means no.” Grades 3-4-In Grade 3 students will learn about same-sex relationships, while the physical, emotional and social impacts of puberty will move from the previous (1998) Grade 5 curriculum to Grade 4. Grades 5-6-In Grade 5, students will continue learning about puberty, including menstruation and spermatogenesis, and how these processes relate to reproduction. Students in Grade 6 will learn about masturbation and “gender expression.” They will also be educated on how to build healthy relationships and consent. Grades 7-8-Students will learn about the dangers of “sexting.” They will also discuss contraception, anal and oral sex, and ways to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. Grades 9-10-Teaching materials on mental health, previously relegated to older grades, will be introduced in Grade 9. Grade 9 students will also explore gender identity, sexual orientation and the resources available for support. In Grade 10, students will continue to learn what factors influence sexual decision-making, including personal values, peer and family expectations, and media messages. Grades 11-12-Similarly to the existing program, students in Grades 11 and 12 will focus on how to use decision- making skills to create healthy relationships. They will also learn about reducing the stigma around mental illness, and taking proactive health measures. ‘What Ontario students will learn in new sex-ed classes’. The Toronto Star, February 23, 2015; Online: http://www.thestar.com. (synopsis). Also see the Ministry of Education document Health and Physical Education (2015), online: http//www.edu.gov.on.

The research questions, in turn, are delineated in the interview protocol. (See Appendix ‘B’, p.

338.) A semi-structured mode of interviewing was adopted to allow for flexibility in posing questions and for gathering pertinent data. Moreover, each interview flowed according to the engagement, knowledge, and experience of the individual principal.

Of the twelve principals interviewed for this study, four (Jacob, William, Anne and Elaine) are administrators in secondary schools; two (Trevor and Madeleine) are in kindergarten to grade five elementary schools; and six (Dana, Lindy, Terrence, Thomas, Maria and Lama) are in kindergarten to grade eight elementary schools. Only Jacob, William and Anne are in rural schools. Elaine’s school has the largest number of students (1250) and staff (86); Trevor’s is the smallest with 185 and 19 respectively. The participants are from five different Ontario school boards. The majority of the principals interviewed have at least ten years of experience as public school administrators. Lindy has the most with twenty-eight. Only Jacob (5 years); William (9 years); Maria (8 years); and Lama (6 years) are under the ten year time period.

The diversity of the makeup of the school in which each interview participant is the administrator varies as greatly as the number of staff and students, and his/her years of experience as a principal. For instance, Jacob oversees a large Mennonite student population, whereas William171 is currently at a school that he describes as predominantly ‘White’ and where little religious accommodation is required. Trevor reports that his school has a large English as a

171 In addition to interviewing William for my thesis research, I also interviewed him four years ago when preparing a paper on the duty to accommodate faith and religion for a qualitative research course. The course formed part of the requirements for my doctoral studies at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. When I first interviewed William, he was an administrator in a large, multi-cultural urban high school and William permitted use of data from both interviews conducted with him.

second language [“ESL”] population, as well as a high rate of poverty. Terrence also states that his school body has a low socio-economic status with an Aboriginal student population of 22%.

Similar to Trevor’s school, Thomas’ school has a substantial ESL population (50%), but with

65% of his students identifying as Muslim. In addition, Thomas’s school has designated classes for students that have had little or no schooling due to previously living in war-torn parts of the world. Dana, Lindy, and Elaine state their schools have diverse populations, with Anne’s being more homogeneous, and Maria describing hers as predominantly ‘White’. Three principals

(Dana, Anne and Maria) indicate a large number of their students come from low socio- economic families, with Maria proclaiming her school’s poverty statistics to be ‘alarming’.

Lindy, on the other hand, reports that her French immersion students generally enjoy a higher socio-economic status, and the number of these students is increasing yearly. In contrast,

Elaine’s school is experiencing a significantly declining enrolment.

Madeleine reports that half of her students are from low income families and that special funding is received from the board to assist them with food and academic programs. Lama describes a mix of students from both high and low socio-economic families. Her school is dual track:

French immersion (higher socio-economic families) and regular stream (lower socio-economic families).

In sum, the principals interviewed for this qualitative study are each responsible for schools that are unique in student number, student makeup, geographical location and needs. The chart

below provides a summary of the organizing statistics of each principal participant which have

been sub-divided as follows:

3.5.1. Number of years as principal

3.5.2. School panel

3.5.3. Number of staff (teachers, teaching assistants, clerical and custodial)

3.5.4. Number of students

3.5.5. Special programs

3.5.6. Traits of school

Organizing Statistics of Principal Interview Participants

Number of School Panel Number Number Special Traits of School Years As 3.5.2. of Staff of Programs 3.5.6. Principal 3.5.3. Students 3.5.5. 3.5.1. 3.5.4. JACOB 5 (same school) Secondary/Rural 80 1215 special co- Large Mennonite op/flexible pop./2 refugees timetable from Middle East -majority of students bussed DANA 14 (5 at present K to 8/ 55 522 special Diverse population school) Elementary/ programs for Inner City low socio- economic sector TREVOR 12 (5 different K to 5/ 19 185 Focus on Large ESL schools) Elementary/ social justice pop./high poverty Inner City -70% of students bussed LINDY 28 (10 in 1-8/Town 30 525 French Highly diverse separate system Immersion 1/3 staff + ¼ + 18 in public students system) accommodated for religion TERRENCE 19 (6 at present JK-8/City 45 610 Mohawk Low socio- school)/experien language economic status ce in Toronto classes - 22% Aboriginal MADELEINE 15 (10 in K-5/Inner city 20 200 Model ½ students from northern Ontario school/Focus low income board) on social families justice THOMAS 10 (5 at present K-8 75 520 Special 250 ESL students school) /Elementary/ classes for 65% Muslim

Inner City students with students little or no previous schooling (refugees) WILLIAM 9 (2 at present Secondary/Rural 70 1078 High skills Predominantly school) art program ‘White’ students/middle class ANNE 15 (3 at present Secondary/Rural 34 403 Aboriginal 100% bussed/low school) studies socio-economic MARIA 8 (1 ½ years at JK-8/Town/Inner 40 350 Break Predominantly present school) City activities + ‘White’ food students’/recent program influx from through Iran/low socio- outside economic sponsors ‘alarming’ LAMA 6 (2 years at K to 8/ 60.5 491 Dual Track: Mix of high and present school) Elementary/ Regular low socio- Inner city Stream + Fr. economic Immersion ELAINE 15 (3 at present Secondary 86 1250 Friday Mixed community/ school) Prayer declining accommodati enrollment on –in and outside school

Chapter Four: Findings

4.1. Introduction

The findings are divided into three major themes and two sub-themes. The three major themes are directly reflective of the original thesis questions: the role of the principal in the accommodation of faith and religion; the impact of accommodation of religion on the school; the management of conflict arising; and the conditions under which a claim of undue hardship may be made by the principal.

As the data were reviewed and categorized it became clear that there is often a link between issues that precipitate conflict between equal, but competing Charter and/or Code rights and a principal’s perception that certain issues may or do cause undue hardship to the school.

Conversely, when a principal sees all conflict related to the accommodation of religion as resolvable, then for that principal there is no perceived point of undue hardship. In sum, it makes thematic sense to combine a discussion of conflict arising in the accommodation of faith and religion with a discussion of undue hardship into one section.

The principal interviews also revealed two sub-themes that merit separate discussion and analysis: the effect of the new health (sex education) curriculum172 recently introduced by the

Ministry of Education; and the growing presence of Muslims and the accommodation of Islam in

Ontario’s public schools.

172 See footnote 170 for an outline of the new health (sex education) curriculum.

The Ministry’s recently introduced, revised sex education curriculum is widely reported by the principals as creating disruption for the schools. Each interview participant provides descriptions of the consternation of various religious groups, along with examples of resulting conflict. The complex and negative community reaction to the explicit content dictates that this topic be placed in its own findings section. No other issue relating to the accommodation of faith and religion garnered as much adverse commentary. The majority of the principal participants address the negative reactions to the content of this curriculum and its effect on the principal’s school, on neighbouring schools, and/or on the board.

The second sub-theme which also merits a separate and individualized findings section is the growing presence of Muslims and the accommodation of Islam in Ontario’s public schools. Even though the accommodation of Islam decidedly forms part of the principal’s general duty to accommodate faith and religion in a public school, the numerous references and salient data provided by the principal participants about this particular religion –more than any other faith group – compels a separate discussion and analysis. Coupled with this, the general lack of understanding Muslims and Islam in Western society, their marginalization in the wake of 9/11, and the shock of the Québec City mosque massacre,173 supports and warrants a focus on the accommodation of Islam in our public schools.

Following the rationale outlined above, the Findings chapter is divided and presented in the following order:

4.2. The role of the principal in the accommodation of faith and religion;

173See footnote 49 for a list of references regarding the Québec City mosque massacre.

4.3. The impact of the accommodation of faith and religion on the school;

4.4. The management of conflict arising and the realization of undue hardship in the accommodation of faith and religion;

4.5. The growing presence of Muslims and the influence of Islam on the accommodation of faith and religion;

4.6 The impact of the new health education curriculum on the accommodation of faith and religion.

Each of the five sub-sections in the Findings chapter begins with: (a) an Overview of the data and sub-sections found within; (b) provides a comprehensive Review of the Findings; and, (c) ends with a Summary and Reflection on these findings. Additionally, to provide the reader with a distilled overview of the salient data drawn from each principal’s interview, there are five charts which correlate with the sections listed above. The charts are appended at the end of the document as Appendices E through I, beginning at page 345.

4.2. The role of the principal in the accommodation of faith and religion

4.2.1. Overview

How principals enact, integrate and mobilize the duty to accommodate faith and religion is illustrated through the principals’ descriptions of their interactions with both the internal and external school communities. These communities include students, staff, parents, diverse religious groups, and religious leaders. The effectiveness of Ministry of Education and board of education policies and action taken to support principals in their duty to accommodate is also referenced. A third factor which helps to explain how the accommodation of faith and religion is

realized in a public school is linked to the personal and professional attributes, skills and experience of the individual principal.

The data on students and schools reveal the complex makeup of the student body and school cultures of inclusivity. Some principals discuss their schools’ focus on students from specific groups, such as Mennonites, Jehovah’s Witness, First Nations and Muslims. Due to the rich and extensive data provided about this latter group, the accommodation of their religion – Islam - is presented separately in 4.5., ‘The growing presence of Muslims and influence of Islam on the accommodation of faith and religion’ on page 159.

Principals too make reference to the religious diversity of staff members and how they are accommodated in the school through scheduling for prayer time, or absences for significant faith days. The principals’ emphasis on the professional development of staff to address the religious accommodation needs of students is also addressed.

When interacting with the religious communities the principals indicate they endeavour to meet the diverse requirements through focused and respectful dialogue. They also reveal how they navigate resolution of conflict of values with the community, especially when it affects the operation of the school and the students.

For the most part, the data indicate boards take anticipatory actions and provide both in-service and support for principals in accommodating faith and religion in public schools. In addition, boards are reported to assist with the mitigation of any conflict arising. Conversely, there are

data indicating that some boards may be actively resiling from their duty to accommodate faith and religion.

The personal and professional skills of the principal are demonstrated as factors in his or her ability to successfully accommodate the faith and religion of staff and students. The data suggest these skills encompass the ability to: establish respectful relationships; stand as an activist and advocate; know personal/professional limitations; and manage tensions arising. Additionally, the data reveal the principal requires a developed flexibility in approach and a mindset of equity and inclusion.

Following the overview above, the findings on the role of the principal in the accommodation of faith and religion is divided into the following sub-sections:

4.2.2.1. Students and School

4.2.2.2. Staff

4.2.2.3. Community

4.2.2.4. Board and Ministry

4.2.2.5. Personal and Professional Skills/Experience of the Principal

A chart summarizing how principals enact, integrate and mobilize the duty to accommodate faith and religion is attached as Appendix E and found on page 345.

4.2.2. Review of Findings

4.2.2.1. Students and School

Four factors are evidenced in the principal’s approach to the accommodation of students’ faith and religion in his or her school: the complex makeup of public schools themselves; a school culture of inclusivity; inclusive and normalized school routines; and the focussed accommodation of historically marginalized groups, such as the Mennonite, Jehovah’s Witness and First Nations.

(i) The complex makeup of public schools

In Madeleine’s current assignment, she notes there is ‘a number of continents represented at the school’ and that the focus is on social justice for all religious and cultural groups.

In Lama’s dual track public school the socio-economic status of the families vary greatly and a large percentage of the families are recent immigrants, mostly refugees. The Roma from

Hungary and Tibetans form the greatest part of this refugee group, with ‘a mix of a lot of other ethnic groups from East Asia, Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East’.174 Lama sums up her school body:

The community I have has a huge range...I have a large percentage of students who are Tibetan and Buddhist...I have a much smaller percentage who are Muslim, mostly African Muslim. I have a few Middle Easterners that are mostly Muslim.

Elaine too describes her high school as having a ‘very mixed’ community. There are six mosques that ‘feed into’ the school; ‘a lot’ of Christians and Sikhs; ‘a large’ Black community; and ‘some’ Chinese and other Asian groups. Elaine views her school as ‘a real melting pot of

174 Additionally, Lama has four intensive support programs: two for autism and two for behaviour.

different kids, [and]...very multicultural...with a lot of different perspectives coming in’. On

Fridays, there are Muslim prayers where ‘the kids will sign out, or they’ll go to a designated prayer room’. If a student needs to be off for a religious holiday he/she ‘can be excused...without...penalty to any of their grades or their marks’. In the school, there is a list of students that are excused for prayers on Fridays and ‘there’s no questions asked.’ There is a

Muslim club and a Christian interfaith club. Both groups conduct activities in the school. Elaine emphasizes that

We’re open to all groups, all faiths, and...if there’s any idea that we need to develop and work on together we do that. If we need to include a minister or an Imam, so that we understand better the culture and the religion, then we will do that.

Thomas has a large number of English as a second language [“ESL”] students. Some are in specially created classes as they have little or no previous schooling. Many are refugees from

Syria. Religious accommodation focuses mainly on the Muslim students as they comprise 65% of his school population, but there is also ‘the opportunity to acknowledge different faiths’.

Thomas views his school as neither ‘homogeneous’ nor ‘Christian’ based. Thomas explains that historically students took courses to learn about various other faiths and religions, but ‘now it is part of all, responsive to the world of our community’. He notes he is principal of a ‘transient school’. The refugee students live in the community because they are ‘settled there’. For others, the school catchment area is their first stop, where they ‘breathe, take a look and move on—or get thrown out’. There is sometimes a 60% turnover of Thomas’ students.175

175 Thomas indicates there was a new GO station built near his school and nearby apartment rents were ‘jacked up’. As a result, ‘120 kids were gone this year’. This, in turn, resulted in a loss of staff.

(ii) School culture of inclusivity

Trevor addresses the ideal of inclusivity. The accommodation of religion in his school is but a

‘minor aspect’ of the ‘greater piece’ which encompasses ‘tolerance, social justice, kindness and curiosity’ for all students from their various religious and cultural backgrounds.

In William’s school, whenever a student ‘wants to, needs to, decides to observe a religious holiday an accommodation is made’. There is a specific code in the computer system to indicate each student’s religious accommodation.

Teachers know and are made aware that this is a valid absence and we will make every effort to work with the student while the absence is occurring so that there is nothing punitive.176

Additionally, the school’s opening exercises have been modified to ensure inclusivity. After the playing of O Canada, a period of silence follows, rather than a board sanctioned spiritual reading.

We chose...to do the moment of silence because we have so many faiths. When you start having religious readings there is a risk that you’re going to exclude somebody. You don’t know what you don’t know.

To better ensure inclusivity, Maria views her school as having moved towards a more

‘invitational approach’177 to religious accommodation, away from the more traditional responding to verbal or written requests, as they arise. In Maria’s experience, many first

176 In using the word ‘punitive’ John is referring to student not losing marks on assignments or tests because they were absent from school. 177 Maria points out that this is not ‘the current language’ of her board due to a change in senior administration. ‘That word “invitational” became questioned. I think people don’t see how the invitational approach actually provided more access. The assumption by invitational is that you’re creating silos, and silos within secular education which allows parents – this is the rhetoric - to not assimilate, and to not do things the way we do things, right? - And to move towards a mainstream. It’s... a very colonial paradigm...and [there are] statistics on how high school students were participating more and were more included in music classes, drama, dance, as a result of having an invitational approach.’

generation or immigrant groups are reluctant to go to the school to make their requests without an invitation to express their needs. Maria believes the invitational approach ‘remove[s] the whole power piece’ and makes the school inclusive of all religious groups.

Lama’s response to the specifics of religious accommodation in her school is, ‘probably not that many...It depends on what you call an accommodation’. She notes that her school has a specific focus on inclusivity and equity. There are regular ‘pink days’ in recognition of their LGBTQ community and gender neutral bathrooms. Lama emphasizes that her school worked hard to have gender neutral bathrooms and it was one of the first to establish them.

(iii)Inclusive and normalized school routines

To illustrate the accommodation of religious needs and diversity at her school, Dana describes the breakfast and lunch programs.

We cover all the major religious traditions...I have kids that are Sikh and Hindu, kids that are Muslim, kids that are Christian... I have a portion of my students, they are very observant vegans. My Muslim kids— a lot are halal, and my Jewish kids...are kosher. We make sure when we order...for our food programs we have to adhere to all of those stipulations.

Lindy reports that twenty-five percent of her students are accommodated for religious reasons.

When providing food for school meetings, for example, ‘we don’t really do halal, but I do kosher... because I have quite a few that only eat kosher.’

For grade eight graduation, Dana ensures the hall has food ‘that’s appropriate...whether halal or kosher’. Each student’s plate is individually marked to safeguard proper religious accommodation.

(iv) Focussed accommodation of faith and religion

(a) Mennonites

Mennonites are the predominant religious group accommodated in Jacob’s school.178 There is a specially created co-operative education program where the content and design was formulated according to the religious requirements of the Mennonite community and the program has the specific aim of re-engaging Mennonites in the public school system, primarily the more conservative Mennonites, a sector of the community that historically was not attending school.

The program was initiated

...four years ago when that portion...of the community would not darken our doorsteps. We now have students in traditional Mennonite dress walking the halls chatting, texting, doing whatever teenagers do - because of the buy-in process and the time investment…in the family, and in the relationship...It has been seamless. I’m not saying that to brag but it’s been a beautiful, absolutely beautiful thing to see unfold. Jacob emphasizes that the growth of this program has been precipitous. ‘It has gone from zero to

350 [students] in five years. It’s sort of a celebration.’

(b) Jehovah’s Witnesses

Elaine addresses the religious accommodation of Jehovah’s Witness students in her school:

‘They don’t go in for the anthem. We have no transfusions. No calling of 911. Things like that

178 Jacob also notes that the school recently welcomed two refugee students from Iraq, as a result of ‘the response to the Syrian refugee crisis...locally’. Currently, the ‘focus is...to make sure that they feel welcome...safe’ and have the opportunity to learn English’. Religion accommodation does not play a role at this time

—specific to their needs—are on our system. So that doesn’t get missed.’ If a Jehovah Witness child is injured at school,

[w]e have to use our better judgement on it. Sometimes the parent will say, ‘I will come and I will deal with it.’ You have to kind of triage it - Is this a life or death situation? Is this a cut that needs stitches? Or, is it a broken leg? - and have the conversation with the parent. They want to have a conversation first. They want to make sure that their child does not go to the hospital and get a blood transfusion.

Terrence’s school also focuses on the accommodation of a group that has been historically marginalized in the public school system: the First Nation. Twenty-two percent of Terrence’s students ‘identify as Aboriginal’. Instead of students taking French in grades four through eight, there is a First Nation teacher who instructs Mohawk language classes. As not all the students self-identify as Mohawk, the school tries to make it ‘more inclusive of whatever First Nation they belong to’.

There is a sign posted in the school that references the First Nations’ spiritual act of smudging.

A smudging ceremony takes place twice weekly at the school. It is led by the Mohawk teacher.

Terrence is uncertain whether smudging is a manifestation of Aboriginal spirituality, but he supports this activity in his school.

In Anne’s school there is ‘a small nucleus of Status...probably twenty of them’. Although Anne initially claims these students do not require an accommodation, she notes that during the grade nine year there is a number of First Nation boys who ‘disappear for about two to three weeks while they participate in a coming of age ritual’. They are provided with a knife and then

‘they’re taken out to one of the islands on Lake Simcoe, and they have to look after themselves’.

The First Nation students tell their friends about this experience as ‘it’s a very big deal’. Anne is uncertain whether this coming of age ritual has a spiritual component.

Madeleine describes proudly her involvement in the creation of a sanctuary and circle room for First Nation to engage in smudging and other ceremonies in her board.

4.2.2.2. Staff

As well as accommodating the faith and religion of students, principals also report the ways in which they accommodate the religious diversity of staff members. Additionally, principals address how they lead and provide professional development for staff to ensure all members have the knowledge and skills to effectively accommodate the faith and religion of their students.

(i) Religious diversity of staff

Dana describes the diversity of her staff by listing absences on significant faith days.

The 29th is Passover, but it’s also Easter - Orthodox Easter. So my teachers that are Greek Orthodox, Ukrainian, Macedonian - ...they’ll be off the Friday and Monday, the Good Friday and Easter Monday. My teachers that are Jewish they’re going to be off on Friday for Passover, so I have nine staff off this week.

Lama lists the religions of her staff: ‘I have one staff member I’m aware that is Muslim, and I think three staff members who are Jewish. I have a lot who are Orthodox Christians.’

Even though Lama does not view her staff as significantly multi-faith and multi-cultural each has ‘had a long time to get acculturated and they chose to stay’ in the school.

I mean it’s not like every individual is at the same place, but the general culture is one of feeling that they need to be not only sensitive, but to role reverse – to switch places

as much as possible for students – and imagine that some of the barriers or the stresses that they might experience as people who are new to the country, as people whose culture and religions don’t necessarily [fit the norm].

(ii) Religious accommodation of staff

In Lama’s school ‘the biggest accommodation with staff is simply they’re allowed to take their holidays, and do. That’s part of the miscellaneous days from the board.’ Lama outlines her board’s procedure for staff absences on significant faith days.

They submit a request online and I just acknowledge it. Then it goes to the board and then the board approves it...I’ve had a request come back... ‘You haven’t taken this before, why are you taking it now?...Where do you celebrate?’ And they have to fill out this whole form. So I had, for example, one teacher who last year had never taken off an Orthodox New Year, but...she decided that it was an important thing for her, so she did. And so she had to fill out this form. And another teacher who had to do it for the New Year because she hadn’t done it before....They’ll give it to them, but they have to give the information...They have to name the holiday they are participating in.

Another area for the accommodation of staff faith and religion in Lama’s school is in the provision of food at meetings as ‘obviously my Muslim and Jewish teachers don’t eat pork’ and that is ‘avoided’.

Thirty-four percent of Lindy’s staff is accommodated for religious reasons. For Lindy, when it is a matter of accommodation, ‘it’s just common sense. Diverse staff —you ask. If it comes forward, we’ll accommodate...At the same time, we try to buy enough foods...vegetables and fruits [that] anyone can eat’. For Lindy this ensures religious accommodation at staff meetings.

William emphasizes ‘what works for the kids, works for the staff’ in terms of accommodating absences for faith and religion. Staff members are ‘allowed’ up to three days paid absence ‘for

any religious observance’. In William’s school there are several who have ‘those concerns’ during the year.

Elaine’s school acknowledges religious holy days in its calendar and in its scheduling. If one of

Elaine’s staff member wishes to celebrate his/her religious holiday by taking a day off, he or she is ‘allowed’ to do so. Elaine has ten teachers who apply to be off for Orthodox Christmas. To apply for a faith day absence, there is a link on the board website with a pull down box.

They just click on that just like they would for a child having surgery or a leave of absence, for whatever reason. One of the leave of absence reasons is religious accommodation. They submit it and it gets returned and I get a copy...to let me know...they’re off on those days for religious accommodations.

Elaine then uses the accompanying code ‘to charge it against religious accommodation...so it doesn’t come out of their sick day bank’. The teacher does not have to prove religious affiliation to the board in order to substantiate a request for religious accommodation.

Nobody questions that you need a religious accommodation. It’s granted. You don’t have to prove what religion you are. If you have a religious holiday and it falls within – they have a calendar at the board where they publish all of the religious holidays coming up, and you’re applying for one of those – then there’s no questions asked.

Dana’s board contractually allots staff members up to five days for significant faith days.

More days for religious accommodation may be taken, but pay is deducted. For Dana, religious accommodation can create an absentee rate of almost twenty percent of her staff when several significant faith days fall in the same week. Dana acknowledges that ‘it’s huge’ and describes the procedure to ensure she will have the requisite number of substitute teachers in her school during staff absences.

The board asks teachers by September 30th to identify - only so we make sure we’re covered...When they send me the list of people that have been approved...I say to the

staff, ‘Do you want me to go in and book supplies?’ So I make sure that they - because people forget, right? -and then they do it the day before and they’re not going to get a sub day...We just got an email saying the 29th we’ll be working short because there’s not enough supplies to cover.

Elaine is uncertain as to how many days of absence are allotted for the accommodation of religion. She notes, however that staff members have requested six weeks off to take part in a religious pilgrimage, and ‘that’s been granted. No problem. They have to prove that they are going on a pilgrimage with airline tickets...’ Elaine is not certain whether this extended leave for religious reasons is paid or unpaid, but believes it to be paid.

(iii) Professional development of staff

In Trevor’s school, it is Trevor that leads the staff meetings as there is no staff member that would be ‘privy’ to as much of the religious accommodation information provided by the board.

Trevor’s methodology is to solicit examples from individual teachers of religious accommodation issues ‘because they deal with that’ in the classroom. The outcome is,

[i]t looks like the principal voice and it also looks like all the teacher voices – so we kind of do it together – but I put it on the agenda. I drive that piece because whenever it comes to large scale policy, it’s better for the principal to lead that piece. And then you get individual opinions which can be...divisive, but it’s ultimately got to come to some sort of a head to do something.

Similarly, Terrence has ‘devoted every staff meeting to talking about Aboriginal history and culture...and deconstructing stereotypes for Aboriginal people’. He and his staff ‘spend a lot of time making sure [they are] inclusive and welcoming in a variety of ways, and do a lot of follow- up’.

Elaine also speaks to staff about the building of an inclusive school environment as part of her professional development strategy. She encourages staff to become an active ‘ally’ of students that may be marginalized because of their religious affiliation.

Even if you’re not a part of that particular community, [you] can be an ally for that community. So, if you see a child being picked on because they have a turban on, it’s not as effective for that child to say ‘Leave me alone, that’s my religious accommodation’, but for the teacher to step in and be an ally to the student...You as a staff member need to be an ally because there’s more power in being an ally, and there’s more education that happens in being an ally than for the person from that group to speak out.

When Madeleine’s staff members demonstrated they were not ‘allies’ of her First Nation students, Madeleine engaged in a unique form of professional development. She describes her actions:

I loaded up school buses full of people and took them to the First Nation’s community because I was sick of hearing my teachers complain about having to make accommodations for kids who came from the reserve. So one way to shut them up was to put them in the school bus and make them travel it one day. It’s famous. It’s still talked about today. By the time they got there on the pulp road179 they were all barfing. It was quite entertaining...[The road was] very rough...That’s what the children rode every day...for an hour and a half.

Madeleine notes she repeated this form of staff development as some teachers ‘still didn’t get it’ about the accommodation of First Nation students.

(iv) Staff accommodation of students

In reference to the successful accommodation of the Mennonites in the co-operative education program, Jacob notes

179 Madeleine explains that a pulp road is a clear cut road that is used by the pulp trucks and the pulp machines. It is very roughly hewn, with only a few loads of gravel on it.

None of that would’ve happened if it weren’t for the staff here and community here to make sure that people feel welcome - and that their faith and culture is recognized and celebrated.

Jacob impresses upon the staff that they and he ‘are not the white knights coming to save’ the

Mennonite community, but rather ‘servants’ that ‘will act and behave as servants’. He emphasizes that there are no issues of ‘power imbalance’ with the Mennonite community as ‘we have no power. We don’t want to have power’. Jacob and his staff take the position,

We...want them to want what we have, in terms of...delivering a program - not what we have in life...as individuals. We want to create a culture they want to choose to be a part of...We want it to be completely voluntary.

Whenever students are exempted from specific classes in Lindy’s school because of religious accommodation requests they are placed in another subject area and another teacher’s class.

We do have to rely on staff...So, if there’s room, you ask. If they say no - Could they say no? Yeah, they could. There’s no rule in that policy that says other teachers have to take them.

Lindy notes, however, the teachers who received these extra children ‘were wonderful’, as the numbers ‘did not pierce class size’. She emphasizes that if the class size number of students, as specified in the teachers’ contract, were ‘pierced’, that would be ‘a whole other...consideration’.

If there were 15, 20 kids - then that would probably be a big challenge. Where am I going to put 15 kids?...Lucky in certain schools you have multiple grades of the same grade...But if you’re a smaller school, it’d be more challenging.

To accommodate the adolescent First Nations boys Anne informs her teachers these students will be absent for their coming of age ritual. She instructs staff ‘to give complete leeway on assignments, not to ask them to catch up on anything that isn’t an essential expectation...[and to]

not overwhelm [them]’. The curriculum is not altered for these students, but assessment and evaluation are ‘pared back’.

4.2.2.3. Community

The principals provide data on their concerns about ensuring all members of the diverse religious communities are heard and included. Principals report they engage in focused dialogue with their communities and also describe how they manage any conflict of values between the purpose of public school and requests from a religious community which may be ‘unreasonable’.

(i) Focused dialogue with the religious community

Through a series of meetings with clergy, families and the community, Jacob learned why the more conservative Mennonite group were not sending their children to his high school. For most, it was for faith and culturally-based reasons. For some, it was socio-economically based as they needed their children to work on their farms. Given that information, Jacob ‘incorporated their needs and...values’ in a co-operative education curriculum with timetabling and a framework that is ‘still accountable and transparent from an education model delivery perspective’. Because of the specially designed co-operative education program the Mennonite community is

... beginning to see that [the school] is not such a bad place. Some of our [Mennonite] kids are transferring to the main campus, and some of the local private [Mennonite] schools are sending their kids to main campus - which is fantastic. It’s good news and it works well for all

For Terrence, it is important that the school ‘over communicate about the possibility’ of taking

Mohawk language classes to the school community.

We can’t make assumptions that because we put it in a newsletter or we say it once that our message is received. We’ve been very visible. We...do classroom productions, visits from the teacher. So the child goes home and says, ‘Hey, here’s what we have going on in the school’...We try to communicate in a variety of ways to put the word out ...especially about the program. You have to do a lot of word of mouth because democracy and equity aren’t necessarily in the same family.

Terrence emphasizes that equity is realized through listening to the parent, ‘or the community member who’s advocating for the parent’ and understand what they are seeking. He notes parental involvement of the First Nations community with the school and the program, is ‘not as much as we want [but]...we’re trying’.180

Through dialogue with her First Nation’s community Anne learned the members are ‘vehement about tokenism’ and ‘take personal exception’ to the four Aboriginal Studies courses taught in the school by educators that ‘do have some Aboriginal heritage’, but that are not recognized as having ‘full Status’. The community group views these teachers as ‘imposters’. For Anne, the

‘full status’ debate was ‘quite an education’. The members of the First Nations

...offered to bring in an Elder from the Native community to teach courses for me. I’ve tried gently to explain that I can only have Ministry curriculum delivered by people who are a member of the College of Teachers, but that the Elders would be welcomed to come in and just supplement the teaching of the courses. They were only prepared to discuss that with me if I was to make a gift of cash and a gift of tobacco up front...They wanted a thousand dollars a day for their Elder to come in. And I was not willing to do that.

Anne informed the First Nations community the school was not funded ‘for those sorts of speaker costs’ and the discussion ended there.

Thomas views the community as ‘his class’. Thomas stresses that an important part of his job as principal is ‘knowing and recognizing issues and developing a relationship with the community’.

180 Terrence is proud to note that his school sings the Canadian national anthem in French, English and Mohawk.

He adds that agreement and understanding must be ‘negotiated’ and that a principal needs to know how to communicate with, garner the trust of, and value the community. In his experience, first generation immigrants do not have ‘great expectations’ of religious accommodation as their

‘focus is on survival’. He finds that communication issues relating to religious accommodation arise more often with those born here.

Through her focus on social justice, Madeleine ‘really work[s] on parent engagement’.

Whenever accommodations are requested for faith or religious reasons parents are required to write a letter outlining their requests. Madeleine provides the example of parents seeking accommodations related to the new health curriculum. She notes parents must ‘outlin[e] specifics within the curriculum that they are objecting to...in writing because it is part of a human rights issue’.181

Dana takes a more dialogical and anticipatory approach to the thorny issues related to this curriculum.

I’ve never had to fight with parents about any of this...I’m not one of those schools where I have half the kids not there, or half the kids opting out. I say...to my parent community all the time: ‘We don’t have to have the same faith system but we do have to respect each other’...We talk about what does it mean to be equitable and practice it...It’s about levelling the playing field for everybody.

181 The human rights issues are in relation to the inclusion in the curriculum of discussion of same sex relationships and marriage, amongst other issues that are opposed by some religious groups. The topic is further explored in section 4.4., ‘The management of conflict arising and the realization of undue hardship in the accommodation of faith and religion’, and section 4.6., ‘The impact of the new health education curriculum on the accommodation of faith and religion’.

(ii) The accommodation of religious diversity in the community

William explains that it is simple to account for the diversity of his school’s community:

‘Wherever there is a war it tends to be where we see people from. And we’re getting Middle

Eastern and African kids. We’ve seen an influx of students from the Middle East just because of what is going on there’. Trevor too speaks to the influx of students from the Middle East.

Although his school has not received any of the recent refugees from Syria, he notes that ‘is not the usual of schools in the area’.

Elaine’s concern is the makeup of the parent council does not reflect the diversity of her school.

For that reason, issues relating to the accommodation of religion are not raised and it is

‘reflective of who’s on the...council’. Elaine’s parent council representatives are

...usually White parents. There might be the odd Black parent. I have never had a Muslim...or a Hindu...So, that’s never. The parents that are Muslim often can’t speak English well; same with the Hindu group. They tend not to communicate well with the school. I think language is sometimes a barrier. Not always a barrier. And they tend not to get involved in parent committee work. So it’s a block....I talked...at the board about that... Said I’m really concerned, because I look who is...represented...It’s White parents; it’s Black parents. The Muslims, the Hindus, they’re not represented here.

(iii)The resolution of conflict of values with the religious community

When it comes to the accommodation of the needs of the child, Trevor explains that ‘sometimes it’s a parenting feature - it’s not as much about religion, but religion is closely tied to culture and with culture comes behaviour, and certain behaviours seem normal for their communities.’ In

Trevor’s example a father insisted the school should have someone assigned to his child for the child’s toileting needs. Trevor denied the parent’s request.

Well, we couldn’t possibly go in every day and wipe your son’s backside every time he decides he does or doesn’t want to go poo, unless he has a medical problem. This

is something that we need to teach you because we’re not here for that. That’s not the purpose of school. There is a problem...So, I guess it starts in a religious accommodation way but it ends up in a conversation about how we can together envision our education system – or, at least, that’s the job of the administrator.

Dana describes an issue arising on Shrove Tuesday, the day that marks the beginning of Lent, a

Christian observance. Each year pancakes are made for the entire school on Shrove Tuesday.

Some students asked Dana to explain the meaning of Mardi Gras and Carnivale, events associated with Lent. Dana provided a synopsis to the school body when making morning announcements. Afterwards, one student reported to her father Dana was proselytizing about

Catholicism and the father believed the school was attempting to indoctrinate the students.

So, I had a parent call me. It’s the only time I’ve ever had a parent call – and he said, ‘You know you’re indoctrinating, and we’re American and we don’t do that’ and blah blah this. The father was horrified and was talking about ‘these Catholics’.

Dana explained to the father that she speaks to the students about Diwali, Hanukkah, Passover—

‘everybody’s faith’ so that no one is ‘invisible in the school’. The issue ‘was a misunderstanding beyond anything else’ and was rectified through dialogue with the father.

In contrast, Lama has not had any ‘pushback’ from the school religious community about the designated ‘pink days’ in recognition of the LGBTQ community or the unisex bathrooms. She notes, however, that her inner city parents do not ‘feel a lot of power or privilege’ and that they

‘tend to be a little bit shy about approaching the institution’.

4.2.2.4. Board and Ministry

There are three areas in which boards influence the principal’s success in accommodating faith and religion. Some principals address the anticipatory actions taken by the board through making announcements to the community, or through hiring specialized consultants to deal with difficult religious accommodation issues. Most principals make positive reference to the support and in-service they receive from their boards. Some principals, however, indicate there are boards that are actively resiling from their legal duty to accommodate faith and religion.

(i) Board anticipatory actions

Trevor indicates that it has only been in the last five years that ‘some really hard and fast policy’ has been created in his board regarding the accommodation of faith and religion. He is not certain whether it is Ministry driven but acknowledges that his board is usually ‘right out in front with these kinds of issues’ and board communication is effective. There are equity consultants and each school principal receives emails as issues arise concerning religious accommodation.

The superintendents are ‘very reactive and also responsive’ and they ensure the components of religious accommodation are ‘clear’ and ‘enforced’. Trevor’s board provides prepared materials for principals to address particular topics and outlines ‘directives on “why and how”’ concerning religious accommodation and these directives are addressed by the principal during staff meetings. Thomas views his board as ‘proactive’ in accommodating faith and religion and cites the example of it providing thirty ‘awesome’ sport hijabs this year for the Muslim students, in the school’s team colours.

The development of the policy and procedure document on the accommodation of faith and religion in Lindy’s board is part of a complex equity initiative where various sub-groups worked on different aspects. Members of the board sub-group met with numerous individuals from the community and this included being ‘informed by religious leaders’. The document ‘took a long time to do’. In order to manage the accommodation of faith and religion effectively, Lindy believes boards of education need ‘to be proactive’ and to ‘start communicating more’. She also questions why this level of communication had not been done by the Ministry. Lindy notes the

Ministry claims it met with a vast number of people before creating the new sex education curriculum, but she asks ‘Who did they consult with when there’s so many people protesting it?’

Maria references research conducted in her board which examined barriers facing teacher applicants. It was found the applicants believed they had to hide their religious identity in order to access full-time or supply positions.

So hijab wearing Muslim teachers...their lack of comfort for requesting prayer space in schools...That led us to really look at our religious accommodations policies...

Through subsequent consultation with the various religious communities, Maria’s board initially produced a document on the accommodation of faith and religion that was ‘deemed the best work seen in the province’ by the Ontario Human Rights Commission [OHRC].

Although some of her principal colleagues objected to the individualization of religious accommodation and the accommodations expected, Maria believes two realities helped to counteract the principals’ objections: the board’s written policy on the accommodation of faith and religion and the expectations contained with the Code.

It became helpful to...talk about...our requirements and duty - like your thesis title - to accommodate... I think with this guideline document it gave a voice and a lot of legislative reference points for families to understand their rights that they didn’t know were there.

100

(ii) Board support and in-service to accommodate faith and religion

Anne offers a copy of her board’s guidelines and procedures for the accommodation of faith and religion. When the document was first created there was ‘a massive in-service’ for all the principals. When it was updated again a year ago, the board provided more in-service for them.

When making religious accommodations, Terrence specifies his board’s procedure is to ‘always deal with...one person at a time’. No assumptions are made that the adherents to the same religious group ‘want the same one’, the identical form of accommodation. Religious accommodation is ‘made reference to’ at their board-level principal meetings. ‘They went over it in pretty good detail’. Terrence expects that at subsequent principal meetings the accommodation of religion will be reviewed again.

Elaine’s staff members were informed of the board policy on the accommodation of faith and religion via the board website. There is a contact person at the board that assists principals, should there be a question in this area. Every fall the board provides information on all religious holidays for the year, with suggested accommodations. Additionally, it publishes a monthly newsletter listing the upcoming religious holidays. The accommodation of faith and religion is also ‘embedded into the contracts for all the different employee groups’.

Lindy notes that her board distributes a multi-faith calendar and ‘certain days’, such as Rosh

Hashanah, Diwali, Greek Easter, Iranian New Year and ‘other significant faith days...are earmarked.’ Lindy is assisted by her board’s framework for religious accommodation to ‘keep it consistent’, and by the specially designated ‘point person’ that lends support ‘if you come into a

101

situation that might be complicated’. Principals also learn from the superintendent ‘what else has been done at the board’ regarding issues around the accommodation of religion. Lindy appreciates ‘there’s a process’...[W]e’re not just randomly making our own accommodation plans’ as Lindy believes randomness in decision making ‘makes it inequitable’.

William expresses great satisfaction with how the accommodation of faith and religion is being realized in his school and in his board.

I think this board, and certainly this school, they are putting in procedures that really address the requirements of the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms...People are very comfortable when they come to school. It doesn’t matter what their faith is,

William, however, views the board procedures themselves as almost redundant to the protocols already established in his school for the accommodation of faith and religion. In William’s opinion, the board procedures simply ‘highlight the things’ that are already being done.

(iii)Board resiliation from the duty to accommodate faith and religion

Although Dana’s board has a ‘significant faith day calendar’ and it always sends ‘massive reminder emails’ to principals about important faith and religious days, the board procedure for requesting religious accommodation has recently undergone change. Previously, there was a section entitled ‘religious accommodation’ in the board’s list of forms. Now it states only

‘accommodation’. Dana links this board change in procedure directly to the opposition expressed by some members of the religious community to the new sex education curriculum.

‘It’s like we went from one extreme to the other’.

102

Maria too expresses concern that her board is moving away from its initial effort to accommodate all faiths and religions equitably. Although, according to Maria, the OHRC takes the position that religious accommodation includes full withdrawal of a student from a subject area, if that is the wish of the parent, Maria’s board does not agree with that position. Maria notes that ‘those debates around “Do we make an exemption for kids?” is not a debate; an exemption is an accommodation’. She is uncertain where her board currently stands on the matter as it has ‘an issue around exempting kids’. Maria believes her board is being particularly recalcitrant with the Muslim communities.

4.2.2.5. Personal and Professional Skills/Experience of the Principal

The data from the principal interviews indicate there are several areas of personal and professions skills/experience that assist with the realization of religious accommodation: the ability to establish and maintain respectful relationships with the religious communities; the ability to stand as activist and advocate to ensure faith and religious needs are recognized; the ability to know one’s personal/professional limitations; and the ability to manage any tensions arising. These four abilities are aided by a mindset of equity and inclusion in the principal, as well as a developed flexibility in addressing and resolving issues.

(i) Ability to establish and maintain respectful relationships with the religious communities

For Anne, the role of principal is about ‘respect’ and ‘trying to find creative solutions...for the people we serve’.

Well, I guess what I really, truly believe, Wendy—I hope you don’t think that I’m being naïve or simplistic. —I have worked in a number of different areas of the board...and I think that if we really, truly believe that it’s important to respect the people we serve, then accommodating them—whether they have special learning

103

needs—or whether they have religious requirements—is just part of the privilege of being a public servant.

Jacob sees himself as having a great deal of ‘street credit’ with the Mennonite community, because he is from the community and they trust him.182 A large part of Jacob’s role as an administrator is to strengthen the impact of the specially designed co-operative education program for the Mennonite community and for the entire school body.

In reference to smudging in the school, Terrence states how he stands back for the First

Nation teacher to take the lead.

I let the teacher teach me and guide us as a school on how to be inclusive of their culture...If I’m going to allow her influence and her input to be as pure and untainted by a White Irish guy like myself, then it’s important that I keep my mouth shut – and support her to make a difference with the children...She is Mohawk.

Thomas emphasizes that, as principal, it is ‘important...to know the community’. For him, the community encompasses his staff, students, parents and the greater school community. It is important for Thomas to understand the makeup and needs of ‘[his] class’. Similar to the qualities of an excellent teacher, it is Thomas’ opinion that the principal’s responsibility to his class is to be knowledgeable, ‘to be aware of needs’ and ‘when push comes to shove’ to know

182 Jacob possesses an in-depth knowledge of the difficulties Mennonites historically faced in Canada because of what his own family experienced as Mennonites. ‘It started in Germanic Europe...over five hundred years ago...In the culture, for the most part, students are done with their education at thirteen or fourteen. The goal of education is to prepare to be productive, to be good Mennonites, to build character. The focus is on reading, writing, and religion, basically. And, so ingrained in the perception of education, the value of education, is that experience of what school should be all about: ‘This is what our forefathers have done, and this should work for us.’ So, when they come into an environment that has a different idea...has different values, it has created some conflict in the past...[T]here were seizures of goods and lands and fines were paid and monies were exacted for non-compliance of the Mennonite community for not sending...their children to public education systems and they were fined heavily. And that also happened here...[T]he traditional way was to take the case before the court on attendance issues by a truancy officer...’

104

where to seek assistance in accommodating religious requests, as ‘a principal shouldn’t have to problem-solve on his own’.

(ii) Ability to stand as activist and advocate

Maria views herself as a community activist. She has been involved in anti-oppressive research for several decades and participates in equity training in her board. Maria directly connects her strong interest in equity to a personal experience as a grade one public school student.

Ms. [X] would say, ‘I can’t believe we’re teaching wop183 kids...So, I remember...I never wanted my parents...[with their] limited English...to come to school because I was embarrassed. This was grade one, and I was told by my teachers don’t speak your home language. So guess what I’ve been doing for the past fifteen years? – learning and promoting...It’s part of who I am, so that’s been my advocacy...[It’s] what puts a fire in your belly.

Elaine’s stance as principal is, ‘Whatever the need is, we try to accommodate that’. For the teachers that do not buy into the idea of religious accommodation, Elaine ‘work[s] with them where they’re at...[and] tr[ies] to move them’. When, however, a bias is ingrained and inappropriate comments ‘really cross...a line’, then it becomes a disciplinary issue.

For that particular issue...all I have to say is ‘What you said to that child is Blue Pages184 material. You really want me to suspend that child for reacting to what you said to him? Just know that I can’t defend you on that, and you could very well end up going in front of the College of Teachers and in the Blue Pages...for your...colleagues to see’...And that usually shuts it down and there’s an apology made...They understand Blue Pages. And the union is right there with them too. The union will come in and they’ll take notes and listen...[D]epending on who the OSSTF rep is it may go well, and if not, could end up as a grievance...

183 The noun ‘wop’ is a derogatory and offensive term to describe people of Italian descent. The origin of the term is uncertain. The Canadian Oxford dictionary (2001). Canada: Oxford University Press. 184 Elaine is making reference to the documented meting out of discipline to teacher members for professional transgressions by the Ontario College of Teachers in the publication Professionally Speaking. The discipline pages are blue.

105

Madeleine notes, as advocate for her students she took her teachers for an excursion on the pulp road more than once because ‘some didn’t get the message the first time’. It was her solution for

‘deficit thinking’ about First Nations. Madeleine holds the view that

the principal’s job is to make sure those accommodations are in place...but you are battling—challenged by—the communities in which you work...especially if it’s about prejudice – prejudicing women – or boys and girls....It’s a challenge to leave it at the door.

(iii)Ability to know personal/professional limitations

Lindy describes the gray area that principals find themselves in when it comes to determining how to accommodate some requests based on faith and religion. Although Lindy does not have any issues with the content of the sex education program she asks, ‘What do I know about what other people believe or how entrenched they are?’ Lindy also describes dealing with parents that are well versed in their legal right to have their religious needs accommodated.

There are parents who are going to know the policy and come in and say this is our religious accommodation.’ We’re not going to police that. Who’s going to have time? So, at the end of the day, we just have to determine is it a competing right, you know, a human right, or is it really not a viable faith accommodation? That’s it. If they want to come and say they’re whatever religion, and this is their faith accommodation, well there’s nowhere in our trillion documents or OSR anything that says ‘state your religion’.

As a principal, Lindy believes part of the job is ‘to figure out a system’. And given that principals ‘don’t have all the expertise,’ there is always ‘something that comes up’. Despite trying to be professionally prepared, there will be issues arising, such as the ‘kirpan case’ in

Peel, where principals ‘really don’t know’ and which will challenge their ‘expertise’.

106

(iv) Ability to manage tensions arising

Jacob explains how he manages the tensions and parameters attached to his role as administrator, especially with requests and plans to accommodate faith and religion in his school. He refers to the parameters as ‘bumpers’. Collective agreements and Ministry policy, for example, are

‘bumpers’. Jacob, however, holds the opinion that in between the bumpers there is ‘a lot of room to play’. It is a matter of ‘understanding where you stand in those bumpers and why you have to stay in those bumpers’. Equally, it is important to state what you are doing and to be

‘transparent’, ‘professional’, and ‘űber vigilant’. When the tensions are managed, ‘the sky is really the limit’.

Trevor explains the ‘tension’ created by certain aspects of religious accommodation and how a principal must ‘deal in reality and the facts’ and not ‘deal with emotional swelling’. Otherwise the principal will ‘never get anything done’ or bring about resolution. With ‘volatile’ subjects like the new health curriculum, Trevor finds that he has to work with some staff members that are nervous about dealing with parental opposition as they believe certain religious groups are going to come after them personally.

That’s their question to me, right? And I say ‘Who?’ ‘Well, them.’ ‘Who? Who specifically? Chinese? Who? Who are going to come and talk to you?’ ‘Well, I’ve got such and such a person in my class.’ ‘Okay, do you know the parents?’ ‘Yeah, I do.’ ‘Do you think that they’re going come say that to you?’ ‘No’. ‘Well then, I’m not sure what you mean.’ That’s the way we as administrators deal with the situation...So you hope you get your facts straight... – because people are going to question you on it. That’s for sure.

To manage the ‘tension’ that arises in the accommodation of religion, Trevor maintains ‘it’s about being a good dancer’.

107

(v) Developed flexibility in approach

Trevor tries to anticipate the needs of individuals and groups. For that reason, staff and school meetings are ‘run...in many different ways with many different intents’. Trevor’s experience as a school administrator provides ‘the advantage’ of understanding ‘signals’ that

‘give you clues’ to help in challenging situations. He also approaches these situations from the position ‘I am the face of education of the province...you’re supposed to represent – you are the arm’s length... the guarantor of the province’. When religious accommodation issues arise, Trevor believes that it

...becomes something other than school, so you start packaging in your mind what is the purpose of school; how do we represent and accommodate others? But, at the same time, who has what right and how is that demonstrated?

Madeleine addresses the idea, or ideal of interculturalism. She differentiates between it and multiculturalism, ‘where you do your thing...and I do my thing’.

...I think dialogue is not just about listening, it’s also...the idea that I seek to understand your thing, and then I want you to understand my thing. So I think that’s how I reconcile, right? —That I want to listen. I want to know what your thing is, but I also want the opportunity then for you to know what my thing is.

When reflecting on the accommodation of religion itself, Madeleine indicates she has ‘been doing that for a long time’ and no longer has to actively ‘think about it’.

Maybe that’s the whole point—it’s just a part of what we do as principals—to accommodate...for any type of difference.

108

(vi) Mindset of equity and inclusion

Trevor questions the use of the term ‘accommodation’ when speaking about faith and religious requirements. When it comes to his students and their needs, Trever prefers to think in terms of

‘awareness and support’ or ‘partnership’.

The term ‘accommodation’ can sometimes have a real negative connotation. When I hear the word ‘accommodation’ I think of policy...When...we...talk about our community we don’t use the term ‘accommodated’ because it sounds like it’s an inconvenience, or putting someone out, or you’re having to go to great lengths. You’re maybe suggesting a level of guilt associated with that. So I use terms like ‘partnership’ or ‘support’. ‘Accommodation’ is the term they use that comes from the Ministry—that comes from our board. It has a real policy sound to it and not...positive sounding. It’s the way I interpret it. And I don’t know many of my colleagues that use the term ‘accommodate’ – except when they’re using a smirk.

Terrence endeavours to lay the groundwork for a mindset of equity with his staff as it is, in

Terrence’s opinion, a change of worldview that prepares the foundation for the accommodation of faith and religion. Terrence speaks to his staff about his ‘own struggles’ and his ‘own learning’ in developing his personal and professional stance on equity.

I talk about my own privilege—skin colour, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation...We talk about it—deconstruct it...So, if you spend time on that with your staff,...that’s where you change them forever...As a White guy I will never... know the struggles that people who don’t look like me go through, unless I open my ears and eyes and really immerse myself...So we can’t just wait until—oh geez, people here have the duty to accommodate...If you attack your [professional development] as equity – when it comes time...to accommodate for religion or religious practice, that’s going to be part and parcel...because they won’t be seeing the world the same...It doesn’t mean it’s going to be perfect but I think the vast majority of people are much more aware...So they understand why they have to fight for the children.

For Terrence, the accommodation of faith and religion is just ‘another area of the equity family’.

He also takes the position that ‘equity’ and ‘democracy’ are not necessarily in the same family.

109

People will say they’re democratic. Also...they’re saying they’re equitable. The reality is in most places if it’s a ‘democracy’ you’re likely marginalizing somebody because you’re going to have the dominant group vote...We forget about whose voice is left out.

In Terrence’s view, the responsibility of a principal that practices equity over democracy is ‘to overwork’ or ‘over communicate’ certain programs, such as the Mohawk language class, ‘so they’re heard about’ and not lost in the din of the majority.

Thomas emphasizes that in ‘our’ school staff and students ‘have voice’. Although ‘a lot view the principal role as top down,’ Thomas ‘value[s] the grassroots.’ He does not take credit for the accommodating and inclusive climate of his school as ‘values are ingrained...That’s how we operate. This is our school. That’s how it works.’

Maria advocates for a nuanced approach to religious accommodation with her staff. It is her view accommodation requires the understanding that a person’s faith is influenced by the factors of culture, geographic origin, age demographics and the individual, and that religious communities are not static, but ‘fluid’. Maria’s stance is ‘there’s diversity within diversity’. She also emphasizes that religious accommodation are ‘requirements’ and ‘not options’.

Maria is passionate about the benefit of religious accommodation in public schools as it ‘is not just about anti-oppressive training, this is culturally relevant pedagogy. It is student voice’. She notes it has also been beneficial to staff as ‘a lot of teachers have been able to access prayer spaces more frequently in their schools’. Maria also indicates there has been a proliferation of

‘quiet rooms’ for all members of the school community which she views as ‘a really good outcome’.

110

4.2.3. Summary and Reflections

This section has looked at the data on the role of the principal in enacting, integrating and mobilizing the duty to accommodate faith and religion in public schools and these are illustrated through the principals’ descriptions of their interactions with both the internal and external school communities. These communities include students, staff, parents, diverse religious groups, and religious leaders. The effectiveness of Ministry of Education and board of education policies and action taken to support principals in their duty to accommodate is also of importance. A third factor which helps to explain how the accommodation of faith and religion is realized in a public school is linked to the personal and professional attributes, skills and experience of the principals.

The data on students and schools reveals the complex makeup of the student body and school cultures of inclusivity. Some principals discuss their schools’ focus on students from specific groups, such as Mennonites, Jehovah’s Witness, First Nations and Muslims. Four factors are evidenced in the principal’s approach to the accommodation of students’ faith and religion in his or her school: the complex makeup of public schools themselves; a school culture of inclusivity; inclusive and normalized school routines; and the focussed accommodation of historically marginalized groups, such as the Mennonite, Jehovah’s Witness and First Nation.

Principals report that it ‘doesn’t matter what their faith is’, they are confident ‘people are comfortable’ at school. Principals see themselves as ‘servants’ that invite the participation and inclusion of various religious groups. Although, historically, students took courses to learn about various other faiths and religions, ‘now it is part of all’, and the public schools have become ‘a

111

real melting pot of different kids’ which bring with them a multitude of ‘perspectives’. Further to this, the accommodation of faith and religion is but a ‘minor aspect’ of the ‘greater piece’ which encompasses ‘tolerance, social justice, kindness and curiosity’ for all students from their various religious and cultural backgrounds. Staff and the principal are not ‘the white knights’ providing accommodation, but serve as facilitators through respectful dialogue with not only students, but also with parents and members of the various faith communities.

Examples of inclusive and normalized school routines are breakfast and lunch programs that serve halal food for Muslim students and kosher for the Jewish ones. One school program focuses on the re-engagement of a particular religious group—the Mennonites—into the public system. Others focus on the re-engagement of First Nation through smudging ceremonies or permitting absences for a coming of age ritual.

Principals too make reference to the religious diversity of staff members and how they are accommodated in the school through scheduling for prayer time, or absences for significant faith days. Principals ensure that staff absence for religious accommodation is noted ‘so it doesn’t come out of their sick bank’ at the board. Contractual allowance for and recognition of significant faith days is the ‘biggest accommodation’ of staff. No one is required to ‘prove’ religious affiliation. In some schools the accommodation of religious holidays for staff may entail a large percentage of absences. Supply teachers are provided by the board. Prolonged absences may be requested - six weeks- to take part in a religious pilgrimage. ‘That’s been granted.’ The staff member has to demonstrate participation in a religious pilgrimage with airline tickets.

112

The principals’ emphasis on the professional development of staff to address the religious accommodation needs of students is also addressed. Principals first ‘deconstruct’ their own power and privilege, and then help staff to do the same ‘to understand why they have to fight for the children’. Principals lead in-school professional development sessions to ensure staff members have the knowledge and skills to effectively accommodate the faith and religion of their students. Principals lead staff meetings as there is no staff member that would be ‘privy’ to as much of the information on the accommodation of faith and religion provided by the board.

Whenever it comes to large scale policy, ‘it’s better for the principal to lead that piece’. Staff members are encouraged by the principal to become an active ‘ally’ of students that may be marginalized because of their religious affiliation.

When interacting with the religious communities the principals indicate they endeavour to meet diverse requirements through focused and respectful dialogue to ensure everyone is heard and included. Principals also reveal how they navigate resolution of conflict of values with the community, especially when it affects the operation of the school and the students. They describe how they manage any conflict of values between the purpose of public school and requests from a religious community which may be ‘unreasonable’.

The principals emphasize that equity is realized through listening to the community members, understanding what they are seeking and developing a relationship. Agreement and understanding must be ‘negotiated’. They stress the need for mutual respect, as well as the need to understand ‘what does it mean to be equitable and practice it’. The active focus on the

113

development of mutual respect and understanding with the community leads to ‘levelling the playing field for everybody’.

Through a series of meetings and dialogue, the faith and culturally based reasons the Mennonites were not attending public schools were outlined and, in turn, the Mennonites discovered the public high school ‘is not such a bad place’ for their children. Through dialogue with the First

Nation the principal learned about issues involving ‘full status’ teachers versus the ‘imposters’ assigned to teach the indigenous studies courses.

In the resolution of conflict of values with the religious community principals report ‘sometimes it’s a parenting feature’ where certain behaviours and requirements may seem normal for them but are in conflict with the purpose of public schooling. Other times the community may mistake the principal’s act of informing students about the practices of a particular religion – even though this is done equally for all religions - as proselytizing or indoctrinating. Principals note engagement in respectful dialogue is beneficial to resolving these issues.

The data indicate that parent councils do not necessarily reflect the diversity of faith and religion in the public schools and that can be a ‘block’ to creating a ‘level playing field’.

For the most part, the data reveal boards take anticipatory actions and provide both in-service and support for principals in accommodating faith and religion in public schools. In addition, boards are reported to assist with the mitigation of any conflict arising. They take anticipatory actions through making announcements to the community, or hire specialized consultants to deal with difficult religious accommodation issues. Most principals make positive reference to the

114

support and in-service they receive from their boards. Board superintendents are viewed by the principals as ‘very reactive and responsive’ and they ensure the requirements for religious accommodation are ‘clear’ and ‘enforced’.

To further assist principals, boards provide prepared materials for principals to address particular topics and outline ‘directives on ‘why and how’ concerning religious accommodation and these, in turn, are addressed by the principal during staff meetings. Documents on the accommodation of faith and religion are part of the equity initiative of boards. In the creation of these documents members of the community were consulted and boards were also ‘informed by religious leaders’.

The content of the documents includes ‘a lot of legislative reference points’, such as the requirements of the Charter and the Code.

Principals indicate boards provide information on all religious holidays for the year, with suggested accommodations. Additionally, monthly newsletters are published listing the upcoming religious holidays. The accommodation of faith and religion is also ‘embedded into the contracts for all the different employee groups’ and provide guidelines for principals.

There are, however, some negative reports about the actions of boards. Some boards may be actively resiling from their duty to accommodate faith and religion. ‘Religious accommodation’ has been removed from one board’s list of forms. In another, even though it is accepted practice, students are not allowed exemption from classes for religious reasons. In the example of the

Ministry’s new health education curriculum, boards of education need ‘to be proactive’ and to

‘start communicating more’.

115

The data indicate there are several areas of personal and professions skills/experience of principals that assist with the realization of religious accommodation: the ability to establish and maintain respectful relationships with the religious communities; the ability to stand as activist and advocate to ensure faith and religious needs are recognized; the ability to know one’s personal/professional limitations; and the ability to manage any tensions arising. These four abilities are aided by a mindset of equity and inclusion in the principal, as well as a developed flexibility in addressing and resolving issues. The data strongly suggests the principals themselves are aware that accommodations for faith and religion are ‘requirements’ and ‘not options’.

Principals view the role of principal as being about ‘respect’ for the school and greater community and ‘trying to find creative solutions...for the people [they] serve’. Principals accomplish this through having ‘street credit’ with the religious community and through

‘standing back’ for someone with more knowledge to take the lead. The principal’s responsibility is to know his ‘class’, ‘to be aware of needs’ and ‘when push comes to shove’ to know where to seek assistance in accommodating religious requests. When facing the gray areas of competing rights, although part of the principal’s job is ‘to figure out a system’, principals acknowledge they ‘don’t have all the expertise’ and they ‘shouldn’t have to problem- solve on [their] own’. Sometimes the board’s assistance is needed. Other times it is the College of Teachers and the Blue Pages.

Principals note the need for the ability to manage tensions arising in the accommodation of faith and religion. In the creation of a school that is inclusive and equitable there are parameters, or

‘bumpers’, created by stakeholders. These bumpers include Ministry and board protocols, staff

116

contracts, and the interests of the religious communities. It is important for principals to know where and why they ‘stand in those bumpers’. Equally, it is important for the principals to communicate the actions they are taking and to be ‘transparent’, ‘professional’, and ‘űber vigilant’. In managing tensions, principals also need to ‘deal in reality and the facts’ and not to

‘deal with emotional swelling.’ Staying within the ‘bumpers’ and dealing with reality and facts,

‘not emotional swelling,’ requires the principal to be ‘a good dancer’. When tensions are managed, ‘the sky is really the limit’.

The skill of being ‘a good dancer’ in a principal entails a developed flexibility in approach.

School meetings, for instance are ‘run...in many different ways with many different intents’, with the central focus that the principal is ‘the face of education of the province’ and the ‘guarantor’ of its values. In the accommodation of faith and religion, principals need to include the purpose of public schooling, how to represent all community members and to know ‘who has what right and how is that demonstrated’. The requisite skills of the principal may also include the ideal of interculturalism – true mutual understanding: ‘I seek to understand your thing, and then I want you to understand my thing’.

Principals also address the need for a mindset of equity and inclusion, ‘a change of worldview’ that prepares the foundation for the accommodation of faith and religion which is just ‘another area of the equity family’. Principals refer to ‘our’ school and emphasize that the staff and students ‘have voice’. It is the ‘principal’s job’ to ensure accommodations are in place, but ‘a team approach’ is needed.

117

Part of the mindset of equity and inclusion is that principals are aware accommodation necessitates understanding a person’s faith or religion is influenced by the factors of culture, geographic origin, age demographics, and the individual, and that religious communities are not static, but ‘fluid’. To accommodate effectively principals need be aware ‘there’s diversity within diversity’.

Some issue was taken with the use of the word ‘accommodation’, as the idea of

‘accommodation’ can have ‘a real negative connotation’. It is associated with ‘inconvenience’ and ‘guilt’. Some principals ‘smirk’ when they use the term ‘accommodation’ as it is associated with policy requirements, not the mindful inclusion of the religious needs of individuals. The preferred terminology is ‘awareness and support’ or ‘partnership’ when referencing the principals’ efforts to recognize and include the faith and religious needs of the school community.

4.3. The impact of the accommodation of faith and religion on the school

4.3.1. Overview

Data from the principals range from the ways the accommodation of faith and religion affects the students to how it affects the wider school community. This includes the impact on staff as well as the impact on the running and organization of the school. The data also reveal how the accommodation of faith and religion may add to the complexity for the principal in maintaining a homeostatic environment in the school.

118

The principals address the impact of the accommodation of faith and religion in relation to students’ sense of safety, comfort and inclusion in public schools. They also speak to students learning to advocate for themselves to have their religious needs met and to how some students take the initiative to collaborate and promote a more inclusive school environment.

Principals describe the effect of professional development on staff members in deepening their understanding and empathy for the religious and faith needs of students, beyond the legal duty.

The impact of the religious accommodation of staff members themselves is addressed with regard to absences from school for faith day observances.

The positive, as well as the negative impact of the accommodation of faith and religion on the school itself is revealed by the principals. The positive impact- or benefits- are realized in increased student enrollment and more staff hired, in one example. When the accommodation of faith and religion is actively included—or ‘embedded’—in the school the principals report there is a deeper understanding of and respect for ‘the other’. Conversely, it is also reported the accommodation of faith and religion may have a negative impact on the school in terms of tension and disruption caused by a large number of staff and student absences for significant faith days.

The data reveal the impact of the accommodation of faith and religion in the school also has an effect on the surrounding communities. Principals make reference to their efforts to include the religious communities in school activities and this may have an exponential impact on positive relationships. One principal’s example of the school’s engagement with a particular religious

119

group’s event—a funeral—describes the effect of the school community intertwining with the greater community when accommodating religious needs.

Principals report there are also several issues arising concerning the impact of the accommodation of faith and religion. These are: the potential for school volatility as religion can be an ‘explosive topic’ and requests for accommodation can be exponential; the complexities involved when staff unions take strike actions; the effect of changing demographics which eclipse the presence of First Nations; and the potential for fundamental change to a public school when a religious group has control of its operation. A fifth issue that arises is active resiliation of principals from their legal duty to accommodate faith and religion.

Given these factors, the data on the impact of the accommodation of faith and religion is sub- divided as follows:

4.3.2.1. Students

4.3.2.2. Staff

4.3.2.3. School

4.3.2.4. Community

4.3.2.5. Issues Arising

A chart summarizing the impact of the accommodation of faith and religion on the school is attached as Appendix F and found on page 349.

120

4.3.2. Review of Findings

4.3.2.1. Students

The principals describe three ways the impact of the accommodation of faith and religion is realized in the students: (i) student safety, comfort and inclusion; (ii) student advocacy; and (ii) student collaboration. Overall, the principals report there is a positive effect on students, whether they themselves are being accommodated for their religion, or their peers.

(i) Student safety, comfort and inclusion

Dana is unequivocal about her efforts to ensure her school is ‘welcoming and safe’ for all students. Equally, William declares, ‘we don’t have any issues here of not respecting other people’s faith. It just doesn’t happen...This is the most accepting school of kids you will ever see’.

Jacob too speaks to the ideal of acceptance: the ‘Mennonite female students walk...down the hall in traditional clothes and aprons and they feel completely at home’. He points to the seamlessness of religious accommodation for Mennonites and how their ‘connections and friendships’ with the more traditional, mainstream school community have become part of the school fabric.

Madeleine addresses a similar level of comfort, safety and inclusion for her First Nations students. Through enabling First Nations children to participate in a smudging ceremony during the school day, and ‘not have the fire alarms go off —or adverse reactions by some of the people’, she ensured the students could engage in this spiritual activity. Additionally, as part of

121

her aim for inclusivity, Madeleine arranged busses for ‘a load of kids’ to attend the Truth and

Reconciliation Day185 last year. Her ‘load of kids’ included both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students. Madeleine reports the experience was ‘learning on multiple levels’ for not just her First

Nations students, but for the entire school.

Likewise for Terrence, he views the intensive effort made to recognize the spirituality of First

Nations as helping to create a safe and inclusive school environment. It influences other students to see the First Nations students as ‘their brothers and sisters who just happen to be Aboriginal’.

In turn, this intensive effort has ‘made a huge difference for our children to be proud. They want to know who they are...It’s a huge part of our school’.

(ii) Students as advocates

In Trevor’s school the accommodation of and respect for differing religious dress is realized through positive action taken by the students themselves. He reports never having to deal with issues about the choice of religious dress ‘because the other kids jumped right in the middle of it’, and the students themselves stop negative behaviour. Trevor coaches his students to know that ‘if somebody’s making a comment, I want you involved. I want you standing there right

185 The Truth and Reconciliation Day acknowledged and celebrated the findings and publication of the Truth and Reconciliation Report. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was led by Justice Murray Sinclair and the report was released on December 15, 2015. It focused on the historic mistreatment of First Nations in residential schools and amassed the personal stories of former students and their families. The mandate of the commission stemmed from Canada’s realization ‘There is an emerging and compelling desire to put the events of the past behind us so that we can work towards a stronger and healthier future. The truth telling and reconciliation process as part of an overall holistic and comprehensive response to the Indian Residential School legacy is a sincere indication and acknowledgement of the injustices and harms experienced by Aboriginal people and the need for continued healing. This is a profound commitment to establishing new relationships embedded in mutual recognition and respect that will forge a brighter future. The truth of our common experiences will help set our spirits free and pave the way to reconciliation.’ Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Online: http://www.trc.ca.

122

beside them...I want you right there showing support’. As a result, the students ‘kind of police themselves’.

(iii)Students as collaborators

The examples provided by Thomas and Lama describe student action, decision-making, and initiative which help to weave faith and religion into the fabric of the school.

In Thomas’ school the historical practice was to have an awards ceremony and a celebratory dinner for the grade eight graduate students in June. One third of Thomas’s grade eight students are Muslims. Due to their fasting protocol during Ramadan, when the Holy Month occurred at the end of the school year, it was a challenge to schedule the grade eight celebratory dinner. The

Muslim students were not able to break their fast until sundown. This would necessitate the meal being served at a time too late in the evening for non-Muslim students. Instead of wrestling with the problem himself, or with staff and parents, Thomas decided to ‘put it to the kids’. After deliberating together the student response was, ‘Why have a big dinner? Let’s do something fun.’ The students then endeavoured to seek out a ‘fun and awesome activity’ in which all grade eight graduates could participate. Thomas points out that ‘kids recognize the situation’; they understand the religious needs of their Muslim classmates.

Lama’s students too ‘recognize[d] the situation’ and took their own initiative. A group of her

Tibetan and Muslim students collaborated and devised a phone application called ‘The Closet’.

They created it for fellow students that are gay, but ‘want to stay in the closet’. Lama refers to this as a ‘kind of a cool thing’. For her, these Tibetan and Muslim students are saying, ‘What if

123

you don’t want to come out? What if it’s not okay, but still you want to be able to connect?’

Lama’s experience is that the accommodation of difference is understood by students, regardless of their diverse religions, more so than their parents and the wider community.

4.3.2.2. Staff

The principals indicate the impact of the accommodation of faith and religion on staff manifests in three ways: through (i) professional development efforts by the principal; (ii) initiatives taken by staff; and (iii) accommodation of staff religious needs.

(i) Professional development efforts by the principal

In Maria’s opinion, ‘the great thing’ about her school is that 95% of the teachers are ‘open to learning’. Whenever staff members have ‘a gap in understanding’, it is due to a lack of

‘exposure’ to diverse religions, rather than an unwillingness to learn about their school community. Maria strives to fill in any ‘gap in understanding’ by her staff with specific professional development on religious accommodation.

To help fill in any ‘gap in understanding’ with his ‘great, great group of educators’, Terrence emphasizes the importance for schools to adapt to their students’ needs and ‘not vice versa’; thereby forcing the students to accommodate the ethos of the school. He works with staff to create an open and accommodating school environment for faith and religion, as well as for other needs. For instance, in staff meetings Terrence ensures time is dedicated to discussing the effects of genocide and residential schools. In his view, such discussions help staff to develop an

124

understanding of how these phenomena precipitated loss of culture, language, spirituality and family connections for our First Nations.

Trevor, on the other hand, finds ‘it’s difficult to sometimes get out of the mud on particular topics’ with his long term, primarily ‘White’ staff, such as on the accommodation of faith and religion. He notes, however, there are ‘rallying points’ with his staff when the discussion is about ‘social justice, fairness, equity and tolerance, and different backgrounds and religious beliefs’. Trevor addresses the greater topic of social justice to help staff voice their ‘deep-seated concerns and insecurities’ and then positions them to ‘lead those pieces’ and to ‘dialogue’. In

Trevor’s experience, when the ideal of social justice is ‘intensified’ with staff, negativity about other religions and races ‘die’, as there is no longer ‘an audience’ for it.

Similar to Trevor’s approach, Madeleine holds the opinion that professional development with staff is ‘about challenging...preconceived ideas...about what equity is...and just understanding that people are coming from a variety of places’. She works with her staff to help them ‘step out of their privilege and understand the children they work with’.

Although Anne’s example focuses on staff development specific to the accommodation of a single student, the example addresses questions of equity and inclusivity of all faiths and religions. Anne reports she had to ‘challenge’ her staff about their willingness to understand and to accommodate a student’s Wicca religion. At the same time, Anne had to assure staff the

Wiccan student and his family were not intentionally challenging them.

There were a lot of markings...of their beliefs that people found upsetting...the upside down crucifix and pentagram...tattooed on the individual and on the individual’s mother,

125

[along with]...sort of a nose piercing with an upside down crucifix and pentagram jewellery.

The accommodation of this student and his Wicca religion, while managing the fears in others, was particularly difficult for Anne.

(ii) Initiatives taken by staff

William’s staff members have no ‘specific conversations’ with their classes about why some students wear different clothing for religious reasons. What the staff does discuss, however, are

‘character traits...and respecting people of different faiths’. Of central importance to William and his staff are ‘the person’ and his or her unique needs. William explains their approach with students.

So, we are not saying, ‘This person is wearing a hijab. This is why.’ These kids are pretty smart here. They’ve grown up in a multicultural community since they were in kindergarten. They know ‘why’ by the time they get to high school. They know why the kid in class over there is wearing sweatpants and not shorts. They get it. And, in all likelihood, they’re friends. The role taken by staff in William’s school is simply to guide, expand upon and deepen the students’ existing experiential knowledge, understanding and acceptance of religious difference.

Jacob’s description of staff initiative to accommodate faith and religion is embedded through a different means. In his example, the staff member is actively focussed on the inclusion of his Mennonite students through the pedagogy used in his history class. When the teacher discusses Mennonite involvement in World War Two, for example, he purposely incorporates scripture readings from the Bible into his lesson ‘because that’s their platform’.

126

(iii)Accommodation of staff religious needs

As mandated by the Ministry, Lama’s staff members exercise the right to have their religion accommodated through absences from work on holy days specific to their faith. Lama does not view staff absence for religious purposes as having any real effect on programming at her school:

‘I have a few, right?...I’ve got two who take off the New Year. In fact, the biggest group that leaves is for the Orthodox Christmas. That’s the biggest group I have...Six teachers take off that day’. In Lama’s opinion, the absence of six teachers for religious accommodation reasons does not constitute a great number, or create an organizational issue for the school, even though six teachers away on one day represents almost ten percent of her overall staff of 60.5.186

4.3.2.3. School

The data from the interviews with the principals indicate the impact of the accommodation of faith and religion on the school is positive. Moreover when religious accommodation is

‘embedded’ in the operation of the school itself, students are reported to derive greater overall benefit themselves. Some principals also describe, however, some negative impact on the school

– tension and disruption - when accommodating faith and religion.

The data for this sub-section are presented as follows:

(i) Benefits to schools in accommodating faith and religion

(ii) Benefits to students when the accommodation of faith and religion is embedded

(iii)Negative impact on schools in accommodating faith and religion

(i) Benefits to schools in accommodating faith and religion

186 This number includes secretarial, custodial, and administrative personnel.

127

The overall benefit of accommodating the religious needs of the Mennonites for Jacob is that the school’s student population has increased by 25% in the five years since the introduction of the co-op program. Moreover, the accommodation of Mennonites

has sustained a school in times of declining enrollment that was not matched anywhere else in history. While others were shrinking, we were growing and growing and growing and growing. We were projected as a school to be under 900, but the current enrollment is 1215 students.

For Jacob the co-op program is a ‘350 pound elephant’ of positive change and ‘the tide that floats our boat’. Because of the program and the increase in student enrollment there are now two vice-principals, instead of one, and library times, student support times, learning support times, guidance times— ‘all of those kinds of out of the classroom...[programs] are really fortified’.

Maria describes the resulting positive impact on her school when an invitational approach to religious accommodation, similar to that of Jacob’s with the Mennonites, was employed.

So that environment breeds a particular type of school community. One that is open. One that is flexible. One that listens...So making them aware... - the staff will say we just want to learn and accommodate...We really work to brainstorm because we are leading with heart. And, they don’t have any ill intentions. They don’t know what they don’t know some of them, and that’s a sincere ignorance piece - but that’s just because of their life reality, or their own power and privilege that they carry, right? We don’t have a very diverse staff...[but] they’re very inclusive in their mindset...[They just] may not have the language to know...they are.

128

(ii) Benefits to students when the accommodation of faith and religion is embedded

It is Lama’s view the duty to accommodate faith and religion is ‘embedded’ in her school’s

‘culturally responsive pedagogy’ which, in turn, is ‘embedded’ in the ‘professional learning communities’. Lama expands on this idea,

So we’re very conscious... in the school about the holidays that matter to those communities that are represented in our school. We ask students to acknowledge them on the announcements, and then the children do it in the curriculum...[It’s not] check, we’re done...Things are embedded...[Otherwise,] you never do an enriched learning about anybody else...Obviously, Ramadan is a big holiday for a bunch in my community, so we...acknowledge that specifically.

When explicitly asked whether Lama believes religious accommodation has an effect on school climate, or on how it operates, she answers,

Well definitely, right?...I mean...cultural difference in general is something that...drives this school in a lot of ways...because it’s a real focus of the school to recognize identity and recognize students’ voice in its relationship to identity...We’re such a diverse city. It’s...something that staff is really aware of.

Lama emphasizes she is not ‘a big heroes and holidays type of person when it comes to equity’ as this tactic does not provide depth of understanding and knowledge and she eschews this more superficial approach to teaching students about religious tolerance and understanding.

Lindy too holds the opinion that the accommodation of faith and religion ‘has to be really embedded in your school approach...embracing diversity’. Lindy’s mantra is ‘we’ll work something out’, but staff and students ‘have to understand we’re all different. We’re all unique’.

Accommodation in Lindy’s school is tailored to the individual. For her, the overarching benefit in the accommodation of faith and religion is ‘we find out...others feel the same way’ about a

129

request to dress modestly, for example, and the result is these other members of the school community can be accommodated differently as well.

Thomas also speaks to the derivative effect of religious accommodation for students in his school. In his example, ‘the awesome activity’ planned by the grade eight graduating students to accommodate their Muslim peers during Ramadan had an unintended outcome of also benefitting his students from lower socio-economic status families. Through financial assistance from the school, all students will have the opportunity to participate in this ‘awesome activity’, devised initially to accommodate the Muslims.

(iii)Negative impact on schools in accommodating faith and religion

Although Lama does not have an issue with a ten percent absence of staff during certain religious holidays, Lindy points out ‘there are only so many supply teachers out there’, and during the

Jewish religious observances of Rosh Hashanah or Hanukah, ‘lots’ of staff and students are absent from her school. ‘Half the school could be gone.’ When there is a number of staff absent for religious reasons, and there is a shortage of supply teachers to replace them, the result is classes are collapsed, programs are cancelled and there is no coverage for teachers’ contractual

‘preparation time’ in Lindy’s school. And, with a large number of students also absent for these faith days ‘that impacts on the program because you can’t really deliver a robust program’.

Despite this intermittent disruption to the school due to religious accommodation, Lindy’s response is ‘so you just go with the flow’.

130

In Anne’s example of the potential negative effect of religious accommodation in the school she makes reference to the Wiccan student who was neither socially integrated with his peers, nor understood by his teachers. For Anne it is

hard to...pinpoint whether that was a chicken or egg thing...I was aware that staff were aware that this was a family that were practising Wiccans and they were very, very careful. But I sensed that that was uncomfortable and a bit difficult for some of them.

The tension was ‘resolved’ when the student transferred from Anne’s school.

Finally, Madeleine also provides an example of the tension in the school that can be created by the accommodation of faith and religion. To emphasize the mindset of equity in her school,

Madeleine begins by citing the example of the intentional focus on all students to share their personal stories of family, religious customs, and cultural heritage, along with traditional foods.

Madeleine views this as a significant activity for both her students and the teachers. For the students, it further embeds a multi-cultural and multi-faith reality in the school. For the teachers,

Madeleine sees it as an exercise in professional development, as she believes her teachers ‘need to understand from their Wonder Bread point of view—their privileged point of view...what the kids’ stories are’. Madeleine perceives that ‘many of them come from a deficit place’ about the students they teach.

4.3.2.4. Community

The data indicate the impact of the accommodation of faith and religion in our public schools reaches beyond the school door and into the surrounding communities, with the communities, in turn, reaching back into the schools. As a result, the principals report a developing symbiotic level of comfort between the communities and the schools. In this findings sub- section Jacob speaks to (i) the exponential impact of religious accommodation on the

131

community; Dana, Maria, and Jacob address (ii) the inclusion of the community in school activities; and Elaine provides an example of (iii) the impact of a community religious event on the school.

(i) The exponential impact of religious accommodation on the community

Through many meetings and consultations with the Bishop and Mennonite community the specially designed co-op program was realized in Jacob’s school. It then extended to the parents of traditionally home schooled children who now see Jacob’s school as an option.

Equally, the program includes non-Mennonite students for whom the regular school schedule does not serve their educational needs. As

...there’s no DNA test to see if you’re Mennonite to get in....Probably about 10 to 15 percent of our students in [the program] are students who need to work or need to have a flexible time because of family obligations, health complications, or being aloneth—at kind of thing.

(ii) The inclusion of the community in school activities

Dana describes how the accommodation of religion is infused into her school community.

Although there is not a ‘huge’ parent council and the ‘parent reps wouldn’t necessarily reflect proportionately the diversity’, it is when school is in session where the greatest accommodation and impact of religious diversity is evidenced.

During the day I get...this sub group of moms...and they’re the ones who are really representative of everything.187 On Friday I passed a bunch of moms coming in to cook...because it’s a very welcoming and safe environment. Similar to Dana’s school, Maria’s parents ‘walk freely’ through the school at lunch and recess and they are ‘greeted at the door’ by a staff member, or by Maria herself.

187 In stating the parents are ‘representing of everything’, Dana is referring to their diverse religions.

132

Jacob references the accommodation of religion and the community in relation to Remembrance Day on November 11th. At Jacob’s school there is a second Remembrance

Day service at night for students who do not attend school every day during the day. It is an example of where the Mennonite community can see themselves ‘reflected in...a secular activity’. Jacob explains the differentiate content of the Remembrance Day ceremony,

The presentation perspective certainly drew on the horrors of war and the sacrifices made...But, tucked in there also was the conscientious objector perspective and the Mennonite involvement...It wasn’t two separate realities. They were intertwined...And it was probably one of the most moving Remembrance Day services that I’ve ever been to...The room was filled with a...a community that believed in peace...radical peace seekers.

(iii)The impact of a community religious event on the school

The example provided by Elaine about the effect of the accommodation of faith and religion on her school is the reason Elaine’s scheduled interview had to be postponed for over a week.

Although it is a singular and unique example, it is illustrative of how the accommodation of faith and religion can have a significant impact on the school community, the school, and the principal.

We had a funeral last Friday. It was a young boy from grade twelve who had lost his battle with cancer ...And, the imam was fabulous, and the family was fabulous. They posted on Facebook the procedures for an Islamic funeral and how it works, and what the expectation is, and the clothing type and what to do and when to do it, and the separation of male and female. And it was quite a learning experience for a lot of the staff and students that went...

There was a celebration of life...I think they figured 350 people would come and it was probably close to 800 people...And one of our teachers was the young guy’s soccer coach. So he spent the entire day with the family. They asked him to sit with the family, to go for the prayers before the funeral. He’s not a Muslim, [but] he was close to the family...[and] was brought in as family for the day...He was there during the funeral, at the grave site for the internment, and then he had to speak at the celebration of life...

133

We probably had 15 teachers that went that day. I provided them with supply coverage so that they could do that. They applied for a leave for a funeral of a close friend. There’s a category for that. I got code and I was able to provide supply coverage for them....Parents just signed out their kids...There was a lot of driving [from the funeral service, to the internment, and to the celebration of life], so a lot of parents took their kids. And, had I realized how many students were going, I may have put a bus in place for them - but you never know with these things.

4.3.2.5. Issues Arising

Some data concerning the potential negative effects of the accommodation of faith and religion on schools were briefly addressed in 4.3.2.2., ‘Schools’. This sub-section presents a larger collection of principal concerns and reflections regarding the accommodation of faith and religion and its impact on their schools, their boards, and surrounding boards. Some principals also express concerns about the impact of active resiliation of some principals from their legal duty to accommodate faith and religion. The findings are presented in the following order:

(i) The potential for volatility in the accommodation of faith and religion

(ii) The complexities involved in the accommodation of faith and religion

(iii)Principals resiling from the duty to accommodate faith and religion

(iv) The effect of changing demographics on the accommodation of faith and religion

(v) The accommodation of religion and fundamental change to a public school.

(i) The potential for volatility in the accommodation of faith and religion

From Trevor’s experience, he reports that

religion can be one of those explosive topics that can really take your whole school right off the rails...Old thinking and ways that are destructive have to get dealt with...You have to do a lot of leg work...Staff will be resilient—or resistant.

134

Trevor also speaks to the ways the duty to accommodate faith and religion in public schools can broaden a principal’s workload and the possibility it could contribute to the realization of the point of undue hardship, professionally.

This is one example of many examples of how school is being forced to be a larger thing than it is capable of being. Use the same argument for health care. Use the same argument for mental health. It’s all worthwhile. It’s all useful. It’s all essential. It’s all critical. But all of this ‘all-ness’ is putting so much energy and commitment—and ultimately onus—on one individual that it becomes something more than the original plan of what I think education is about...It ultimately falls on the principal’s shoulders...for legal and safety reasons. Who’s going to get fried is something doesn’t happen in the building? Something isn’t observed? Somebody says the wrong thing that’s not political? You’re battling the role of the principal as a structural leader and as a manager of the building. And you can be good at one—you try to be good at two and it burns you out...Ultimately something has to give. I mean there is a tipping point where you say, ‘OK, I can’t manage anymore’.

Trevor continues to expand on this theme of the ever bourgeoning ‘all-ness’ for a principal.

He points out that the accommodation of faith and religion also encompasses the other end of the spectrum, the principal’s responsibility to respect the rights of the agnostics and the atheists. ‘Sometimes people are passionate about the fact they’re not religious’. Trevor elaborates on how this ‘increases anxiety levels’ in him.

‘Don’t have a religious overtone in that comment.’ ‘Watch your newsletter for your language. There was some reference to God there and I don’t believe in God.’ So it goes the other way too because...it’s religious accommodation. You have to be as equally concerned about – careful of how you phrase things. And when you’re asked the questions, ‘Do you believe in God?’ by a grade two student – how do you respond to that? And, ‘My dad thinks all Catholics and Christians should be killed.’ How do you deal with that? They become very difficult questions.

(ii) The complexities involved in the accommodation of faith and religion

Lindy views religious accommodation as a ‘delicate, complicated thing’ and it is her opinion that if boards create greatly divergent policies and procedures, one from the other, it ‘doesn’t bode well for public schooling’. Further to this, she notes that in addition to the general complication

135

of deciding policy and procedure for the accommodation of faith and religion, the present school year has been a ‘peculiar’ one for the board. Both CUPE188 and ETFO189 members initiated strike action. Lindy’s observation is, ‘there’s no more normal, that’s for sure.’ Lindy adds that despite the complexities she faces and adjustments she must make to accommodate diverse religions in her school, she views the policy on the accommodation of faith and religion as

‘good...to have’ because the public school system is ‘strapped to a Roman...Christian...calendar’.

Lindy asks, ‘Who made those rules?’, and notes ‘I’m glad I’m Catholic. I get Easter. I get everything...I’m accommodated, but what about everyone else?’

(iii) Principals resiling from the duty to accommodate faith and religion

Dana expresses disappointment with some of her principal colleagues that do not share her enthusiasm for acknowledging and celebrating religious difference and who state they are ‘non- religious’. She observes that principals in her board are ‘from one extreme to the other’ regarding the accommodation of faith and religion.

Maria presents the debate that arose amongst principals themselves in her board, as to the extent accommodations for faith and religion that can be realistically realized.

A lot of principals—in all fairness—when they had 80 requests, just wanted one standard accommodation—one standard letter that would go out and say this is what we’re going to do with your child. And they would say things like, ‘There’s no way I’m meeting with 80 families to discuss their individual needs. I’m not doing it’. And there was some resistance...

188 CUPE is the acronym for Canadian Union of Public Employees. 189 ETFO is the acronym for The Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario.

136

(iv) The effect of changing demographics on the accommodation of faith and religion

Elaine notes there is now only a handful of First Nation students in her school. Historically, there was a greater number and there were classes for indigenous studies. These classes have now been cancelled as ‘kids weren’t signing up’. Elaine describes her school as being one of the few in the area that are unable ‘to sustain that program’. She also addresses the spiritual act of smudging. Elaine reports that ‘in other schools [she’s] been in...they did do smudging in the class...maybe three times a semester’. Due to lack of First Nation students, however, this does not take place in her current school. Elaine’s explanation is that ‘too many other groups have moved into this community’ and her First Nation students have moved elsewhere.

(v) The accommodation of religion and fundamental change to a public school

Trevor takes a less expansive view of the way the religious accommodation needs of

Mennonite students are being accommodated in a board near to Jacob’s. Trevor cites the example of a public school that has such a large number of Mennonite students that very few non-Mennonites are enrolled. He believes non-Mennonites are actively discouraged from attending and maintains that ‘it would have to be a really good song and dance to get you in – because their argument would be, “Well, you’re not Mennonite, why do you want to come here?”’ Trevor describes the makeup of the school:

It’s not a separate school that applies like a Charter school....It’s tied directly to the board—follows all the whatever—and is controlled by the Mennonite community. The Mennonite community’s deeply invested...and have a lot of say on...how people get in. The teachers don’t have to go through the regular school process—but the teachers know what they’re getting into when they go there...It’s a very unique thing and its location is geography based...where the people have settled...So it’s a very unique religious piece...

137

4.3.3. Summary and Reflections

The data seem to strongly suggest the accommodation of faith and religion in schools is an accepted and normalized part of the school fabric. Moreover, the principals report the impact is that it benefits not only the students being accommodated, but the other students with whom they make ‘connections and friendships’.

The principals describe three ways the impact of the accommodation of faith and religion is realized in the students: student safety, comfort and inclusion; student advocacy; and student collaboration. Diversity is embraced and the accommodation of faith and religion is infused into the culture of the school and ‘spills over into everything’. Students are encouraged to advocate for not only themselves, but for others. Principals report that by working with staff they can create and maintain schools that are safe, welcoming and inclusive for all members of the school community. Diversity is celebrated. Respect for difference is key.

The data also suggest there is a recognition and encouragement of the spirituality of our First

Nations. Principals report some schools are encouraging the spiritual act of smudging as part of the school curriculum. This recognition and inclusion is viewed as influencing other students to see the First Nations students as ‘their brothers and sisters who just happen to be Aboriginal’. In turn, this intensive effort encourages pride and sense of identity. Conversely, the data also indicate that in at least one school the First Nations have moved away as other groups moved in.

Consequently the accommodation of their spirituality has been eclipsed by the religious requirements of newcomers.

138

The data indicate the impact of the accommodation of faith and religion on staff manifests through the accommodation of their religious needs; through professional development efforts by the principal; and through initiatives taken by staff themselves.

Staff members are accommodated by contractually permitted absence for religious reasons.

The school board provides supply teachers for these days. Although teacher and student absences may make programming less ‘robust’ when there is a number of the same faith celebrating on the same day and ‘half the school could be gone’, principals have learned to

‘go with the flow’ and adjust accordingly. Classes are collapsed, programs are cancelled and there may not be coverage for teachers’ contractual ‘preparation time’. Compromise and flexibility are required, therefore, on the part of the principal, staff and students.

In the accommodation of the religious needs of students, the principal-led professional development of staff focusses on filling in any ‘gap in understanding’ and emphasize the importance for schools to adapt to their students’ needs and ‘not vice versa’. Professional development is also ‘about challenging...preconceived ideas...about what equity is’. Moreover, the data suggest when the ideal of social justice is ‘intensified’ with staff, negativity about other religions and races ‘die’, as there is no longer ‘an audience’ for it.

Principals report the need to know their community and emphasize the importance of developing positive relationships with it. Additionally, principals address the importance of respectful dialogue with the community about the religious needs of their children. Members

139

of the community are ‘greeted at the door’ and ‘walk through the school freely’. They are

‘representatives of everything’.

Although it is a singular and unique example, the school involvement in the funeral of a young

Muslim student may be illustrative of the potential impact and depth of connection the accommodation of faith and religion can have between the school, the school community and the greater community. It suggests how the impact of the accommodation of faith and religion in our public schools can reach beyond the school door and into the surrounding religious communities, with the communities, in turn, reaching back into the schools. The significant involvement of staff and students in the student’s proscribed Islamic funeral rituals and posted explanations of these rituals for everyone suggest a symbiotic level of comfort between all involved.

The data indicate the impact of the accommodation of faith and religion on the school is positive.

Moreover, when accommodation is ‘embedded’ in the operation of the school itself and diversity is ‘embraced’ students are reported to derive greater overall benefit themselves. The school becomes more open, flexible, inclusive and conveys there is an environment ‘that listens’ to what religious accommodations are needed. The data also suggest the benefits of accommodating faith and religion in the school are far-reaching. Through accommodating the religious needs of

Mennonites with the implementation of the co-op program, for instance, a school’s student population increased 25% in five years. In turn, the school needed to hire more staff and programs for all students are sustained as a result. Further to this, the program now includes not only Mennonites, but former home-schooled students and students that need to work to sustain themselves while still attending school.

140

In another example, the accommodation of Muslims for Ramadan also benefitted other students from lower socio-economic, non-Muslim families. All could participate in the newly planned

‘awesome activity’ as part of their grade eight graduation celebration.

Conversely, the data indicates some negative impact on the school – tension and disruption – in the accommodation of faith and religion. Apprehension of staff is reported in relation to the accommodation of a non-traditional religion, such as Wicca. Resolution of the issue was realized only through the Wiccan leaving the school. The data also suggests there is need for ‘a lot of leg work’ in discussing religious accommodation with staff that are in the ‘mud’ concerning changes to the status quo and the accommodations required. The subsequent interaction to resolve issues concerning the accommodation of faith and religion can be

‘explosive’. Additionally, the duty to accommodate faith and religion is reported to broaden a principal’s workload in public schools. As a consequence, broadened workload—this ‘all-ness’ of responsibility—could contribute to the realization of the point of undue hardship, professionally, for principals. A complicating factor indicated is the structure of the school year itself. Some question how the accommodation of various religions can realistically be realized in the context of a school year patterned after and ‘strapped to’ the Roman Christian calendar. It is acknowledged this structure accommodates Christians, but it is asked ‘What about everyone else?’

Another issue raised is the active resiliation of some principals from their duty to accommodate the faith and religious needs of all students in their schools. The data indicate some principals do

141

not embrace the diversity of religions in their school and do not accommodate for individual religious needs. Resiliation from the duty to accommodate faith and religion is not evidenced, however, amongst the principal participants themselves.

Finally, a noted anomaly is the example of a religious group reported to have so many children enrolled in a public school that the group has control of the school’s operations, the hiring of teachers, as well as who is invited to attend. Although only Roman Catholics are legally allowed publically funded schools, this religious group through concentration in a particular geographical area is reported to control a local public school.

4.4. The management of conflict arising and the realization of undue hardship in the

accommodation of faith and religion.

4.4.1. Overview

The management of conflict arising in the accommodation of faith and religion involves the principal resolving issues with the students choosing to wear—or not to wear—religious attire.

And, even though it is settled law the kirpan may be worn in school, one principal reports conflict still arising in relation to this religious symbol.

Principals also manage conflict with staff contesting supervision duty and changes to scheduling related to religious accommodation, as well as staff members’ religious beliefs and values that are in conflict with curriculum content. They grapple with requests for religious accommodation that conflict with and potentially violate competing Code and Charter rights, such as same-sex relationships and sex equity. Principals also address how they manage

142

bourgeoning expectations to mitigate or circumvent conflict. Management of conflict may include the principal’s active resistance to the status quo and to human rights violations.

Finally, this section provides data on the principal’s concept of undue hardship, how the principal may circumvent it, and the principal’s view of what constitutes pending undue hardship. Correspondingly, the findings in this section are presented in the following order:

4.4.2.1. Students

4.4.2.2. Staff

4.4.2.3. School

4.4.2.4. Principal

4.4.2.5. Undue Hardship

A chart summarizing the impact of the accommodation of faith and religion on the school is attached as Appendix G and found on page 352.

4.4.2. Review of Findings

4.4.2.1. Students

Conflict arising amongst students falls into two main categories: (i) religious symbols and their relationship to safety in schools; and (ii) religious attire – students choosing to wear or choosing not to wear clothing associated with their religion.

(i) Religious symbols

Although John’s conflict concerning kirpans and the potential safety issue is hypothetical, Dana reports actual conflict arising from a child with a kirpan in her school. She describes an incident

143

where a young Sikh girl in kindergarten showed her newly received kirpan to fellow students in the classroom. The student’s parents had not communicated to Dana she was carrying a kirpan.

Dana notes this contravenes Ministry and board policy.

The kindergarten student was swinging the kirpan around in front of her peers and this caught the attention of a Sikh teacher. The girl was taken to the office. After Dana called the mother, the mother came to the school with a letter from her temple stating Sikhs have a right to carry a kirpan. Dana responded, ‘Yes, you have a right to be accommodated...Do you also have a letter for the school?...You needed to tell us. Your daughter today was waving [the kirpan] around...Kids got scared’ and this affected their sense of safety at school.

(ii) Religious attire190

Elaine describes conflict between parents and their child’s decision to wear a niqab. The daughter insisted on this religious attire despite the parents’ opposition. The parents viewed the daughter’s choice as ‘oppressive’ and the ceding of ‘her power’. As this was the first student to wear a niqab in her school Elaine ‘did...an education piece on it’ with staff. She spent time having several meetings and ‘big conversations’ with the student about her need to cover and with her upset parents to assuage their concerns.

Elaine also describes being in the midst of conflict where the family wants the daughter to wear a hijab, and the child refuses. Elaine explains that these religious issues, these ‘family morals and

190 Further data about the accommodation of religious attire by principals is presented in 4.4.2.2. as part of sub- section 4.5., ‘The growing presence of Muslims and influence of Islam on the accommodation of faith and religion’.

144

values, versus a child’s decision around those morals and values, sometimes come in conflict and seep into the school’.

4.4.2.2. Staff

The data indicate the potential for conflicts with and amongst staff when accommodating faith and religion may arise over: (i) the supervision of prayer rooms; (ii) changes to staff schedules; and (iii) conflicts of values.

(i) The supervision of prayer rooms191

Trevor finds that scheduling teachers to supervise prayer rooms can lead to conflict if the collective agreement does not allow for the additional time involved.

I can’t get an extra staff member. I mean, I can only afford two because they have a maximum number of minutes. Those two are needed on the field. I can’t have them supervising a religious prayer session, or be even in the neighbourhood... It can’t be me, because if I’m not in the building, then what happens? It can’t be anybody except for teaching staff – and I don’t have extra hands.

Maria speaks about experiencing conflict in the context of teacher librarians supervising students praying in the library and this accommodation being ‘scrutinized by the union leaders’. This is viewed as ‘extra work’ for teachers, even though Maria sees it ‘in the context of what they should do anyways’. Maria notes that the supervision of students praying ‘became messy from a labour relations perspective’.

191 Further data about the supervision of prayer rooms is presented in 4.5.2.1. as part of sub-section 4.5., ‘The growing present of Muslims and influence of Islam on the accommodation of faith and religion’.

145

(ii) Changes to staff schedules

Maria also experienced conflict when accommodating a Muslim staff member by scheduling his prep time to coincide with prayer time. The assumption was that scheduling for prayer time was for Muslims only. Teachers tried to make it a question of equity with the union claiming that differing needs, such as medical or nutritional ones, were of equal importance.

They tried to use other examples to say, if we’re doing this for religion, why not for everything else? And this is where I’m saying that it became racial—and a lot of Islamophobia came out.

(iii) Conflict of values

Dana cites the example of a school assistant who reported to a mother of the same religion that she had observed her daughter talking to a boy at school. The unsupervised intermingling of boys and girls was not accepted by their religion. The mother called Dana alarmed that her daughter ‘was not a good girl’. When Dana met with the student to discuss her mother’s concern, the student expressed fear of her father’s reaction. Dana next confronted the school assistant.

You signed a confidentiality agreement. You don’t have a right to go tell that mother what happened. When kids come to school they should feel safe...Girls talk to boys, and at school I don’t separate them... She has a right to talk to anybody in her class... The result was Dana fired the school assistant as she ‘could’ve compromised [the girl’s] safety’ and her ‘right to go to school’.

4.4.2.3. School

In the schools principals report managing conflicts with some religious groups about the reality of same-sex relationships and the right to sex-equity: the equal treatment of boys and girls. A

146

third area of potential conflict in the school is the bourgeoning expectations of religious accommodation: the more accommodation is realized, more is requested – and expected.

Accordingly, the data concerning the management of conflict in schools is presented as follows:

(i) Human rights: same-sex

(ii) Human rights: sex-equity

(iii) Bourgeoning expectations.

(i) Human rights: same-sex

Thomas cites the example of classroom discussion about same-sex marriage. This aspect of the school curriculum creates conflict with some community members because of their religious beliefs. In Thomas’s school students read a story about a boy who has two dads. From his perspective it is ‘not an option to pull this book from the curriculum’ as it is an issue of human rights. Parents ‘can negotiate’ their stance on same sex marriage in their own homes. In discussion with them, Thomas impresses upon parents that ‘the fact is clear’, teachers will discuss same sex, traditional single parent and blended families and how these all ‘reflect the different family units in the school community’.

(ii) Human rights: sex-equity

Dana describes the conflict arising as a result of the way her colleague managed the demands of religious accommodation requests in his school by segregating the boys from the girls in the classroom.

There was an uproar...Parents wanted their kids transferred over to...my school, and it became a battle...They wanted them transferred because they said ‘that’s not my faith group’...And they were feeling that they were being discriminated

147

against...It became like they were running their own little academy in a publicly funded school.

The school’s agreement to segregate the boys from the girls to accommodate religion in order

‘to keep the peace’ was acted upon without ‘realizing the broader implications’. An article was published about the school’s accommodation of religion by way of segregation and marginalization. The resulting community ‘uproar’ made the conflict more broadly ‘publicly noticed’.

(iii)Bourgeoning expectations

Trevor describes two areas for potential conflict in his school. Firstly, whenever the ability to accommodate religious needs is demonstrated, parental requests and expectations augment.

Secondly, the availability of open classroom space does not necessarily coincide with the requisite time for prayer.

Who has an open classroom at one o’clock in the afternoon on Fridays? Well, maybe you don’t because there’s kids in every class learning something else...‘Well, you need to reorganize your building so that there’s space.’ ‘And that space that you gave me is not sufficient’... ‘That one doesn’t have good air quality’. ‘And that area doesn’t have...’ So it could get to the point where a person who you’ve helped, you’ve now opened up a can of worms because you’ve accommodated and you’ve shown you can accommodate and now they’re wanting more for whatever reason – and you can’t help. You can’t continue the service – which is hard to say as a principal.

4.4.2.4. Principal

The principals speak especially strongly about not only managing conflict that involve issues around the accommodation of faith and religion, but about taking a stance and actively resisting attempts to violate human rights, or marginalization of ‘the other’ through maintenance of the status quo. Alternatively, some principals speak to the circumvention of conflict rather than

148

activism in order to achieve the same goals of equity and inclusion. Examples of the principals’ management of conflict are presented as follows:

(i) Active resistance and the status quo

(ii) Active resistance to human rights violations

(iii)Circumvention of conflict

(i) Active resistance and the status quo

Terrence perceives more of a potential for ‘resistance’ than for conflict in the accommodation of faith and religion. For instance, there may be resistance by some teachers and community members who insist on the status quo: ‘This is the way we do things here. This is the way the community has done this for twenty years.... Geez no, you’re in my country, you’re going to do things our way’. In Terrence’s view, the principal not only has to actively manage tension between adherents to the status quo and the religious accommodation rights of others, but they

‘need to stay resilient for [their] children’ in order to counteract this ‘resistance’.

[P]eople talk as it’s either this or that – and it’s always two extremes. There’s always somewhere in the middle, right? It’s not because people with different cultures are coming to our country and that we’re all going to become their religion. No, it’s just – guys, it’s just different. Now we’re just becoming a bigger family; we’re a helping hand. But they panic: ‘Oh geez, I’m going to become this; they’re going to enforce this on us.’ No, just like we can’t enforce it on them.

Terrence views the principal’s role as ‘critical’ because school might be the only environment where the students are not ‘marginalized’. Terrence cites world events that demonstrate ‘there is a lot of religious persecution out there’.

Maria speaks at length and passionately about the duty to accommodate faith and religion and her conflict with efforts by individuals and her board to circumvent their legal responsibilities.

149

...Like many things, there are full pieces of legislation that people think they can avoid...It’s a value...They need to get with it. We’re in Canada....There’s many things that can be forgiven. There’s a sincere ignorance from some people - which is a lack of knowing - but they have heart... — and that’s workable. But when you have racist ideologies and a fear base—especially post 9/11—and in our board, that’s still huge...

For Maria there is also conflict arising due to the structure of the school year itself. She sees it as inequitable ‘to take off two weeks and...call it Christmas break in a public school’. Maria asks, ‘So why do we get off for Christmas and not for Eid? [We are] working in a school calendar that advantages Christian people’.

(ii) Active resistance to human rights violations

For Dana, parental insistence on differential treatment of boys and girls is a point of conflict in her school upon which she takes an unequivocal stance. It is Dana’s view that imposing a dress code on one sex or separating boys from girls is not equitable and not what principals are

‘supposed to promote’.

We’ve had to work with parents about girls and boys having equal treatment...Those are the things we have to navigate....Those are the conversations... in terms of religious accommodation I...find more challenging...That’s where I draw the line in terms of religious accommodation. I won’t accommodate for that.

When considering issues of conflict in the accommodation of faith and religion, Lindy focuses her response on the new health curriculum and community reaction against some of its content. She is concerned that when a parent asks for a certain religious accommodation, how she as a principal is to ‘accurately determine’ whether there are competing human rights and ‘on what grounds’.

When I look at the competing Human Rights document - there’s lots of things that go to tribunal, and to the courts- and we don’t know what the outcome is. So I think it’s evolving and we have to see what precedent is set. But, if there’s certain values and

150

ethics that the Ministry is trying to portray through its equity strategy, then we have to be really careful that it’s not competing human rights - because we can open up another can of worms.

Like Lindy, Madeleine also makes reference to the new sex education curriculum.

Madeleine, however, has a personal connection to conflict arising between religious beliefs and gay rights. Madeleine’s daughter is a lesbian and she does accept any religious standpoint that her daughter ‘is less of a person, and that she should be marginalized for her choices’.

I took about three or four days when I just said ‘Okay, you know what, I am not trying to understand your prejudice any longer about homosexuality. I’m just done. If ...you were talking to me about race...about feminists—anything else but homosexuality—you would not have this forum called my office to do that. So why am I trying to seek to understand your prejudice against homosexuality?

(iii) Circumvention of conflict

Despite William’s claim he has not experienced any conflict in the accommodation of religion he does express unease with the idea of Sikh students carrying a kirpan to school. Should the circumstance arise, William states he would ‘take direction’ from the board superintendents. It

‘would not be a decision [he] would make in the isolation of the school’.

For Jacob, to circumvent conflict as a principal it is a question of working ‘within the bumpers’ and understanding how ‘all the stakeholders work’: clergy, board superintendents, teachers federations.

Pick one. Build it in such a way they, the stakeholders, have no reason to say no. Take that ability of power away by designing a program...that honours and respects their stake in the operation of the system.

151

4.4.2.5. Undue Hardship

Some principals define the concept of undue hardship as ‘a line in the sand’ where religious accommodation is no longer possible. The point of undue hardship is also defined by one principal as the point of ‘bankruptcy’ of the board in realizing a religious accommodation. The parameters of the line, however, are difficult to establish because of the general duty to accommodate faith and religion. There is a general confidence expressed by the principals that boards have the expertise to help mitigate conflict before the point of undue hardship is reached.

An identified area of pending undue hardship for schools is the Ministry’s new health education curriculum.192 There is unease expressed by principals about which actions to take, the uncertainty of outcome, the removal of students by their parents, the potential loss of teachers, and the creation of new religion-based schools. Additionally, principals report relationships with the religious communities have been damaged and public protests in reaction to the curriculum have been challenging. In sum, the introduction of the curriculum has created for the principals

‘a can of worms’.

Some principals, on the other hand, do not envision a point of undue hardship as it is incumbent upon the school and the school system to adapt to the religious and spiritual needs of the community. It is also incumbent upon them to work with the community ‘to best serve students’.

The findings are organized as follows:

(i) The principal’s concept of undue hardship

(ii) The principal’s circumvention of undue hardship

192 The impact of this curriculum is reviewed in sub-sections 4.6., ‘Findings’ and 5.6 ‘Critical Analysis and Discussion’.

152

(iii) The principal’s view of pending undue hardship

(i) The principal’s concept of undue hardship

In Anne’s understanding of human rights legislation a declaration of undue hardship ‘would essentially mean the bankruptcy of the board in order to make something take place’. It is expected accommodations of faith and religion will be made ‘unless we can demonstrate the board would be bankrupted’ as a result.

For Madeleine, undue hardship is ‘a line in the sand’. She expresses difficulty in establishing where to draw that line.

...I have some conflicting thoughts about undue hardship because it is our job to accommodate...if the accommodations are finding space, providing opportunity...And then I need to...[be] aware of whom my employer is and...who I represent. So what are the values of the organization? If the values of the organization is equity and inclusiveness, then those are the ones that I’m bringing to the table...It’s not cut and dry...There’s a Charter and there’s Human Rights...Do the rights of the individuals supersede the rights of the collective? Oh my!

(ii) The principal’s circumvention of undue hardship

What Lama believes would constitute undue hardship is trying to reconcile ‘the clash’ between

‘very religious’ Christians and Muslims’ and their acceptance of the LGBTQ communities.

Lama is not clear on ‘what lines we can actually draw’. To mitigate conflict she would follow board policy and have the specially trained board social workers come to the school ‘to help educate’ the families. Lama emphasizes that ‘the issue’ would not be ‘so much about the students’ themselves, but with the parents’ understanding.

153

To avoid conflict or the impasse of undue hardship Jacob believes there is a need for the school to look beyond the idea of seeking ‘compliance’ and to work instead toward

‘collaboration’.

Waving the Education Act and saying ‘Thou shalt attend’ - maybe that had its time and place in history, but it didn’t garner the results or response that we had hoped to get. So, rather than it be the issue of who has control or power about what will happen, we’ll work together to best serve students.

Similarly, Terrence does not envision the potentiality of undue hardship in the accommodation of faith and religion. If a child is to be truly included in the school ‘their spirituality is a component of who they are...[and] that means we’re going to have to adapt’.

(iii)The principal’s view of pending undue hardship

When the conversation turns to the question of undue hardship Lindy responds carefully about the potential ‘can of worms’ created by the new sex education curriculum: the uncertainty of which actions to take; the uncertainty of outcome, the implications of accommodation and the effect on staffing in public schools.

Well, I don’t think people have a set answer...Every school is going to have unique needs, and everyone is going to have to come up with a plan. And hopefully these plans across a board, or the province, are a little bit more consistent....For some boards the answer is the parent comes now to pick up the child. I think that’s just an immediate to deal with the sheer numbers...But at the end of the day, when you look at the health curriculum...[if] withdrawal of students for that time [will] appease the parents or...accommodate - then so be it. And I guess we have to see how far it goes. ...If there’s a fallout where people do leave... that means decline in enrollment, that means surplus teachers - and it’s going to happen, right?...Who knows if these faith based schools are going to pop up everywhere funded by communities or whatever... and...that’s going to impact teaching jobs.

154

Lindy also speaks to the professional challenge of being publicly protested for implementing

Ministry sanctioned curriculum and board policy. She views this as undue hardship for principals.

Well, I’m just thinking of some of my colleagues. One of them said, ‘You know, that was our school on the news the other day when parents were protesting outside’. I was like, oh okay - so undue hardship on the staff - the stress of the media attention - and it’s not positive - the relations between the parents and the staff and the feeling of the school in general.

4.4.3. Summary and Reflections

The management of the greatest pending conflict arising, as reported by the principals, is between the rights of the LGBTQ communities and the religious beliefs of some community members. It is challenging for principals to reconcile and to balance Ministry and board policies of equity and inclusivity with religious requests that may be violations of the Code and the

Charter. These conflicting rights ‘open up a...can of worms’ for the principal, as personal and professional experience, board policies and procedures, and sometimes even the law, do not provide ‘a set answer’ for the path to conflict resolution.

To try to counteract religion-based arguments against and conflict about same-sex marriages, principals report they try face-to-face dialogue with parents to promote a common ground—the concept of family in all its forms, for instance—as a rallying point of understanding. In turn, if the issue is deemed unresolvable at the school level, the principals look to their boards and the

Ministry ‘to bring in the experts’. Principals hold the opinion there is always room for compromise and ‘always somewhere in the middle’ in order to reach a mutual understanding.

Equally, principals hold the belief that they will not accommodate for Charter and Human rights violations.

155

Principals also report when religious accommodation is made to ‘keep the peace’, and unequal treatment of male and female students forms part of this peacemaking, religious accommodation can become a flashpoint in the school, and beyond. The separation of boys and girls in a classroom to accommodate a particular religious group not only precipitated conflict with students and parents that practice different religions—or none at all—but also created conflict between different sects within the same religion.

Although settled law, the religious and legal right for Sikhs to carry a kirpan at school seemingly remains a live issue, albeit of lesser magnitude. Two principals provide data on issues related to this religious symbol, which merits a special schedule in the Ministry’s Religious

Accommodation Guideline. The first example was hypothetical, but suggests there is some lingering association of the kirpan with weaponry and safety.

The resolution of a real conflict issue with a kirpan at school is realized through face-to-face communication with a parent and the requirement that the parent follow board and Ministry protocol, thereby ensuring the child’s kirpan is concealed while at school. It is also impressed upon the parent that it is her responsibility to inform the principal when her daughter (or son) is in possession of a kirpan, as the principal must ensure a safe environment for all students. Most importantly, it is incumbent upon the parent to instruct the young person about the personal responsibility inherent to properly carrying this religious symbol at school.

The principals also report their management of conflict involving student choice of religious dress and their parents’ opposition to that choice, such as a hijab or a niqab. The principals

156

acknowledge that family values and the child’s decisions sometimes conflict and ‘seep into the school’, thereby involving the principal to help resolve the issue.

Equally, principals report they serve as advocates and resistors when teachers and community members argue for the maintenance of the status quo, rather than for inclusivity and the need for the school ‘to adapt’ to the religious needs of their students and staff as religion is a ‘component’ of who they are. It is noted sometimes staff members do not wish to accommodate the prayer scheduling requirements of a colleague. There is evidence of some ‘racist ideologies’ and ‘a fear base’ that attempts to marginalize certain religious groups.

Collective agreements and paucity of human resources can serve as limitations to the principal’s ability to provide supervision of prayer rooms and safety for students. These factors are identified as potentially inviting a declaration of undue hardship in the school. On the other hand, limitations are also viewed as ‘bumpers’ through which to navigate the accommodation of faith and religion and to work toward collaboration with the various stakeholders. Some principals do not envision a point of undue hardship as they believe it is incumbent upon the school and the school system to adapt to the religious and spiritual needs of the community.

In the view of some principals, the structure of the school year itself creates hardship for non-

Christians and the public school itself. It is suggest the Ministry needs, therefore, to

‘deconstruct’ the design and formation of the school year as it essentially rests on a foundation that is ‘very European’ and ‘colonial’. Moreover, despite the claim of secularity, the formation

157

of the school year around Christmas and Easter suggests public schools are still, in essence, a

‘Christian space’ that ‘advantages Christian people’.

Finally, the potential outcome from the introduction of the Ministry’s new sex education curriculum is widely reported by principals to be a potential catalyst for the realization of undue hardship in the public school system. The impact of accommodating a large number of students that withdraw from the program for religious reasons is one factor. The reality of a large number of students that are completely withdrawn from the public school system as a form of religious protest is another, as it has the potential to adversely affect staff and teacher employment numbers.

At the same time, requests for religious accommodation may make it extremely challenging for principals to realize their legal duty to accommodate faith and religion while also maintaining an inclusive and equitable environment for the LGBTQ students, staff, and communities. It is a challenge for the principals to establish where ‘the line in the sand is’ between the principal’s ability to accommodate religious requests and the threshold of undue hardship – until the realization of religious requests violate the rights of other community members – and the line is crossed.

158

4.5. The growing presence of Muslims and influence of Islam on the accommodation

of faith and religion

4.5.1. Overview

The data indicate the religious needs of Muslims are recognized and accommodated in many public schools and in several different ways. Principals provide daily prayer space in either designated rooms in the school, or in their own office. Although the establishment of prayer space for Muslims in public schools has historically precipitated public opposition, the principals suggest it is now fairly normalized. Principals report that in the process of establishing prayer space and times, these religious accommodations need to be balanced against the requirements for classroom time and curriculum. The supervision of prayers rooms is also presented as a potential accommodation issue.

Likewise, it has become normalized in public schools to have females who wear hijabs and to accommodate students who wish to dress modestly in physical education, rather than in the historic shorts and t-shirts. Religious accommodation allows for these students to wear what makes them comfortable and safe while participating in physical activity. These choices, as reported by the principals, now often form part of the everyday school fabric. The data indicate any conflict associated with wearing hijabs in a public school is either historic or involves a student’s decision to stop wearing a hijab.

Islamic halal food requirements are also integrated into student nutrition programs, staff meetings and community gatherings, as are accommodations for students and staff fasting during

Ramadan.

159

Accommodations are also made for the religious requirements of Muslim students in school curriculum, such as Music and Physical Education to allow for fuller and inclusive participation, rather than withdrawal from the programs.

Finally, the Islamic religious leader, the imam, is acknowledged as playing a role not only in the creation of board policy on the accommodation of Muslim students, but also in the schools themselves in the provision and timing of prayer space. The data indicate that imams can serve as valuable advisors or consultants to the principals in the respectful accommodation and inclusivity of Muslim students in public schools.

Following the overview above, the findings on the growing presence of Muslims and influence of Islam on the accommodation of faith and religion is divided into the following sub-sections:

4.5.2.1. Prayer/Space

4.5.2.2. Religious Attire

4.5.2.3. Food/Fasting

4.5.2.4. Imams

4.5.2.5. Programming

A chart summarizing the growing presence of Muslims and influence of Islam on the accommodation of faith and religion is attached as Appendix H and found on page 354.

160

4.5.2. Review of Findings

4.5.2.1. Prayer/Space

The creation of prayer space by the principal requires the availability of vacant rooms at the designated time during the day, as well as the availability of staff to supervise, for safety reasons.

This is sometimes complicated by increasing expectations of both the Muslim community

(parents and students), coupled with recalcitrance by staff members if supervision of a prayer room takes away from their allotted preparation time. There is also some challenge for the principal to balance prayer time with the expectations of requisite classroom time. Principals reveal that Muslim students conduct themselves as other students their age: they change their minds. This includes changing their minds about whether and where they will attend prayer.

This human factor, in turn, can affect the maintenance of prayer rooms in the school by the principal.

The findings related to prayer/space are reviewed in the following order:

(i) The process of establishing prayer space

(ii) Supervision of prayer rooms

(iii)Balancing prayer requirements with classroom time

(iv) Changes in the requirement for a prayer room in school

(i) The process of establishing prayer space

Lama is of the opinion her board’s policy on the accommodation of faith and religion and the establishment of prayer space was brought to the forefront as a result of, ‘the whole issue with

161

what happened at Valley Park Middle School with the Muslims’193 regarding the provision of a prayer room in its school. ‘I think all principals were reviewing the policy after that incident’.

Anne ‘dealt with prayer rooms’ in a previous school. She recalls a time when she was a principal in another city and a young male student requested a prayer room. Anne contacted the board as no schools had prayer rooms at that time and ‘there was nobody that could walk [her] through the process’. Anne had to take direction from the student and accept his ‘word on things’. Establishing a prayer room in her school proved to be ‘a very time consuming project’ which became ‘more and more complex’. Anne notes that ‘the more we accommodated, the more was required’. Two issues arose that became ‘real breaking points’ for her. Once the prayer room and protocol were in place, female students wanted access and the ‘quite devout’ males insisted they should not be allowed. It was a ‘huge’ and divisive issue and Anne acknowledges, ‘none of us knew what to do about it’.

Thomas currently provides a dedicated prayer room in his school. It is part of a trio of rooms, two of which are used for lunch rooms. The teachers ‘on beat’ are responsible for circulating through the three rooms. Their assigned duty is to ‘supervise the lunch rooms and the students praying’ in the third room. As for his staff members, Thomas indicates that ‘a couple need

193 Lama’s statement is in reference to the 2011 decision by the principal of Valley Park Middle School (Toronto) to have his Muslim students pray at school during school hours on Fridays. The principal was concerned that Muslim students were missing a significant amount of class time when leaving to pray at a local mosque. Also, the principal deemed there was a safety issue as the students had to cross a busy street in order to get to the mosque. The principal faced a considerable backlash against his decision to open a prayer room in his secular public school to accommodate Muslims. The reaction of the non-Muslim community was widely reported in the newspapers. (‘Let the students pray at school’ Editorial. The Toronto Star. July 6, 2011. Online: http://www.thestar.com; Natasha Fatah.‘Allah in the Cafeteria: Inside the school prayer scandal at Valley Park Middle School’.Toronto Life.March 2012.On line: http://www.torontolife.com.)

162

prayer time’ and he arranges the teaching schedule to accommodate them in the school as no staff member leaves the school to pray.

To accommodate the Muslims in her school Maria has ‘given up [her] office many times to staff and kids to pray for five minutes’. She leaves her office while the students pray so that ‘it’s a private space’ and she is ‘comfortable’ with that arrangement. Maria has difficulty understanding the negative positions of some of her principal colleagues around the provision of prayer rooms.

...I can’t speak to the Christian community that left, but I can speak to a handful of Muslim families who I know left for a different board over the past five or six years. In fact, one community actually started their own private school because they didn’t feel their identities were being respected or heard...It was basically a closed door conversation with the principal: ‘We don’t accommodate. We’re not going to have a prayer room. We don’t have space in our school.’

Like Maria, when there is no other room available, Dana has four children that come to her office to pray. She ensures she is in her office for Friday prayers as they are ‘more important’. While the students pray on ‘a white cloth’ which Dana safeguards in her office, she ensures the students’ privacy and that they are ‘kind of supervised’.

(ii) Supervision of prayer rooms

The supervision protocol established by Anne was that a teacher stood outside the prayer room when the students were praying. They were there ‘just to monitor from the outside, but not step inside’. The male students protested and found the teacher supervision to be ‘insulting—even though the door was...closed’. As the students were minors, Anne ‘felt...it was [her] legal duty to supervise’.

163

Lindy too addresses the logistics of providing a prayer room and ensuring supervision at her previous school.

We had two...who needed to pray quietly. So, you know, you have to think, where am I going to put them? How am I going to supervise them? So we found a room...Who’s going to supervise? So, some schools where you have a high predominantly Muslim population you have to think about that. And then for me it was simple, it was a matter of there’s a room in front of the office. We have a visual. The kids went in there.

Study rooms adjoined to the school library are used for Friday prayer in Elaine’s school. They are supervised by the librarian and no issue is raised. The librarian ‘lets them in and they can do their piece. They have a list in the office so we know who’s excused for it. We put it in just like it’s a regular trip.’

(iii)Balancing prayer requirements with classroom time

To help resolve issues around the provision of prayer space on Fridays, Trevor invited the local imam to his school as he ‘saw a problem with the kids losing structural time—significant half day every week’ when they left to pray at the mosque. He invited face-to-face discussion with the imam to ‘better understand what’s going on’ and to learn how to ‘support them’. The agreement made was the students would be provided with a room in the school. Trevor ensured that Friday afternoons he could have ‘that spot for an hour’. He offered the school’s extra gym mats ‘so...the kids could come in and have something to pray on’. For Trevor it was important students had ‘their own space’ where they ‘weren’t being disturbed’ and it demonstrated to the

Muslim students the school ‘cared about how they felt’.

So they didn’t have to lose a half a day of school to get taken out, go to the – a prayer centre, I’ll call it. We made a space in our school in an empty classroom, so they

164

could observe their religious things they had to look after...and we got to have them for another hour and a half of the school day. So, we were sort of helping ourselves out.

Trevor notes it was ‘fortunate’ prayer time was at one thirty and it was after lunch as there were teachers in the classrooms next door.

Classes were on, so it wouldn’t be disturbing. The teachers knew they had to leave their doors open...Somebody could just call out ‘help’—because it’s a safety issue...So, we knew we had that covered. I was prepared though because I didn’t know how far [the imam] wanted to take this. So I had prepared myself for ‘What are the different scenarios?’194

Like Lama, Trevor also cites the example of Valley Park Middle School and the reaction to the accommodation of Muslim prayer. Trevor purposely chose not to ‘draw a lot of attention’ to the prayer room because he ‘didn’t feel it was necessarily [his] place to do that kind of thing’. Once the prayer room was established at his school Trevor ‘didn’t ever advertise in the newsletter or speak about it in a large context when there’s a large congregation’.

Within the school Trevor notes he was never questioned about why the Muslim students were

‘using that space’ or ‘why do they get special treatment’. There were ‘no comments like that’.

The kids that observed Eid or prayed all had secular friends—and they all knew what they did and it was just part of what made them up. Some kid has a size thirteen shoe; some kid prays; some kid eats bok choy. That’s just the mix of what happens at the school.

194 In making his decision about the prayer room Trevor acknowledges he can call the board’s designated ‘equity principal’ and ‘equity consultant’. As well, his board has ‘a pretty good infrastructure...for electronic communication... It’s a “principals for dummies” kind of approach— making sure that it’s clear for us’.

165

(iv) Changes in the requirement for a prayer room in school

In Madeleine’s school the religious accommodation is that three families pick their children up on Fridays ‘to pray outside of the school’. Madeleine finds it ‘kind of curious’ that she does not get requests for a prayer room. ‘The opportunities would be inside the school’ for a prayer room, but the three families have ‘chosen’ to pray in their mosque. Similarly, rooms for prayer are actively offered by William, but no interest is expressed by students and that ‘surprises’ him when there is a number of Muslim students.

Previously, in Lama’s school there was a greater number of Muslim students and a dedicated prayer room was provided. The students stopped using this room, so the school ‘just let it go’. Last year, however, two male students began praying by the lost and found area.

Lama’s concern was the students were unsupervised. She provided a room for prayer and scheduled a teacher to ensure the boys’ safety. Again, the students stopped attending the designated prayer space. Lama believes the boys’ initial decision to pray by the lost and found ‘was a bit of a way to get out of class,’ without teacher oversight.

Thomas finds that student use of the prayer room in his school is ‘more popular’ in winter when it is cold outside, while requests to leave school to pray in the local mosque are ‘more popular’ in the warmer months.

4.5.2.2. Religious Attire

The two main references to religious attire made by the principals is the presence of hijabs in the school and the requirement for modesty in dress for physical education. In general, wearing a

166

hijab at school is reported to have become fairly normalized. Although Anne makes reference to a historic, perceived safety issue with hijabs in physical education, the only recent conflict reported is by Thomas when one of his students chose to remove her hijab and this upset the other Muslims in the school.

This section is divided into:

(i) The accommodation of hijabs in the public school;

(ii) Issues arising over the accommodation of hijabs;

(iii)The accommodation of modesty of dress in physical education

(i) The accommodation of hijabs in the public school

In William’s school it is the accepted norm that students ‘can wear’ hijabs. William has

‘absolutely no concerns’ about hijabs and is confident in his staff’s knowledge and acceptance of students wearing them. ‘It’s just the way [the school] is’.

Elaine also makes reference to hijabs and takiyahs195 being worn in her school. She explains that

...as far as head coverings, or not, that’s really up to them and what they do in their community. There’s no issue with head coverings or how much a young woman is covered...[W]e had the odd student who was in training to be an imam and would wear a head covering...a little round white cap—which is perfectly fine...

Lama refers to ‘the number of students that wear... hijabs’. In her school ‘it’s pretty normalized and...there’s not a lot of reaction from the other students around it’. Similarly,

195 A takiyah is a white (usually) skullcap (sometimes) worn by Muslim males.

167

Lindy does not see why wearing a hijab would be ‘a difficult challenge to accommodate...Hijabs, I’ve had a few students and they just wear them.’

(ii) Issues arising over the accommodation of hijabs;

Anne recalls there was ‘an issue’ with girls in gym class and their refusal to take off their

'headscarves’. The solution was, ‘we allowed headscarves in gym...We let that one go...We typically don’t allow girls to wear any kind of hair ornamentation, or jewellery when they’re in phys. ed’.

Although Thomas evokes a positive image of his ‘girls play[ing] in long skirts and hijabs beside kids in t-shirts and shorts’, he describes an issue arising between Muslim students themselves concerning choice of religious dress. A young Muslim girl initially dressed conservatively and wore a hijab. She then chose to wear Western clothes, with no hijab. Other Muslim students were upset and viewed the girl’s sartorial choice as ‘haram’.196 Arguments ensued. Thomas turned to the Muslim community to help resolve the problem and invited the students’ parents to the school. They sat in groups and discussed the issue until they came to an understanding. The students ceased their dispute with the girl who chose not to wear a hijab. Thomas cites the resolution as an example of ‘knowing my class’, knowing ‘what supports are needed’ and the benefit of having a ‘community with infrastructure’.

(iii)The accommodation of modesty of dress in physical education

When it is a question of religious accommodation for clothing in physical education, Trevor views the students as ‘pretty self-aware’ and ‘pretty mobilizing’. There are students who are

196 ‘Haram’ is an Arabic word for an act that is forbidden by Allah.

168

‘fully dressed; wrists, hijab, the whole statement’. The students’ choice of dress ‘make[s] certain they’re observing’, while at the same time being ‘physical’ in gym class. Trevor’s notes a member of his school’s basketball team participated ‘completely covered’.

For Lindy, modesty in dress for Physical Education is ‘doable and temporary. I don’t think we’d waste too much time going through this process’. Lindy’s concern is comfort and safety for the students ‘with whatever attire they have on’ and she does not understand what the ‘big fuss is’ concerning this particular accommodation for religion. She points out it is not only Muslim children who are uncomfortable wearing shorts in gym class. ‘We have to look at it that way too.

It’s not just about accommodating some folks who, you know, can’t expose their skin’. Some students for other than religious reasons do not want to have bare legs and arms.

Lama too views the religious requirement for modesty in dress is simple to accommodate. In her school students are permitted to wear yoga pants, rather than shorts in gym class. Intermediate students are asked to change, ‘but...we don’t make it so that they can’t participate if they refuse to change. We don’t have a rule about what they wear in gym, other than...they wear running shoes.’

4.5.2.3. Food/Fasting

Many of the principals report the provision of halal food forms part of any nutritional program in the school. Additionally, principals ensure that food at staff meetings and at community events is halal. The principals view the provision of halal food as part of their focus on an inclusive school environment. During Ramadan space is provided in either empty classrooms or the

169

principal’s office at lunch time to accommodate Muslim students who are fasting. Additionally, principals notify teachers which students are fasting and that they may be more tired during the day, especially the younger ones. Principals also recognize the challenge of fasting during the school day for Muslim staff while still fulfilling their work duties. Accordingly, supervision responsibilities may be adjusted from a scheduled outdoor recess assignment to something more sedentary inside the school.

The data in this sub-section is presented in two parts:

(i) Provision of halal food

(ii) Accommodations for fasting during Ramadan

(i) Provision of halal food

Most of Madeleine’s religious accommodation requests are linked to her school’s nutrition program. Madeleine emphasizes that there is a need ‘to ensure we serve halal...That’s every day...We need to make sure that the products that we buy are—compliant’. For Madeleine, the best way to ensure ‘compliance’ is to leave it in the hands of the food program co-ordinators

‘because...they’re Muslims themselves, so they know exactly’. Additionally, Madeleine notes that, when the public nurse comes to the school to discuss the Board and Ministry food and beverage policy, the school tries to ‘ameliorate the food and beverage policy with the halal’ to create a ‘melding’. The school is then ‘compliant with the Ministry’s expectations, and...compliant with the expectations of the Muslim community’.

170

At Trevor’s school events, the provision of food is considered through the lens of religious accommodation and ‘awareness’. Whenever there are open houses and community BBQs

‘we try to the best of our ability to neutralize...any kind of discomfort’. The school always provides ‘halal cooked meats’. Trevor notes the provision of halal food is so that all community members are able to participate in school functions. ‘I guess that’s a form of accommodation. I look at it more like a partnership, more like a community-building exercise’.

(ii) Accommodations for fasting during Ramadan

When it is a question of accommodation for students fasting during Ramadan, Trevor emphasizes the need for ‘awareness’, as well as for ‘accommodation’. In his view, accommodation is made to ensure students fasting have a designated space to sit. Awareness is that some Muslims students still want ‘to hang out’ with non-fasting friends. Principal awareness also ensures the younger fasting students are more closely monitored. Should they become ‘weak or need support, we could call mom or dad...to give us guidance’.

Elaine has a school procedure and memo to staff in place during Ramadan.

When it’s the fasting time we’ll send a message out to teachers just to be mindful that a number of students are fasting for—for their holidays—and just be mindful that some of them may not have any food in their tummies and they may feel tired or be a little hungry. Please understand that.

When Lindy’s students are fasting, she has a different approach to accommodation. Lindy especially supports student voice and expression of religious accommodations needed. ‘We

171

want to encourage children to advocate for themselves. So, if they’re fasting they say ‘Look, I can’t really do all the phys. ed. stuff, etcetera, etcetera...’

Dana accommodates her Muslim students who are fasting by providing space in her office.

The students ‘sit there and bring a book...and some of their friends’. Dana also accommodates her staff that ‘maintain a fast’ by giving them the option of more sedentary supervision inside the school, rather than outside on active yard duty.

4.5.2.4. Imams

Data from the principals suggest Islamic religious leaders play a significant role in the creation of board policy as consultants and in establishing prayer protocol in the public schools. Prayer protocol encompasses both the timing of prayer and the provision of space. On the whole, principals find the local imam is helpful in ensuring Muslim students are accommodated and compliant with both the requirements of the school and the requirements of their Islamic religion.

The influence of the imam on the accommodation of Islam in the public schools is presented as follows:

(i) The role of the imam in the creation of board policy

(ii) The role of the imam in the creation of prayer space

(iii)The role of the imam in establishing prayer time

172

(i) The role of the imam in the creation of board policy

When Maria was involved in developing strategies for the accommodation of faith and religion in her board she worked with ‘over eight Muslim leaders’. For Maria, it ‘was probably a year and a half of discussion’ with these imams as they did not agree on what the Islamic protocol should be. ‘Some say Friday prayers were mandated ...were an obligation for girls and boys below the age of twelve, [or]...optional’. In order to find a ‘happy medium’ and establish the idea that ‘some may’, depending on cultural, geographical and individual traits, it required

‘navigating those discussions’. Maria emphasizes that her role with imams was as ‘the connector, never as...the mediator’.

Like Maria, William was part of an equity committee in the previous year where he was involved in a series of community outreach meetings with imams to collect their thoughts and ideas about religious accommodations for music. The imams reviewed the board’s music curriculum and informed Muslim parents there was no reason their children should be withdrawn from the program in William’s board.

(ii) The role of the imam in the creation of prayer space

When Anne was learning about the requirements for a prayer room, she was not able to discuss the issues with the boys’ parents as they did not speak English. To seek guidance she contacted the local imam and invited him to the school to help resolve the conflict. The imam informed

Anne there was no conflict. It was his opinion the boys did not require a prayer room at school as ‘he felt that they were doing this as a form of social status.’ The students could go to the mosque after school for prayers. The imam also felt the boys ‘were creating quite an imposition

173

on the school that he would prefer not to take place’. He asked that the school ‘not proceed’ with the prayer room.197

(iii)The role of the imam in establishing prayer time

Dana outlines how she organized a space for prayer in her school after consulting with the local imam ‘to make sure’. Dana explains that ‘you want to be appropriate and you want to make sure you’re being respectful of people’. The imam informed Dana the students could pray before school, and then at noon, so they do not have to leave class. With this arrangement Dana ‘tried to respect the instructional time as much as possible while accommodating their religious needs’.

Thomas describes his relationship with the local imam as ‘pretty good’. When the Muslim students informed him they had to leave the school to pray, the imam and Thomas had a discussion where the imam provided ‘the parameters’ of prayer times so that students do not have to leave class. The students ‘know the imam198 talks to the principal’ and that is helpful to

Thomas when students are ‘trying to take the lead’ regarding prayer time and appropriate procedure. Additionally, the imam’s wife also came to the school to speak to the students about cooperation with the principal.

Elaine reports she has had many other face-to-face meetings and phone conversations with imams about religious accommodation in her school. She describes a specific time when an

197 Anne does not indicate whether the quandary about the establishment of a prayer room in her school, and the imam’s subsequent advice not to proceed with it, pre-dated the 2011 prayer room issue at Valley Park Middle School. 198 In the course of our discussion, Thomas pointed out that he now consults with two different imams: one Arabic and one Somalian.

174

imam dropped by her school to correct a prayer protocol that she had established for Muslim students.

We were allowing prayers at a certain time - and he just wanted to let us know that his prayer times for his mosque were different prayer times because they were different groups...We didn’t know that. We assumed that all of the prayer times were the same, and so we made the adjustment and apologized for that...What I didn’t realize was that each of the mosques are a different sect and that’s why there are so many. There are three in Pickering and then there are three just across the Scarborough border that have kids that come to this school.

4.5.2.5. School Programming

In addition to religious accommodation for some Muslims in relation to the content of the new health education curriculum, reviewed in subsection 4.6., ‘The impact of the new health education curriculum on the accommodation of faith and religion’, the principals report special accommodation requirements may also arise in music and physical education. The findings are presented in two parts:

(i) Religious accommodation in the Music curriculum

(ii) Religious accommodation in the Physical Education Curriculum

(i) Religious accommodation in the Music curriculum

Dana explains that some students are not permitted to use a wind instrument because of

‘certain Muslim traditions’ as ‘there’s something about your mouth and actually taking an instrument’. Dana views the request as simple to accommodate. The school has many other musical instruments, such as drums and cymbals. She ensures the music teacher knows the student requires religious accommodation and then Dana rents more percussion instruments for the Muslim students. Dana emphasizes both that ‘you have to accommodate’ and that

175

‘it’s very easy to accommodate’. She also notes that her board has specifically stated that there would no longer be any more accommodation for religious beliefs through withdrawal from classroom curriculum. Through the rental of extra percussion instruments Dana accommodates her Muslim students and avoids conflict with her board.

Whenever there is a religion-based request for a student to be withdrawn from a program, such as music, Lindy views it as a ‘fairly simple scheduling thing’. Parents of children ‘completely withdrawn’ from music class were informed that the children could not go to the library as the librarian was not always there. Instead, Lindy ‘basically found another class where something else was being taught at that time and put them in there. Same grade.’ There was no assessment of the children’s progress. If it was a duplicate class of mathematics, for instance, the parents were informed the children are ‘going to be exposed to the math concepts again’.199

(ii) Religious accommodation in the Physical Education curriculum

Maria provides an example of how she too ‘navigated’ accommodation requests from her

Muslim students concerning a dance component in physical education. Maria also reports it’s very easy to accommodate. She explains that when a parent states

‘My daughter cannot move her body’, in a respectful discussion...we decided...what would be okay in dance class for movement. And they said they can move their body parts when imitating sounds of the environment or sounds that their bodies make - so clicking, clapping, stomping, wind sounds. Well, that’s great because they don’t need to dance in dance class. They can participate in a drama skit or...maybe they can hold the scarf that is in between the boy and girl, and that would be fine. So here you have an example of full inclusion for a very simple request. So here you have people hearing that girls can’t dance and be in class...versus no...they’re saying that they are not comfortable.

199 Although other religions may require accommodation for participation in Music, the data from this research only references specific requests from Muslim groups.

176

Unlike Maria and Dana, Lama states she receives no requests for accommodations in music or dance units in physical education, as her students ‘aren’t the type of Muslims...who won’t sing or dance’. Instead, Lama indicates her Muslim students are ‘up there with their hijabs in the talent show dancing around’ on the stage in front of an audience.

4.5.3. Summary and Reflections

The precedent set by public protests related to the principal’s provision of Muslim prayer space at Valley Park Middle School in the Toronto District School Board is reported to have had an impact on the principals and their boards. Despite this and other protests, however, principals indicate the establishment of prayer rooms for Muslim students, or at least the offer to provide them, is becoming normalized in our public schools. The normalcy of prayer rooms is reflected in the observation that non-Muslim students do not ask, ‘Why do they get special treatment?’

Sometimes principals provide space for prayer in empty classrooms or in the library.

Sometimes Muslim prayer takes place in the principal’s office itself. It is the principal that schedules for the supervision of prayer rooms to ensure the safety of Muslim students.

Decisions about which staff member to assign this supervisory duty may be dependent on the librarian’s availability, the ‘flexibility of staff’ and their cooperation, or on the availability of the individual principal.

Principals also indicate they provide prayer space and time for Muslim staff that wish to pray during the school day. The teaching schedule may be adjusted to accommodate prayer time

177

and more sedentary supervision duties are offered when Muslims are observing Ramadan and fasting.

In order to establish the timings and requirements of prayer room use, relationships are established and conversations take place between the principal and the Muslim communities, particularly the imams that represent various sects of Islam. The imams are also reported by principals to have played a significant advisory role in the creation of board policies on the accommodation of the Islamic religion.

Through the establishment of prayer rooms principals are not only accommodating Muslim students, but they are also ‘helping [them]selves out’ as students are not leaving the school to pray in Mosques and losing additional classroom instruction time. In connection to the establishment of prayer rooms in school, principals also imply that Muslim students have similar behaviours to their non-Muslim peers in that they change their minds about what they want. Some vacillate about their choice of religious accommodation; whether - or where - to participate in the ritual of prayer; inside the school or at a mosque. Accordingly, due to this vacillation by students, the principal’s provision of prayer space and time may also have to change.

The choice of females to wear hijabs in school and during physical education is also part of the accepted school culture. There seems to no longer be a perceived safety issue when wearing a hijab and participating in sports, or in other physical activities. The presence of hijabs is ‘pretty normalized’ and students ‘just wear them’. The only conflicts reported are

178

either historic, or when a student chose to stop wearing a hijab and this upset the school’s

Muslim community. To help resolve the conflict, the principal invited the greater Muslim community to meet at the school and to engage in a discussion. Through this process the

Muslim student’s decision to no longer wear a hijab was honoured by her peers in that they no longer addressed the issue in school.

Principals also report the focus on ‘appropriate’ dress for participation in physical education is based on comfort, freedom of movement and on safety, and no longer on a proscribed gym

‘uniform’ of t-shirts and shorts. Moreover, the principals acknowledge the Muslims’ requirement for modesty in dress is of benefit to other students that are not comfortable wearing shorts and exposing their legs.

In addition to physical education class, Muslim students are reported to be easily accommodated and included in dance and music classes, once their comfort level and religious requirements to participate in either subject are discussed with the principal. Lindy indicates, however, that her Muslim students are exempted from Music class.

Principals accommodate Muslim students that are fasting during Ramadan through the offer of private space to sit quietly during lunch time. Similar to the accommodation for prayer, space for fasting may be provided in an empty classroom, or in the principal’s office. The principal ensures staff members are aware which students are observing the fast so that physical activity may be adjusted accordingly.

179

During the school year principals ensure halal food is available for students in the nutrition programs, for staff at meetings, and for the Muslim community at school-sponsored events and gatherings. The provision of halal food is not viewed as just an accommodation, but as a community-building exercise.

When Ramadan falls during the school year students and/or staff may be accommodated through absence for a prolonged period of time to participate in the Hajj. Involvement in this

Islamic pilgrimage may entail six weeks away from the school and the classroom. It was not determined whether this constitutes a paid leave for staff.

Although the accommodation requirements of Muslim students are included and respected in the schools of the twelve principals interviewed, a contrary trend is reported in at least one board: Some Muslim families felt they were not ‘respected or heard’ by their principal and left the public school system to start their own private school. There is also evidence of

Islamophobic attitudes amongst some board staff.

4.6. The impact of the new health education curriculum on the accommodation of faith and religion

4.6.1. Overview200

The data from the principals indicate the introduction of the new health education curriculum by the Ministry of Education has precipitated disruption in many ways and forms. Students have been withdrawn from their public schools, the religious communities have engaged in public

200 The curriculum content is outlined in footnote 170.

180

protest and demonstrations, and the principals report spending many hours discussing the sex education component of the curriculum with parents. In short, the new health education curriculum has seemingly created a maelstrom for principals in their schools, despite efforts to exercise their duty to accommodate faith and religion.

The principals acknowledge that some boards have tried to take anticipatory action through communications with the religious communities, as well as by making changes to established board procedures. It is clearly expressed that religious accommodation will not include any violation of the competing Charter and human rights of the LGBTQ communities. This includes same-sex relationships, as well as the recognition of sex-equity issues.

Through discussions with the religious communities at open houses and school council meetings, principals attempt to mitigate and to assuage apprehension about the content of the curriculum.

The concerns of the community focussed on teaching about sexual identity. Some principals view these concerns of the religious communities as fear of the unknown. Others also report a failure in communicating to the religious communities the value of the program for the children.

When some religious communities withdraw their children in protest from public schools, principals state the elementary panel is especially affected by the loss of students. Principals do, however, express some success in circumventing the student exodus from their schools.

In addition to the active withdrawal of students, the data indicate the religious communities of some schools have also participated in public rallies and protests and sent written communication

181

from their religious leaders to principals, expressing their opposition to the curriculum. Strong opposition is also evidenced in the construction of newly built, religion-based private schools.

To delineate the breadth of the impact of the new health education curriculum on the accommodation of faith and religion this findings section is divided into the following sub- sections:

4.6.2.1. Discussions with the religious communities

4.6.2.2. Student withdrawal from school

4.6.2.3. Other actions taken by religious communities

4.6.2.4. Board and Ministry actions

4.6.2.5 Concerns of the religious communities

A chart summarizing the impact of the new health education curriculum on the accommodation of faith and religion is attached as Appendix I and found on page 357.

4.6.2. Review of Findings

4.6.2.1. Discussions with the religious communities

Principal discussions are reported to be varied, nuanced, and tailored to best meet the needs and apprehensions of the religious communities, concerned about the content of the sex education curriculum. In particular, the principals address: (i) the management of apprehension; (ii) the use of open houses; and (iii) the use of school councils.

The principals also speak to: (iv) the failure of communication.

182

(i) The management of apprehension

Jacob notes there have been several discussions with members of the Mennonite community about the new health curriculum. The school informs all parents ‘...if there’s a portion of this...curriculum that you found offensive, please let us know and we will find an alternative option’. The new health curriculum was, however, ‘the impetus...and the straw that broke the camel’s back’ regarding the school’s positive relationship with the Mennonite community.

Jacob and his school have not yet ‘taken a corporate position’ on how they will be ‘rolling...out’ the sex education program, but he is emphatic that discussions with the Mennonite community on ways to vitiate the effect of the new health curriculum continue.

Dana speaks to the community upset and angst about the idea of the new health curriculum. This affects her school and her board. As a result, Dana has had many conversations with community members in order to mitigate its effect.

I’ve had parents come in...You know we talk - it’s not about encouraging same sex couples, it’s about encouraging and understanding that families are different...We have a lot of single parent homes...Some religious traditions don’t agree with divorce. The reality for some families is that you have two mommies or daddies, or you have multiples, like step families...That’s all addressed in the curriculum. And we’re using proper terms...like a penis is a penis, from a younger age. I think that’s what parents took most offense to.

Madeleine points out that despite her elementary school’s loss of thirty-five students, attributable to the pending sex education curriculum, she was still ‘able to stick handle...probably an equal number’ because she assuaged the parents fears through assuring them that she would remain as principal at the school and ‘would help them through that process’. Madeleine expresses

183

confidence the community trusts her and she ‘encourage[s] them to make [their] own decisions’ after they examine the curriculum, and then to ‘maybe check with [their] faith leaders’.

Lama is of the belief that the outcome regarding the new health curriculum was different for her school because she and the staff communicate regularly with the community. She also believes the reasoned intervention of an administrative assistant—one who has been employed at the school for several decades and knows the community—eased the process.

(ii) The use of open houses

At Thomas’ school an open house is planned with interpreters with the purpose of having

‘conversations to discuss how [the health curriculum] will be taught to kids’. There will be interpreters to assist parents that do not speak English and board experts available ‘to chat with parents of the Muslim community’.

(iii)The use of school councils.

For Trevor, the health curriculum has been the ‘greatest [issue] but it has died down quickly’.

To circumvent the effect of the program, Trevor took pre-emptive action in his school through the management of his school council, enlisting the expertise of the council chair. Trevor met with the chair ahead of time to ensure clarity and consensus on the procedural rules. The night of the school council meeting the rules were disseminated to the parents to ensure understanding of the expected protocol. Trevor describes how the evening proceeded.

I had some rather interested...dads come in - and speaking on behalf of their family and their larger family and trying to make a pronouncement...I used the mechanisms of...a school council...They’re welcome to voice their concerns but is has to be done within a way that is respectful and is not chanting...So we slowed down some of the

184

rhetoric and we took it a piece... of the curriculum... at a time. We went through it and explained what it actually meant and where the parent has the final say...So when our...very experienced school council chair helped...organize the meeting so that it didn’t turn into - I don’t know – something that was destructive...I think it helped deal with the idea, versus what the reality was because when the reality was discussed there was no longer an issue. And half of them I never saw again. They only came for the one issue.

(iv) The failure of communication

Maria too has had numerous meetings with groups of parents and ‘a lot of frank conversations’ about the new health curriculum and classroom discussions concerning the LGBTQ communities.

In reality, we do have transgendered students...The parents made it clear that during the sex ed. unit, if that conversation comes out, the kids will just walk out of class in grade seven. That hasn’t happened yet. [We’re] teaching [the curriculum] in May. I’m curious to see what that’s going to look like.

Lindy reports having several parents requesting their children’s exemption from the new health curriculum and states that ‘having a meeting, having a conversation over the phone - it’s just not working. They’re not getting it’.

4.6.2.2. Student withdrawal from school

Principals report that great numbers of students are being withdrawn from the public school system by their parents since the introduction of the new health curriculum. The withdrawal of students has had a particular impact on the elementary panel. The findings re student withdrawal from school are further divided as follows: (i) the impact on elementary schools; (ii) other issues arising; and (iii) the circumvention of student exodus.

185

(i) The impact on elementary schools

Madeleine views the new health curriculum as ‘a can of worms; a large can of worms’. She reports her elementary school ‘lost’ thirty-five students this year because of it. Thirty-five students is equivalent to 17.5% of Madeleine’s 200 hundred student school population.

Jacob reports ‘some people pull[ed] out’ of his secondary school because of the new health curriculum, but the impact of student withdrawal from public schools has been more acute in the elementary panel.

The elementary schools felt it probably the most because that’s where the rollout started...I know of a private school ten miles from here that started. There was no school there before. It started in response to that curriculum, and we have... two elementary schools...[that] lost...54 students...in total to go to a private school.

Thomas attributes the introduction of the new health curriculum as being connected to school disruption and ‘all stuff in the fall’. Fifty or sixty students were kept at home by their parents. He reports this form of protest took place at three elementary schools in his area.

Maria is ‘still navigating’ with a group of Christian parents at her elementary school. She acknowledges the board itself has ‘lost’ twenty students from Quaker and Mennonite families to private Christian schools. These religious communities left ‘because they don’t feel their accommodations were granted’.

(ii) Other issues arising

There was a mixed reaction in Dana’s elementary school.

I’ve had one little girl that the mom took out. They’re Muslim. And she says ‘This curriculum scares me.’...But then I had the opposite too, where I had two moms come

186

in and one mom said ‘Well, you know, the imam says my daughter needs to know this.’

Lindy addresses her frustration with religious accommodation through student withdrawal from the sex education curriculum.

There’s been a lot of letters coming in and we are not really deeming them religious accommodations—especially when it involves anything to do with...LGBTQ...It’s a temporary measure because [the parents are] withdrawing their child from all the health program.

Lindy is concerned about the ‘sheer numbers’ that are being withdrawn and the fact ‘it would be hard to create a parallel program...scheduling that, and the different grades’. She notes that some schools will have 100 to 200 students ‘opting out’ and that ‘sending them home is the easiest solution’. Lindy is ‘truly curious’ about the outcome of the new sex education curriculum, as it is ‘on a lot of people’s mind’.

(iii)The circumvention of student exodus

Lama points out that when Thorncliff Park Public School in Toronto experienced protests and then lost half of its students over the new health curriculum, her school had about 15 kids absent for one day.

It was interesting because the local imam told [the parents] to keep their kids at home on that Monday where they had the protest...And a bunch of them said, ‘Oh, you know, we were told to keep our kids home for weeks’. And then we had one of the parents call my secretary and tell her that because they’re teaching all this stuff about sex right now. The secretary said, ‘No, they’re not’...[The parent] said ‘Oh, well then I’m sending my child to school’...At the end they all just...sent their kids back to school.

187

4.6.2.3. Other actions taken by the religious communities

In addition to withdrawing their children from public schools, some religious communities also communicated their opposition to the content of the new health curriculum through: (i) Written communication from religious leaders; (ii) Public rallies and protest; and (iii) The construction of religious schools.

(i) Written communication from religious leaders

Trevor reports that a couple of his colleagues at nearby schools have ‘faced some dilemmas’ dealing with ‘some real hot tempered parents’ upset about the new sex education curriculum.

Schools received ‘blanket letters from different licenced institutions, like their mosques’, requesting their children’s exemption from a curriculum that was not yet introduced or implemented at the school. Trevor views these parents as ‘rather ill-informed’.

Madeleine’s parents of the thirty-five students pulled from her school ‘felt it important to let

[her] know why they were leaving’. They are following ‘what their religious leaders are telling them’. Parents are ‘signing letters and petitions, and bringing those around to the school’. Their religious leaders are ‘very clear on the problems and the exception they’re taking to the new

Phys. Ed. and health curriculum’.

(ii) Public rallies and protest

As well as receiving letters requesting exemptions from the sex education curriculum, Maria reports her school has

188

...a very active Christian community that...led a small group of the Queen’s Park rally that went on earlier this year...Parents against the new sex ed curriculum - that’s coming from Christian families.

Parents that came to the school to speak to Maria were ‘clear’ on informing her they were ‘the parents leading the subgroup that went to the rally’.

Regardless of the thirty-five student loss her school experienced, Madeleine expresses gratitude she is not the principal of the school where there were ‘hundreds of parents outside on the front grounds protesting’ the sex education curriculum.

(iii)The construction of religious schools

The introduction of the sex education curriculum in the public system led one sect of the

Mennonite community in Jacob’s area to build its own private school. Despite its action, Jacob has ongoing communication with this group to encourage members to return to his school.

We continue to work...[with the] old colony school that started it [the new school]. We don’t see them as competition and they don’t see us as competition...We see each other as partners within a community trying to provide educational services—and there’s no good guy/bad guy. There’s no sheep stealing mentality. We want to be able to give them an option to consider, and we point out that the private schools are funded by tuition...There are opportunities that are in the public system that the private system simply can’t afford.

Although Elaine’s high school has not lost students over the new sex education curriculum, she notes a nearby mosque has started a new elementary school in the past couple of months.

Elaine believes it ‘is a reaction to the sex ed curriculum in public education’. As the school has not been open very long Elaine is ‘sure there are families that have pulled kids out, and have started their own school at the mosque’.

189

4.6.2.4. Boards and Ministry actions

The data indicate board and Ministry action can be divided as follows: (i) anticipatory action;

(ii) communication with the religious communities; (iii) procedures for accommodation;

(iv) changes in procedure; and (v) limits to religious accommodation.

(i) Anticipatory action

In terms of support to help ‘deal with potential confrontation’ that’s been predicted within the city over the Ministry’s health education curriculum, Trevor reports the principals received many resources from the Ministry and the board. He is ‘quite impressed’ with the openness in discussing the situation with the superintendents and how they get ‘us out in front of the issues’.201 As a result, Trevor ‘didn’t hear any large scale anything—couple high school issues, a couple of elementary schools where people were trying to get excited about...an idea and not about really about the issue.’

Overall, there has not been a lot of reaction to the new sex education curriculum in Elaine’s school itself and she, like Trevor, credits her board’s anticipatory and thorough preparation before its introduction.

I think they did a very good job at our board rolling it out, educating parents, providing the paperwork and the forms for that. They did some pilots at some schools before they rolled it out in the system. They didn’t jump right into it and say, ‘Alright, here it is. We’re starting it today’. They thought about it. They were very practical. They provided teachers with lessons and it was very well designed for everybody...I think [our board] learned from what Toronto did.202

201 Trevor notes that he did have one family take the son and daughter from his school and place them in a local Islamic school over the new health curriculum. The daughter, however, returned within a week as she thought instruction was better in the public school. The son remained at the Islamic school. Trevor views him as a ‘very effervescent, passionate boy’ that may have found a group at the religion-based school that had ‘similar interests...a religious connection’. 202 Elaine points out, however, that in spite of board efforts the nearby mosque built a new school. She believes the director, along with some trustees and superintendents, met with each imam in the community as ‘part of the process

190

(ii) Communication with the religious communities

Because of public reaction, Thomas’s board is ‘taking a closer look at rolling out the health curriculum’. Letters of explanation were sent to the community and board communication

‘states what exactly will be done’. Students will be ‘removed for some aspects’ and the school

‘will find something else for the student to do’ during the sex education portion of class, if parents continue to object.

(iii)Procedures for accommodation

Lindy’s board is anticipating a significant number of people protesting over the new health curriculum: ‘I mean you heard it in the news’. The principals working with the superintendent will have parents complete an accommodation plan stating they are opposed to the new health curriculum. Lindy acknowledges that ‘it’s not really an accommodation but that’s how we’re using it...We’ve only accommodated the schedule’. Health class will be scheduled for the last period of the day and parents can come and pick up their children.

Although this is ‘going against human rights, etcetera, etcetera...the board decided to accommodate and the child won’t be marked...neither pass nor fail’. Lindy notes the principals and the board are ‘trying to get to a point where things are natural and infused’ concerning the content of the health curriculum. She believes the board’s current withdrawal plan ‘is just a temporary measure...Right now it’s inconveniencing parents. “Well, pick up your child if you don’t want them to be a part of the human development, and then you can bring them back”.’

of rolling out the [new health] curriculum. Having those conversations with the imams was a pretty important piece’.

191

Lindy is not certain why her board is experiencing difficulties with parents and the new health curriculum when ‘things were articulated to the Ministry’. Her observation is

‘whatever the practice is it has to be consistent, and the message has to come from the board and from the Ministry too’. As Ontario is a ‘diverse province’ and there are ‘so many extremes’, Lindy asks, ‘How do you accommodate everybody?’ It is her view that ‘it’s not easy in public education. You try to accommodate everyone and it could backfire...It’s going to be interesting how it all evolves’.

(iv) Changes in procedure

Dana reports that the introduction of the new health curriculum, and community reaction to it, has led her board to change its religious accommodation procedure. As there have been many requests for withdrawal from the new health curriculum the board ‘decided to remove ‘religious accommodation’ from the book of forms. Now the form simply indicates ‘accommodation’. If parents want their child to ‘opt out’ of the program, ‘we let their child sit out for the new curriculum’.

Elaine’s board does not generally use forms on which the parents make their religious accommodation requests. An exception, however, has now been made in the context of the new sex education curriculum. Parents can have their children withdrawn from these classes for religious reasons through filling out and submitting the form.

The principals in Madeleine’s board were asked by the superintendent why families were leaving the board’s public schools. After consultation with the principals, the board will now make parents aware that ‘if they want accommodations for the health and phys. ed.

192

curriculum for religious reasons, then they have to make an application to [the principals] specifically around which part of the curriculum they object to’.

From Lama’s perspective, it was the Ministry of Education itself that invited confusion and parental upset over the new health curriculum. Customarily, the procedure in Lama’s school is to send letters home advising parents when the growth and development [sex education] portion of the curriculum is being taught. In the new sex education curriculum, however, the Ministry states that schools do not have to inform parents. Following the one day walkout and the concerns of parents, Lama reports her school decided to continue its practice of notifying parents, despite the Ministry’s direction to do otherwise.

(v) Limits to religious accommodation

Maria is adamant that her board will not ‘accommodate for discrimination’. Maria cites the example of a student in her school with two mothers. There was a request based on religious belief to separate that child from others and ‘that request was easily shut down’. Maria ‘stood her ground’ and took the issue to the superintendent. ‘There’s no way we’re going...to endorse discriminatory practices...and accommodate that’. Maria notes that although ‘it was very contentious’, the fact ‘we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms,’ and the fact ‘we have other policies that we can reference’, her board is ‘clear in that’.

4.6.2.5. Concerns of the religious communities

Teaching about sexual identity is the central concern of the religious communities that are in opposition to the content of the new health curriculum. The findings for this sub-section are

193

divided with that central theme in mind: (i) Fear of the unknown; (ii) Teaching about sexual identity; and (iii) Assuaging concerns of the religious communities.

(i) Fear of the unknown

Trevor is of the opinion that the reaction to the sex education curriculum is that the various religious groups became ‘excited about an idea and not really about an issue’. Equally, although

Dana’s religious communities reacted before taking the opportunity to review the content, Dana acknowledges even the thought of the curriculum ‘scares’ some of them.

(ii) Teaching about sexual identity

Lindy holds the opinion that issues associated with the LGBTQ community ‘seem to be pretty contentious’ and that schools and boards ‘haven’t really been educating families and communities’. This will have an effect on ‘some school communities more than others’.

Talking about sexual identity, sexual orientation—those are the topics that are covered which I think are sort of underlying what all these protests are about. They don’t want us to discuss sexual orientation at a young age because we’re ‘manipulating the children’. We’re making them think that they could be gay or lesbian or turn them into gays or lesbians....There’s so many myths out there...They have those myths they’re transferring into the school.203

Madeleine views her parent community as ‘much more subversive’ than the ones that actively protested at Queen’s Park. Before removing their children from her school, the parents spoke

203 Lindy’s frustration also extends to the reactions of some educators to the new health curriculum. ‘I’ve heard some stories from my colleagues where teachers are not comfortable talking about same sex marriage for example— because it’s against their religion. Well, you’re in the public system —that’s not a choice...Let’s just think about LGBTQ for a minute, right?’

194

directly to Madeleine about ‘their objections to the Health and Phys. Ed. curriculum around homosexuality specifically’.

Maria’s stance reflects that of Madeleine and Lindy in regard to parents that have issues with the discussion of gender identity, transgendered identity and same-sex parenting in the classroom.

When parents claim the school is ‘teaching about homosexuality’, Maria’s response is that a same-sex relationship ‘is a fair and respected life choice’.

(iii) Assuaging concerns of the religious communities

At various times in Lama’s school religious accommodation becomes ‘a hot topic’. For her, the new health curriculum is the current example. Lama was approached by one Christian and one

Muslim parent. The Christian parent was concerned about same sex relationships being discussed in grade two. The Muslim parent was concerned about the use of explicit language.

In both cases I was able to open the curriculum, and show them the examples, and the situations and they were able to calm down. And in the case of the same sex situation, I said ‘Well, you know your child is in a classroom with children who have same sex parents...so it’s going to come up whether it’s related to the curriculum, or not’.

4.6.3. Summary and Reflections

The data strongly suggests the introduction of the Ministry of Education’s new health education curriculum has ushered in ‘a large can of worms’ for principals to manage in the public school system. The Ministry’s plan for the rollout of the curriculum especially affects principals in the elementary panels as the program is implemented there first. In reaction to the sex education component, some religious leaders have instructed parents to keep their children at home, or to remove them from the public school system altogether, and a large number from some religious

195

communities is reported to have followed these instructions. Additionally, letters of protest from religious leaders have been sent to principals by parents and public demonstrations have taken place. Principals expect more protests are to come. The perceived core issues in the controversy focus on classroom discussions about homosexuality, same sex marriage and transgender identity.

It is reported Quaker, Mennonite and Muslim students, in protest, left the public system to attend private religious schools. Concern is expressed not only about the loss of students, but the concomitant potential loss of teaching staff in the public school system.

Some principals are able to ‘stick handle’ parental concerns through dialogue with them about the concept of different types of families—one parent, blended—and others work to ‘slow down rhetoric’ with the assistance of an experienced school council chair, or an experienced, long-time administrative assistant. Others report frustration that dialogue with the religious communities is

‘not working’. Further to this, there is concern that in trying to accommodate everyone’s religious needs in the public school system it ‘could backfire’ on the principal and the school.

Principals indicate some boards assist with the mitigation of the religious communities’ reaction to the sex education curriculum through getting ‘out in front of the issues’. This is accomplished through providing timely and clear information to concerned parents. Other boards, however, have simply changed procedures on how accommodation for religious reasons may be obtained.

References to ‘religious accommodation’ are omitted altogether, or new board procedures make it more time-consuming for religious communities to provide written, detailed reasons for their

196

objection to specific aspects of the health education curriculum. Additionally, the onus is on the requesters to propose an accommodation plan for their child. These changes in board procedure also increase the principals’ workload as they must review the religious accommodation plans proposed by parents, and then implement them as appropriate.

The immediate accommodation plan in several boards, whenever religious communities oppose the sex education curriculum, will be the complete withdrawal of their children from the program and from classrooms. The ‘sheer numbers’ of children whose parents are against the program makes it difficult for principals to accommodate these students in other classrooms in the school.

The onus will be on parents to pick up their children from school and then bring them back after the sex education lesson is completed. There is concern expressed that this arrangement

‘accommodate[s] for discrimination’ against the LGBTQ communities.

The Ministry of Education itself is blamed for contributing to the ‘uproar’ about the program when it advised boards that advance and preparatory communication with the religious communities about the rollout and content of the curriculum was not necessary. As a result, the religious communities are ‘scared’ and ‘excited’ about ‘an idea’ or ‘myths’ regarding the content of the Ministry’s new health education curriculum. It is now incumbent upon boards to better educate the families, not just the students.

197

Chapter Five: Critical Analysis and Discussion

5.1. Introduction

The principal’s ability to execute his or her duty to accommodate faith and religion requires not only professional knowledge and skill, but finesse in order to juggle competing Charter and Code rights, as well as a myriad of other board and ministry mandates, all while working towards the creation of a caring, civil, equitable and inclusive school environment.

This chapter, Critical Analysis and Discussion, is presented in the same order as that of

Chapter Four: Findings. The sections are as follows:

5.2. The role of the principal in the accommodation of faith and religion;

5.3. The effect of the accommodation of faith and religion on the school;

5.4. The management of conflict arising and the realization of undue hardship in the

accommodation of faith and religion

5.5. The growing presence and influence of Islam on the accommodation of faith and

religion;

5.6. The impact of the new health education curriculum in the accommodation of faith

and religion.

5.2. The role of the principal in the accommodation of faith and religion

This section analyzes and discusses how principals enact, integrate and mobilize the duty to accommodate faith and religion.

198

Although the range of religions for which the principals interviewed are responsible for accommodating vary from one, to a few, to multiple, the data clearly indicate that principals are not only executing their duty, but that they are knowledgeable about the underpinnings of board and ministry policies and the rights guaranteed by the Charter and the Code. All the principals, whether male or female, whether responsible for a large high school or a small elementary one, whether responsible for complex programs and divergent student needs, each articulated an understanding of the significance of their duty to accommodate the faith and religion of their staff and students, and to take responsibility for it accordingly.

Some principals more clearly articulate the belief that the accommodation of faith and religion forms part of the greater ideal of an inclusive and equitable school environment which, at the same time, aims to ensure a safe and welcoming environment for students, staff and the greater community. Others are not as explicit in expressing how they view the accommodation of faith and religion as being part of the greater inclusive and equity ideal, but they provide evidence that the faith-based needs of their staff and students are not simply ‘tolerated’, but respectfully recognized and embraced.

The life experience of principals and how they accommodate faith and religion in their schools may also be considered as an underlying factor. Jacob’s passion for ‘the seamlessness’ of the

Mennonite’s successful accommodation in his high school has a link to the fact he too is a

Mennonite. Jacob knows intimately the Mennonite’s historic struggle with religious accommodation in the public school system as it reflects his own struggle. Jacob’s personal and

199

professional empathy for the Mennonites and their religious tenets is reflected in the success of the specially designed co-operative education program.

Maria’s elementary school experience with a teacher who did not want to teach ‘wop kids’ had the effect of ‘put[ting] a fire in [her] belly’. This event is the root of Maria’s involvement in anti-oppressive research for several decades and current participation in equity training in her board. Maria understands the effects of being ‘the other’ and marginalized. As a principal, she strives to ensure her experience is not repeated and focuses on a school culture of inclusivity.

Moreover, Maria strives to ensure the religious needs of each student as an individual are accommodated in her school.

Unlike Maria and Jacob, Madeleine’s fierce support for the respectful accommodation of First

Nation spirituality and for her First Nation students themselves does not seem to have a link to

Madeleine’s personal heritage. Her strong sense of inclusion and equity for her First Nation students – through helping to build a sanctuary for smudging; taking busloads of children to the

Truth and Reconciliation Day Celebration; and through devising staff development ‘excursions’ that allowed the recalcitrant to better understand the life realities of their Aboriginal students - may simply be because of Madeleine’s understanding and empathy for the historic marginalization and ‘othering’ of our First Nation. It also may be linked to the fact Madeleine has a ‘fire in her belly’ because her daughter is sometimes ‘othered’ as a member of the LGBTQ community. It is clear that any attempt to marginalize another is an affront to Madeleine’s sense of justice and she strives to not only realize her duty to accommodate faith and religion, but to take to task those that disregard or violate the rights of others.

200

John’s approach to his legal duty to accommodate faith and religion, on the other hand, is more subtle. His approach is not attributable to any personal experience that was disclosed or detected in either of the two interviews he gave. John simply knows what his legal duties are regarding the accommodation of faith and religion—and puts them into practice, even before his board introduced its policy handbook on the accommodation of faith and religion. John manages his school to ensure an inclusive school environment and expresses pride in that his legal duties are realized in his staff and students. He understands the varied background and needs of his students. John views the students as a microcosm of the reality of the wider multi-cultural and multi-faith community – a community to which the students will be well prepared to contribute as adults. Although many of the faith-based and multi-cultural activities in John’s school suggest it is at stage one of Banks (2014) four stages of school reforms leading to equity204 - the

‘Contribution level’ which focuses on heroes, holidays, and culture, with no structural change — there is a strong indication from John that the accommodation of faith and religion is a priority.

His overall goal is not just equity, but student safety and inclusion.

In Chief Justice McLaughlin’s keynote address at the Aga Khan Museum on May 29th, 2016, she synthesizes Canadian jurisprudence and concludes that there are three preparatory conditions for the accommodation of the ‘other’: 1) respect for his or her dignity; 2) a mindset that fosters

204 As cited earlier is section 2.5., Banks (2014) states school reform that realizes equity also includes: 2. The Additive level (focusing on themes and perspectives without changing structure); 3. Transformation level (focusing on changing structure and on multiple perspectives and approaches); and, 4. Social action level (where structure is changed and students, teachers, and school leaders are asked to make decisions on important social issues and take action to help solve them). In contrast to John, the establishment of non-gendered bathrooms to accommodate transgendered students in Lama’s school may place her efforts at the social action level. Equally, Trevor’s decision ‘to put it to the kids’ when Muslim students were fasting for Ramadan and could not participate in the grade eight graduation dinner may also demonstrate an example of the social action level. The structure of the celebration was changed to accommodate religious needs. Arguably, Jacob’s development of the co-operative education program to accommodate Mennonite students, which, in turn, grew to include students that need to work to support themselves and those historically homeschooled, is situated more at the fourth level of Banks’ paradigm for the establishment of equity in schools.

201

inclusion; and, 3) the maintenance of the rule of law. Without question, these three factors are evidenced in how the twelve principal participants interact with their staff, their students and their communities in their endeavours to accommodate faith and religion in their schools. They are, moreover, public school leaders that both ‘understand [the] richness pluralism brings’ and

‘understand that all are qualitatively equal’ (p.30).

The principal participants provide abundant evidence Chief Justice McLaughlin’s three preparatory conditions for the accommodation of the ‘other’ are realized in their public schools.

Firstly, respect for the dignity of the ‘other’ is demonstrated through the recognition of the First

Nation students and the focus by principals to ‘make them feel proud’ of who they are, and through the provision of space for the spiritual act of smudging. In the process the First Nation students are recognized more as ‘brothers and sisters’ of the non-Aboriginal student body, and not as the ‘other’.

A further example of principals demonstrating respect for the dignity of the ‘other’ is the creation of a co-operative education program which specifically focuses on the re-engagement of the Mennonite community into the public school system and which integrates their religious needs and beliefs. Respectful communication by the principal with the Mennonite community members and input from them preceded the formation of this program, and communication is ongoing. Through the demonstration of respect for the dignity of the Mennonites, the dignity of various others is also served. Students that need to earn a living while completing their schooling benefit from the program. There is recognition that some, due to work schedules, cannot always attend school during the day. As for the Mennonites, respect for the dignity of

202

these students is demonstrated in the creation of flexible timetabling which includes classes in the evening and acknowledgment that attendance during the regular school day, every day, cannot be mandatory.

Chief Justice McLaughlin’s second pre-condition for accommodation is ‘a mindset that fosters inclusion’. The principals provide numerous examples of their collective mindset of inclusion.

This mindset encompasses not only the students and staff in their schools, but also the surrounding religious communities and guidance provided by their boards.

Principals ensure school nutrition programs and community functions recognize religious dietary needs through the provision of halal, kosher and vegetarian food. Principal-led staff development programs aim to ensure all members have the knowledge and skills to effectively include the faith and religious needs of their students. In turn, the principals ensure the religious needs of staff are recognized and included. Procedures for staff absences during significant faith days are in place and are practised. Principals ensure these absences are

‘charge[d] against religious accommodation’, and not from the contractual ‘sick day bank’, so there is no penalty afforded. There is a budget for supply teachers and they are brought in to cover for faith-based absences.

Principals, for the most part, view their boards as partners that enable and support the principals’ mindset of inclusivity. The provision of sport hijabs by one principal’s board is a case in point.

Several of the principals state their boards take anticipatory actions and provide in-service for principals to better understand the policies and procedures—both originating from the Ministry

203

and the board—which focus on faith and religious requirements. Most boards work with principals to ensure these requirements are ‘clear’ and ‘enforced’. Boards provide principals with information bulletins and newsletters highlighting religious holidays. There are specially designated board personnel that assist principals when religious inclusion becomes

‘complicated’.

Finally, the principals’ mindset of inclusivity is also demonstrated in their interaction with the religious communities. Principals endeavour to meet the diverse faith-based requirements through focused and respectful dialogue. In the resolution of any conflict of values, principals recognize that agreement and understanding must be ‘negotiated’ in order to promote inclusion of divergent points of view. The inclusion of divergent points of view, however, may present challenges for principals and may be limited when they come into conflict with Chief Justice

McLaughlin’s third pre-requisite for accommodation, ‘the maintenance of the rule of law’.

From specific references to their legal duty to adhere to the Charter and the Code, to concern that some public school boards may be resiling from the mandate to accommodate faith and religion, the principals express understanding of the foundational requisite for the maintenance of the rule of law in their practice. The principals know their student and staff members have a legal right to have their religious beliefs recognized and incorporated into the fabric of the school. The principals also know they have an instrumental role in ensuring and realizing this legal right.

204

At the same time, it is acknowledged that principals cannot work alone. In leading the professional development of staff members and instilling in them an understanding of the underpinnings of the law, their legal duties, and the legal rights of the students, principals create an environment that is open to the accommodation of religious needs. Staff members, in turn, encourage students to ‘have voice’. Students are supported in speaking up about their religious rights and needs, as well as those of their peers.

For the few staff members that do not grasp the reality of their legal duties the principal may turn to the Ontario College of Teachers or to the board to assist with those who need further instruction about the law and the religious rights of students.

Aside from dealing with recalcitrant staff that may require remediation concerning their legal duties, the principals reference three other examples where the maintenance of the rule of law may be challenged and the accommodation of faith and religion estopped: other principals; their board; and conflicting but equal Charter and Code rights.

The participants express concern that some of their principal colleagues are not willing to spend the requisite time in addressing the religious needs of individuals. The refusal to provide a prayer room in the school is an example of a legal transgression reported. Another is the refusal of some principals to fulfill their legal duty when they take a ‘one size fits all’ approach and ignore the fact ‘there’s diversity within diversity’ when accommodating religious needs. It is reported some principals even ignore that the law dictates religious accommodation is a

‘requirement’ and not an ‘option’. This is in contravention of the Charter, the Code, and the

205

Ministry’s own Religious Accommodation Guideline, the prototype for all board policy. In section 1, ‘Legislative and Policy Context’, it clearly states the legal framework for public boards and schools:

All school boards exist within a broader context of law and public policy that protect and defend human rights...The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Section 15) protects freedom of religion. The Ontario Human Rights Code (The Code) protects an individual’s freedom from discriminatory or harassing behaviours based on religion. In addition to and consistent with this legislation, The Education Act, its Regulations and policies govern Equity and Inclusion205 in Schools.

Further to this, the recognition of Charter and Code rights, along with the realization of equity and inclusion by the principals in their public schools, also encompasses the unique religious requirements of each individual, separate from the assumed religious needs of the faith group to which he belongs. As section III of the Guideline delineates: ‘accommodation will be provided in accordance with the principles of dignity, individualization,206 and inclusion...’ In further support of this idea of individualized approach, it is noted by the Superior Court in Hall

(Litigation Guardian of) v. Powers (2002) 207that members of religious groups do not hold uniform beliefs in general. Ergo, there is no uniform ‘correct’ response to accommodation.

Truly realizing the legal duty to accommodate faith and religion is dependent upon the

(potentially) unique, but ‘reasonable’,208 request(s) of each individual member of the school community.

205 Emphasis added. 206 Emphasis added. 207 Op.Cit. footnote 135. 208 In realizing the legal duty to accommodate staff and students in public schools, the ‘Mission Statement’ of the Religious Accommodation Guideline indicates boards are ‘committed to taking all reasonable steps’. Likewise, in the ‘Introduction’, the Guideline states ‘it is expected students and their families will help the Board to understand their religious needs and will work with the Board and its schools to determine appropriate and reasonable accommodations’. The limits of what is deemed ‘reasonable’ religious accommodation is open to interpretation and may precipitate a declaration of undue hardship. Under section 24(2) of the Code, this declaration, or point of undue hardship is considered in the context of cost (financial, human and/or organizational); outside sources of funding;

206

Of greater concern than some principals not ensuring the maintenance of the rule of law are the reports of the systematic actions (or inactions) of some boards. It is indicated that at least one board has gone from ‘one extreme to other’ in its policies and procedures concerning the accommodation of faith and religion. The specifics of ‘religious accommodation’ have recently and purposely been removed from board forms, seemingly reducing the importance of this legal duty. Issues are also arising about the board’s refusal to exempt students from certain curriculum, despite parental requests, based on religious beliefs. Of greatest concern are the reported manifestations of Islamophobia.

The described recalcitrance of some principals and some boards to acknowledge and to exercise their duty to fully accommodate the faith and religion of all members of the community will perhaps be addressed through the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, or in the courts. Recently, the

York Region and the Peel District School Boards have been challenged publicly on their methods of religious accommodation. In both examples the focus is on the treatment of Muslims and Islam in our public schools. The Peel Board is viewed as ‘stigmatizing’ Friday prayer by the

Muslim community, in violation of this group’s religious rights. The York Region Board has been accused of dragging its feet on addressing signs of Islamophobia in the system. The Peel

Board’s issue has been resolved for the time being, as the board realized it was overstepping its legal boundary.209 The York Region Board, however, has yet to come to a similar realization.

Currently, the Ministry is involved in overseeing its affairs. The Minister of Education is

and health and safety considerations. The limits of ‘reasonable’ religious accommodation and the context of undue hardship for principals are discussed further in section 5.4., ‘The management of conflict arising and the realization of undue hardship in the accommodation of faith and religion’. 209 Nick Boisvert, ‘Muslim community slams Peel District School Board over ‘stigmatizing’ Friday prayer restrictions’, CBC News, November 8, 2016. Online: http://www.cbcnews.ca., and Caroline Alphonso, ‘Peel school board changes controversial decision on Muslim prayers’. The Globe and Mail. January 06, 2017. Online: http://www.theglobeandmail.com.

207

seeking a concrete plan from the York Region Board demonstrating its plan to quell

Islamophobic behaviour and attitudes, as well as racism in general.210

Finally, the principals report finding themselves in a quandary when a conflict of competing

Code and Charter rights arises in their schools. As will be discussed in section 5.6., ‘The impact of the new health education curriculum on the accommodation of faith and religion’, the content of the curriculum alarms some religious groups and the principals are faced with attempting to accommodate religious rights that conflict with the equal rights of the LGBTQ community.

Although the SCC in its 2012 decision, SL v. Commission Scolaire des Chȇnes,211 writes that state neutrality is a ‘governing principle’ in public schools when resolving issues related to religion and diversity, Berger (2014) adds that ‘neutrality’ should not require ‘resil[ing] from the pursuit of conditions necessary for a just and ethical common world’. To complicate the matter, however, as Berger continues, public schools have become ‘a crucible...a principal site for contemporary debates about the meaning of secularism and the management of religious difference’ (pp. 105 & 121). In the context of ‘minorities...edg[ing] their way relentlessly toward becoming collectively a majority, minority issues – and pluralist social policy – gain[ing] a formidable political momentum’ (Paquette (1989), p. 448), the principals’ efforts to maintain the rule of law in this context of competing human rights may be akin to the unrelenting challenge of Sisyphus. This ‘boulder’ of intractable conflict may have to be resolved by the courts.

210 Kristin Rushowy & Noor Javed, ‘York board needs action plan on racism, Islamophobia, education minister demands’. The Toronto Star. November 26, 2016. Online: http://www.torstar.com.; Kristin Rushowy & Noor Javed, ‘Veteran York educator blasts board on racist, anti-Muslim incidents’. The Toronto Star. November 16, 2016. Online: http://www.torstar.com. 211 Op.Cit. footnote 133.

208

John MacBeath in Griffith and Portelli (2015) make the claim that school leadership is a

‘subversive activity’ in that it necessitates ‘asking hard, uncomfortable and uninvited questions’ about the status quo and to see beyond the ‘grand narrative’ of the norm (p.27). Trevor, Maria and Madeleine provide specific examples of striving to move beyond the established ‘this is the way we do things around here’ (p.27). Although Madeleine focuses on social justice, her staff was recalcitrant and viewed the First Nations students from a deficit perspective. Through introducing the teachers to the realities of their students’ lives by replicating some of their daily challenges by way of a bus ‘excursion’, Madeleine aimed to help her staff rise above its own

‘grand narrative’. Maria notes that the tide of religious accommodation in her board is ebbing.

To rise above the changing status quo, she continues to emphasize and demonstrate that religious accommodations are ‘requirements and not options’. Equally, buoyed by the stance of the

Ontario Human Rights Commission, Maria advocates strongly that an exemption from a class for religious reasons is an accommodation, although her board is currently resiling from this position.

What is curious about Maria’s argument and that of the Commission about the right for a student to be exempted from classes for religious reasons is that this accommodation may serve to

‘stigmatize, embarrass, and ostracize’ these students, as was found by the Court of Appeal in the

1988 decision Zylberberg v. Sudbury Board of Education.212 Arguably, Maria’s and the

Commission’s position on exemption may still be an ‘indirect coercion on pupils...[creating] pressure to conform to the majority’s norms’ (Hogg, 2005). Non-participation in established classes may create a sense of ‘otherness’ in the students exempted for religious reasons. Perhaps it is the subject content of the curriculum that needs to be addressed. Arguably, exemption is a

212 Op.Cit., footnote 101.

209

facile solution for the realization of the accommodation of faith and religion. Although on one level it satisfies the principal’s legal duty to accommodate faith and religion, it also potentially stymies the twin goals of equity and inclusivity in public schools.

In the example of Trevor ‘asking hard, uncomfortable, and uninvited questions’ to demonstrate his opposition to the status quo, he offers a challenge to the use of the word ‘accommodate’ when addressing religious requirements. At the same time, Trevor also raises an important challenge in that he believes public schools are ‘being forced’ to be larger than they are ‘capable of being’. Both points raised by Trevor are important and merit further discussion.

In the first instance, to rise above the ‘grand narrative’ of ‘accommodation’, Trevor uses more invitational words, such as ‘awareness and support’, or inclusive ones, such as ‘partnership’ with the community. Coupled with this, he views the ‘accommodation’ of religion itself as being a

‘minor aspect’ of the ‘greater piece [of] ‘tolerance, social justice, kindness and curiosity’.

I support Trevor’s stance on the use of the word ‘accommodation’. Although the term ‘duty to accommodate’ originates from a legal perspective, it, perhaps, belies the human factor or the humanity of ‘the other’ involved. A legal duty ‘to partner’ with the other would level the power imbalance between those government agents responsible for accommodation (such as public school principals) and those who have the right to be accommodated (the multi-faith community members). A legal duty ‘to partner’ may, in turn, lead to Trevor’s ideal of the ‘greater piece’: a school climate of ‘tolerance,213 social justice, kindness and curiosity’, with no ‘othering’.

213 In footnote 59 above, I take issue with the use of the word ‘tolerance’. Chief Justice McLaughlin (2015) emphasizes that tolerance of the ‘other’ is the mere baseline for societal interaction. Similar to the word

210

In the second example, Trevor is ‘rising above the grand narrative’ of the accepted legal and policy norm of accommodation (or ‘awareness and support’) of religion itself. For Trevor, the principal’s responsibility for the accommodation of faith and religion is an example of the ever increasing expectations placed on public schools. He perceives there may be a tipping point in terms of manageability and safety. This, in turn, may increase the anxiety levels of principals and ‘burn [them] out’.

I believe Trevor expresses a legitimate concern that is only alluded to by some of the other principal participants. The issue is not with the duty to accommodation faith and religion itself, but with the bourgeoning expectations and responsibilities placed upon the public school principals in general. Although Trevor indicates he does see beyond the ‘grand narrative’ of the norm and that he understands the legalities and importance of religious rights, he also understands that he has limits as an individual and as a principal—despite endeavouring to ensure his staff and students collectively too can see beyond the ‘grand narrative’. Perhaps

Trevor is serving as the proverbial canary and he is expressing what the other participants avoided explicitly admitting. As each described the makeup of their schools and their numerous responsibilities, it became clear their jobs are increasingly complex, demanding and time consuming. Despite all this ‘allness’, however, each principal describes in detail what he or she does to ensure the realization of their legal duty to accommodate faith and religion in their schools.

‘accommodation’, ‘tolerance’ of the ‘other’ is problematic as it underlines the power imbalance between those citizens who are in a position to decide what is ‘tolerable’ (or deemed accommodable) and those who religious needs are to be ‘tolerated’ (or accommodated).

211

Trevor too describes the many ways he fulfills this legal duty. The difference is Trevor acknowledges that a principal’s time and energy is not infinite. Perhaps as the principals work to accommodate the legal rights of their students and staff, the Ministry and boards should ensure the principals’ working conditions respect their rights and limits.

Jacob, on the other hand, does not speak to the idea of ‘burnout’ but instead outlines how he circumvents the status quo and mobilizes the duty to accommodate faith and religion with limited stress through managing the tensions and parameters (‘bumpers’) associated with the expectations of the Ministry, the board and collective agreements. Once the limits of the

‘bumpers’ are understood by the principal, in Jacob’s opinion, there is ‘a lot of room to play’. In accommodating the religious needs of the Mennonite community, Jacob demonstrates the need to be ‘critically educative’ through ‘acknowledging that students cannot be forced to fit the system but that the system must adapt’ (Shields in Griffiths and Portelli (2015), p.83). This specially designed co-operative education was created to accommodate the religious beliefs and culture of the Mennonites after decades of their marginalization in the public school system.214

The co-operative program was realized because time was invested in including the voices of

Mennonite clergy and families. A balance was struck between accountability to the educative requirements of the Ministry and the board and the religious values and needs of the Mennonites.

Jacob and his staff take the position that they are not ‘the white knights’ accommodating the

Mennonites, but rather that he and the staff are the ‘servants’.

214 For an overview of the Mennonite experience in Ontario’s public school system see Cameron Brubacher, ‘Low German Mennonite Experiences in Alternate Education Programs in Southwestern Ontario’ (2016), Social Justice and Community Engagement.17. Online: http://scholars.wlu.ca/brantford_sjce/IT.

212

In his 1977 essay, ‘The Servant as Leader,’215 Greenleaf describes his concept of servitude as an attribute of a strong and effective leader. The essence of the author’s paradigm is that

The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first…The leader-first and the servant-first are two extreme types…The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served. The best test, and difficult to administer, is: Do those served grow as persons?...A servant-leader focuses primarily on the growth and well-being of people and the communities to which they belong. While traditional leadership generally involves the accumulation and exercise of power by one at the “top of the pyramid,” servant leadership is different. The servant-leader shares power, puts the needs of others first and helps people develop and perform as highly as possible.

Jacob actively accommodates the religious requirements of the Mennonites using a similar lens.

For him, it is not an issue of power, but simply an invitation to the Mennonites to voluntarily participate in the public school system so that he may serve them to the best of his abilities. This concept of servant-leader is also evidenced in the other eleven participants, to differing degrees.

Adding to the list of requisite skills needed by the principal in the accommodation of faith and religion Giroux (1992) discusses the importance of ‘collegial resilience and confidence in the direction of travel’ (p.45). In other words, the principal cannot go it alone in effectively realizing the duty to accommodate the faith and religion of all community members. Principals must ensure their staff members are knowledgeable and active participants, willing to strive for equity and inclusion. Terrence’s strategy is to help staff members ‘deconstruct’ issues. Through this process they will not only develop ‘confidence’ in the principal’s ‘direction of travel’, but efforts by Terrence to deconstruct issues will effectively ‘change them forever’. Terrence’s strategy

215 Robert G. Greenleaf (1977), The Servant as Leader – A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness. Pauless Press: Online: www.benning.army.mil/infantry/199th/OCS.

213

helps staff to ‘understand why they have to fight for their children’ and to be mindful that religious accommodation is part of the ‘equity family’. Similarly, Anne has staff ‘unpack’ the board document to know ‘the essential expectations and information’ required.

Maria, on the other hand, has moved her school to a more ‘invitational approach’ which

‘removes the whole [negative] power piece’ for the staff and for the community. Instead of leaving it up to parents to articulate their children’s religious needs, Maria actively extends an invitation to the community to discuss how she and the school can accommodate them.

To develop ‘collegial resilience’ and ‘confidence in the direction of travel’ Elaine emphasizes to her staff that the school is ‘open to all groups, all faiths. Any idea [she and her staff] need to develop and work on together, [they will] do that’. Trevor holds the opinion that although his knowledge as principal arms him to lead, staff views and experiences need to be incorporated in order to have them buy into the process, and to develop confidence in his proposed ‘direction of travel’.

Other means by which the principals are able to successfully enact, integrate and mobilize the duty to accommodate faith and religion is through the support of their board superintendents and board policies. Although William expresses satisfaction that the board policy he helped to create addresses the requirements of the Code and the Charter, he also notes that it only ‘highlighted the things’ already being done in his school and did not affect the status quo of procedure or practice. Although ‘hard and fast’ policy on the accommodation of faith and religion has only been created by Trevor’s board in the past five years, he acknowledges that it has been ‘reactive’

214

and ‘responsive’ in this area and ensures that policy is both ‘clear’, and most importantly,

‘enforced’. In addition, there are equity consultants to assist the principals with issues arising associated with the accommodation of religion and they help delineate the ‘hows’ and ‘whys’.

Thomas views his board as assisting him and his school through being ‘proactive’ and encouraging a culture of ‘inclusivity’. Thomas cites the provision of sport hijabs by the board as an example. For Lindy, it is the ‘point person’ at the board that helps to keep the accommodation of religion ‘consistent’ and assists ‘if you come into a situations that might be complicated’. Lindy also finds it helpful that the board ‘point person’ helps to avoid

‘randomness and inequity’. It is the ‘massive in-service’ and updated policy documents by the board that assist Anne with accommodation of religion in her school.

It is also through respectful dialogue and engagement with the school community that the principals are able to fulfill their mandate for successful religious accommodation. Jacob notes he has ‘street credit’ with the Mennonites. After carefully managing ‘the buying in process’ of the cooperative education program through investing time talking to the community about their needs, he convinced the Mennonites his school is ‘not such a bad place’. Trevor engages his community by anticipating needs. This includes knowing how to run meetings ‘in many different ways with many different intents’ and having conversations with community members on how they ‘can together envision [their] education system’. Terrence adds to Trevor’s focus on creating a mutual vision with the religious community through emphasizing the requirement for principals to spend a lot of time listening,216rather than speaking. Terrence asserts that all voices must be heard in order to ensure the school is truly inclusive. For Thomas, not only is it

216 Emphasis added.

215

important to know the community and to develop a relationship with them, but that agreement and understanding must be ‘negotiated’. Similar to Jacob’s ‘street credit’ with the Mennonites, gaining trust with his multi-cultural community is Thomas’ key to his success in respectfully accommodating their faith and religion.

Maria, Elaine and Dana note that the inclusion of the religious leaders in the dialogue with the community is also as an important component in the accommodation of faith and religion in public schools. The role of the religious leaders is especially evidenced in the interaction between principals and the imams.217 Where the principals find themselves stymied in conducting dialogue with the community, and in realizing their duty to accommodate, is when religious leaders, at times, pre-empt dialogue. This is evidenced in Dana’s incident in her school with the young Sikh child and her kirpan. Dana’s opportunity for dialogue was pre-empted by a letter originating from the Sikh temple citing the child’s legal right to have a kirpan at school.

The issue was not conflict about religious rights, but a concern for the right of all children to be safe at school.

The pre-emption of dialogue is also evidenced in relation to the introduction of the Ministry’s new health education curriculum. Some religious leaders instructed their communities to keep their children at home to demonstrate their opposition and thereby eschewing dialogue with the principals.218 It was only through the timeliness of a parent’s phone call and the intervention of a long-time administrative assistant that Lama was able to circumvent the removal of students from her school, despite the religious leaders’ instructions.

217 The role of the imam is discussed further in section 5.5.3. 218 More discussion on the new health education curriculum is presented in section 5.6.

216

Griffiths and Portelli (2015) point out that ‘...the human nature of the project’ of serving as a principal in the public school system ‘means that [one] cannot control all the variables’ of the socio-political environment of his or her school, and therefore ‘cannot predict the outcomes’ of even the most well-planned and well-thought out endeavour. This may be especially true when exercising the duty to accommodate faith and religion (p.287). As Lindy states, the accommodation of faith and religion is a ‘delicate, complicated thing’. ‘You have to figure out a system’ (Lindy) and ‘find creative solutions (Anne). ‘It’s about levelling the playing field’

(Dana) and it ‘depends on what you call an accommodation’ (Lama).

Lama’s comment, ‘depends on what you call an accommodation’ provides some insight into the general mindset of the principals interviewed. During our discussions each had to reflect on how they actually ‘accommodate’ the religious needs of staff and students as it has become interwoven into the fabric of their schools. Seemingly, for these principals, it is an integral part of their job to strive for an environment of equity and inclusion, not just to ‘accommodate’. The complexities involved in realizing equity and inclusion call for more: ‘judicious, conscious, critical and creative leadership’ (Griffiths and Portelli, 2015).

Such attributes and skills that enable principals to enact, integrate and mobilize the duty to accommodate faith and religion necessitate ‘daily dedication’ on the part of the principal to ensure that ‘growing inclusion’ is evidenced in the school (Griffiths (2013)). Moreover,

‘judicious, conscious, critical and creative leadership’ is never successfully superseded by the facile guidance of formulaic ‘best practices’ (Griffiths and Portelli (2015), p.287). This is demonstrated by the principal participants through their descriptions of numerous and varied

217

religious and faith accommodations in their schools: Jacob envisioned a co-operative education program to include the religious needs of Mennonites in his public school; Lama oversaw the early adoption of gender neutral bathrooms and the establishment of ‘pink days’ to celebrate the

LGBTQ community, all while managing religious opposition to same-sex relationships by pointing out the fact many of her students have same-sex parents ; Lindy ‘goes with the flow’ when ensuring her school still functions—although classes are collapsed, there is a shortage of supply teachers, and programs are less robust—during high rates of student and staff absences for Jewish holidays; Dana and Maria offer their offices to students as prayer space and whenever they are fasting; and Madeleine devised a unique professional development plan when she took her staff in a bus along a pulp road so they could learn the realities of their First Nation students’ lives.

These examples of judicious, conscious, critical and creative leadership may not be found in the formulaic ‘best practices’ handbooks for principals. Moreover, as Marie points out, how people practice their faith and religion is influenced by factors of culture, geographic origin, age demographics, and the individual: ‘There’s diversity within diversity’. In a multi-cultural and multi-faith society like Ontario’s, arguably, ‘best practices’ merely delineates the starting line for the skills and attributes required by principals to successfully accommodate the religious needs of each member of their school community.

5.3. The impact of the accommodation of faith and religion on the school

Although the public school system is ‘strapped to a Roman Christian calendar’ (Lindy), the

Ministry’s Religious Accommodation Guidelines and the policies of the boards have assisted

218

principals in ensuring that diverse faith and religious needs are infused into the fabric of the school and that it ‘spills over into everything’ (Dana). Principals report that the overall effect is one of positivity for the students, staff, school and community. ‘Connections and friendships’

(Jacob) are made between students of different faiths; curriculum is re-written to ensure inclusivity; the school norm is to ‘treat each other with respect’; and the community that is

‘representative of everything’ (Dana) is consulted and welcomed by the principal. The outcome in these examples is the school may become a safer place to be when space is made for all differences.

Central to this discussion of the impact of the accommodation of faith and religion is the student.

The principals’ focus on inclusivity, respect and consultation is reflected in the reported actions and behaviours of the students. Students are encouraged ‘to speak and develop their voices’

(Maria) for the accommodations needed. They are coached to ‘jump in’ and stop negative comments if someone is disrespecting faith or religious attire. Students are invited to problem- solve issues that have an impact on the school.

The successful strategy for grade eight graduation in the form of an ‘awesome activity’ is a case in point. Student voice and collective problem-solving skills seemed to realize a trifecta of positive outcomes: the fasting requirements of the Muslim students were accommodated; students with limited financial means had the opportunity to participate in an activity that was

219

beyond their families’ reach; and the grade eight students, as an entity, were part of a school- sponsored endeavour that the students themselves had helped to realize.219

In the interviews principals often credited staff members with not only ensuring that the curriculum taught is inclusive, but that they assist the principal with creating an open, accommodating and inclusive school environment. In turn, principals assist staff by engaging in a ‘fair bit’ of work on diversity with them. Overall, diversity is ‘celebrated’ and the accommodation of religion ‘drives’ the schools.

Central to the accommodation of religion is the reality of absences from school by both students and staff for significant faith days. In fact, the principals state that absences for religious reasons are the greatest and most numerous accommodations made. Compromise and flexibility is required by the principal and the teachers that remain at the school. There is a budget for supply teachers, but this does not necessary provide the principal with the requisite number needed.

Whenever a principal has a large number of staff from the same faith group, the requested days of absence are granted, but due to a shortage of supply teachers the principal may have to collapse or cancel programs and have no prep coverage for the remaining teachers, even though this time is contractually agreed upon. Programming for students may also be less ‘robust’.

Coupled with this, the recognition of significant faith days, as outlined in each board’s calendar, specifies when schools are not allowed to take students on trips, principals cannot hold meetings, and tests, assignments or projects cannot be scheduled.

219 It has to be remembered, however, that this is Trevor’s interpretation of the outcome. Perhaps, if the grade eight students themselves had been interviewed, their assessment of the changes made to the graduation ceremony may have been different.

220

None of the principals expressed any lament or concern about the restrictions and absenteeism that are inherent to the accommodation of faith and religion. The consensus was simply, a principal needs ‘to go with the flow’. It raises the question, however, whether schools are able to function effectively in the wake of legally sanctioned absences by both staff and students, along with restrictions on what schools may do during significant faith days. The principals only address the benefit of the accommodation of faith and religion, and only allude to the ‘cost’.

The ‘cost’ could be assessed in terms of staff members that are still paid when they are absent for religious reasons; the salaries paid to supply teachers to cover theses absences; loss of goodwill of colleagues that must give up their prep time to cover ‘collapsed’ classes when no supply is available; union involvement when class size is pierced; programming that is less robust on faith days where student and staff absence is significant; and school trips that must be postponed or cancelled because of non-Christian holidays. These are the underlying potential ‘costs’ for principals (and their schools) when they rightfully fulfill their duty to accommodate faith and religion, as well as strive for equity and inclusivity in secular public schools with multi-faith communities.

Arguably, these ‘costs’ of accommodating faith and religion in our secular public schools demonstrates that our public schools still rest on a foundation that favours, overwhelmingly, the historic Christianity base. To paraphrase Lindy, as a Catholic she has all her significant faith days recognized and accommodated simply because of the way the school year is structured.

There is no ‘cost’ to her or to her board because her faith days match the official holidays when schools are closed. Lindy asks, however, —as do I—‘What about everyone else’’?

221

Even though the principals indicate they possess ‘the epistemic framework’ that ‘sheds light on

[the] inequalities and injustices’ (Nelson et al, 2013) within the present public school framework and system, and even thought their work is supported by the Code, the Charter, jurisprudence and Ministry policy, the reality is principals must be able to manage the great ‘costs’ associated with the realization of their duty to accommodate faith and religion. In an increasingly multicultural and multi-faith society, unless there is a structural change to the public school system, the realization of the principals’ duties will become even more Herculean, and the ‘costs’ may be correspondingly exponential.

In conjunction with this, even though the Supreme Court states in in the 1994 Chambly v.

Bergevin decision, when it addresses the legal requirement to accommodate faith day absences from the workplace and notes that absences for religious reasons ‘every Friday throughout the year...might be impossible to reasonably accommodate’,220I respectfully suggest that this ‘cost’ may become more difficult to substantiate and uphold, as the law currently stands. For, ‘...as minorities...edge their way relentlessly toward becoming collectively a majority, minority issues

—and pluralistic social policy— [will] gain a formidable political momentum’ (Paquette (1989), p.448). Whenever the political ‘cost’ from this momentum is subsequently realized, it may demand changes to the structure of the Christian-based public school system. In turn, the current

‘costs’ of accommodating faith and religion, as delineated above by the principals, may concomitantly be erased.

The existence and success of a program that accommodates a religious group that has been historically marginalized, as described by Jacob, returns the discussion back to the positive

220 Op.Cit, footnote 133.

222

aspects of the accommodation of faith and religion. Not only has the specially designed co- operative education program created for the Mennonite community sustained the school in a time of declining enrollment, but it has had the net benefit of including non-Mennonites that needed the flexibility offered so they could work and earn money while attending school. In turn, this resulted in an increase in the number of staff and other school programs. The co-operative education program has also attracted students that were home-schooled by parents. In this example of how faith and religion are accommodated, it is demonstrated that mindful accommodation that is preceded by respectful dialogue with the community can be ‘the tide that floats the boat’ of a school’s sustainability, vibrancy and inclusivity.

Finally, in the wake of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report, and the ninety-four calls to action for us to work together toward repairing the harm to our First Nations caused by residential schools, Jacob’s co-operative program, as he suggests, may be of benefit. Some principals make reference to the accommodation of the First Nation’s spirituality and cultural needs in their schools. In the midst of our ever increasing multi-culturalism, I view this as a hopeful sign that our indigenous people are being recognized and that their spirituality is acknowledged. The adaptation of a program like Jacob’s could be a catalyst for a move forward for the children of First Nations, providing the opportunity for school programs that are flexible with space to develop the spirituality and culture of their indigenous group(s). In consultation with indigenous leaders, it could be the principals’ contribution to the collaborative healing called for in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s report.

223

5.4. The management of conflict arising and the realization of undue hardship in the accommodation of faith and religion.

In the 2010 decision, Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Christian Horizons221the court held that

[e]quality means equal concern and respect across difference...At the very least, it affirms that difference should not be the basis for exclusion, marginalisation and stigma. At best, it celebrates the vitality that difference brings to any society.

This citation also reflects the beliefs and actions of the twelve principal participants. Potential conflict is actively mitigated through working together and through dialogue with staff and community members in order to best serve students in the accommodation of their faith and religion. The principals’ collective aim is to be inclusive and to celebrate diversity; to surpass the antiquated notion of compliance, and to respectfully seek collaboration.

Despite these goals, principals report that they are not always successful in avoiding conflict when accommodating faith and religion. Requests by some faith groups for the segregation of males from females in the classroom, or unequal treatment of sons and daughters, have created minefields for principals in terms of discussions with parents that become ‘most challenging’ or outcomes that cause ‘uproars’ and ‘battles’ (Dana). As emphasized in Undue Hardship -

Drawing the Line (2015), ‘claims to religious freedom [and requests for accommodation] must

221 [2010] ONSC at para.3, in Undue Hardship, Drawing the Line, September 2015. This document was created by the International Network of Civil Liberties Organizations which includes the following groups: Canadian Civil Liberties Association [CCLA]; Egyptian Initiatives for Personal Rights; Legal Resources Centre [LRC]; Irish Council for Civil Liberties; Human Rights Law Network [HRLN]; American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU]; Centro de Estudios Legales Y Sociales [CELS]; and other international legal and social rights groups, p.21.

224

be subjected to the most rigorous level of scrutiny when they are invoked to justify harm to others’ (p.3). The authors, moreover, express concern that equality rights are ‘not always given...proper weight’ and can be overshadowed by the evocation of religious rights. For some principals, this is the point of undue hardship, religious beliefs that allow for unequal treatment of boys and girls. In concurrence with the authors of Undue Hardship Drawing the Line, principals will not accommodate if the parental request, based on religion, does not ‘promote an equitable environment’ (Dana). For some principals, that is ‘the line in the sand’, the point of undue hardship.

The authors of Undue Hardship Drawing the Line state that any claim of undue hardship must be

‘justified on robust, principled and evidenced grounds’ and ‘subject to the most rigorous scrutiny’ (p.34). This is a high bar for principals to reach in the context of the multiple responsibilities of their job, added to by the diverse religious accommodation needs of a multicultural society. Although some principals interviewed do not envision a point of undue hardship, it is helpful for them to keep in mind the concept of the ‘harm principle’:

‘...[R]eligious freedom can be restricted only if its manifestation harms others’ (p.49) and it is

‘subject to such limitations as are necessary to protect...the fundamental rights of others’ (Ross v.

New Brunswick School District No 15 at para.72). Moreover, it is settled law that the ‘freedom to hold beliefs is broader than the freedom to act upon them’ (R. v. Keegstra at para.39).

Religious freedom ensures the right to one’s beliefs, but it ‘does not give...the right to impose

[one’s] views on others’ (Undue Hardship, Drawing the Line, p.51). Most importantly, the exercise of religious rights cannot override or contravene the Charter or the Code. Conflicts

225

between the tenets of some religious groups and the right to same-sex marriage, or to be part of the LBGTQ community, may result in the realization of undue hardship in the principals’ schools, especially in light of the controversy over the content of the new sex education curriculum. In some cases, even if there is no active conflict, principals are ‘just done’

(Madeleine) with trying to understand religion-based prejudice against homosexuality.

Some principals also see potential for undue hardship in the unwanted media attention when parents are in front of the school, or at Queen’s Park, actively protesting the sex education curriculum on religious grounds. The principals have been placed in a difficult position through no fault of their own. This conflict arising may be the result of what Trevor views ‘as an example of how schools are being forced to be a larger thing than it is capable’, or of wrestling with legal issues that they are not able to reconcile. Can it be expected that a principal has the resources—space, staff, time and legal expertise—to realistically and equitably accommodate the religious views of those protesting?

Unquestionably, the principals interviewed do not resile from their stance of striving for equity and inclusivity in their schools. Neither do they eschew the prolonged, intensive, and respectful dialogue required in the quest to reconcile conflict and differences in opinion. Trevor demonstrates this through successfully managing the agenda at an emotionally charged parent council meeting over the new health education curriculum. Dana manages conflict through explaining to concerned religious groups that there are different types of families, including ones with same-sex parents. Terrence advocates that there is ‘always somewhere in the middle’ in resolving conflict as we become ‘a bigger family’ through immigration to our province.

226

The larger question around any pending hardship is, however, given the current lack of recognition of the equal Charter and Code rights of the LGBTQ communities by some religious groups, to what degree should the principal, along with their boards, realistically be expected to satisfactorily resolve serious conflicts that arise without further direction and support from the province, the federal government and/or the courts? Although Iacobucci (2003) advocates that when issues arise between two conflicting, but equal rights, Charter principles call for a

‘reconciliation’ (p.137) between these two rights, when there is a concomitant no ‘bright-line rule’ (R. v. N.S., 2010 at para 47) on how to accomplish this reconciliation, are the expectations placed on the principal simply too large? As discussed further in section 5.6., the Ministry may be inviting and precipitating a legal Hydra through the introduction and content of the new health education curriculum.

5.5. The growing presence of Muslims and influence of Islam in the accommodation of

faith and religion

5.5.1. Introduction

My initial intent in conducting qualitative research on the accommodation of faith and religion in public schools was to take a holistic view of what types of accommodations are taking place in these government institutions, without focusing at length on any particular religious group. I was particularly mindful of the fact that, as I spent five years working and living in Kuwait from

1999 to 2004, I possess some experiential knowledge and understanding of Islam and I did not want to subconsciously focus unduly on this religion. Further to this, as I was in Kuwait when the events of September 11, 2001 in New York took place, and I experienced the echo effect of the subsequent invasion of neighbouring Iraq by the United States, I have empathy for my

Muslim students, colleagues and friends who were profoundly affected by the aftermath.

227

Consequently, I was especially cautious in assessing whether my experiences in the Middle East would introduce bias into my doctoral research and place a disproportionate focus on the accommodation of Islam in public schools. It is clear from the findings of my qualitative research, however, there is strong evidence of the increasing influence of Muslims and Islamic practices in our public school system which necessitate various accommodations. During the course of the twelve interviews the principal participants, unprompted, made at least some reference to the effect of Muslims and Islam in their schools. No other religious group was reported on or referenced as frequently or as consistently. It is for this reason that the accommodation of Muslims and Islam in our public schools called for separate analysis and discussion.

5.5.2. The growing presence of Islam and Muslims in Ontario and Canada

In April of 2016, the Environics Institute222 published its Final Report entitled Survey of

Muslims in Canada. The survey is a follow-up to the first national endeavour which was conducted in 2006. The core purpose of this 2016 survey was to learn how Muslims experience life in Canada, and how other Canadians view the presence of Muslims and Islam in their communities.

222The Environics Institute for Survey Research sponsors relevant and original public opinion and social research related to issues of public policy and social change. Other organizations participated in the creation of the report: Tessellate Institute; Olive Tree Foundation; Inspirit Foundation; Canadian Race Relations Foundation; and Think for Actions. The Tessellate Institute is a charitable organization that explores and documents the lived experiences of Muslims in Canada through academic research and the arts. The Olive Tree Foundation is a philanthropic foundation that promotes community development through the collection of endowed funds and charitable contributions to fund services for the long-term benefit of the community. The Inspirit Foundation is a national grant-making organization supporting young people in building a more inclusive and pluralist Canada, in part by funding projects fostering engagement and exchange between young people of different spiritual, religious and secular beliefs. The Canadian Race Relations Foundation is Canada’s leading agency dedicated to the elimination of racism and the promotion of harmonious race relations in the country. Think for Actions is a Calgary-based think tank focused on professional development of youth, and effectively engaging communities through research and interaction offering new solutions. These organizations, along with an informal group of Muslim leaders and scholars, provided substantive input into the development of the survey questions. (Survey of Muslims in Canada 2016, Final Report, April 2016)

228

National statistics indicate there are 1,053,945 Muslims living in Canada,223 and that this number constitutes 3.2 percent of the country’s population. Not only is the presence of Muslims and

Islam displaying precipitous growth and increasingly part of the fabric of Canadian society, followers of this faith are second in numbers only to Christianity. Research indicates that sixty- eight percent of the Canadian Muslim diaspora were born outside of the country224 and belong to

‘a large number of distinct ethnic groups’ from five of the world’s seven continents. Ninety-five percent live in large urban areas.225 Importantly, over fifty percent of the Muslims have immigrated to Canada in the last fifteen years and a ‘significant proportion...is still in the process of adjustment and integration’ (p.13).

For these newcomers still in the process of adjustment and integration, as well as for those

Muslims who either arrived in Canada decades ago or were born here, the Environics Institute reports that although ‘the angst of 9/11 has faded’, an undercurrent of security concerns post 9-

11 continue to this day.226 In other words, there is still some lingering ‘discomfort, if not suspicion’ by some citizens around the growing presence of Muslims and Islam in Canada. The

223 The Environics Institute’s statistics are based on the report of the 2011 national Household Survey. It is important to note that these numbers do not reflect the 25,000 Syrian refugees, sponsored by the federal government, that were re-settled in Canada between November 4, 2015 and February 24, 2016. The numbers also do not reflect the number of Syrian refugees whose immigration to Canada has been realized through the sponsorship by private citizen groups. 224 The Muslims in Canada come mainly from Pakistan, Iran, Algeria, Morocco, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and India (p.13). 225 The greatest number move to Toronto and Montreal (p.13). 226 The sad irony is that the Environics Report states that although ‘...there have been no major terrorist events in Canada to date... two high profile shootings in Ottawa and Québec in fall 2015 were carried out by individuals with apparent connections to Islamist extremism’ (p.21), this predated the killings of six Muslims praying in their Québec mosque on January 29, 2017 (‘Quebec City mosque attack victims shot in the back as they prayed’, The National Post, January 30, 2017, online: http://news.nationalpost.com.), and a subsequent protest outside a Toronto mosque against Muslims and Islam (Sharifa Nasser and Amara McLaughlin, ‘Protestors outside Masjid Toronto call for ban on Islam as Muslims pray inside’, CBC News, February 17, 2017, online: www.cbc.ca.) Coupled with the above, ‘[m]ajor incidents in western countries (most recently in Paris, Nice, Brussels) have kept terrorism on the front pages, along with the ongoing violent conflict in the Middle East and the recruitment of westerners (including some Canadians) to the struggle’ (p.41).

229

authors’ explanation for the dissonance is that the Muslim community227 is not only ‘a poorly- understood religious minority in western countries’, but that the unfamiliar religious manifestations of Islam, such as the niqab, hijab, burka, and Sharia law, can make its presence

‘contentious’. A case in point, as stated earlier in my thesis and noted in the report of the

Environics Institute, Canada’s federal election in the fall of 2015 demonstrated how this faith

‘could become a target in the heat of political campaigns’ (p.2).228 For instance, choosing to wear a niqab in public ‘generated controversy...because many non-Muslims feel offended or uncomfortable with women covering their faces’(p.30). Choosing to wear a hijab has also been contentious as some non-Muslims ‘view this practice as an indication of religious subjugation of women’ (p.4). As a result, despite the protection of the Charter and the Human Rights Code,

Muslims have met with objections to their religious practices in the public arena (p.29).

Participants in the study expressed great concern about adverse treatment and discrimination by non-Muslims (15%), Islamophobia (13%), stereotyping by the media (12%), and issues around personal safety in the public sphere. Fifty-five percent of the female and 35% of the men interviewed expressed concern about these ‘prominent themes’. Notably, disquiet about

Islamophobia and discrimination are evidenced in 78% of the responses from Canadian-born

Muslims (78%). Significantly, 18% of the young Muslims surveyed reported facing discrimination in school (pp. 21-22, 39).

227 This report uses the term “Muslim community” to refer to the country’s Muslim population which shares a common religious faith. It is not intended to imply that this population is otherwise homogenous, or lacks considerable diversity in other ways (e.g., ethnicity, culture). (p.2) 228 The authors point out that their research took place immediately following the federal election where Justin Trudeau’s Liberals ‘roundly defeated’ Stephen Harper’s Conservatives. The authors further note that the latter were rebuked for their adverse narrative about Canadian Muslims before and in the midst of their re-election campaign. (FN.1, p.2)

230

The report expands on the theme of unfairly scapegoating Muslims in Canada:

While Canada has yet to experience the gravity of ethnic violence and terrorist attacks229 that have taken place in other parts of the world, Muslims in this country do not enjoy the acceptance accorded to other religious minorities, and have become a focal point for discomfort about immigrants not fitting into Canadian society....[T]he Muslim community faces unique challenges with respect to religious freedom, acceptance by the broader society and national security profiling. Events overseas (major terrorist incidents in European cities, the ongoing conflict in Syria, and the atrocities attributed to Daesh (the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) are sustaining a context in which public associations with Islam and its followers are pervasively negative (p.1).

Further to this, pre-conceived notions and ‘simplistic’ stereotyping of Islam and Muslims abound—such as a propensity for engaging in ‘honour killings’ and ‘violent extremism’ in the name of Allah serve to create an image of Muslims being ‘different from others’ and as refusing to adhere to ‘Canadian values’ (p.3). The authors expand on these assertions by noting that

...discrimination and stereotyping continue to be a difficult reality for Muslims in Canada, and this is of particular concern to women and youth. One in three Canadian Muslims reports having experienced discrimination in the past five years, due primarily to one’s religion or ethnicity; this is well above the levels of mistreatment experienced by the population-at-large...[Moreover], it is Muslim youth (those aged 18-34) who are the least optimistic about the next generation facing less discrimination than their own (p.3).

Despite these factors, however, the Muslims surveyed for this report indicate that Muslims, in general, ‘are more likely than not to feel their religion is broadly accepted by the non-Muslim population’ in Canada. This is somewhat paradoxical as growing acceptance of Islam is occurring in a country and province where the citizens are ‘among the most secular people in the world,’ while Muslims are ‘one of the most religiously observant groups’ in its midst.

229 As stated above, the recent attack at a Québec mosque makes this statement no longer completely true.

231

Further to this, Muslim adherence to the Islamic faith and its practices ‘appear[s] to be strengthening rather than weakening as their lives evolve in Canada’ (p.3). This religious strengthening is evidenced in regular prayer in mosques and in the growing number of

Muslim women choosing to wear a hijab, particularly amongst those in the eighteen to thirty- four age group.230 More than 53% of those surveyed indicated they wear a hijab, chador231, or niqab in public (p.18). Importantly, these manifestations of Islamic tenets, however, do not subsume or vitiate the desire of Muslims to interact with other groups and to be part of the

Canadian fabric. In fact,

...Muslims are as likely as non-Muslims to place strong value on diversity and connections between cultures. And they agree with other Canadians about the values that immigrants should be adopting when they settle in Canada—language fluency, tolerance and respect for others and different cultures, appreciation of Canadian history, and respect for the law (p.4).

The majority of Muslims in Canada—particularly in Ontario—report they receive better treatment and are better accepted than in other Western countries. Nine in ten (90%) are

‘almost uniformly hopeful’232 that the current federal government, led by Prime Minister

Justin Trudeau, will assist with the amelioration of understanding between Muslims and other

Canadians (pp. 35-37). Further to this, as the development of tolerance and positive opinions about the Islamic religion is closely connected to the extent of interaction non-Muslims have

230 The authors note that this further contrasts with the increasing general tendency of young people in Canada to reject participation in the practices of organized religion (p.3). 231 A chador is a large piece of material worn by some Muslim women which covers the head and the upper body, but not the face. 232 A recent Angus Reid Institute study, in partnership with the Canadian Broadcasting Company [“CBC”], supports the findings of the Environics Institute. The study found that newcomers to Canada are ‘optimistic’ about their children’s future in Canada and that the ‘vast majority...feel that they are treated as “Canadians”’. Despite these positive aspects, the study also found that 68% of Canadian respondents stated that ‘minorities should be doing more to fit in with mainstream society instead of keeping their own customs and languages’. In “Canadians aren’t as accepting as we think—and we can’t ignore it, writes Angus Reid”, CBC News, (October 4, 2016), online: www.cbc.news.

232

with this group, Canadians who report having frequent association with Muslims are ‘twice as likely to have positive as negative impressions of Islam (53% versus 22%)’ (p.35).233

A finding that stood out, and one that is especially significant for this current study, is that

83% of the Islamic interview participants234 declared their children should have access to a prayer room during the school day. This declaration is notably strongest in Ontario.

Comparatively, the data showed that a smaller number (60%) of the non-Muslim population support space for prayer in public schools. Significantly, 31% of this latter group actively oppose it (p.29).

5.5.3. The accommodation of Islam and Muslims by the principal research participants

All twelve principals report either having direct experience with the accommodation of Muslim students in their school, or are at least aware of how principals in their boards are working with the bourgeoning Muslim population. A great number of the religious accommodation requests by Muslims and requirements of Islam, as described by the principals, has become normalized as part of the school’s fabric and routine.

The data indicate that the choice for a Muslim student to wear a hijab, for instance, has virtually become common place in Ontario’s public schools. ‘[I]t’s pretty normalized and...there’s not a lot of reaction from the other students’ (Lama). Or, as John reports, he has ‘absolutely no concerns’ about hijabs. Headscarves and modesty in dress requests for physical education

233 Of those who have minimal interaction with Muslims and Islam only 29% have a positive opinion and 46% have a decidedly negative opinion (p.35). 234 This number increased to 93% when the Canadian born Muslims were separated from all who were surveyed. This group is most in favour of prayer space in public schools (p.29).

233

classes are non-issues for him, his staff, and his students as ‘it’s just the way [the school] is’.

Equally, Lindy does not understand why wearing a hijab should be ‘a difficult challenge to accommodate’, or what the ‘big fuss’ is about concerning modesty in dress in gym, as it is

‘doable and temporary’. Notably, it was reported that the accommodation of modesty in dress for Muslim students positively impacts ‘other kids [that] don’t feel comfortable...expos[ing] their skin’ either (Lindy).

Muslim students, ‘completely covered’, participate on school teams and at least one board provides team hijabs (Trevor). Similar to other students, they engage in school activities and are

‘up there with their hijabs in the talent show dancing around’ (Lama). In contrast, Anne reports that there was initially a deemed safety ‘issue’ with wearing ‘headscarves’ in the gym, but the school subsequently ‘let that one go’. In sum, it is reported by the principals, in general,

‘[t]here’s no issue with head coverings or how much [someone] is covered’ (Elaine).

Conversely, when choosing to no longer wear a hijab, however, this can create tension in a school. Although it is beyond the scope of this exploratory case study to engage in an in-depth discussion of the religious meaning of the hijab, why Muslim women wear it, issues arising about safety (in sports) and conflicting community values,235the active choice of Thomas’s elementary student to no longer wear a hijab requires comment.

As a principal in Kuwait in an Islamic school I had a similar experience and appreciate the effect this can have. For an elementary student to make such a personal choice, one which may seemingly challenge the values of her peers, her family and her community, is an act of bravery

235 Op.Cit. footnotes 40, 41 and 43.

234

and conviction. Thomas’ student received backlash from her peers. They viewed the removal of a hijab as ‘haram’ and were deeply upset. The student stood by her choice and tension heightened in the school. As the issue was culturally and religiously sensitive, to help with resolution Thomas turned to his Muslim community. A series of dialogues between the Muslim students and their community quelled the matter. The girl continued not to wear a hijab, but no further comments to her were made in the school. The magnitude of the student’s individual choice to no longer wear a hijab is, perhaps, difficult for non-Muslims to appreciate. Thomas’ handling of this sensitive religious accommodation issue, however, was laudable.

Thomas cites his example simply as an extension of the principal ‘knowing his class’ – knowing the community and knowing the supports they require. Thomas was cognizant of the depth of emotions that had arisen around the girl’s choice. Through inviting his Muslim community to the school and offering it as a space for reconciliation, he knew the matter could be diffused with the community’s assistance. Thomas stepped back and provided space for his Muslim community to work together and the school’s hijab conflict was resolved.

Issues around providing prayer space for students and staff, along with supervision, safety, and the correct timings of these accommodations pose different types of challenges to the principals.

John, for instance, challenges those who oppose the creation of prayer rooms in schools as this is

‘contrary to...policy and procedure’. The irony in John’s example is that, although he actively offers designated space for prayer, (‘[W]e can do this for you’), there are no requests. John does not understand why his students do not want a designated prayer room and appears disappointed he is unable to fulfill this duty. Lama, on the other hand, did establish a dedicated prayer room

235

in her school, but students stopped using it, so she ‘let it go’. Lama gave no explanation as to why the students were no longer praying in the school.

The prayer room in Trevor’s school, on the other hand, is actively used. Trevor chooses to avert public scrutiny about the creation of prayer rooms in his school. Trevor ‘didn’t ever advertise’ this accommodation and does not see it as his ‘place’ to do so. This is not conflict avoidance on

Trevor’s part. He is focused on the well-being, safety and inclusivity of his students, not on outside opinions on prayer rooms in schools. Trevor is simply realizing his legal duty to accommodate his students’ religious practices.

Thomas too has established prayer space in school whose use waxes and wanes with the seasons.

In the discussion of prayer rooms, Thomas makes the observation that his Muslim students do not differ greatly from their non-Muslim peers in their behavioural preferences. He notes the school’s prayer room is more popular in winter when it is too cold to go outside to the mosque, and the mosque is more popular for prayer when the weather is warm and sunny and the students want to leave the confines of the school.

In establishing prayer rooms principals find that coordinating the appropriate time due to the requirements of various Islamic sects requires consultations with local imams and ‘adjustments’

(Elaine). Once the prayer room is established, supervision of Muslim students wishing to pray may or may not be an issue, depending on staffing and school size. The librarian simply ‘lets them in [the library] and lets them do their peace’ (Elaine). Some librarians, however, view the extra duty as a union and contract issue (Maria). For the most part, supervision requires ‘a little

236

flexibility’ from staff (Trevor) and adjustment of scheduling. Thomas’s staff, ‘on beat’, supervise the dedicated prayer room as part of their general duty. Dana, on the other hand, resolves the space and supervision/safety issues by providing her office as a place to pray and by ‘mak[ing] sure [she is] there for Friday’ to tend to the students. Similarly, for Lindy the twin requirements of prayer space and supervision are ‘simple’ for her to pragmatically resolve: ‘[T]here’s a room in front of the office. We have a visual’. Although the ‘opportunities would be inside’,

Madeleine’s students choose to leave the school and pray in mosques with their families on

Fridays, so no staff or principal supervision is required.

When discussing the organizational logistics of providing prayer space, none of the principals indicate whether members of the Muslim communities are involved in supervising students in the school. Neither was the question asked. In retrospect, that is an oversight. In section IV, part 3 ‘Prayer’ of the Ministry’s Religious Accommodation Guideline, it is stated that ‘Adult presence should be for supervision purposes only.’ The emphasis on ‘for supervision purposes only’ may have a connection to section 29 (3) of the Education Act where it states that

A board may permit a person to conduct religious exercises or to provide instruction that includes indoctrination in a particular religion...in a school if...the instruction is provided on a school day at a time that is before or after the school’s instructional program...

If a staff member is supervising the prayer room, rather than a member of a religious community, it may pre-empt any inferences or optics that religious instruction or indoctrination is occurring during the school day when regular Ministry programing is taking place. Nonetheless, assistance from the community in supervising prayer rooms could help to alleviate or mitigate contract or union issues arising around principals assigning ‘extra duty’ for teachers.

237

Principals report that they consult with imams and the local Islamic communities to resolve accommodation issues before and after they arise. Maria, for instance, worked with ‘over eight

Muslim leaders’ for several months to ‘navigate’ a framework for the accommodation of Islam.

These consultations with the imams were ‘difficult’ in that it necessitated a great deal of time in finding a ‘happy medium’ to establish what accommodation for Muslims should look like as there was no consensus amongst the eight imams. Some, for instance, maintained that fasting during Ramadan and prayer on Fridays is optional for boys and girls below twelve years of age, while others were adamant that practising these rites are mandatory for all Muslims. In spending a year and a half serving as the ‘connector’ of the imams’ varied viewpoints that represented diverse geographical and cultural areas of origin, Maria reports she developed an ‘understanding

[of] the dynamics of being second generation or first generation Canadian and negotiating identity through religion’.236

The process necessitated ‘a lot of big discussion’. Although it was ‘wasn’t easy’, the year and half consultations with the eight imams helped to create a ‘living document’ (board policy handbook) that acknowledge religious practices vary based on one’s culture, geographical origin,

236 The idea of ‘negotiating identity through religion’ is an important concept that requires commentary. Although I have never studied the tenets of Islam or what it means to be a Muslim, and although my understanding of this religion is limited to my five years as an educator of Islamic students in Kuwait, what struck me when I lived there is how integral daily prayer, attendance at mosque on Fridays, fasting during Ramadan, and the experience of Hajj is to those that actively practice this faith. Islam permeates all aspects of their lives. For example, there is a celebration when a young girl chooses to wear a hijab. She is feted at school with special foods and gifts. As the principal, I witnessed how choosing to wear a hijab is a proud and joyous moment for the girl, for her family and for her classmates. I also witnessed adult women returning from a pilgrimage to Mecca and then choosing, for the first time, to don a hijab. From my observations and experience, for a great number of Muslims their religion is integral to who they are as people – every day of their lives, not just on Fridays. Many of the Muslims I have come to know do not simply ‘wear’ their religion; they are their religion. It is argued, therefore, that Muslim students may require the assistance of principals, staff and the community in ‘negotiating their identity through their religion’, especially when enrolled in a secular public school.

238

generation and individual traits. Maria’s findings support those outlined in the report of the

Environics Institute (2016).237

Other interactions with imams are more intermittent than Maria’s experience. In Dana’s case, she consulted with an imam to ensure she understood the correct requirements for the accommodation of prayer and then balanced these requirements with a corresponding ‘respect for instruction time’. Elaine actively invites the imams from the school’s catchment area to speak to her in person, or by telephone about various accommodation needs and any issues arising. One imam, for instance, informed Elaine about the differing religious requirements of the various sects and their mosques in the neighbourhood, as ‘not all Muslim communities...have the same needs’ (Maria). When Trevor ‘saw a problem with kids losing...structural time’ through leaving school to pray, he invited the local imam in to ‘work’ with him and they devised an accommodation plan together. Thomas’s Muslim students ‘know the imam talks to the principal’ and this helps to mitigate religion-based issues when the students ‘try...to take the lead’. The imam provided ‘the parameters of prayer time’ and Thomas’ students then followed his instructions. In Anne’s case, the imam was instrumental in avoiding a safety issue (the

Muslim boys did not wish to be supervised in their school prayer room) and an equity issue (the

Muslim boys did not wish to share their prayer space with Muslim girls). The imam viewed the prayer room as ‘creating quite an imposition on the school’ and informed Anne that students could pray in the mosque after school hours.

237 Op. Cit., footnote 222.

239

In sum, the principals report their relationships with the imams are positive, that the imams, in general, are helpful to them in the accommodation of appropriate Islamic protocol in their public schools, and that the imams have a positive mitigating effect on the conduct of Muslim students.

Although the research participants indicate they were able to ‘navigate’ any issues arising, some note that restrictions on participation in music and dance programs may pose challenges when accommodating certain sects of Islam. Some of these ‘challenges’ involve restrictions on boys and girls making physical contact. This includes holding each other’s hand as part of a dance class. Another example of ‘challenges’ is that some sects of Islam may have restrictions about music instruction in the school. John reports, however, the music curriculum in his board was

‘addressed by the imam’ and the imam saw no reason for adherent Islamic students to be withdrawn from the program. And, Maria ‘navigated...a respectful discussion’ with Muslim parents on ways their children can participate in dance class. As Maria explains, it is a question of understanding the elements of ‘how’ to accommodate in order to invite ‘full inclusion’. If boys and girls are not allowed for religious reasons to touch each other’s hands, then the provision of a scarf to hold between them accommodates this religious concern. Through making a small and ‘easy’ adjustment, Maria notes ‘you have an example of full inclusion’. Dana too finds it ‘easy’ to accommodate. She canvassed the parents and students to learn that some

Muslims do not use wind instruments for religious reasons. Instead of ‘accommodating’ her

Islamic students through placing them in another class during Music instruction, Dana simply rented more drums and cymbals. These are instruments their Islamic faith permits them to use.

Once again, ‘you have an example of full inclusion for a very simple request’ (Maria).

240

Accommodations required during the holy month of Ramadan, especially as its timing varies from year-to-year, can pose challenging logistics for the principals. When Ramadan occurred in

June, Thomas needed to divide the dinner part of grade eight graduation from the awards ceremony in order to accommodate fasting Muslim students. The following year, however, this solution did not meet with the approval of all community members. When Thomas ‘puts it to the kids’ the subsequent solution accommodated not only the Muslim students, but the larger grade eight school body, especially those from the lower socio-economic sector. The grade eight dinner was replaced by a ‘fun and awesome activity’ in which all could partake and enjoy, and which was much more inclusive.

In spite of the positive reports of the principal participants themselves concerning the accommodation of the Islamic faith in our public schools, their reports also suggest the legal rights of Muslims to be accommodated and included may be challenged by some. For instance,

Maria is aware of ‘a handful of’ Muslim families that have left her board to enrol their children in other boards that are more amenable to providing religious accommodations, such as prayer rooms. Maria cites examples of principals refusing to provide prayer space, claiming they have no classrooms available.

A second issue, or consideration, may be the time required to accommodate a prolonged absence from school in order for a staff member or student to participate in the Hajj238 during Ramadan.

Elaine notes that her staff members have taken part in the religious pilgrimage and this was accommodated by allowing six weeks absence. Elaine’s reference to staff absence due to

238 The ‘Hajj’, a religious pilgrimage to the holy city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia, is one of the five pillars of Islam. Adherent Muslims are required to participate in the Hajj at least once in their lifetime.

241

participation in Hajj is not presented as a concern and she is unable to establish whether the leave is paid or unpaid.

Either answer invites discussion. If the leave is unpaid, financially penalizing a Muslim teacher for participating in the Hajj, regardless of the length of absence, may contravene the board’s duty to accommodate his/her religion. On the other hand, if staff is paid during this prolonged faith- based absence, the financial impact on the board could be immense and subsequently create

‘undue hardship’. As the presence of Muslims in Ontario continues to flourish, and depending on whether Ramadan and the Hajj occur during the school year, staff absence for this religious holiday could prove costly in both time and money. Arguably, the structure of the school year itself, with its roots and formation the result of our historic Christian base, may increasingly pose a logistical and financial dilemma for the Ministry, the boards and the principals as more and more Muslims are accommodated in the public school system. As Shields writes in Griffiths and

Portelli (2015), to be truly inclusive the schools need to ‘adapt to changing demographics’

(p.70). The system must adjust to the needs of the student, ‘not vice-verse’ (Terrence).

Aside from the challenges above, data collected from the field research on the accommodation of faith and religion suggest that principals, overall, are becoming skilled at understanding the various requirements for Islam and are able to integrate these requirements into the practice, procedures, and fabric of their public schools. The principals are willingly, mindfully and more skillfully ‘learning how to tap dance’ (Anne) around the accommodation needs of Muslims and

Islam.

242

Anne’s description of ‘learning how to tap dance’ is akin to Grace’s assertion (in Griffith and

Portelli, 2015) that equity and inclusive-minded principals ‘are pivotal on-the-ground leaders’.

The principals’ ability ‘to tap dance’ or ‘to pivot’, as needed, when exercising their duties, in turn, affects ‘the degree to which students feel recognized, respected, accommodated, and safe in their schools’ (p.73). To ensure this ‘growing inclusion’ (Griffiths (2013), p.73) principals have to figure out (‘tap dance’ and ‘pivot’) how to ‘accommodate’ the requisite Islamic rites for

Muslims that may choose to pray during the school day and/or to participate in Friday prayers – either in the school or at a local mosque - and/or to fast during the holy month of Ramadan and/or to dress modestly and/or to wear a hijab and/or a niqab and/or to participate in the Hajj.

There are some accommodation challenges for the principals in realizing these duties.

None of the principals in this study identify as Muslim. Three reveal they are Roman Catholic, one identifies as Mennonite and one claims he is an ‘Irish White guy’. The other seven give no indication as to their faith. The tenets and requirements of Muslims and Islam are not likely integral to their cultural or religious groups. Nevertheless, the principals discuss and present the numerous ways they ensure the inclusion of their Muslims students and staff demonstrating not only that they have acquired a sound knowledge of Islamic religious requirements, but that they approach accommodation and any accommodation issues arising ‘with heart’ (Maria). In other words, it is not simply accomplished by rote through following the policy manual. Mistakes and then corrections are made. The principals invite conversations with the community—especially the imams—as well as staff, students, and their boards to learn how to better to ‘tap dance’ and to ‘pivot’. The most important factor, as Trevor indicates, is that Muslims and Islam are not only

243

being accommodated, but their integration and inclusion is becoming more and more the norm in

Ontario’s public schools.

[T]he kids that observed Eid or prayed all had secular friends—and they all knew what they did and it was just part of what made them up. Some kid has a size thirteen shoe; some kid prays; some kid eats bok choy. That’s just the mix of what happens at the school. (Trevor)

5.6. The impact of the new health education curriculum on the accommodation of faith

and religion

It is clear from the data collected from the principal interviews that the new health education curriculum devised by the Ontario Ministry of Education has introduced ‘a large can of worms’

(Lindy, Madeleine, Trevor) into the public school system. It has created logistical headaches for the principals and caused disruption in their schools and communities. Faith groups have demonstrated their dissatisfaction through several means: public protests; letters from religious leaders; agitated conversations with the principals; withdrawal of their children from programming; withdrawal from the public school system; and in some instances, building their own faith-based school. Although the Ministry makes the claim that they consulted with various faith groups before creating the document, I concur with Lindy when she asks ‘who did [it] consult with when there’s so many people protesting?’ Perhaps the larger question is, however, although the Ministry may have actively consulted with various faith groups, did it actually listen and take the time to appreciate that the content is simply not easily accepted by some faith groups? Was it the Ministry’s intention—or inadvertence—that the heavy lifting in managing conflicting Charter and Code rights be left to the principals, the schools and the public boards?

244

Some boards have assisted their principals by ‘getting out in front of the issue’ and devising information pieces for their communities about the Ministry’s new health curriculum. This has helped to abate some of the ‘rhetoric’. Other boards have attempted, however, to stem the tide through enacting a policy of withdrawal of students from the sex education program. This may prove to be a larger ‘can of worms’ (Lindy). Although withdrawal might be viewed as a legitimate form of religious accommodation, such an arrangement could face a court challenge if parents perceive it as insufficient or as prejudicial, and contrary to the best interests of their child’s education and Charter or Code rights. Similar to the 1988 Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Zylberberg v. Sudbury Board of Education, it could be found that a policy of withdrawal may make children feel excluded and different from their classmates. Historically, a child would be ‘permitted’ by the school to stand outside the classroom if the recitation of the

Lord’s Prayer was not part of the family’s religious belief. That was deemed by the courts to be in violation of religious and human rights as guaranteed under the Charter and the Code. And, as Hogg 2005 writes, such actions on the part of the board or the school were ‘indirect coercion’ of students and their families (p.943). Arguably, the accommodation of religious belief through a student’s withdrawal from the sex education program and either being picked up from school by the parent, or warehoused in another classroom, may not be inherently different.

The flashpoints of the sex education program for some religious groups are classroom discussions, instruction and acknowledgment of homosexuality, the makeup of the LGBTQ community, and same sex marriage. The rights of our LGBTQ citizens and the right to marry a same-sex partner are protected by both the Charter and the Code. Moreover, the rights of our

LGBTQ citizens are equal to the rights of all citizens to practise their faiths and religions.

245

Ideally, each has an equal place in the principal’s inclusive, welcoming and respectful public school. The central issue for the principals and their boards is, however, how to work with, or to establish space—in a peaceful and rational manner—in this arena of competing and conflicting rights. It may be more than the principals and their boards can successfully manage. This matter, similar to the ‘accommodation’ through student withdrawal from program, may be brought to the courts in order to seek judicial guidance and resolution.

There still may be room, however, for respectful dialogue. As the SCC notes in its 2002 decision, Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No.36, interaction with diversity introduces children to difference and ‘allows [them] to be taught what tolerance involves’ (para 33). There is a key role for the principal in initiating dialogue with the religious communities about tolerance and in the reality of difference as presented in the new sex education curriculum. As the SCC states,

[l]earning about tolerance is...learning that other people’s entitlement to respect from us does not depend on whether their views accord with our own. Children cannot learn this unless they are exposed to views that differ from those they are taught at home (at para. 33).

‘Tolerance’ of the other is the minimum expectation of a civil society such as ours and falls far short of the ideals of equity, inclusivity and Deardorff’s paradigm of interculturalism. Our notion of tolerance has evolved and this is greatly due to our overall ‘commitment to a culture of legality’ (McLaughlin, 2015). It acts as a safety net which protects minorities—such as the

LGBTQ and the non-Christian communities—from the intolerance of others. Historically, this culture of legality protected minorities from the power of the majority. With issues arising over the new health education curriculum, the courts and tribunals may now be dealing, instead, with

246

protecting the rights of one minority group (the LGBTQ community) from the intolerance of other minorities (the religious communities).

The Environics Institute (2016) found that the greatest divergence between secular values and religious ones is in the area of sexuality. In particular, the study references the flashpoint realized by reaction to the new sex education health curriculum in Ontario. Similar to the data obtained from the principal participants, it notes that the curriculum precipitated ‘boycotts by families’ from diverse faith groups, including Muslims (p.33). At the core of the protests is the discussion of homosexuality. Muslims surveyed indicate that 43% believe it is an unacceptable practice, whereas only 14% of Canadians in general view it to be ‘morally unacceptable’ (p.33).

(Figure 2, p.411)

The chart above depicts the differing views of Muslims and ‘all Canadians’ on the tolerance of homosexuality. Arguably, ‘all Canadians’ is a large, diverse and undefined category. What the

Environics Report does not provide are statistics on other religious groups and their views on

247

homosexuality and same-sex relationships. Although the anecdotal reports of the principals support the findings of the Environics Report concerning their Muslim communities, the principals also note that certain Christian groups, such as the Quakers and the Mennonites, are adamantly opposed to school curriculum that discusses homosexuality and same-sex relationships.

As well, the principals report that some religious groups have unilaterally ‘settled’ the debate about the new sex education curriculum through leaving the public school system and building their own religion-based schools. This results in not only a lower number of students enrolled in our public schools, but also a lessened need for teaching and other staff. Even Jacob with his sound relationship with his Mennonite community is concerned about the potential fallout. To

‘stick handle’ (Madeleine) the tempest created by the new health curriculum, the principals (and their boards) require assistance. If the Ministry does not adequately intervene, perhaps the potential loss of staff will garner the attention of the unions, and they will play a role.

5.7. Summary and Reflections

The principal’s ability to execute his or her duty to accommodate faith and religion, while working towards the creation of a caring, civil, equitable and inclusive school environment, requires not only professional knowledge and skill, but finesse in order to juggle competing

Charter and Code rights, along with the principal’s myriad of other mandates and duties.

Although the range of religions for which the principals interviewed are responsible for accommodating vary from one, to a few, to multiple, the data clearly indicate that principals are

248

not only executing their duty, but that they are knowledgeable about the underpinnings of board and ministry policies and the rights guaranteed by the Charter and the Code. All the principals, whether male or female, whether responsible for a large high school or a small elementary one, all articulate an understanding of the significance of their duty to accommodate the faith and religion of their staff and students and to take responsibility for it accordingly.

The life experience of principals and how they accommodate faith and religion in their schools may also be considered as an underlying factor. Jacob knows intimately the Mennonite’s historic struggle with religious accommodation in the public school system as it reflects his own struggle. Maria’s elementary school experience with a teacher who did not want to teach ‘wop kids’ had the effect of ‘put[ting] a fire in [her] belly’. They both understand the effects of being

‘othered’ and marginalized.

In Chief Justice McLaughlin’s keynote address at the Aga Khan Museum on May 29th, 2016, she presented three preparatory conditions for the accommodation of the ‘other’: 1) respect for his or her dignity; 2) a mindset that fosters inclusion; and, 3) the maintenance of the rule of law.

These three factors are evidenced in how the twelve principal participants interact with their staff, their students and their communities in their endeavours to accommodate faith and religion in their schools. They ‘understand [the] richness pluralism brings’ and ‘understand that all are qualitatively equal’ (p.30).

Respect for the dignity of the ‘other’ is demonstrated through the recognition of the First Nation students and the focus by principals to ‘make them feel proud’ of who they are, and through the

249

provision of space for the spiritual act of smudging. Respect for the dignity of Mennonite students is demonstrated in the creation of flexible timetabling and a special co-operative education program.

The principals provide numerous examples of the second pre-condition for accommodation, ‘a mindset that fosters inclusion’. This mindset encompasses not only the students and staff in their schools, but also the surrounding religious communities. Principals ensure school nutrition programs and community functions recognize religious dietary needs through the provision of halal, kosher and vegetarian food. Procedures for staff absences during significant faith days are in place and are practised.

In the resolution of any conflict of values with the religious communities, principals recognize that agreement and understanding must be ‘negotiated’ in order to promote inclusion of divergent points of view. The inclusion of divergent points of view may be limited when they come into conflict with Chief Justice McLaughlin’s third pre-requisite for accommodation, ‘the maintenance of the rule of law’.

From specific references to their legal duty to adhere to the Charter and the Code to concern that some public school boards may be resiling from this mandate, the principals express understanding of the foundational requisite for the maintenance of the rule of law in their practice. At the same time, it is acknowledged that principals cannot work alone. In leading the professional development of staff members and instilling in them an understanding of the underpinnings of the law, their legal duties, and the legal rights of the students, principals create

250

an environment that is open to the accommodation of religious needs. Students are supported in speaking up about their religious rights and needs, as well as those of their peers.

The principals reference three examples where the maintenance of the rule of law may be challenged and estoppe the accommodation of faith and religion: principal colleagues; their board; and conflicting, but equal Charter and Code rights. They report some principals refuse to provide a prayer room in the school, ignoring that accommodation is a legal ‘requirement’ and not an ‘option’. Such refusals contravene the Charter, the Code and the Ministry’s Religious

Accommodation Guideline.

Although most principals view their boards as partners that enable and support the principals’ mindset of inclusivity—boards take anticipatory actions, provide in-service to promote understanding of the policies and procedures on faith-based requirements and ensure requirements are ‘clear’ and ‘enforced’—the actions (or inactions) of some boards is questioned.

In one example, the specifics of ‘religious accommodation’ have recently and purposely been removed from board forms, seemingly reducing the importance of this legal duty. The exemption of students from certain curriculum, despite parental requests and based on religious beliefs, is refused. There are signs of Islamophobia manifesting in at least one board.

MacBeath’s paradigm that school leadership is a ‘subversive activity’ which necessitates ‘asking hard, uncomfortable and uninvited questions’ about the status quo and an ability to see beyond the ‘grand narrative’ of the norm is evidenced in how the principals exercise their legal duty to accommodate faith and religion in their schools (MacBeath in Griffith and Portelli (2015), p.27).

251

Madeleine, for example, helps her staff members rise above its own ‘grand narrative’ by organizing a ‘staff development’ excursion on the pulp road so they could experience the lives of their First Nations students. This was Madeleine’s ‘subversive activity’.

Maria’s act of subversion is that, even though her board is resiling from a position she maintains is sanctioned by the Human Rights Commission, Maria advocates strongly for student exemption from classes, based on religious belief. She is adamant that an exemption is an accommodation.

The counter-argument is, however, exempting students for religious reasons can be an ‘indirect coercion on pupils’ and inadvertently ‘pressure [them] to conform to the majority’s norms’

(Hogg, 2005), as was found in the 1988 Court of Appeal decision, Zylberberg v. Sudbury Board of Education.

Trevor also demonstrates his opposition to the status quo and ‘ask[s] hard, uncomfortable, and uninvited questions’, by challenging the use of the word ‘accommodate’ when addressing religious needs. His preferences are invitational words, such as ‘awareness and support’, or inclusive ones, such as ‘partnership’ with the community. Although the duty to ‘accommodate’ is the foundation of my qualitative research, Trevor’s argument has merit.

Trevor also makes another important argument: public schools are ‘being forced’ to be larger than they are ‘capable of being’. In Trevor’s view the principal’s responsibility for the accommodation of faith and religion is an example of the ever increasing expectations placed on public schools. He perceives there may be a tipping point in terms of manageability and safety, which may increase the anxiety levels of principals and ‘burn [them] out’. Despite the myriad of

252

accommodations described and exercised by the principals, Trevor is the sole participant to acknowledge the breadth of accommodation expectations placed on public schools, and that a principal’s time and energy is not infinite.

In accommodating the religious needs of the Mennonite community, Jacob demonstrates the need to be ‘critically educative’ through ‘acknowledging that students cannot be forced to fit the system but that the system must adapt’ (Shields in Griffiths and Portelli (2015), p.83). Jacob and his staff take the position that they are not ‘the white knights’ accommodating the Mennonites, but rather that he and the staff are the ‘servants’. Jacob’s approach to the accommodation of the

Mennonites reflects the paradigm of Greenleaf (1977) that servitude is an attribute of a strong and effective leader. Jacob is not a unique example in this study. The other eleven participants also demonstrate, to differing degrees, that they too are ‘critically educative’ and ‘servant- leaders’.

The participants are clear that the principal cannot effectively realize the accommodation of faith and religion alone. The support and cooperation of staff are needed, which encompasses

‘collegial resilience and confidence in the direction of travel’ (Giroux (1992), p.45). Principals strive to ensure their staff members are knowledgeable and active participants: Terrence

‘deconstructs’ issues for staff to effectively ‘change them forever’; Elaine empresses on staff that the school is ‘open to all groups, all faiths. Any idea [they] need to develop and work on together, [they will] do that’.

253

Principals also fulfill their mandate to accommodate religion through engagement with school communities. Jacob manages ‘the buying-in process’ of the cooperative education program through respectful dialogue with the Mennonites. For Terrence, listening to his First Nation parents is the key. Gaining the trust of his community is important for Thomas. It is Trevor’s view that community meetings must be run ‘in many different ways with many different intents’ to establish how he and the community ‘can together envision [the] education system’.

At times, however, dialogue with the community is pre-empted, despite the intent of the principal, as ‘...the human nature of the project means that [one] cannot control all the variables’

(Griffiths and Portelli (2015), p.287). Dana’s dialogue with a parent about her Sikh child and safety issues with her kirpan was pre-empted by a letter from their temple iterating the child’s legal right to carry a kirpan. In reaction to the Ministry’s new health education curriculum, before engaging in dialogue with the principal, parents followed their religious leaders’ instructions to keep their children at home, in protest.

For the participants, it is clear an integral part of their job is to strive for an environment of equity and inclusion, not just to ‘accommodate’. The complexities involved call for ‘judicious, conscious, critical and creative leadership’, which are not superseded by the facile guidance of formulaic ‘best practices’ (Griffiths and Portelli (2015), p.287), as may be found in handbooks for principals. As the practice of one’s faith and religion is influenced by factors of culture, geographic origin, age demographics and the individual, and as ‘there’s diversity within diversity,’ in Ontario’s multi-cultural and multi-faith society ‘best practices’ merely delineates

254

the starting line for the skills and attributes principals need to successfully accommodate the religious needs in their school community.

The overall effect of the accommodation of faith and religion on the school is one of positivity for the students, staff, school and community. ‘Connections and friendships’ (Jacob) are made between students of different faiths; curriculum is re-written to ensure inclusivity; the school norm is to ‘treat each other with respect’ (John); and the community that is ‘representative of everything’ (Dana) is consulted and welcomed by the principal. Students are encouraged ‘to speak and develop their voices’ (Maria) for the accommodations needed. They are coached to

‘jump in’ (Trevor) and to stop negative comments if someone’s faith or religious attire is being disrespected. Students are invited to problem-solve issues that have an impact on the school, such as the revision of grade eight graduation plans during Ramadan.

Staff is credited with not only ensuring that the curriculum taught is inclusive, but that they assist the principal with creating an open, accommodating and inclusive school environment. In turn, principals assist staff by engaging in a ‘fair bit’ (Terrence) of work on diversity with them.

Overall, diversity is ‘celebrated’ and the accommodation of religion ‘drives’ (Maria) the schools.

Absences for religious reasons are the greatest and most numerous accommodations made.

Compromise and flexibility is required by the principal and staff. There is a budget for supply teachers, but this does not necessary provide the number needed to cover staff absences for religious holidays. Principals may have to collapse or cancel programs, cancel prep coverage for the remaining teachers, and re-assign staff. Programming for students may also be less ‘robust’.

255

Principals mainly address the benefit of the accommodation of faith and religion, with minimal references to the ‘cost’. The ‘cost’ could be assessed in terms of staff members that are still paid when they are absent for religious reasons; salaries paid to supply teachers to cover theses absences; loss of goodwill of colleagues that must give up their prep time to cover ‘collapsed’ classes when no supply is available; union involvement when class size is pierced; programming that is less robust on faith days when student and staff absence is significant; and school trips that must be postponed or cancelled. These are some of the underlying ‘costs’ for principals

(and their schools) when they strive for equity and inclusivity of diverse religions in secular public schools.

It is argued these ‘costs’ of accommodating faith and religion demonstrate our public schools still rest on a foundation that favours, overwhelmingly, the historic Christianity base. In an increasingly multi-cultural and multi-faith society, unless there is a structural change to the public school system, the realization of the principals’ duty to accommodate faith and religion will become even more Herculean, and the ‘costs’ may be correspondingly exponential: ‘[A]s minorities...edge their way relentlessly toward becoming collectively a majority, minority issues

—and pluralistic social policy— [will] gain a formidable political momentum’ (Paquette (1989), p.448). Whenever the political ‘cost’ of this momentum is subsequently realized, it may force changes to the structure of the Christian-based public school system itself.

Potential conflict related to the accommodation of faith and religion is mitigated by the principals through dialogue and through working with staff and community members to focus on

256

how to best serve students. The principals’ collective aim is to celebrate diversity; to surpass the antiquated notion of compliance; to respectfully seek collaboration; and to be inclusive.

Principals are not, however, always successful in avoiding conflict. Requests by some faith groups for the segregation of males from females in the classroom, or unequal treatment of sons and daughters, have created difficulties for principals. Some religious groups actively oppose the homosexuality and same-sex relationship content in the new health education classroom. The principals are faced with trying to accommodate religious rights and beliefs that conflict with the equal rights of the LGBTQ community. The maintenance of the rule of law and the realization of their duty to accommodate become especially challenging for principals when conflicts between competing rights arise in their schools. Nevertheless, as ‘claims to religious freedom [and requests for accommodation] must be subjected to the most rigorous level of scrutiny when they are invoked to justify harm to others’ (Undue Hardship - Drawing the Line (2015), p.3), the principals will not accommodate if the religious request does not ‘promote an equitable environment’ (Dana). That is reported by principals as ‘the line in the sand’, the point of undue hardship. And, even though a claim of undue hardship must be ‘justified on robust, principled and evidenced grounds’, religious freedom can be ‘restricted...if its manifestation harms others’

(Undue Hardship - Drawing the Line (2015), p. 49), and denies their ‘fundamental rights’ (Ross v. New Brunswick School District No 15, para.72).

In light of the controversy concerning the content of the new sex education curriculum, conflicts between the tenets of some religious groups and the right to same-sex marriage, or to be part of the LBGTQ community, may result in the realization of undue hardship. Some principals also

257

see potential for undue hardship in the unwanted media attention when members of the religious communities are in front of the school, or at Queen’s Park, actively protesting the sex education curriculum.

Despite issues or conflicts arising, the principals do not resile from their stance of striving for equity and inclusivity in their schools. Neither do they eschew the prolonged, intensive, and respectful dialogue required to reconcile conflict and differences in opinion and belief. In consultation with the chair, Trevor devised a plan to successfully manage the agenda at an emotionally charged parent council meeting over the new health education curriculum. Dana manages conflict through explaining to concerned religious groups that there are different types of families, including ones with same-sex parents. Terrence advocates there is ‘always somewhere in the middle’ in resolving conflict as Ontario becomes ‘a bigger family’ through immigration. Charter principles call for ‘reconciliation’ (Iacobucci (2003), p.137) whenever there are two conflicting, but equal rights. When there is, however, no concomitant ‘bright-line rule’ (R. v. N.S., 2010 at para 47) on how to accomplish this reconciliation, expectations placed on the principal to accommodate some religious requests may simply be too great.

During the course of the twelve interviews, all participants, unprompted, made at least some reference to the effect of Muslims and Islam in their schools. No other religious group was reported on or referenced as frequently, or as consistently. For this reason the accommodation of

Muslims and Islam in our public schools called for separate analysis and discussion.

258

The 2016 report of the Environics Institute, Survey of Muslims in Canada, indicates that although

‘the angst of 9/11 has faded’ (p.41), an undercurrent of security concerns post 9-11, with a focus on Muslims and Islam, continue. ‘Major incidents in western countries...have kept terrorism on the front pages, along with the ongoing violent conflict in the Middle East’ (p.41). The killings of six Muslims praying in their Québec mosque on January 29, 2017 and protest outside a

Toronto mosque against Muslims and Islam on February 17, 2017, have added to the fear.

Coupled with the above, there is ‘discomfort, if not suspicion’ about the growing presence of

Muslims and Islam in Canada as it is not only ‘a poorly-understood religious minority in western countries’, but its religious manifestations, such as the niqab, hijab, burka, and Sharia law, can make it ‘contentious’ to some (p.2). As a result, 78% of Canadian-born Muslims are concerned about the effects of Islamophobia and discrimination, and 18% of young Muslims report facing discrimination in school. In general, there is a perception Muslims are unfairly scapegoated and do not enjoy the acceptance accorded to other religious minorities (pp. 1, 21-22, 39). These data, however, are not supported by the information provided by the principal participants.

‘completely covered’, participate on school teams, and at least one board provides sport team

259

hijabs (Trevor). ‘There’s no issue with head coverings, or how much [someone] is covered’

(Elaine). When a student chooses to no longer wear a hijab, however, this can create tension in a school between fellow Muslims (Thomas).

Principals report they consult with imams and the local Islamic communities to resolve accommodation issues before and after they arise. Maria, for instance, worked with ‘over eight

Muslim leaders’ for several months to ‘navigate’ a framework for the accommodation of Islam.

Through them she developed an ‘understanding [of] the dynamics of being second generation or first generation Canadian, negotiating identity through religion,’ and that the individual’s interpretation of Islam is varied according to geographical, age and cultural origin.

Consultation with the imam also helps to correct requirements for the accommodation of prayer and then to balance these requirements with a corresponding ‘respect for instruction time’

(Dana). The principals report their relationships with the imams are positive, that the imams, in general, are helpful to them in the accommodation of appropriate Islamic protocol in their public schools, and that the imams have a positive mitigating effect on the conduct of Muslim students.

The Environics Report (2016) indicates the vast majority of Muslims surveyed believe their children should have access to a prayer room during the school day. Comparatively, 60% of the non-Muslim population support prayer space in public schools, while 31% actively oppose it

(p.29). The principals note the creation of prayer rooms in their schools involves consultations with local imams and other ‘adjustments’ (Anne). Issues around providing prayer space for students and staff, along with supervision, safety, and the correct timings of these

260

accommodations can pose different types of challenges for the principals. Although the principals report establishing prayer space in their schools, the use of this space may wax and wane according to student choice. Trevor chooses to avert public scrutiny about the prayer room in his school. He ‘didn’t ever advertise’ its existence as he does not see it as his ‘place’ to do so.

Trevor’s focus is on the well-being, safety and inclusivity of students, not on outside opinions on prayer rooms in schools and/or conflict avoidance.

Once the prayer room is established, supervision of Muslim students during prayer time may be an issue, depending on staffing and school size. For some, the librarian simply ‘lets them in [the library] and lets them do their peace’ (Elaine). Some librarians, however, view this duty as a union and contract issue (Maria). For the most part, prayer room supervision requires ‘a little flexibility’ from staff (Trevor) and adjustment of scheduling. Conversely, Madeleine’s students choose to leave the school and pray in mosques with their families on Fridays, so no staff or principal supervision is required.

None of the principals indicates whether members of the Muslim communities are involved in supervising students in the school. The Ministry’s Religious Accommodation Guideline indicates that ‘adult presence should be for supervision purposes only.’ (Section 4, Part 3). This may have a connection to section 29 (3) of the Education Act: ‘instruction...[or] indoctrination in a particular religion [may take place] before or after the school’s instructional program’.

Arguably, if a staff member is supervising the prayer room, rather than a member of the religious community, it may pre-empt any inferences or optics that religious instruction or indoctrination is occurring during the school day. Nonetheless, assistance from the community in supervising

261

prayer rooms could mitigate contract or union issues arising around principals assigning ‘extra duty’ for teachers.

Although the research participants indicate they are able to ‘navigate’ any issues arising, some note that restrictions on participation in music and dance programs may pose challenges when accommodating certain sects of Islam. These ‘challenges’ may involve restrictions on boys and girls making physical contact, or that wind instruments, for religious reasons, cannot be used.

The provision of a scarf to hold between boys and girls resolved and accommodated one religious concern (Maria), and the rental of more drums and cymbals resolved and accommodated the other (Dana). Through making small and ‘easy’ adjustments ‘full inclusion’ is made possible for Muslim students (Maria and Dana) in the secular public school.

Accommodations required during the holy month of Ramadan, especially as its timing varies from year-to-year, can pose challenging logistics for the principals. When Ramadan occurred in

June, for instance, Thomas has to alter the plans for a celebratory grade eight dinner, as his

Muslim students were fasting. The resolution included the participation of the graduating students. After Thomas ‘puts it to the kids’, their subsequent solution accommodated not only the

Muslim students, but the larger grade eight school body, including those from the lower socio- economic sector.

The reports of the principals also suggest the legal rights of Muslims to be accommodated and included may be challenged by some of their peers. Maria cites instances of principals in her

262

board refusing to provide prayer space, claiming they have no classrooms available. As a result,

Muslim parents have removed their children from the public board.

Although not raised as a challenge, Elaine notes staff members have been granted six weeks absence to participate in the Hajj and this could arise as a future issue. As the presence of

Muslims in Ontario continues to flourish, and depending on whether Ramadan (and the Hajj) occur during the school year, staff absence for this religious holiday could prove costly in both time and money. It is argued that the structure of the school year itself, with its roots and formation the result of our historic Christian base, may increasingly pose a logistical and financial dilemma for the principals, the boards and the Ministry, as more and more Muslims are accommodated in the public school system.

In the interim, the principals are willingly, mindfully and more skillfully ‘learning how to tap dance’ (Anne) around the accommodation needs of Muslims and Islam. To ensure a ‘growing inclusion’ (Griffiths (2013), p.73), however, principals have to increasingly figure out how to include the requisite Islamic rites for Muslims that may choose to pray during the school day and/or to participate in Friday prayers – either in the school or at a local mosque - and/or to fast during the holy month of Ramadan and/or to dress modestly and/or to wear a hijab and/or a niqab and/or to participate in Hajj. There may be some professional growing pains for the principals in realizing their duties related to the accommodation of Islam, in all its forms.

None of the principals in this study identify as Muslim. Yet, they discuss and present the numerous ways they ensure the inclusion of their Muslims students and staff, demonstrating not

263

only that they have acquired a sound knowledge of the requirements associated with Islamic religious values, but that they approach accommodation and any issues arising ‘with heart’

(Maria). In other words, accommodation is not simply accomplished by rote through following the policy manual. The most important factor is that Muslims and Islam are not only being accommodated, but their integration and inclusion is becoming more and more the norm in

Ontario’s public schools (Trevor).

The Ministry’s new health education curriculum offers a different story. The data makes it clear that it has introduced ‘a large can of worms’ (Lindy) into the public school system. Faith groups have demonstrated their dissatisfaction through several means: public protests; letters from religious leaders; agitated conversations with the principals; withdrawal of their children from programming; withdrawal from the public school system; and in some instances, building their own faith-based school. Although the Ministry may have actively consulted with various faith groups, it is questioned if it actually listened to what was said or took the time to understand that the content – classroom discussions on homosexuality and same-sex marriage - is simply not easily accepted by some faith groups. It is also questioned whether it was through Ministry intention – or inadvertence - that the heavy lifting in managing the resultant conflict involving

Charter and Human rights be left to the principals, the schools and the public boards.

In an attempt to manage reaction to the new health education curriculum some boards have assisted their principals by ‘getting out in front of the issue’ and devising information pieces for their communities. Others have enacted a policy of withdrawal of students from the program which may, in turn, create a larger ‘can of worms’ (Lindy). Principals and boards could face a

264

court challenge if parents perceive withdrawal as an insufficient accommodation, or as prejudicial and ‘indirect coercion’ (Hogg 2005, p.493).

The Environics Institute (2016) reports the greatest divergence between secular values and religious ones is in the area of sexuality. The flashpoints of the sex education program for some religious groups are classroom discussions, instruction and acknowledgment of homosexuality, the makeup of the LGBTQ community, and same sex marriage. Similar to the data obtained from the principal participants, the Environics Institute notes that the Ministry’s health education curriculum precipitated ‘boycotts by families’ from diverse faith groups, including Muslims

(p.33). The principals indicate the Quakers and the Mennonites in their communities are also opposed to the curriculum.

The central issue for the principals is how to establish space – in a peaceful and rational manner

– when such equal rights are in conflict. It may be more than the principals and their boards can successfully manage. Judicial guidance and resolution by the courts may be required.

Nevertheless, there is still a key role for the principal in initiating dialogue with the religious communities about tolerance and in discussions about difference. As the SCC notes in its 2002 decision, Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No.36, interaction with diversity introduces children to difference and ‘allows [them] to be taught what tolerance involves’ (para 33). And, as our notion of ‘tolerance’ has evolved over time, greatly due to our overall ‘commitment to a culture of legality’ (McLaughlin, 2015), it serves as a safety net protecting minorities – such as the LGBTQ and the non-Christian religious communities - from the intolerance of others.

Arguably, however, tolerance of the other is the minimum expected and falls far short of not only

265

‘the duty to accommodate’, but of the ideals which encompass equity, inclusivity and

Deardorff’s paradigm for interculturalism.

Some religious groups have unilaterally ‘settled’ the debate about the new sex education curriculum through leaving the public school system and building their own religion-based schools. This results in not only a lower number of students enrolled in our public schools, but also a lessened need for teaching and other staff. Even Jacob with his sound relationship with the Mennonite community is concerned about the potential fallout. To ‘stick handle’ (Madeleine) the tempest created by the new health curriculum, the principals (and their boards) require assistance. If the Ministry does not adequately intervene, perhaps the potential loss of staff may garner the attention of the unions, if issues concerning Charter and Code rights are not raised with the courts first.

266

Chapter Six: Conclusion

6.1. Introduction

Since the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1763 religious freedom ‘has...been recognized as a principle of fundamental character’ in Canada’s legal system (Saumur v. Québec [1953] S.C.R.).

Although Canada has never had an official state-religion, a ‘shadow-establishment’ of Christians

(Seljak (2012)) held sway for more than one hundred years. Over the past several decades, however, changing immigration patterns have created a seismic shift in the mosaic of Canada’s citizenry, particularly in Ontario, along with a concomitant struggle to re-order the use of space in public institutions, such as schools. The introduction of the Code and the Charter, as well as subsequent judicial decisions served to re-calibrate the Christian foothold and to provide space in law for non-Christian faiths and religions. In turn, the changes in the law of religious freedom led to the secularization of public education ‘with Christian symbols and practices’ removed from schools (Berger (2014)). Precipitating these changes were court decisions, such as

Zylberberg V. Sudbury Board of Education (1988) which compelled the removal of the Christian

Lord’s Prayer from the public school curriculum; and Canadian Civil Liberties Association v.

Ontario (Ministry of Education) (1990) which found the obligatory two hours of compulsory

Christian religious education classes unconstitutional.

In acknowledgment of Ontario’s growing diversity, the Ministry of Education introduced

Ontario’s Equity and Inclusive Education Strategy in 2009. The rights and freedoms enshrined in the Charter and Code are its cornerstone. To further support its aim of equity and inclusivity, the Ministry produced the Religious Accommodation Guideline, which specifically acknowledges that ‘all school boards exist within a broader context of law and public policy that

267

protect and defend human rights...with[in] the school system’. The format of my interview protocol draws almost exclusively from the content of the Guideline which addresses accommodations such as prayer rooms, fasting, absences for religious holidays, modesty in dress, kirpans, reasonable accommodation and undue hardship.

Berger (2014) contends that it is in the public school where the challenges of religious accommodation can be ‘some of the fiercest and most perplexing’. The transition from the

Christian dominance to the legal duty to accommodate all faiths and religions has not been easy, and as this study demonstrates, continues to pose challenges. The principals that are attempting to balance the competing rights of religious demands that conflict with the rights of the LGBTQ communities, or the equal rights of males and females, would concur. On the other hand, some of the historic challenges such as a Sikh student’s right to wear a kirpan in school;239 the prejudicial effect of the school calendar on non-Christians celebrating their faith days;240a school's inclusion of library books on same-sex relationships despite the objection of some religious groups;241 and conflict between the religious convictions of particular Christian teachers, the right to free speech, and the rights of Jewish students to be protected and safe,242currently settled in law, do not arise as issues with the principal interviewed.

The rule of law is the underpinning of this study. Although there may be imperfections, it is clear that the Charter and Code provide a foundation for fairness and equity. Coupled with this, jurisprudence and legislation demonstrate, not only an ‘evolutionary tolerance for diversity and

239 Multani v. Commission Scolaire Marguertite-Bourgeoys [2006] 240 Chambly v. Bergevin [1994] 241 Chamberlain v. Surrey School District [2002] 242 Ross v. New Brunswick School District [1996] and R. v. Keegstra [1990]

268

pluralism’,243 but a protected right to practice one’s faith and religion, and to be accommodated.

As approximately 65.4% of the Canadian population claim affiliation to some faith or religion, a central premise of this study is religion matters in the lives of many people (Clarke, 2005) and it is an integral part of how many citizens lead their lives. Concomitantly, the bourgeoning multicultural makeup of Ontario’s citizenry offers a vast diversity in faith and religious practices and needs for accommodation. This exploratory case study demonstrates that the children (and staff) of our multi-faith society are not just being ‘accommodated’, but actively included in our schools.

A second premise, based on historic precedence and current events, is that the accommodation of diverse faiths and religions, and making space for practices differing from ‘the norm’ can precipitate vociferous debate, division and behaviour bordering on the irrational. Issues concerning religious practice can even provoke behaviour that is deadly. The assassination of six Muslims praying at a mosque in Québec on January 29, 2017, offered Canadians a sobering reality of this fact. We do not need to look south of the border, to Europe, or to the Middle East to find proof of incendiary reactions to religious difference. Despite these outside realities, however, the findings of this study indicate that a state and example of peaceful co-existence is being realized through the respectful accommodation of faith and religion in our public schools.

A third premise of this study is that although the rule of law promises equality for all citizens, the promise may not be realized in practice. The data from my research strongly suggests, however, that although there may be flaws and lacuna in execution by government institutions, in general, our public schools are successfully and respectfully accommodating the diverse religious needs

243 Bruker v. Marcovitz, 2007.

269

of both staff and students. Moreover, this study shows that our public schools are government institutions where a nascent understanding of our shared rights, freedoms and values are being nurtured, and where children and staff are being shown that all citizens of our multi-cultural and multi-faith society have a right to equal space and voice, and a right to have their faith and religion, at the very least, respectfully accommodated.

My fourth premise for this study is that principals are the vanguards ensuring that not only educational policy is followed, but that the rights and values enshrined in our Charter and Code are rigorously defended and upheld in an equitable and inclusive environment.

My conceptual framework draws from the idea that schools and school boards ‘exist within...[the] context of law and public policy’. The enveloping larger circle includes the

Charter, the Code, jurisprudence and education policy, with double-headed areas indicating their interconnections. The smaller inner circle depicts who and what influences the accommodation of faith and religion in public schools: Boards of education; staff (teachers and support); students; school community (religious and secular); and the personal/professional skills of the principal. Again, there are double-headed arrows depicting the interconnections. In the centre circle I have placed the principal – the public face of public education, the one responsible for leadership in the school, management of the school, and the one who holds the formal authority in the school.244 In my conceptual framework the principal is connected to all elements in the two inner and outer circles, as they are to the principal. Part of the purpose of this exploratory case study was to learn how principals address and balance a policy of secularism with the legal duty to accommodate faith and religion in their public schools.

244 The Ontario Leadership Framework (September 2013), p.5.

270

The qualitative method of gathering data was chosen for two reasons. Firstly, face-to-face interviews provide the opportunity for a nuanced discussion and reflection on what the accommodation of faith and religion entails. Moreover, ‘through dealing in voices,’ I was better positioned to have principals ‘tell it like it is’ (Tierney in Gitlin, 1994). Secondly, through conducting qualitative research I was able to ensure the principals were interviewed as individual professionals; to arrange with them a safe place to speak about their experiences, stories and philosophies about the accommodation of faith and religion; and to assure them the purpose of the inquiry was not to evaluate their knowledge of the law. I believe the principals trusted me to judiciously and respectfully interpret their narratives, and that allowed them to speak freely. As a result, each of our conversations was frank, informative and, at times, revelatory. The experience, in sum, was an academic privilege for me as a researcher.

To conduct the research, twelve principals representing both elementary and secondary panels, from five different public boards of education, were interviewed. The main question which guided my research was: How do principals in the public boards enact, integrate and mobilize the legal duty to accommodate faith and religion in their schools? This was demonstrated in several ways.

Firstly, each principal participant indicated he/she has a sound understanding of the Ministry and board policy and procedures involved in accommodating faith and religion and what was expected of them, their staff, and the school. This knowledge provided a foundation, a starting point for successful implementation. Several principals proudly handed me a copy of their board’s policy and guidelines for the accommodation of religion. The principals implicitly and

271

explicitly demonstrated they understood what their legal duty entails and acted upon it in a myriad of ways, despite the added complexity this presented. Ensuring the accommodation of faith and religious needs of staff and students is a fraction of, but an acknowledged integral part of their responsibilities.

In the managerial aspect of their role, the principals timetable for student and staff absences for faith-based holidays and arrange for supply teachers. They make space for prayer rooms and fasting (sometimes in their office) and arrange supervision of these spaces to ensure student safety. Principals oversee that physical education classes accommodate religious requirements for dress, and curriculum content is culturally appropriate.

In the leadership aspect of their role, the principals interact with the school community stakeholders to realize the successful accommodation of religious needs. These stakeholders are the students; the staff (teachers and support); the outside community (religious and secular) and the board of education. Although the Ontario Leadership Framework (2013) [the “OTF”] describes ‘successful’ leadership as ‘the exercise of influence on organizational members’ which makes ‘ethical (supportive and facilitative),...significant and positive contributions to the progress of the organization (p.5), the principals in the study chose a different ‘successful’ leadership approach in the accommodation of faith and religion in their schools. In their interactions with all members of the school community the principals demonstrated the proscribed ‘ethical (supportive and facilitative)’ leadership, but their primary focus was on the individual interests of the staff and students with religious needs rather than on ‘the progress of the organization’ itself. The outcome of their positive interaction with the stakeholders,

272

however, led to a more inclusive and equitable school environment, and the Ministry of

Education might define this as ‘progress of the organization’.

To ensure staff members are aware of legal requirements, board policy and their part in accommodating the religious needs of students and colleagues, principals incorporate this information into staff development meetings, school memos, announcements and handbooks.

The principals are willing to repeat and remediate with staff members that need reinforcement and they are resilient in endeavouring to make the respectful accommodation of faith and religion an integral part of their school environment and ethos.

During their interviews the principals also recount the numerous hours spent with parents and religious leaders in working through and creating faith-based accommodations. Beyond their leadership and managerial skills, the principals effectively serve as both negotiators and mediators: between religious leaders and the school; parents and teachers; parents and their children, as well as between teachers and students. According to the OLF (2013), the skills required for the principal to be an ‘effective leader’ are ‘optimism, emotional intelligence and problem-solving abilities’ (p.6 & 22). I would concur that these personal and professional attributes, coupled with a sound knowledge of legal duties outlined in the Religious

Accommodation Guidelines, assisted the principals with successfully navigating the requirements for accommodation that diverse faiths and religions presented to them.

Finally, the principals engaged in their duty to accommodate faith and religion from a perspective of which I can only describe as ‘heart’. There were no exceptions. The participants

273

expressed deep care about the well-being of their students, their staff, their school, their community and (sometimes) even their board. ‘Heart’ is not an attribute that can be legislated.

It is well beyond the proscribed ‘best practices’ of leadership or management. It is beyond arguments about the intent and letter of the law. In my view, ‘heart’ is the intangible combination in the principal of experience, knowledge, humility and empathy that leads to the recognition of the fundamental need for equity and inclusivity of all members of the school community, and the unrelenting effort to attain them. ‘Heart’ is behind the successful accommodation of faith and religion in our schools, despite any opposing voices and actions inside and outside their walls.

The subsidiary questions investigated were:

(a) Does the accommodation of religion have an impact on how public schools function?

(b) How is any conflict arising between religious and other equal, but conflicting Charter

rights managed, such as sex-equity, sexual orientation or freedom of speech?

undue hardship on the part of the principal due to a perceived or real lack of resources

and/or due to potential or real harm to other members of the school community?

(a) Does the accommodation of religion have an impact on how public schools function?

The data strongly suggests that the accommodation of diverse faiths and religions is normalized in public schools, and that it is mostly positive. Moreover, when accommodation is ‘embedded’ in the operation of the school itself and diversity is ‘embraced’ students are reported to derive

274

greater overall benefit (Maria). The types of accommodations vary in relation to the diversity of the school community.

Principals also report that accommodation not only benefits the students with faith-based needs, but also the others with whom they make ‘connections and friendships’ (Jacob). Diversity is embraced and the accommodation of faith and religion is infused into the culture of the school and ‘spills over into everything’ (Dana).

The principals describe three main positive effects for students: safety, comfort and inclusion; increased advocacy; and increased collaboration. For staff, their religious needs are met through contractually permitted absence for religious reasons and for the provision of supply teachers to cover their classes. Programming for students may be less ‘robust’, but principals learn ‘to go with the flow’ (Lyndy) and adjust accordingly.

Professional development for staff is focussed on adapting to students’ needs, ‘not vice-verse’ and on ‘challenging...preconceived ideas...about what equity is’ (Terrence).

Principals emphasize the importance of knowing their school community, engaging in respectful dialogue and the importance of developing positive relationships to learn more about the religious needs of their students.

275

(b) How is any conflict arising between religious and other equal, but conflicting Charter

rights managed, such as sex-equity, sexual orientation or freedom of speech?

The principals, in general, viewed the accommodation of faith and religion as ‘doable’ (Lindy) in their schools. Some tensions arise when teachers are assigned prayer room supervision and it

‘pierces’ (Elaine) their proscribed contractual minutes. There is also tension regarding exemption from class curriculum for religious reasons, and whether exemption is a bonafide accommodation.

None of the principals makes the ‘standard’ undue hardship arguments that there is a lack of resources or disruption to the organization—the key factors in deciding whether a case for undue hardship can be made. The reality is that in the context of an increasingly multi-cultural and multi-faith society, a claim of undue hardship may become more and more difficult to establish, or to defend. Perhaps the principals intuitively understand this reality.

The principals do take an unequivocal stance on protecting the constitutional rights of the

LGBTQ communities and the rights to sex equity. In the context of their concomitant and equal duty to protect faith and religious rights, through mediating and negotiating with the stakeholders, they have realized some success. Issues arising over the content of the Ministry’s new health and sex education curriculum, however, may yet precipitate a claim of undue hardship by some of the elementary school principals.

To counteract conflict, the principals try to engage in face-to-face dialogue with parents to promote a common ground. The concept of ‘family’—in all its formations—is used as a rallying

276

point of understanding. Equally, principals report they serve as advocates and resistors when teachers and community members argue for the maintenance of the status quo, rather than for inclusivity. There is evidence of some ‘racist ideologies’ and ‘a fear base’ that attempts to marginalize certain religious groups, such as Muslims.

undue hardship on the part of the principal due to a perceived or real lack of resources

and/or due to potential or real harm to other members of the school community?

The principals hold the opinion there is always room for compromise and ‘always somewhere in the middle’ (Terrence) in order to reach a mutual understanding with and between community members. Equally, principals hold the conviction that they will not accommodate for Charter and Code rights violations. They acknowledge that when religious accommodation is made ‘to keep the peace’ (Dana), this can become a flashpoint in the school and create the potential for a claim of undue hardship.

Realizing the legal duty to accommodate faith and religion, while also maintaining an inclusive and equitable environment for the LGBTQ student, staff and communities, may give rise to a declaration of undue hardship. A very recent decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, offers some support for principals, their schools and their boards when there is an unresolvable difference.

277

In E.T. v. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (2016) the court deemed the board’s decision not to accommodate the numerous requests of a Greek Orthodox Christian as

‘reasonable’. Conversely, as the court notes, granting the parent’s requests for religious accommodation would create undue hardship, as curriculum would have to be constantly adjusted. Additionally, the court states that granting his children’s exemption from the sex education component based on an argument of ‘false teachings’ would allow the parent

...to isolate his children from aspects of the curriculum...[and this] is antithetical to the competing legislative mandate and Charter values favoring inclusivity, equality and multiculturalism (para. 100).

In addition to the new health curriculum, the principals also identify two other factors as potentially inviting a declaration of undue hardship in the school: Collective agreements and paucity of human resources. These factors may serve as limitations to the principal’s ability to provide supervision of prayer rooms and safety for students.

Finally, from the data collected, two additional themes emerged in this exploratory case study:

(a) The growing presence of Muslims and influence of Islam; and, (b) The impact of the

Ministry’s new health education curriculum.

(a) The growing presence of Muslims and influence of Islam

The establishment of prayer rooms for Muslim (and other) students, or at least the offer to provide them, is becoming normalized in our public schools. Supervision is dependent on the

‘flexibility’ and cooperation of staff (Maria).

278

Prayer space and time is also provided for Muslim staff that wish to pray during the school day.

The teaching schedule may be adjusted to accommodate prayer time and more sedentary supervision duties are offered when fasting during Ramadan.

Imams are consulted about the timings and requirements of prayer rooms and they have played a significant advisory role in the creation of board policies on the accommodation of Islam.

The choice of females to wear hijabs in school and during physical education is also part of the accepted school fabric. There is no longer a perceived safety issue when participating in physical activities. The requirement for modesty in dress also benefits other students that are not comfortable wearing shorts.

Principals ensure halal food is available for students in the nutrition programs, for staff at meetings, and at school-sponsored community events. Serving halal food is not just an accommodation, but viewed as a community-building exercise (Trevor).

Conversely, there are reports of islamophobic behaviour in at least one principal’s board, and amongst some of her peers (Maria).

(b) The impact of the Ministry’s new health education curriculum

The reported maelstrom introduced by the Ministry of Education’s new health education curriculum has made the accommodation of religious requests and reactions extremely difficult for principals, especially in elementary. Both Christians and Muslims have reacted to the

279

curriculum content that includes classroom discussions on same-sex marriage and homosexuality, through letter-writing campaigns, student removal from school and public protests. For many principals, this conflict is the ‘line in the sand,’ or the point of undue hardship, and there remains uncertainty as to how to proceed.

Some boards have tried to take anticipatory action through communications with religious communities, as well as by making changes to established board procedures. The principals clearly express that religious accommodation will not violate the competing Charter and Code rights of the LGBTQ communities, or of sex-equity.

The Ministry of Education is blamed for contributing to the ‘uproar’ (Dana) when it advised boards that advance and preparatory communication with the religious communities about the rollout and content of the curriculum was not necessary (Lama).

6.2. Practical Implications

When I first began thinking about this study I considered that the data may demonstrate that more professional development would be needed for some principals and their staffs in order to understand, not only the legal requirements of the duty to accommodate faith and religion until the point of undue hardship, but also assistance with learning techniques and best practices in order to understand how to accommodate diverse religious needs in an already complicated and complex school system. The data obtained through this exploratory case study indicate, however, that this is not true for any of the twelve principals interviewed. Although there is a broad range of what the principals have to do in practice to accommodate faith and religion, they

280

all articulate a sound understanding of their legal duties, especially concerning equality rights inherent to the Charter and the Code.

The ‘can of worms’ recently introduced to the public schools through the Ministry of

Education’s new health education curriculum is not attributable to any lack of understanding of legal duties on the part of the principals. The principals report that the curriculum content has created a flashpoint between religious rights and the rights of the LGBTQ communities. They raise the question: With whom did the Ministry of Education consult before creating the curriculum and mandating that it be implemented? There are several Christian and non-Christian upset by the content. Although Khan (1997) claims that few religious rights issues or disputes originating in schools are settled by the courts, the reported maelstrom ushered in by the

Ministry’s sex education curriculum has recently proved to be an exception. As cited above, in

E.T v. Hamilton-Wentworth Board (2016) the content of this curriculum and religious accommodation were the central issues. Based on the findings in this decision, uncertainty amongst the principals as to how to accommodate religious beliefs that are opposed to even classroom discussion of same-sex relationships, may be counteracted with declarations of undue hardship on the part of the principal.245 In the interim, the Ministry and boards need take responsibility for some counter-action in support of the principals and schools. Based on the preponderance of issues experienced by the principal participants, perhaps the Ministry will take the opportunity to review this curriculum document and invite nuanced discussion with the stakeholders concerned—in the immediate—to establish how competing rights and interests could be respectfully balanced.

245 See paragraphs 93 through 106 for the Honourable Justice Reid’s reasoning and discussion of ‘unreasonable’ religious requests for accommodation that may precipitate undue hardship for teachers and schools.

281

On the other hand, if the principals’ quandary does not precipitate Ministry action, perhaps the faith-based schools that are reportedly being built as a result of opposition to the sex education curriculum, and which may have an impact on student and teacher numbers in the public school system, could be the catalyst. At present, however, it is the principals that are directly dealing with the protests and reactions of religious communities. It will likely take more than leading with ‘heart’ to successfully resolve issues which involve conflicting Charter and Code rights.

What the study does suggest is that principals, staff and schools need more resources in order to adequately serve the growing religious needs of Ontario’s multicultural society. Some of the

‘bumpers’ (Jacob) that should be addressed is the provision of adequate dedicated space for prayer and collective agreements that allow for more flexibility in order that principals may assign staff to supervise prayer rooms, or to supervise children exempted from a class for religious reasons, without it becoming a union issue. Perhaps the recent influx of ten thousand

Syrian refugees, with fifteen thousand more scheduled to come, and the fact a significant number will settle in Ontario, will expedite Ministry and board action, as the need for resources will likely be exponentially expanded. Although food, shelter, finding work and learning English will be the immediate needs, for many the accommodation of their religious practices will closely follow.

The structure of the school year also merits examination. If religious pilgrimages, such as the

Hajj for Muslims, spiritual quests for First Nations, or for reasons that any other religious groups require a prolonged period of absence during the two hundred day long public school ‘year’, the dynamics of an increasingly multi-cultural society will compel some change. Even though the

282

principals report that students are not ‘penalized’ for absences in recognition of their significant faith days, when there is a large number away from school it can have an effect on the operation of the entire school. And even though principals indicate they need to just ‘go with the flow’, when the result is that classes are collapsed and programming is less ‘robust’, there may be significant impact on the learning of school community members not involved in a particular religious holiday. Their rights as teachers and students may be eclipsed because of the legal duty to accommodate the faith and religion of their peers.

In conducting this exploratory case study, what gives cause for concern does not lie with the principal participants themselves but with the reported active resiling from the duty to accommodate all faith and religions by some of their peers, and by at least one board. The reported anti-Muslim views, bordering on Islamophobia, are deeply troubling. If these principals and board cannot see beyond the historic status quo and consider who is being excluded and marginalized by their practice (Giroux, 1992), as the legal duty to accommodate faith and religion is not optional, they will require peer guidance and counsel to help reconsider their practices and biases, before the Ministry of Education, if not the courts or the Human Rights

Tribunal, intervene to help realign them.

Kowalchuk (2017) offers a further next step: If the Ministry is fully behind the ideals expressed in its Ontario Equity and Inclusive Education Strategy, which are further delineated in the

Religious Accommodation Guideline, then issues concerning the legal duty to accommodate faith and religion should form part of the Ontario College of Teachers preparatory courses for those members who seek to become principals (p.196). These graduates, pre-armed with an in-depth

283

understanding of the integral importance of equity, inclusivity and the duty to accommodate faith and religion for each individual, and an equal commitment to realize them could portend a new forma mentis that eclipses the remnants of the former status quo. There would be no longer space for exclusion, Islamophobia, or the like.

6.3. Significance of thesis

Although there are existing academic treatises that examine the effect of conflict between the rights of religious minorities and the hegemony of government institutions, this exploratory case study provides, not only a discussion of such conflict arising, it also provides an expansive discussion of the historical legal foundation for the present-day duty to accommodate faith and religion in secular government institutions, such as Ontario’s public schools. Moreover, the study provides an overview of the laws and judicial decisions that serve to protect religious rights in Canada, how tensions have been or can be resolved through the rule of law and policies, and the extent to which faith and religion are successfully accommodated in public schools, largely due to the positive actions of public school principals that understand their legal duties and strive to fulfill them.

My exploratory case study derives from the premise that ‘religion is an integral part of people’s lives’ (Chamberlain v. Surrey District [2002]) and ‘religion seems to matter in the lives of people’ (Clark, 2005). My research is based on the belief that public schools have a ‘duty to foster the respect of their students for the constitutional rights of all members of society’ (R. v. M

(M.R.) [1998]); that ‘all school boards exist within a broader context of law and public policy that protect and defend human rights...with[in] the school system’ (Religious Accommodation

284

Guideline); and that ‘religious tolerance is a very important value of Canadian society...[Moreover,] it is incumbent on the schools to discharge their obligation to instill in their students this value that is...at the very foundation of our democracy’ (Multani v. Commission

Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys [2006].

My philosophical stance as a critical post-modernist, with the ideal of working toward creating

‘transformative communities of difference,’ informed my research (Tierney in Gitlin, 1994).

After witnessing the aftermath of injustices following the events of 9/11, when a principal of an

Islamic school in Kuwait, I was compelled to finally realize my life-long goal of becoming a lawyer. I believe strongly in the rule of law and in its proper use as both a sword and a shield to protect the rights of the less powerful from the hegemony of the majority. Moreover, I believe that Charter and Code values require ‘deliberate intervention that requires the moral use of power’ by government agents (Bogotoch, 2002). In this exploratory case study the government agents are the principals and the Charter and Code value is freedom of religion. My aim in conducting this research was to look beyond the mere ‘accommodation’ of faith and religion to the twin ideals of equity and inclusion.

Through the articulation of their role in enacting, integrating and mobilizing the legal duty to accommodate faith and religion in their schools the principal participants demonstrated they are inclusive and equity-minded in their approach. Despite numerous other needs, demands and responsibilities that have an impact on principals’ time and attention, each demonstrated awareness of the particular religious needs in their schools and how each student and staff member was accommodated and included. Overall, the findings strongly suggest the

285

accommodation of faith and religion has a positive effect on school climate and is seen as a benefit to the staff and students being accommodated, as well to other secular members of the school community.

This exploratory case study also reveals that the duty to accommodate faith and religion continues to disrupt the historic Christian hegemony. And the process of establishing space in our public school system continues to be somewhat ‘cacophonous’ as principals, their boards and the Ministry of Education figure out ‘how different realities might be accommodated and understood’ (Tierney, 1994). My research demonstrates that although willing, ‘critically educative’ (Ibrahim, 2015) and equity and inclusion are part of their ‘epistemic framework’

(Nelson et al., 2013), it is a decided challenge for principals to be inclusive of Ontario’s bourgeoning diversity with their concomitant religious needs in public schools that are officially secular—especially in the context of balancing competing Charter and Code rights—all while fulfilling their infinite list of other leadership and managerial duties.

Despite the myriad of ways the principals describe how the faith and religion of students and staff members are accommodated—through the provision of halal and kosher foods; allowances for modesty in dress in physical education; the normalization of wearing hijabs; the establishment of prayer rooms and co-operative education programs; consultations with religious leaders and Elders; school re-organization for faith-based absences; sensitivity to fasting needs; smudging ceremonies; numerous discussions and meetings with the outside religious communities; and school-wide celebrations in recognition of their multi-faith school body— there remain some flashpoints.

286

Requests by some religious groups to separate boys from girls in the classroom, or to assume that boys have more rights than girls, is vociferously deemed a violation of rights by the principals and they will not ‘accommodate for prejudice’. Likewise for religious requests that violate the rights of the LGBTQ communities. What is clear from this study is the principals are not prepared to ‘resile from the pursuit of conditions necessary for a just and ethical common world’

(Berger, 2014).

6.4. Limitations and Future Research

Although the data provided by the principal participants (5 males and 7 females) is comprehensive and provides a clear snapshot as to the extent and positive effect of the accommodation of faith and religion in Ontario’s public schools, a limitation of this exploratory case study may be that only twelve principals out of over seven thousand possible principal (and vice-principal) candidates were interviewed.

The counter-argument is, however, the five male and seven female principals interviewed offer elements of uniqueness, one from the other: four are in high schools and eight in elementary; their years of experience as administrators range from five to twenty-eight years; and their individual public schools vary greatly in student and staff numbers, student makeup, geographical location, and needs. Therefore, although the sampling of principals numbers only twelve, their diverse experiences contribute to a more fulsome snapshot of what the accommodation of faith and religion looks like in Ontario’s public schools.

287

On the other hand, another point to consider is the fact that four of the twelve principals were recruited through their connection to the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE). The interest of these principals in doctoral level studies may suggest they have knowledge and awareness about education issues that is greater than some—or many—of their peers. It follows, therefore, that the information they provided, and their awareness of what the duty to accommodate faith and religion entails, may be more in-depth as a result.

Another limitation of the study may be that the principals work in and are representative of only five of the thirty-one public school boards in Ontario, and all five boards are reasonably close to the Toronto area where I work. The distances which I could travel to conduct interviews were constricted by both time and finances.

If a future study were to encompass a larger number of the geographical areas of Ontario—from

Windsor to Cornwall, and from Kenora to Attawapiskat—this broader range of investigation of principals, schools and school boards may introduce more unique data, demonstrating how the duty to accommodate faith and religion is enacted, integrated and mobilized, beyond the boundaries of Toronto and the Greater Toronto Area. Both funding and large blocks of time would be necessary to conduct the requisite face-to-face interviews, especially when travelling to the northern boards.

Additionally, the effect of the accommodation of faith and religion in public schools could be investigated from the viewpoint of teachers, students and/or parents; those community members that require religious accommodation and those affected by the religious accommodation of

288

others. As the principals are ‘the face of public education’ (Trevor), perhaps other members of the school community will produce data that is less encumbered by this sense of responsibility, and differing stories and ‘truths’ about the accommodation of faith and religion in public schools will emerge.

Future related research might also examine more closely the theme of ‘cost’ in the accommodation of faith and religion which was addressed briefly in the critical analysis section of this thesis. A discussion of costs could encompass the financial expenditure involved in accommodating the faith-based religious holidays of staff and students that occur during the school year, still structured to accommodate the Christian faith days of Christmas, Good Friday and Easter. An analysis of cost could also be assessed in terms of the effectiveness of classroom teaching and the organization of the school when large numbers are absent for faith-based holidays, there is a shortage of teaching staff and classes are collapsed. The cost-benefit would also have to be weighed, of course, against Charter and Code rights to be accommodated, up until the point of undue hardship, and the reality that ‘as minorities...edge their way relentlessly toward becoming collectively a majority, minority issues – and pluralist social policy...[is] gain[ing] a formidable political momentum’ (Paquette, 1989).

Future research on the accommodation of faith and religion in public school boards might also investigate whether there are other religious groups that have gained de facto control of a public school, such as the Mennonite sect reported on by Trevor, simply because they are numerically dominate in a particular catchment area. Dana only refers to the ‘uproar’ caused by the segregation of boys and girls in her colleague’s school due to the accommodation of one

289

numerically significant Muslim group. The breadth of its control over the operation of the public school was not delineated. Nonetheless, through concentrated demographics, other religious minority groups, like the Mennonites, may have managed to circumvent the Supreme Court of

Canada's 1996 holding in Adler v. Ontario that affirms religious minorities not recognized under s.93 of the Canadian Constitution, (in other words, only Roman Catholics) are not entitled to public funding for their schools. Further research may reveal other religious groups, numerically dominant in certain geographical areas in Ontario, have finessed control of publicly funded schools and made them denomination specific.

Finally, another area of future research, particularly in light of the findings of the Truth and

Reconciliation Report, would be the extent of the spirituality of our First Nations is accommodated in public schools through the provision of space for smudging and other activities. Although the First Nations are mentioned by three of the principals, they are not predominantly referenced. That is a lacuna in the findings of my study that should and could be rectified through future research.

6.5. Personal Reflections and Conclusion

During the several years it took to complete my doctoral studies, when people inquired about the topic of my thesis, there was mixed reaction when they learned my research focused on faith and religion. Some expressed enthusiasm and interest while others thought I may be ‘opening a large can of worms’, if not inviting great opposition. I was not seeking controversy, but some rational middle ground of understanding. This exploratory case study is my own form of and offering for faith and religion-based entente. Although at times uncertain, as I conducted the field research

290

and completed the written text, I became more convicted about the importance of my chosen topic.

The judicial and legislative erasure of Christianity’s historical foothold in Ontario, and in its public schools, may be lamentable for some. The fact that Christianity has been made legally to cede space to other religions is not easily understood or accepted by all, perhaps many. These changes simply reflect the realities of our multi-cultural and multi-faith society. It is not anti-

Christian as some would argue. Even though there are community members that publicly protest the right for Muslims to have prayer rooms, object to niqabs worn while testifying in court, or believe wearing a hijab in public is not part of ‘our’ culture, the law governing freedom of religion states otherwise. I realize this is not an easy transition for some to make. Even

Madeleine, defender of the rights of First Nations to smudge in schools, the right of the LGBTQ community to lead their lives without interference, and the right of religious minorities to be reasonably accommodated, still laments ‘the loss’ of the Lord’s Prayer in school. For Madeleine its removal was ‘almost like a punishment’; her personal point of undue hardship. As part of

Ontario’s citizenry, however, we need adjust to the reality of equality in the accommodation of all the faiths and all the religions in our burgeoning society.

At the other end of the religious accommodation spectrum, I am concerned by the data which indicate there may be board(s) and principals in Ontario’s public schools that are consciously eschewing their legal duties. They do not provide prayer rooms. They are even reported to be openly Islamophobic. The principals’ statements have been corroborated in recent newspaper reports. Concern about open Islamophobia is drawing the attention of the Minister of Education

291

to the York Region District School Board in particular. York Region, however, is not alone in its actions being publicly scrutinized and questioned. The Peel District School Board has recently been embroiled in debate regarding the content of Muslim prayers in their schools.

The reality is that Muslims are the newest ‘kids on the block’. Canada, like many countries, has a history of marginalizing the nouveau-venu. In Canada, this (partial) history includes the

Chinese, the Japanese, the Jews, the Irish, the Roman Catholics, the Jehovah’s Witnesses – and the First Nations that came before. Currently, Muslims and the various tenets of Islam are not yet well understood—or completely accepted—in our society. Hijabs, niqabs, the dictates of

Islamic prayer, Ramadan and the idea of sharia law demarcate too much difference for some. As well, some cannot differentiate between the acts of Islamic extremists and the preponderance of everyday, ordinary Muslims that want to peacefully practice their religion—in its varying forms

—and that strive to be an integral part of Canadian society. They simply want to lead their lives like every other citizen (Survey of Muslims in Canada, 2016). I have concern for their accommodation and inclusion—especially those that are refugees. They have already experienced exclusion elsewhere and we know better than to perpetuate it.

In this exploratory case study I have examined the interconnection of the Charter, the Code, jurisprudence and education policy as the foundational guideposts for the principal vis-ā-vis the legal duty to accommodate faith and religion in Ontario’s public schools. Through jurisprudence, the Charter, the Code, and the evolution of education policy the public school is now ostensibly secular, while the principal is mandated to accommodate the faith and religious needs and requests of our increasingly multi-cultural society up until the point of undue hardship—a point which may be increasingly harder to establish and to justify.

292

And, even though the structure of the school year, paradoxically, still strongly reflects its historic

Christian influence—schools are closed for students and teachers of all faiths during Easter and

Christmas—the sampling of twelve principal participants from five different public school boards strongly suggests that the legal duty to accommodate all faith and religions is currently being successfully realized in Ontario, despite a few Herculean challenges. The data indicate the principals lead our public schools armed with knowledge about the law governing the accommodation of faith and religion, with ‘heart’ and with a mindset of inclusivity and equity.

One (Madeleine) even speaks to the higher ideal of interculturalism in her practice.

The Ministry of Education’s document, Equity and Inclusive Education Strategy, from which the Religious Accommodation Guideline is derived, and which has provided a compass for this exploratory case study, states that the Ministry’s goal is to move ‘beyond tolerance to acceptance and respect’ and to make Ontario’s education system ‘the most inclusive in the world’. It is strongly suggested from the data provided by the research participants the Ministry’s goals are being realized in our public schools. Moreover, if the twelve principals who generously provided time to be interviewed—in the midst of their astoundingly busy professional lives—are indicators of the direction public schooling is heading in Ontario, their mindset of inclusivity and equity serve as examples—to Canada’s other provinces and territories, if not to the world—of how to successfully and respectfully accommodate faith and religion in a multi-cultural society.

Sadly and tragically, however, the principals’ reports and actions are not reflective of what is taking place on the outside, even though freedom of religion and equality are fundamental rights,

‘both enshrined in human rights laws and constitutions’, throughout the world (Drawing the

293

Line, 2015). It is hoped the actions and words of these principals not only serve as positive examples, but that they are the harbingers of how the outside world needs to adjust and adapt as

‘long-term, substantive progress can never occur without a significant shift in worldviews and practices at the highest levels of power’. Most importantly, this shift in world views and practices ‘begins with school leaders’ (Griffith and Portelli, 2015).

In my view, it is not an exaggeration to state the principals participants are the vanguards of what must be done. Through the discussion of their lived professional experiences and actions, the principals demonstrate that accommodation, inclusion and equitable treatment ‘means equal concern and respect across difference...[and] at the very least, it affirms that difference should not be the basis for exclusion, marginalisation and stigma...At best, it celebrates the vitality that difference brings to any society’ (Ontario Rights Commission v. Christian Horizons [2010]).

Conversely, those that refuse to accommodate, and choose to exclude, marginalize and act inequitably, not only are they flouting the law—provincially, nationally and internationally— they are potentially jeopardizing the safety of us all. At its basest level, actively realizing one’s legal duty to accommodate faith and religion of ‘the other’ is an exercise in enlightened self- interest.

While I was involved in the final editing of my thesis I took a week’s vacation in June and flew to Victoria, British Columbia to attend my niece’s convocation from law school. Several aspects of the ceremony reinforced with me the importance of this exploratory case study on the

294

legal duty to accommodate faith and religion, and the significance of its implications for social justice, equity and inclusion—especially in the context of Canada’s multi-cultural society.

Firstly, the commencement ceremony reflected the cornerstone of our nationhood— the strength and perpetuation of the rule of law—personified as the Chancellor conferred juris doctor degrees on the graduates. These graduates are the next generation that will continue to safeguard the

Charter and Code rights of religious minorities, and to realize equity and inclusion of ‘the other’ through the legal process.

Secondly, the commencement ceremony began with two elders from the Songhees Nation who drummed and offered a sacred prayer to the Creator and to the land in their native language. The chancellor’s high-back chair, colourfully adorned with Indigenous spiritual totems, depicted the place and importance of First Nations in Canada. The message was equity and inclusion.

Thirdly, a Christian minister from the university’s multi-faith centre acknowledged that all present may not share his faith, but that the message was meant for all, and he respectfully expressed the hope that non-Christians would appreciate the spirit of his prayer. His message was equity and inclusion.

Lastly, a Honourary Doctor of Letters was conferred on the Japanese Canadian writer Joy

Kogawa. Her most famous novel, Obassan (1981) chronicles the internment of her family and other Japanese Canadians by the government during World War II. In her address Ms. Kogawa reflected on how we as Canadians must guard against conditions where similar injustices, based

295

on country of origin, race or religion, could arise again. Ms. Kogawa spoke to the current rise of islamophobia in some quarters, exacerbated by anti-Muslim rhetoric propagated by the forty-fifth president south of our border.

The essence of Ms. Kogawa’s speech was the ideal of mindfully and deliberately cultivating a

Canadian culture of philoxenia—the act of hospitableness and welcome to strangers; the antidote to xenophobia and islamophobia. Ms. Kogawa noted that philoxenia is the strength of Canada, but that we still have some lingering imperfections in the treatment and inclusion of ‘the other’.

Her message was equity and inclusion.

In sum, my niece’s commencement ceremony offered a tableau of my thesis: The rule of law, the spirituality of First Nations, a non-denominational Christian prayer that includes and acknowledges non-Christians, and a Japanese Canadian (author) with a lived experience of exclusion who advocates for equity and inclusion through mindful philoxenia. These facets of the commencement ceremony reinforced with me the fundamental importance of my doctoral work.

It is hoped that participation in this study was a worthwhile professional learning experience for all twelve principals. My intention was to provide a safe forum for them to reflect on their own agency and capacity to fulfill the duty to accommodate the faith and religious requirements of students and staff in their schools. I am grateful for the participants’ time, knowledge, expertise and most of all, candidness in expressing their personal and professional thoughts and opinions.

296

In drawing my exploratory case study to a close, the summative statement on behalf of the other eleven principal participants—Jacob, John, Lindy, Maria, Anne, Lama, Thomas, Trevor,

Terrence, Madeleine and Dana—has been left to Elaine. Her words reflect the challenge and essence of this important legal duty— and human endeavour —to accommodate the faith and religion of all members of Ontario’s school communities.

I think we try very hard to do the best we can. It’s very difficult to have a full understanding of every religion. And, I know that there are mistakes made in what we say or what we do sometimes. I think if our heart is in the right place as administrators, or as a school community, a conversation and communication can usually help, and then we get educated with what we needed to be educated around. And we all make mistakes with it. But, I think for the most part you’re going to find most administrators have their heart in the right place, and try to do the right thing to accommodate everyone’s beliefs.

297

References

(i) Acts/Regulations

Bill 30, An Act to Amend the Education Act (Ontario), (1987), 1 S.C.R. 1148.

Bill 104, Fewer School Boards Act. S.O. 1997, c.31.

Bill 160, Education Quality Improvement Act. S.O. 1997, c.31.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982. [Canadian Charter, 1982].

Charter of the United Nations, 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS.

Constitution Act, 1867, 30-31 Vict.,c.3 (U.K.)

Definitive Treaty of Paris, 10 February 178e, 42 Cons TS 279.

Education Act, R.S.O. 1978, C.E.1.

Education Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 129.

Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, C.E. 2.

Human Rights Code, R.S.O 1990, C.H. 19. Lord’s Day Act, R.S.C. 1952, c.171. Lord’s Day Act, R.S.C. 1970, C.L-13.

Ontario Ministry of Education, Policy/Program Memorandum No. 128, December 5, 2012.

Ontario Ministry of Education, Policy/Program Memorandum No. 119. Date of Issue: April 22, 2013; Reissued June 24, 2015.

Québec Act, 1774 (UK), 14 GEO 111, c83.

Regulation 262, R.R.O. 1980.

Regulation 298, R.R.O. 1990.

Regulation 304, R.R.O. 1990.

298

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, CII

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217A (III).

(ii) Books/Texts

Abramson, P.R. (1992). A case for case studies. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Apple, M.H. (2006).Educating the Right Way: Markets, standards, God and inequality (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Asad, T. (2003). Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity. Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press, 2003).

Ball, S. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Banks, J. (2014). An introduction to multicultural education, 5th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Bennett, J.M. (2008). “On becoming a global soul”. In Developing intercultural competence and transformation: Theory, research and application in international education, ed. V. Savicki, 13–31. Sterling: Stylus.

Berstein, R. (1983). Beyond objectivism and relativism: Science, hermeneutics and praxis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Bissondath, N. (1994). Selling Illusions: The Cult of multiculturalism in Canada. Toronto: Penguin.

Bogotoch (2002). “Social Justice and moral transformative leadership”, in Marshall, C. and Oliva, M. (Eds.). Leadership for social justice: Making revolutions in education (pp 19-23). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Bowe, R., Ball, S., and Gold, A. (1992). Reforming education and changing schools. London: Routledge.

Colby, David (2011). “Intercultural Education – The Theory Deficit and the World Crisis” in Carl A. Grant and Agostino Portera [Eds.]. Intercultural and Multicultural Education: Enhancing Interconnectedness. New York: Routledge.

Collins, Damian C.A.; The Place of Religion in Public Schools; A Geographical Analysis of U.S. and Canadian Case Law; Simon Fraser, British Columbia; Online: http://www.sfu.ca/legal- geography-research.

299

Colton, David & Covert, Robert W. (2007). Designing and constructing Instruments for Social Research and Evaluation. CA: Jossey-Boss.

Cotler, Irwin (1982), “Freedom of Assembly, Association, Conscience and Religion (s.2(a), (c) and (d)”. In Walter S. Tarnopolsky and Gerald A. Beaudoin (Eds).Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Commentary. Toronto: The Carswell Co. Ltd.

Cresswell, J.W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cresswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design (2nd.ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cuban, L. (1988). The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Dewey, J. (1933). Open-mindedness and education. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Edwards, R., Nicholl, K., Solomon, N., & Usher, R., (2004). Rhetoric and educational discourse. New York: Routledge Falmer.

Esposito, John L. and Ibrahim Kalin (2011). Islamophobia: The Challenge of Pluralism in the 21st Century. Oxford Press: New York.

Fadiman, Anne (1997). The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down. United States: Farrar, Strans and Giroux.

Fine, Michelle. Dis-Stance and Other Stances: Negotiations of Power Inside Feminist Research in Foster, William (1986). Paradigms and Promises Prometheus Books: New York.

Foster, W. (1986). Paradigms and promises. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.

Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed, 30th anniversary ed. New York: The Continuum.

Gitlin, Andrew (Ed.)(1994). Power and Method – Political Activism and Educational Research. Routledge: London.

Gitlin, Andrew & Russell, Robyn. Alternative Methodologies and the Research Context Research in Andrew Gitlin (Ed.) (1994). Power and Method – Political Activism and Educational Research. Routledge: London.

Girous, H. (1992). Border crossings, London: Routledge.Griffiths, D. (2013). Principals of inclusion: Practical strategies to grow inclusion in urban schools. Burlington, ON: Word & Deed Publishing Incorporated and Edphil Books.

Greenleaf, Robert G. (1977), The Servant as Leader – A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness. Pauless Press: Online: www.benning.army.mil/infantry/199th/OCS.

300

Griffiths, John Darrin (2011). Promoting Inclusion in Urban Contexts: Elementary Principal Leadership. Doctoral Thesis. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto.

Griffiths, Darrin & Portelli, John P. (2015). Key Questions for Educational Leaders.Burlington: Word & Deed Publishing & Edphil Books.

Hogg, Peter W. (2005). Constitutional Law of Canada. Toronto. Thomson Carswell.

James, Carl E. (2011). “Multicultural Education in a color-Blind Society” in Carl A. Grant and Agostino Portera (Eds.) Intercultural and Multicultural Education: Enhancing Global Interconnectedness. New York: Routledge.

Joshee, R., and Johnson, L. (2005). Multicultural education in the United States and Canada: The importance of national policies. In N. Bascia, A. Cumming, A. Datnow, K. Leithwood, & D.W. Livingstone (Eds.), International Handbook of Educational Policy (pp. 53-74). London: Springer.

Kowalchuk, Donna (2017). Principals’ Engagement with the Ontario Leadership Framework to Enact Social Justice: Reflection, Resistance and Resilience. Doctoral Thesis: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. Online: https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca.

Kuypers, J.A, & King, A. (2004). What is rhetoric? In J.A. Kuypers (Ed.), The art of rhetorical criticism (pp. 1-12). New York: Pearson Education.

Lasswell, H.D.(1965). Politics: Who gets what, when, and how (9th ed.). Cleveland, OH: Meridian Books, The World Publishing Company.

Labelle, M. (2000). “La politique de la citoyenneté et de L’interculturalisme au Québec: Défis et enjeux”. In H. Greven-Borde & J. Tournon (Eds.), Les identités en débat, intégration ou multiculturalisme? Paris: Harmattan. [Labelle, 2000].

Lincoln, Y.S, .and Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Majone, G., (1989); Evidence, argument and persuasion in the policy process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Marshall, Catherine & Rossman, Grechen B. (1995), Designing Qualitative Research. Los Angeles, C.A.: Sage.

McJunkin,Kyle (2003). Sacred Acts, Secular Spaces: Why Public Schools Should Follow a Policy of Religious Accommodation. Master of Divinity Thesis.(042). Harvard University

McMillan, J. & Schumacher, S. (1993). Research in education: A conceptual introduction (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.

Merriam, S.B., (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

301

Milot, M. (2008). “L’expression des appartenaces religieuses à l’école publique compromet— elle la laicité, l’égalité etl’intégration sociale?”. In M. McAndrew, M. Milot, J. S. Imbeault, & P. Eid (Eds.), L’accommodement raisonnable et la diversité religieuse à l’école publique: Normes et pratiques (pp. 91–111). Montréal: Éditions Fides..

Nelson, J., Palonsky, S., & McCarthy, M. (2013). Critical issues in education: Dialogues and dialectics. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Ogilvie, M. H. (2010). Religious Institutions and the Law in Canada, 3rd ed. Toronto : Irwin Law.

Parr, Lennox Michael (2010). The Principals’ Role in Facilitating Inclusive School Environments for Students Considered to be Experiencing Behavioural Problems in Intermediate Level Schools. Doctoral Thesis: Ontario Institute for the Studies in Education, Toronto.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Platisky, Roger. Red Ribbons at the Cracker Barrel (Response) in Andrew Gitlin (Ed.) (1994). Power and Method – Political Activism and Educational Research. Routledge: London. 116-125.

Pollock, K., & Hauseman, C. (2015). Principals’ work in the Canadian context: What does the research tell us? In H. Arlestig, C. Day, & O. Johansson (Eds.), Cross Country Histories of School Leadership Research: Focus and Findings (pp.202-232). Dordrecht: Springer.

Portera, Agostino (2011). “Intercultural and Multicultural Education: Epistemological and Semantic Aspects”. In Carl A. Grant and Agostino Portera (Eds.). Intercultural and Multicultural Education: Enhancing Global Interconnectedness. New York: Routledge.

Piantanida, Maria and Garman, Noreen B. (1999). The Qualitative Dissertation: A guide for Students and Faculty. California: Corwin Press.

Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Rey-Von Allmen, Micheline (2011). Multicultural Education: Enhancing Global Interconnectedness. New York: Routledge.

Rey-Von Allmen, Micheline (2011). “The Intercultural Perspective and its Development Through Cooperation With the Council of Europe” in Carl A.Grant and Agostino Portera [Eds.] Intercultural and Multicultural Education.New York: Routledge.

Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ryan, James (2006). Inclusive Leadership. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Said, E. (1978). Orientalism .London, Routledge.

302

Salutin, Rick [2014]. Divine Interventions, an ebook about religion and government. Online: http://starstore.ca.

Scarfo, N.J. & Zuker, M.A. (2011). Inspiring the Future: New Teachers’ Guide to the Law. Thompson Reuters: Canada.

Searle, John R. (1997). The Construction of Social Reality. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage.

Sharp, R. (1980). Knowledge, Ideology and the Politics of Schooling: Towards a Marxist Analysis of Education. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Smagorinsky, P., & Taxel, J. (2005). The discourse of character education: Culture wars in the classroom. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Stake, R.E. (1988) “Case Study Methods in educational research: Seeking sweet water”. In R.M. Jaegar (Ed.), Complementary methods for research in education. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.

Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stake, R.E. (2005). “Qualitative case studies”. In N.K Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stake, R.E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York: The Guildford Press.

The Canadian Oxford dictionary (2001). Canada: Oxford University Press.

Tierney, W.G. (1993). Self and identity in a postmodern world: A life story. In D. McLaughlin and W.G. Tierney, eds., Naming silenced lives. New York: Routledge.

Tierney, William G. “On Method and Hope” in Andrew Gitlin (ed.) (1994). Power and Method, Routledge: New York.

Waddington, D. I., Maxwell, B., McDonough, K., Cormier, A., & Schwimmer, M. (2012). “Interculturalism in practice: Québec’s Ethics and Religious Culture curriculum and the Bouchard-Taylor report on reasonable accommodation”, in Besley, T. & Peters, M.A. (eds.), Interculturalism, Education and Dialogue (pp. 312-329). New York: Peter Lang. [Waddington et al. 2012].

Wang, Fei (2012). Leading Diverse Schools: Tempering Accountability Policy with Social Justice. Doctoral Thesis: Ontario Institute for the Studies in Education, Toronto.

Winton, Sue (2007), Character Matters!: Policy and Persuasion. Doctoral Thesis: Ontario Institute for the Studies in Education, University of Toronto. Online: https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca.

303

Yin, R.K. (1984). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage.

Yin, R.K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (2nd. Ed.). Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage.

Yin, R.K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3rd. Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yin, R.K. (2008). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th. Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

(iii)Court/Tribunal Decisions

Adler v. Ontario (1992), 9 O.R. (3d) 676 (Ont. Ct. – Gen. Div.).

Adler v. Ontario (Minister of Education) (1994), 19 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.).

Adler v. Ontario [1996] 3 S.C.R. 609.

A.-G. Ont. V. Hamilton Street Railway [1903] A.C. 524.

Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37.

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143.

Application in Islamic Schools Federation of Ontario v. Ontario Board of Education, November 18, 1994, Ontario Court (General Division, Court File No. 84372/94.

Ayangama v. Govt. of PEI, 2000 PESCTD 74 (CanLII).

B. (R.) v. Children’s Aid Society [1995] S.C.R. 315.

Bal v. Ontario (1994), 21 O.R. (3d) 681 (Ont. Ct.-Gen.Div.).

Bhinder v. Canadian National Railway, 1981 CanLII 4 (CHRT).

Boivin v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency et al., 2010 PSST (CanLII).

British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission v. BCGSEU, [1999] 3 SCR 3.

Bruker v. Marcovitz, 2007 SCC 54.

CCLA: Reference: re Bill 30. An Act to Amend the Education Act (Ont) [1987] 1 SCR 1148.

Canadian (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892.

304

Canadian Civil Liberties Association v. Ontario (Ministry of Education) (1990) 71 O.R. (2d) 341 (C.A.).

Carson v. Air Canada, 1983 CanLII 13 (CHRT).

Central Alberta Dairy Pool v. Alberta (Human Rights Commission), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 489 (S.C.C

Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud, 1992 CanLII 81 (SCC).

Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36, 2002 SCC (CANLII).

Chang v. Vancouver Board of Education, 2009 B.C.H.R.T. 319.

Christie v. York Corporation [1940] S.C.R.

Commission scolaire régionale de Chambly v. Bergevin, [1994] 2 SCR 525.

Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys v. Singh Multani, 2004 CanLII 31405 (QC CA).

Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse c. Centre a la petite enfance Gros Bec, 2008 QCTDP 14 (CanLII).

Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835.

Dahlab v. Switzerland, no. 42393/98, {2001} E.C.H.R. 462.

Donald v. Hamilton Bd. Of Education [1945] O.R. 518 (C.A.).

Doré c. Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12, [2012] 1 S.C.R.

Egan v. Canada, M. v. H. [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513.

E.T. v. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, 2016 ONSC 7313.

Gore v. Ottawa Catholic School Board (1971), unreported, Ont. Bd. Of Inquiry decision.

Grant v. Canada (Attorney General), [1995] 1 CF 158. Hall (Litigation Guardian of) v. Powers, 2002 CanLII 49475 (On SC). Heinz v. Christian Horizons, 2008 HRTO 22 (CanLII). Henry Birks & Sons v. Montreal [1955] S.C.R. 799.

H.T. v. E.S. Holdings Inc., 2015 HRTO 1067.

Ishaq v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 156 (CanLII).

305

Kelly v. B.C. (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General) (No. 3), 2011 BCHRT 183 (CanLII).

London Drugs v. Red Deer (1988) 52 D.L.R. (4th) 203 (Alta. C.A.). Lord’s Day Alliance of Canada v. A.-G. B.C. [1959] S.C.R. 497.

Multani c. Marguerite-Bourgeoys (Commission Scolaire), 2006 SCC 6, 2006 Carswell-Que 1368, 2006 Carswell-Que 1369 (S.C.C.) [Multani, 2008].

Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v. Brillinger [2002] O.J. No. 2375 (Div. Ct.) s.(2a).

Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Christian Horizons [2010] ONSC.

Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v. Roosma, 2002 CanLII 15946 (ON SCDC).

Ontario (Human Rights Commission) and /Teresa O’Malley (Vincent) v. Simpsons-Sears Ltd., [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536.

Owens v. Saskatchewan H.R.C. 2006 SKCA 41.

P.(D). v. S. (C.) [1993] 4 S.C.R. 141.

Peel Board of Education v. Pandora (1991) 3 O-R (3d) 531 (Div. Ct.).

Peel v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Co. (1991) 2 O.R. (3d) 65 (C.A.).

Québec (Procureur général) c. Loyola High School, 2012 QCCA 2139 (CanLII).

R. v. Big M Drug Mart [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295 (S.C.C.).

R. v. Edwards Books and Art [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713.

R. v. Harrold (1971) 19 D.L.R. (3d) 471 (C.C.C.A.).

R. v. Keegstra [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697.

R. v. Mentuck [2001] 3 S.C.R. 442.

R. v. Morgentaler, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 30.

R. v. M (M.R.), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 393 (S.C.C.)

R. v. N.S., 2010 ONCA 670.

R. v. N.S., 2012 SCC 72.

R. v. Oakes [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103.

306

R. v. Westfair Foods (1989) 65 D.L.R.. (4th) 56 (Sask. C.A.).

R.C. v. District School Board of Niagara (OHRC – February 5 & 6, 2013).

Reference re Bill 30, An Act to Amend the Education Act (Ont.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1148.

Robertson and Rosetanni v. R., [1963] S.C.R. 651.

Roncarelli v Duplessis, [1959] SCR 121.

Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15 [1996] 1 S.C.R. 825.

Russow v. British Columbia [Attornery General], (1989), 35 B.C.L.R. (2d) 29 (S.C.).

Sahin v. Turkey (2005), 19 B.H.R.C. 590 (European Ct. Human Rights) [GC].

Saumur v. City of Québec [1953] 2 S.C.R. 299.

Sahin v. Turkey (2005), 19 B.H.R.C. 590 (European Ct. Human Rights) [GC].

S.L. v. Commision scolaire des Chȇnes [2012] 1 SCR 235.

Syndicat de l’Enseignement de Champlaine v. Commission Scolaire Régional de Chambly [1994] 2 S.C.R. 525.

Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, 2004 SCC 47, [2004] 2 SCR 551.

Trinity Western University v. B.C. College of Teachers (2001), 199 D.L.R. (4th) 1 (S.C.C.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 772.

Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493. 15 [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3. 16.

Walter v. A.-G. Alta [1969] S.C.R. 383.

Young v. Young[1993] 4 S.C.R. 3.

Zylberberg v. Sudbury Board of Education (1988) 65 O.R. (2d) 1 (C.A.).

(iv) Documents/Reports

“Anti-Bullying Initiatives”, House Hansard, Session: 39:2, Date: 2010.04.14, Online: http://www.ontla.on.ca.

Baittaini-Dragoni, Gabriella. “Vivre ensemble dans l’égale dignité’. Montreal, May 25-27, 2011. Presented at the Symposium international sur l’interculturalisme, Online: www.symposium- interculturalisme.com.

307

Bertelsmann Stiftung Foundation and Fondazione Cariplo (2008). “Intercultural Competence – The Key Competence in the 21st Century?” (Theses based on the doctoral thesis of Darla Deardorff). Online: www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de.

Blair, Andrew G. (1986). The Policy and Practice of Religious Education in Publicly –funded Elementary and Secondary Schools in Canada and Elsewhere. Ontario Ministry of Education. OISE Queen’s Printer: Toronto.

Bouchard, G. and Taylor, C.(2008). Building the future: a time for reconciliation. Report of the Consultation Commission on Accommodation Practices Related to Cultural Differences .Québec: Gouvernement du Québec.

‘Canadians value multiculturalism, but continue to grapple with its limits’; Canadian Race Relations Foundation, November 27, 2014; online: http://www.crr.ca/en.our-canada.

Cantle, Ted (2011). “Cohesion and Integration: From ‘Multi’ to ‘Inter’ Culturalism”. Presented at the Symposium international sur l’interculturalisme, Montreal, May 25-27, 2011. Online: www.symposium-interculturalisme.com.

CCLA “Before Ontario Human Rights Tribunal on Bible Distribution in Schools”, Press Release February 5, 2013. Retrieved August 7, 2013. Online: http://www.CCLA.org.

CCLA (Factum of the Intervener) N.S. v. Her Majesty the Queen and M.D.S. and M.L.S. Crt. File No. 33989.

CCLA (Factum of the Intervener). Owens v. Saskatchewan HRC, 2006 SKCA 41. Online: http://www.CCLA.org.

CCLA (Factum of the Intervener) OHRA v. Brillinger, [2002] o.j. NO. 2375 (Div. Ct). Online: http://www.CCLA.org.

CCLA (Factum of the Intervener) Hugh Owens v. Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission [2003] C.A. No. 678 of 2003. Online: http://www.CCLA.org

CCLA “Letter to the Trustees of Bluewater District School Board re: Distribution of Gideon Bibles”. Jan. 11, 2012. Online: http://www.CCLA.org. CCLA “Letter to the Board Members of Grand Erie District School Board re: Distribution of Gideon Bibles. Online: http://www.CCLA.org.

CCLA E-Bulletin September 2013. Online: https://CCLA.org.

“Director statement re: Religious accommodation for Muslim prayer service at a TDSB school” (Media release) retrieved from the Toronto District School Board website. Online: www.tdsb.on.ca.

Dossier: Accommodements Raisonnables (2012). Parti Québecois website: http://pq.org.

308

“Discrimination experienced by Muslims in Ontario”. Ontario Human Rights Commission (Retrieved August 16, 2013). Online: http://www.onhc.on.ca.

“Drawing the Line – Tackling Tensions Between Religious Freedom and Equality” (2015).International Network of Civil Liberties Organizations (INCLO). Online: http://www.cels.org.ar.

Kohn, A., (1997a). How not to teach values. Retrieved May 22, 2003, from http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/hnttv.htm.

“Home and School Meeting Minutes”, Ingersoll District School Board, (Thames Valley District Board of Education). October 18, 2011. Online: [email protected]. Hoverd, William; LeBrun, Erin; and Van Arragon, Leo. “Religion and Education in the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario” retrieved January 19, 2014. Online: http://religionanddiversity.ca.

Hutchinson, Don. “They said WHAT!? A brief analysis of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in S.L. v. Commission Scolaire des Chȇnes (2013 SCC 7)”, February 27, 2012. Evangelical Fellowship of Canada Blog. Online: http://activatecfpl.theefc.ca.

Hutchinson, Don. “S.L. v. Commission Scolaire des Chȇnes – A case summary”. February 27, 2012. Evangelical Fellowship of Canada Blog. Online: http://activatecfpl.theefc.ca.

Introducing the Ontario Human Rights Code. Online: http://www.ohrc.on.ca.

“Living Together as Equals in Dignity”, White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue. Council of Europe, Strasbourg, May 7, 2008.

“Lord’s Day Alliance of Canada”, Historica Canada. Retrieved January 12, 2014. Online: http://www.thecanadianencylopedia.com.

Mackay Report. Religious Information and Moral Development: The Report of the Committee on Religious Education in the Public Schools of the Province of Ontario.Toronto: Ontario Department of Education, 1969.

McLachlin, The Honourable Chief Justice (2015). “Reconciling Unity and Diversity in the Modern Era: Tolerance and Intolerance”, Remarks at the Agha Khan Museum, Toronto, Ontario, May 29, 2015. Online: https://ismailimail.worldpress.com.

Mémoire de l’intervenante, Association Canadienne des Libertés Civiles (April, 2011), Cour Supreme du Canada, (En appel d’un jugement de la Cour d’Appel du Québec) entre S.L./D.J. et La Commision Scolaire des Chȇnes et Christian Legal Fellowship et al. (Dossier no. 33678).

“Muslim Prayer in the TDSB”. Blog archive. Retrieved September 15, 2013. Online: http://www.tdsb.ca.

309

Oakes , J., and K. Sirotnik. 1983. “An Immodest Proposal: From Critical Theory to Critical Practice for School Renewal.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.

Office of Religious Freedom, Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada, Government of Canada, retrieved January 4, 2015, Online: http://www.international.gc/ca/religious-freedom.

Ontario Human Rights Commission. “Discrimination experienced by Muslims in Ontario”. Retrieved August 16, 2013. Online: http://www.ohrc.on.ca.

Ontario Human Rights Commission. “The Shadow of the Law: Surveying the case law dealing with competing rights claims”. Retrieved January 10, 2014. Online: http://www.ohrc.on.ca.

Ontario Human Rights Commission. “Policy on competing human rights”, Retrieved January 10, 2014. Online: http://www.ohrc.on.ca.

Québec. Assemblée nationale. Journal des débats, 2e sess., 35e lég., 26 mars 1997, p. 5993-5994.

Québec. Commission royale d’enquête sur l’enseignement dans la province de Québec. Rapport Parent : Rapport de la Commission royale d’enquête sur l’enseignement dans la province de Québec. Québec : La Commission, 1963.

Report on Canadian Values, Canadian Race Relations Foundation, November 19, 2014; online: http://www.crr.ca/en/our-canada.

Reinharz, S. (1988). The concept of voice. Paper presented at Human Diversity: Perspectives on People Context, June 8, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.

Rocher, F., Labelle, M., Field, A.-M., & Icart, J.-C. (2007). “Le concept d’interculturalisme en contexte québécois: Généaologie d’un néologisme”; Ottawa & Montréal: Research Centre on Immigration, Ethnicity and Citizenship; Online: www.accommodements.qc.ca.

Roher, Eric M. (2010). “A User’s Guide to Religious Accommodation in Ontario Schools”. Borden Ladner Gervais Website. Online: http://www.bld.com.

Ryerson, Egerton (1847). Report on a system of public elementary instruction for Upper Canada. On-line: http://simplelink.library.utoronto.ca/url.cfm/27104.

Shields, C.M. (2007). Can case studies achieve the “Gold Standard”? Or when methodology meets politics. Paper presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois. Shirazi, Nadir. “The Multi-Faith Secular: Changing the Discourse on Religious Accommodation in Schools” Blog for Canadian Education Association; Retrieved August 6, 2013. Online: www.cea-ace.ca.

310

“Student Achievement/Rendement Scolaire” (Statements by the Ministry and Responses), House Hansard, Session: 39: 1, Date: 2009.04.08, Online: http://www/ontla.on.ca.

Tchir, Trevor (2012). Religious Pluralism and the Secular Canadian State. A paper presented at the annual Canadian Political Science Association in Edmonton, Alberta. Online: http://www.CPSA-ACSP.ca/papers-2012.

Survey of Muslims in Canada (2016). Environics Institute. Online: http://www.environicsinstitute.org.

Toronto District School Board, Guidelines and Procedures for Religious Accommodations, “Director statement re Religious accommodation for Muslim prayer service at a TDSB school” (Media Release, July 8, 2011.), online:

Treaty of Paris 1763. Lillian Goldman Law Library, Yale Law School. Online: http://avalon.law..yale.edu.

‘Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act: An Overview’ (Bill S-7); Government of Canada Website, retrieved March 1, 2015. Online: http://news.gc.ca/web/article.

Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act (Bill S-7); House Publications (First Reading Senate, November 5, 2014); retrieved March 1, 2015. Online: http://www/parl.gc.ca.

(v) Journal Articles

Abdallah-Pretceille, Martine (2006). “ Interculturalism as a paradigm for thinking about diversity”; Intercultural Education.Vol. 17, No. 5, December 2006, pp. 475–483.

Adelman, Howard (2011). “Contrasting Commissions on Interculturalism: The Hijab and the Workings of Interculturalism in Quebec and France”. Journal of Intercultural Studies. Vol. 32, No. 3, June 2011, pp. 245-259.

Axelrod, Paul; ‘Public Money for Private Schools? Revisiting an Old Debate’, Education Canada, Vol.45(1), 2010 (pp. 17-19), Canadian Education Association; online: www.cea-ace.ca.

Barkdull, Carenlee; Khaja, Khadija; Queiro-Tajalli, Irene; Swart, Amy; Cunningham, Dianne; and Dennis, Sheila. ‘Experiences of Muslims in Four Western Countries Post–9/11’. Journal of Women and Social Work 26(2) 139-153.

Baxter, Pamela & Jack, Susan. “Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers”. The Qualitative Report. Vol.13. No. 4. (4.12.2008) Berger, Benjamin L. “Religious Diversity, Education, and the “Crisis” in State Neutrality”. Canadian Journal of Law and Society,Volume 29, Number 1, 2014.

Bouchard, Gerard (2011). “What is interculturalism?/Qu'est ce que l'interculturalisme?”. McGill Law Journal. 56.2 (Feb. 2011). 435.

311

Bouchard, Gérard; Saint-Pierre, Céline; Nootens, Genevive; Fournier, François (2011). “Interculturalism”.The Gazette [Montreal, Que] 02 Mar 2011: A.15.

Boucher, François, “Exemptions to the Laws, Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience in Postsecular Societies,” Philosophy and Public Issues (New Series), Vol.3, No.2 (2013), 159- 200, Edited by S. Maffettone, G. Pellegrino and M. Bocchiola, Luiss University Press.

Boucher, François. ‘Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience in Post-Secular Societies’. Philosophy and Public Issues (New Series). Vol.3, No.2 (2013): 159-200., Luiss University Press.

Bowen, Dawn S. “Resistance, acquiescence and accommodation: the establishment of public schools in an old colony Mennonite community in Canada”. Mennonite Quarterly Review. 84.4 (Oct. 2010).

Brubacher, Cameron, ‘Low German Mennonite Experiences in Alternate Education Programs in Southwestern Ontario’ (2016), Social Justice and Community Engagement.17. Online: http://scholars.wlu.ca/brantford_sjce/IT.

Chaplin, Jonathan. ‘Legal Monism and Religious Pluralism: Rowan Williams on Religion, Loyalty and Law’. International Journal of Public Theology, 2 (2008), pp. 418-441.

Clarke, Paul. ‘Religion, Public Education and the Charter: Where Do We Go Now?’. McGill Journal of Education; Fall 2005; 40, 3; ProQuest pg. 351.

Cossman, Brenda and Schneiderman, David. ‘Beyond Intersecting Rights: The Constitutional Judge as 'Complex Self'’. The University of Toronto Law Journal, Vol. 57, No. 2, Education, (Spring, 2007), pp. 431-448.

Dantley, Michael. ‘Successful Leadership in Urban Schools: Principals and Critical Spirituality, A New Approach to Reform’. The Journal of Negro Education. Summer 2010; 79(3) Proquest, 214-219.

Davies, Scott. ‘From Moral Duty to Cultural Rights: A case Study of Political Framing in Education’. Sociology of Education, Vol. 72, No.1 (Jan., 1999), pp.1-21.

Deardorff, D.K. (2006). “The Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization of Institutions of Higher Education in the United States”. Journal of Studies in International Education. 10,no. 3: 241–66.

De Angelis, Michael et al. “Talking About Social Justice and Leadership in a Context of Accountability”.Journal of Education Administration and Foundation.2007;18,1/2;Proquest..

Dickinson, G.M. (2001). “Legal issues in education: editorial”. Orbit, 32(2), 15-19.

312

Dickinson, Greg M. & Dolmage, W. Rod. “Education, Religions and the Courts in Ontario”. Canadian Journal of Education 21, 4 (1996): 363-383.

Dickinson, Greg M. and W. Rod Dolmage, W. Rod. ‘Education, Religion, and the Courts in Ontario’. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l'éducation, Vol. 21, No. 4(Autumn, 1996), pp. 363-383.

Dickinson, G.M. (2002). “Unanimous Supreme Court refuses to permit denominational rights claim to invalidate Ontario’s funding model”. Education and Law Journal, 12, 109-120.

Dulabaum, Nina L. (2011). “A Pedagogy for Global Understanding – intercultural dialogue: from theory to practice”. Policy Futures in Education. volume 9 Number 1 2011.

Fahmy, M. (2004). “The private school funding debate: A second look through Charter first principles”. Education and Law Journal, 13, 397-421.

Feinberg, W. (1996); “The Goals of Multicultural Education: A Critical Re-evaluation,” Philosophy of Education; Online: http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/eps/PES-Yearbook/96- docs/fainberg.html.

Foster, W.F., & Smith, W.J. (2002a). “Religion and education: Part II- An alternative framework for the debate”. Education and Law Journal, 11, 1-47.

Foster, W.F., & Smith, W.J. (2002b). “Religion and Education”: Part III – An analysis of provincial legislation”. Education and Law Journal, 11, 203-245.

Fourot, Aude-Claire. ‘Gestions du nouveau pluralisme religioux dans les villes canadiennes. Etablissement do mosques et mécanismes des canaux de médiation ā Laval’, Canadian Journal of Political Science.Revue canadienne de science politique, Vol.42, No. 3 (Sep., 2009), pp. 637- 655.

Ghosh, Ratna . “Public Education and Multicultural Policy in Canada: The Special Case of Quebec”. Revue Internationale de l’Education 50(5–6): 543–566, 2004.

Grace, André P. and Wells, Kristopher. ‘The Marc Hall Prom Predicament : Queer Individual Rights v. Institutional Church Rights in Canadian Public Education’. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l’éducation, Vol. 28, No. 3(2005), pp.237-270.

Grimm, Dieter. « Conflicts Between General Laws and Religious Norms » (2009), 30 Cardozo L. Rev. 2369.

Guo, Yan. ‘Perspectives of immigrant Muslim parents: advocating for religious diversity in Canadian schools’. Multicultural Education. 18.2 (Winter 2011): p.55.

Habti, Driss (2011). “Reason and Revelation for an Averroist Pursuit of Convivencia and Intercultural Dialogue”, Policy Futures in Education, Volume 9 Number 1 2011.

313

Harris, Wendy J., Q.C. and Audrey Ackah, “Freedom of Religion and Accommodating Religious Dress in Schools”, Educational Law Journal, v.20(3), 08/2011.

Hiller, G.G., & Wozniak, M. (2009). “Developing an intercultural competence programme at an international cross-border university”. Intercultural Education 20, no. 4: 113–24. [Hiller & Wozniak, 2009].

Howe, R. Brian. “The Evolution of Human Rights Policy in Ontario”. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne de science politique, Vol. 24, No.4, (Dec., 1991), pp. 783- 802.

Iacobucci, The Honourable Justice Frank. “’Reconciling Rights’ The Supreme Court of Canada’s Approach to Competing Charter Rights. (2003), 20 S.C.L.R. (2d), pp. 137-165.

Igbino, John (2011). “Intercultural Dialogue: cultural dialogues of equals or cultural dialogues of unequals?”. Policy Futures in Education. Volume 9 Number 1 2011. [Igbino, 2011].

Joshee, R. (2004). Citizenship and multicultural education in Canada. In J.A. Banks (Ed.), Diversity and citizenship education: Global perspectives (pp. 127-156). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Joshee, R., ‘Opportunities for Social Justice Work: The Ontario Diversity Policy Web’. EAF Journal; 2007; 18, 1/2; ProQuest pg. 171.

Khan, Anwar (Andy) N., ‘Canadian Education: The Legal Position of Religion’. The Liverpool Law Review Vol. XX(1) [1998].

Lather, P. (1988). Feminist perspectives on empowering research methodologies. Women’s Studies International Forum 2(6): 569-81.

Lauwers, P. (2007, October 22). “Faith-based schools debate? Stork dancing”. The Catholic Register. Online: http://www.catholicregister.org/content/view/1210/852.

Lauwers, P. (2008) “ Public Education should respect all religions”. The Catholic Register. Online: http://www.catholicregister.org/content/view/1210/852.

Lawton, Stephen B. & Leithwood, Kenneth L. (1991). ‘Language, religion, and educational rights in Ontario 1980‐1990’. Journal of Education Policy, 6:2, 201-213.

Lee, Jennifer Wenshya, and Hébert, Yvonne M., ‘The Meaning of Being Canadian: A Comparison between Youth of Immigrant and Non-Immigrant Origins’. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l’éducation, Vol.29, No.2, Democracy and Education/La démocracie et l’éducation (2006), pp.497-520.

Levine-Rasky, Cynthia. ‘Discontinuities of Multiculturalism’.Canadian Ethnic Studies; 2006; 38, 3; ProQuest p. 87.

314

Mackay, A. Wayne. “Safe and Inclusive Schooling – Expensive…Quality Education – Priceless. For Everything Else There are Lawyers!”. Education Law Journal; July 2008; 18, 1; ProQuest.

Mahrouse, Gada (2010). “‘Reasonable accommodation’ in Québec: the limits of participation and dialogue”. Race & Class.July 2010 vol. 52 no. 1 85-96.

Maxwell, Bruce; Waddington, David I; McDonough, Kevin; Cormier, Andrée-Anne; Schwimmer, Marina. ‘Interculturalism, Multiculturalism, and the State Funding and Regulation of Conservative Public Schools’. Educational Theory; 2012; 62, 4; ERIC pg. 42.

MacDougall, Bruce. ‘Religion-based Claims for Impinging on Queer Citizenship’. Dalhousie Law Journal, 33.2 (Fall 2010) : 130-160.

Moon, Richard. « Government Support for Religious Practice », in Richard Moon, ed., Law and Religious Pluralism in Canada. Vancouver : UBC Press, 2008.

Mulligan, J.T. (2008). “Ontario’s electoral paradigm shift and Catholic education. Tomorrow Trust: A Review of Catholic Education, 1-9. Retrieved May 5, 2008. Online: http://tomorrowstrust.ca/?p=1016.

Osborne, K. (2001). Democracy, democratic citizenship, and education. In J.P. Portelli and R.P. Solomon (Eds.). The erosion of democracy: from critique to possibility (pp. 29-62). Calgary, Alberta, Canada: Detselig Enterprises.

Paquette, Jerry. “From Propositions to Prescriptions: Belief, Power, and the Problem of Minority Education”. Curriculum Inquiry, Vol. 19, No, 4 (Winter, 1989), pp. 437-451.

Perry, Laura B. & Southwell, Leonie (2011). “Developing intercultural understanding and skills: models and Approaches”. Intercultural Education. Vol. 22, No. 6, December 2011, 453–466. [Perry & Southwell, 2011].

Redfield, S.E. (2001). Why Educators need to know the law. Orbit, 32(2), 4-6.

Rivière, Dominique. ‘Re-imagining Policy: Some Critical Steps Towards Educational Equity’. Our Schools, Our Selves; Winter 2008; 17, 2; ProQuest pg. 83.

Scarfo, N.J., & Hawes, R. (2007). Education and the Law. Online: http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/teslaw.

Sears, A., & Hughes, A.S. (1996).” Citizenship education and current educational reform”. Canadian Journal of Education, 21(2), 123-142.

Seljak, David. “Protecting religious freedom in a multicultural Canada”. Canadian Diversity. Volume 9:3, Summer 2012.

315

Shaffir, Elichai. ; ‘Dancing Like It’s 1867: How Can Religious Intolerance Be Supreme Law in 2006?’. Education Law Journal; Jul 2006; 16, 1; ProQuest pg. 1.

Shapiro, Bernard J., “The Public Funding of Private Schools in Ontario: The Setting, Some Arguments, and Some Matters of Belief,” Canadian Journal of Education 11, no. 3 (1986): 264- 77.

Shariff, Shaheen. “Balancing Competing Rights: A Stakeholder Model for Democratic Schools”. Canadian Journal of Education; 2006; 29, 2; ERIC, p.476.

Shariff, Shaheen; and Dolmage, Rod. ‘ Schools and Courts: Competing Rights in the New Millennium’. McGill Journal of Education; Fall 2005; 40, 3; ProQuest pg. 335.

Shariff, Shaheen. “Balancing Competing Rights: A Stakeholder Model for Democratic Schools”. Canadian Journal of Education; 2006; 29, 2; ERIC, p.476.

Sharify-Funk, Meena (2010). “Muslims and the Politics of ‘Reasonable Accommodation’: Analyzing the Bouchard-Taylor Report and its Impact on the Canadian Province of Québec”. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. Vol. 30, No. 4, December 2010. [Sharify-Funk, 2010].

Sharp, R. “Knowledge, Ideology and the Politics of Schooling”. The Journal of Education. Vol.164, No.1 (Winter 1982), pp.48-63.

Shoop, Robert J. “Religious Expression in Public Schools. A Legal Memorandum”: Quarterly Law Topics for School Leaders. Vol. 6, No. 2, Winter 2006.

Smith, William J. “Private Beliefs and Public Safety: The Supreme Court Strikes Down a Total Ban on the Kirpan in Schools as Unreasonable”. Education Law Journal; July 2006; 16, 1; ProQuest p.83.

Solomon, P., & Portelli, J. (2001). The Erosion of the Democratic Tradition in Education. Calgary: Detselig Ent. Ltd. (April, 2011). Online: http://www.theEFC.ca/education.

Stoker, Valerie. ‘Zero Tolerance? Sikh Swords, School Safety, and Secularism in Québec’. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, December 2007, Vol. 75, No. 4, pp. 814–839

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. “Commentary on S.L. v. Commission Scolaire des Chȇnes” Online: www.evangelicalfellowship.ca.

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. “S.L. v. Commission Scolaire des Chȇnes, Frequently Asked Questions and Answers”. Blog, April 2011. Online: www.evangelicalfellowship.ca.

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. “Supreme Court of Canada Rules on Parental Authority, Religious Freedom.”. Blog, February 17, 2012. Online: www.evangelicalfellowship.ca.

316

Taylor, Charles (2012). “Interculturalism or multiculturalisme?”. Philosophy & Social Criticism; May/June 2012 vol. 38 no. 4-5 413-423.

Vaillancourt, Jean-Guy and Campos, Elisabeth. ‘The Regulation of Religious Diversity in Québec’. Québec Studies, Volume 52, Fall 2011/Winter 2012.

Ventresca, Yola Hamzo. ‘Religious Dress in Schools: Balancing Religious Accommodation, Family Autonomy, Free Choice and Equality’. Education Law Journal; Nov 2007; 17, 2; ProQuest pg. 245.

Watkinson, A. (2004). “To whom do we trust public education?” Education and Law Journal, 14, 191-208.

White, O. Kendall. ‘Mormonism in America and Canada : Accommodation to the Nation-State ;. The Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers canadiens de sociologie. Vol. 3, No. 2 (Spring, 1978), pp.161-181.

Woehrling, José. « La place de la religion dans les écoles publiques du Québec » (2007), 41 R.J.T. 651.

Woehrling, José. « Les principes régissant la place de la religion dans les écoles publiques du Québec », dans Myriam Jézéquel, dir., Les accommodements raisonnables : quoi, comment, jusqu’où? Des outils pour tous. Cowansville, Qué. : Yvon Blais, 2007, 215.

Zainal, Zaidah. “Case Study as a research method”. Jurnal Kemanusiaan. bil. 9. Jun 2007.

Zinga, Dawn. “Ontario’s Challenge: Denominational Rights in Public Education”. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, Issue #80, August 19, 2008.

Zur, A. (2003). Ontario’s private schools funding policy and international human rights: Waldman v. Canada”. Education and Law Journal, 13, 227-242.

(vi) Newspaper/Magazine Articles

Allard, Clement. The politics behind the ‘Quebec values’ debate. The Canadian Press, September 1, 2013. Online: http://www.thestar.com.

Alphonso, Caroline. ‘Peel school board changes controversial decision on Muslim prayers’. The Globe and Mail, January 06, 2017. Online: http://www.theglobeandmail.com.

Authier, Philip; “Quebec Values Charter 2.0: Ban against crosses, hijabs would only apply to new public employees”; The National Post, January 16, 2015; Online: http://www.news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/16/quebec.

317

Belanger, Joe. “Acceptance of cultural diversity finally within our reach”, The London Free Press, October 15, 2011. Online: http://www.thecanadianpress.com.

Boisvert, Nick, ‘Muslim community slams Peel District School Board over ‘stigmatizing’ Friday prayer restrictions’, CBC News, November 8, 2016. Online: http://www.cbcnews.ca. and

Borovoy, A. Alan; ‘Pope Francis, Salman Rushdie both wrong on free speech’; The Toronto Star, January 31, 2015; Online: http://www.thestar.com.

Boussinot, Jacques. ‘Politicians must fight panic over Muslims in Quebec’, The Canadian Press, March 2, 2015. Online: http://www.thecanadianpress.com.

‘Brampton should stick with a prayer for all: Editorial’; The Toronto Star, January 29, 2015, Online: http://www.thestar.com.

Brown, Louise, ‘Catholic schools can’t force students to attend mass, court rules’. The Toronto Star, April 8, 2014, Online: http://www.thestar.com.

Brown, Louise, “Ontario Catholic elementary schools quietly admitting students of all faiths”, The Toronto Star, August 29, 2014. Online: http://www.thestar.com.

Bryden, Joan. ‘Stephen Harper’s anti-niqab rhetoric helps terrorist recruiters, Charles Taylor says’. The Canadian Press, March 28, 2015. Online: http://www.thecanadianpress.com.

Cameron, Geoffrey, Hutchinson, Don & Goldbloom, Victor C. Advancing a conversation about religion in Canada’s public life. The Toronto Star (May 27, 2013). Online: http://www.torstar.com.

Cameron, Geoffrey; Hutchinson Don; and Goldbloom Victor C. ‘Does Canada’s Government have the intestinal fortitude to take on Pauline Marois’ new Quebec? – Advancing a conversation about religion in Canada’s public life’. The Toronto Star, May 24, 2013, Online: http://www.thestar.com.

Canadians aren’t as accepting as we think – and we can’t ignore it, writes Angus Reid”, CBC News, October 4, 2016.online: www.cbc.news.

‘CBSA has let religious travellers avoid female guards in the past’; Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; August 08, 2014; Online: http://www.cbc.ca.

Connelly, Kate.After the US, far right says 2017 will be the year Europe wakes up.The Guardian, January 21, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com.

Chung, Andrew. ‘French ban on Islamic veil turns out to be toothless’. The Toronto Star, March 31, 2012. Online: http://www.thestar.com.

318

Christian schools received $20M from infrastructure fund. CBC News, April 22, 2013. Online: http://www.cbcnews.ca.

‘Competing Rights: R. v. N.S. 2012, Supreme Court Decides About Right to Wear Niqab While Testifying’. Ontario Women’s Justice Network, November 2013 (retrieved March 3, 2015). Online: http://www.owjn.org.

Cohn: Martin Regg, “Ontario not immune from Quebec-style intolerance: Cohn”, The Toronto Star, September 17, 2013. Online: http://www.cbcnews.ca.

Cohn, Martin Regg, ‘Catholic school boards can’t be wished away just yet’, The Toronto Star, November 29, 2014; Online: : http://www.thestar.com.

Criss, Doug.Trump travel ban: Here’s what you need to know.CNN News. January 30, 2017.online: www.cnn.com.

Eastwood, Joel. ‘Catholic school boards debate teachers' Pride participation’ The Toronto Star July 17, 2014, Online: http://www.thestar.com.

Fatah, Natasha.”Allah in the Cafeteria: Inside the school prayer scandal at Valley Park Middle School”.Toronto Life, March 2012.online: http://torontolife.com.

“Former Supreme Court judge to back Québec values charter”. The Canadian Press. September 24. 2013. Online: http://www.cbcnews.ca.

Ganley, Elaine.Marine Le Pen calls globalization, Islam threats against France. The Toronto Star, February 5, 2017.online: http://www.thestar.com.

Gagnon, Michel. “Let’s not forget the dark side of our ‘sunny ways’”. CVC News, October 26, 2015. Online: http://www.cbcnews.ca.

Geddes, John. “Angus Reid survey reveals a land of intolerance”, Maclean’s October 3, 2013 (retrieved April 3, 2015). Online: www.macleans.ca/politics.

Greenspon, Edward. “PQ gives in to temptations of intolerance: Greenspon”. (August 27, 2013) Online: http://www.torstar.com.

Harper, Tim. ‘Time to put the brakes on our slide to intolerance’. The Toronto Star, March 1, 2015. Online: :http://www.thestar.com.

Harris, Kathleen. ‘We will open our hearts’: Trudeau urges love and unity in wake of deadly mosque shooting. CBC News, Jan 30, 2017. online: https://www.cbcnews.ca/news.

Hébert, Chantal; ‘Conservatives, Bloc adding fuel to fire in niqab debate’; The Toronto Star, February 27, 2015; Online: http://www.thestar.com.

319

Hébert, Chantal. “Even sovereigntist-friendly ranks critical of PQ’s controversial proposed legislation”. The Toronto Star, September 5, 2013. Online: http://www.thestar.com.

Hébert, Chantal. “PQ divides Quebec voters with ‘values charter’. The Toronto Star, September 19, 2013. Online: http://www.thestar.com.

Hébert, Chantal. ‘Stephen Harper’s niqab comments spark Tory consternation’. The Toronto Star, March 13, 2015. Online: http://www.thestar.com.

Heinrich, Jeff (2008). “Crucifix is out, hijab in in an integrated Quebec; Secularism and interculturalism foundations of new report”. The Vancouver Sun. 23 May 2008: Online: http://www.vancouversun.com.

“How much government accommodation can you expect because of religion or a disability?”. CBC News, Aug. 09, 2014. Online: http://www.cbcnews.ca.

Hughes, Graham. “PQ minorities plan takes a step forward’. The Canadian Press. August 27, 2013. Online: http://www.metronews.ca.

Hughes, Graham. “Former Supreme Court judge to back Quebec values charter, The Canadian Press, September 24, 2011. Online: http://www.metronews.ca.

“In Quebec, religious ‘accommodations’ debate heats up”. The Toronto Star. August 31, 2013. Online: http://www.torstar.com. (Insight).

Jabir, Humera. “Quebec is wrong to treat the hijab as a political tool”. October 2, 2013. The Canadian Press. Online: http://www.cbcnews.ca.

Jabir, Humera. ‘Quebec’s xenophobic moment’. The Toronto Star, February 4, 2014. Online: http://www.thestar.com.

‘Justin Trudeau’s welcome call for an end to fear mongering’. Editorial. The Toronto Star, March 10, 2015. Online: http://www.thestar.com.

Keenan, Kathleen.The fear of hatred inspires us to stand and shout.The Toronto Star, January 30, 2017.online: https://www.thestar.com.

Keung, Nicholas; ‘Faith is often a visual marker of identity – but also a source of discomfort’, The Toronto Star, January 13, 2015. Online: http://www.thestar.com.

Lauwers, Peter D., ‘Public Education should respect all religions’. Catholic Register Special, March 6, 2007. Online: www.catholicregister.org.

“Let the students pray at school”(Editorial).The Toronto Star, July 6, 2011. online:http://www.thestar.com.

320

MacCharles, Tonda. ‘Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin argues tolerance, with limits, ‘is the only way forward’. The Canadian Press, May 27, 2015.Online: http://www.thecanadianpress.com.

MacDonald, Jason. ‘Muslim Group Demands Apology From Harper’, The Canadian Press, January 28, 2014. Online: http://www.thecanadianpress.com.

Marquis, Melaine and Rakobowchuk. “Quebec cabinet minister pulls out of charter debate because of security concerns”. November 29, 2013. The Canadian Press. Online: http://www.thecanadianpress.com.

Mian, Imran. ‘Quebec voters have embraced Canada’s most important ‘charter’’. The Toronto Star, April 9, 2014. Online: http://www.thestar.com.

Montpetit, Jonathan (2011). “With multiculturalism under attack, interculturalism grows in popularity: Is interculturalism the new multiculturalism?”. The Canadian Press. 06 Mar 2011. Online: http://www.thecanadianpress.com.

“Muslim youth conference cancelled in Montreal after ‘security review’”. The Toronto Star, September 1, 2013. Online: http://www.thestar.com.

“Muslim group demands apology from Harper, chief spokesman”. The Canadian Press. January 28, 2014. Online: http://www.thecanadianpress.com.

Nasser, Sharifa and McLaughlin, Amara, ‘Protestors outside Masjid Toronto call for ban on Islam as Muslims pray inside’, CBC News, February 17, 2017, online: www.cbc.ca..

“Ontario, Quebec differ over head scarf ban” (2007). CBC News. 26 February, 2007. Online: http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/story/2007/02/26/hijab.html.

O’Brien, Jennifer. “Learning to Make Room for Faith. London Free Press. Online: http://www.lfp.com/news/london/2011/10/13/18823186.html.

Panetta, Alexander. ‘Quebec values charter tossed at Canadian envoy in Turkey’, The Canadian Press, April 09, 2014. Online: http://www.thecanadianpress.com.

Pascal, Charles. “Public funds shouldn’t pay for Catholic schools in secular Ontario”. The Toronto Star, November 03, 2014. Online: http://www.thestar.com.

Payton, Laura, “Face veils banned for citizenship oath,” CVC News, December 12, 2011. Online: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/12/12pol-kenney-citizenship-rules.html.

Perkel, Colin. ‘Ban on Gideon Bible handout at public schools sparks torrent of hate mail’ The Canadian Press, April 8, 2012. Online: http://www.thecanadianpress.com.

Perkel, Colin. “Ban on Gideon Bible handout at public schools sparks torrent of hate mail”, (April 8, 2010) The Canadian Press, Online: http://www.thecanadianpress.com.

321

“PQ gets its fingers burnt”. The Toronto Star. September 19, 2013. Online: http://www.thestar.com.

‘Quebec City mosque attack victims shot in the back as they prayed’, The National Post, January 30, 2017, online: http://news.nationalpost.com.

“Quebec lawmakers getting a mouthful”.The Canadian Press. November 7, 2013. Online : http://www.thecanadianpress.com.

“Quebec’s divisive secular charter draws the pushback it deserves”. Editorial. The Toronto Star. November 10, 2013. Online: http://www.torstar.com.

Roher, Eric M., (2010). “A User’s Guide to Religious Accommodation in Ontario Schools: Borden Ladner Gervais Website. On-line: http://www.blg.com.

Rushowy, Kristin & Javed, Noor, ‘York board needs action plan on racism, Islamophobia, education minister demands’. The Toronto Star. November 26, 2016. Online: http://www.torstar.com.

Rushowy, Kristin & Javed, Noor, ‘Veteran York educator blasts board on racist, anti-Muslim incidents’. The Toronto Star. November 16, 2016. Online: http://www.torstar.com.

Sagan, Aleksandra. ‘Muslim school holiday recognition unlikely in Canada’. CBC News, March 7, 2015. Online: http://www.cbcnews.ca.

Salutin, Rick, Quebec’s charter of values: less like Putin, more like putine: Salutin. The Toronto Star, August 23, 2013. Online: http://www.torstar.com.

Salutin, Rick, “Excerpt: Divine Interventions, an ebook about religion and government”. The Toronto Star. Tuesday, January 28, 2014. Online: http://www.torstar.com.

Shingler, Benjamin, (Jan.30, 2017).Quebec premier, Muslim leaders denounce deadly mosque attack. CBC News.online: http://www.cbcnews.ca/news ‘Quebec election: Liberals win majority’. CBC News, April 8, 2014. Online: http://www.cbcnews.ca. Siddiqui, Haroon. ‘Obama’s doctrine refutes Harper’s’. The Toronto Star, May 26, 2013. Online: http://www.thestar.com. Siddiqui, Haroon. “PQ goes all out in waging war on religious minorities”. The Toronto Star (November 13, 2013). Online: http://www.torstar.com.

Siddiqui, Haroon. “Philippe Couillard is in a secular charter mess of his own”. The Toronto Star (April 10, 2014). Online: http://www.torstar.com.

Siddiqui, Haroon. “To end terrorism by Muslims, end wars on Muslims”. The Toronto Star, November 8, 2014. Online: http://www.torstar.com.

322

Siddiqui, Haroon. Slaughter, Graham. ‘York University’s religious accommodation decision the correct one, dean writes’. The Toronto Star, January 14, 2014, Online: http://www.thestar.com.

Siddiqui, Haroon. ‘How Harperites play their divisive anti-Muslim games’. The Toronto Star, March 11, 2015. Online: http://www.torstar.com.

Siddiqui, Haroon. ‘How to minimize Islamic State lure for Canadian youth’. The Toronto Star, February 28, 2015. Online: http://www.torstar.com.

Siddiqui, Haroon. ‘Harper senators hold McCarthyesque hearings’. The Toronto Star, March 2, 2015. Online: http://www.torstar.com.

Siddiqui, Haroon. ‘Harper should follow our secular law on niqab’. The Toronto Star, March 14, 2015. Online: http://www.torstar.com.

Slater, Joanna; ‘Attack on France a turning point in divisive religion debate’; The Globe and Mail, January 2, 2015; Online: http://www.theglobeandmail.com.

Spence, Duncan, “Why online Islamophobia is difficult to stop”. CBC News, Nov. 01, 2014. Online: http://www.cbcnews.ca.

St-Amour, Marc. “Soccer: Religion and sport meet politics and Quebec sovereignty”. The Globe and Mail, June 12, 2013. Online: http://www.theglobeandmail.com.

“Smudging in public schools: Reconciliation or religious act?”. CBC News. December 30, 2016. Online: http://www.cbcnews.ca.

Talaga, Tanya et al.; ‘Paris rallies in ‘solidarity’ after horrific Charlie Hebdo shooting’; The Toronto Star, January 08, 2015, Online: http://www.thestar.com.

“Town of Hamstead won’t apply ‘racist’ Quebec charter”. CBC News. (December 3, 2013). Online: http://www.cbcnews.ca.

“Trinity Western approval causes N.B. Lawyers to speak out”. CBC News, August 31, 2014. Online: http://www.cbcnews.ca.

“Turbans, hijabs, kippas in Parti Québécois crosshairs”. The Canadian Press, August 21, 2013. Online: http://www.metronews.ca.

Urback, Robyn, “Girls should not be segregated on public school property”, The Toronto Star, June 11, 2011, Online: http://www.torstar.com.

Valk, Alphonse de. “Prayers in Ontario Schools”. Catholic Insight Magazine. September 2011. Online: http://catholicinsight.com.

323

Voudouris, Stephanie. ‘Peeling Back the Court’s Decision in R. v. N.S. The Court, January 23, 2013 (retrieved March 3, woa5). Online: http://www.thecourt.ca.

Walkom, Thomas; ‘Conservative ‘barbaric practices’ bill panders to fear of immigrants; The Toronto Star, November 07, 2014; Online: http://www.torstar.com.

Waytiuk, Judy, ‘Merry Christmas, Chanukah, Ramadan...: public schools struggle to embrace all faiths, all the time’ Today’s Parent, 16.11 (Dec. 1999 – 2000). Online: http://www.todaysparent.com.

Woods, Allan. ‘Quebec’s Secular Divide’. The Toronto Star. (August 31, 2013). Online: http://www.torstar.com.

Woods, Allan. ‘A collision of culture and religion in Quebec’. The Toronto Star, March 12, 2015. Online: http://www.torstar.com.

Woods, Allan. ‘Islam needs to reform or leave, says Canadian leader of PEGIDA movement’. The Toronto Star, March 24, 2015. Online: http://www.torstar.com.

Woods, Allan. ‘PQ legislation would ban religious symbols from government offices, schools, hospitals, paper says’. The Toronto Star, August 20, 2013. Online: http://www.torstar.com.

“York no men debate a sign of things to come”. Metro & Torstar, Retrieved January 10, 2014. Online: http://www.torstar.com.

(vii) Policy Documents

Avon Maitland District School Board, Religious Accommodation, 2013, Online: http://yourschools.ca/ .

Bluewater District School Board. Religious Accommodation (Administrative Procedure), June 15, 2010. Online: http://www.bwdsb.on.ca.

Council of Europe (2008). Living Together as Equals in Dignity (White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue). Committee of Ministers, 118th Session. Online: www.coe.int.

Council of Europe (2011). Living Together – Combining Diversity and Freedom in 21st Century Europe. Online: www.coe.int.

Equity and Inclusive Education in Ontario Schools (2009). Ministry of Education. Online: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca.

“Establishment of an ethics and religious culture program – Providing future direction for all Québec youth”. Gouvernement du Québec, Ministére de l’Ēducation, du Loisir et du Sport, 2005. Retrieved August 10, 2013. Online: http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca.

324

Durham District School Board. Guidelines and Procedures for the Accommodation of Religious Requirements, Practices and Observances (2010), Online: http://www/ddsb.ca.

Ethics and Religious Culture (2008). Ministry of Education and Leisure and Sport (Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport). Québec: Gouvernement du Québec. Online: www.mels.gouv.ca.

Grand Erie District School Board, Equity and Inclusive Education (Administrative Procedure SO136)(January 2011), Online: http://www.granderie.ca.

Greater Essex Country District School Board, Guidelines for the Accommodation of Religious Requirements, Practices and Observances (2008), Online: https://publicboard.ca. Halton District School Board, Faith Accommodations (Administrative Procedures), October 2012, Online: http://www.hdsb.ca.

Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board. Religious Accommodation, Resource Guide (2010). Online: http://www.hpedsb.on.ca/ .

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Ratified March 23, 1976). United Nations. Online: http://www.ohchr.org.

Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board, Guideline on Multifaith Accommodations, April 2011, Online: http://www.kprschools.ca.

Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board, Multi Faith Perspectives (Equity and Diversity Links) (2010): Online: http://www.kprschools.ca.

Lakehead District School Board, Faith and Creed Accommodation Guideline (Appendix A to 1020 Equity and Inclusive Education Policy and Procedures), Online: http://www.lakeheadschools.ca.

Lambton Kent District School Board, Religious Accommodation Guideline (Equity and Inclusive Education Policy Resource), Online: http://www.lkdsb.net.

Limestone District School Board, Religious Accommodations Guideline, (Administrative Procedure 106), Online: http://www.limestone.on.ca.

Ministry of Education (Ontario). Realizing the Promise of Diversity: Ontario’s Equity and Inclusive Education Strategy (2009). Online: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca.

Ministry of Education. “Education About Religion in Ontario Public Elementary Schools. Retrieved January 19, 2014. Online: http://www.educ.gov.on.ca.

Multicultural Policy (1971). Government of Canada. Online: www.cic.gc.ca/english/multicultural.

325

Near North District School Board, Religious Accommodation (Administrative Guideline), (September 2010), Online: http://www.nearnorthschools.ca.

Québec. Groupe de travail sur la place de la religion à l’école. Laïcité et religions : Perspective nouvelle pour l’école québécoise (rapport). Québec : Ministère de l’Éducation, 1999. Online : http://www.education.gouv.gc.ca.

Québec. Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport. Éthique et culture religieuse. Québec : Le Ministère, 2007. Online: http://collections.banq.qc.ca.

Québec. Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport. La mise en place d’un programme d’éthique et de culture religieuse : Une orientation d’avenir pour tous les jeunes du Québec. Québec : Le Ministère, 2005. Online : http://www.education.gouv.gc.ca.

Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, Religious Accommodation (Policy p. 086.CUR) (June 2000), Online: http://www/ocdsb.on.ca.

Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. Religion in Public Schools (2001). Online: http://www/ocdsb.on.ca.

Peel District Board District of Education, Religious Accommodation (Communications and Community Relations Support Services 8), February 2010, Online: http://www/pdsb.on.ca.

Ontario Institute for Educational Leadership (2013 September). The Ontario Leadership Framework: A school and system leader’s guide to putting Ontario’s leadership framework into action. Online: https://education-leadership- Ontario.ca/media/resource/OLF_User_Guide_FINAL.pdf.

Simcoe Country District School Board, Equity and Inclusive Education (General 3100) (Adopted June 23, 2010). Online: http://www/scdsb.on.ca.

Rainy River District School Board, Religious Accommodation Procedure, (Section 2 – School Organization & Administration: 2.68), Online: http://www.rrdsb.com.

Rainy River District School Board, Religious Accommodation, Online: http://www.rrdsb.com.

Religious Accommodation Guideline (English Public Version), Schedule “A”. Retrieved September 9, 2015. Online: www.oesc-cseo.org.

Thames Valley District School Board. Religious and Faith-based Accommodation of Staff. Procedure No. 2022b. 2011 Oct. 11. On-line: http://www.tvdsb.ca.

Thames Valley District School Board, Religious and Faith-Based Accommodation of Staff, (Procedure No. 2022b), October 2011. Online: http://www.tvdsb.ca.

326

Trillium Lakelands District School Board, Religious Accommodation Guideline (September 2010), Online: http://www.tldsb.ca.

Upper Grand District School Board, Religious Accommodation Guidelines (September 2011), Online: http://www.tvdsb.ca.

Upper Grand District School Board, Equality and Inclusive Education (Policy), (September 2011), Online: http://www.tvdsb.ca.

York Region District School Board. Religious Accommodation Guidelines. Online: http://www.yrdsb.ca.

327

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Religious Accommodation Guideline

(Ministry of Education Guideline re Policy/Program Memorandum No.119. Developing and Implementing Equity and Inclusive Education Policies in Ontario Schools) (pp. 60-69) ______

RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATION GUIDELINE

ENGLISH PUBLIC VERSION

MISSION STATEMENT The (name) District School Board acknowledges each individual’s right to follow or not to follow religious beliefs and practices, free from discriminatory or harassing behaviours and is committed to taking all reasonable steps to provide religious accommodations to staff and to students.

INTRODUCTION The (name) District School Board recognizes and values the religious diversity within its community and is committed to providing a safe, respectful and equitable environment for all, free from all forms of discriminatory or harassing behaviours based on religion. Freedom of religion is an individual right and a collective responsibility. The Board commits to work with the community it serves to foster an inclusive learning environment that promotes acceptance and protects religious freedom for all individuals. While the Board and its staff will take all reasonable steps to ensure freedom of religion and religious practices consistent with the Code, it is expected that students and their families will help the Board to understand their religious needs and will work with the Board and its schools to determine appropriate and reasonable accommodations. I. LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY CONTEXT All school boards exist within a broader context of law and public policy that protect and defend human rights. At the Board, a number of policy statements have been developed that reinforce both federal and provincial legislation, and also help ensure that the freedoms they set out are protected within the school system. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Section 15) protects freedom of religion. The Ontario Human Rights Code (The Code) protects an individual’s freedom from discriminatory or harassing behaviours based on religion. In addition to and consistent with this legislation, The Education Act, its Regulations and policies govern Equity and Inclusion in Schools: PPM No 108, “Opening or Closing Exercises in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools”,

328

R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 298, “Operation of School-General” s 27-29, under the heading “Religion in Schools” PPM No. 119, “Developing and Implementing Equity and Inclusive Education Policies in Ontario Schools”. The Board recognizes, and is committed to, the values of freedom of religion and freedom from discriminatory or harassing behaviour based on religion through its human rights policies, equity and inclusive education policy, a safe schools policy and curriculum documents. All of these will be informed by, and interpreted in accordance with, the principles of the Code.

II. DEFINITIONS 1. Accommodation The Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Policy on Creed and the Accommodation of Religious Observances define “accommodation” as a duty corresponding to the right to be free from discrimination: The Code provides the right to be free from discrimination, and there is a general corresponding duty to protect the right: the “duty to accommodate.” The duty arises when a person’s religious beliefs conflict with a requirement, qualification or practice. The Code imposes a duty to accommodate based on the needs of the group of which the person making the request is a member. Accommodation may modify a rule or make an exception to all or part of it for the person requesting accommodation. (Policy on Creed and the Accommodation of Religious Observances, Ontario Human Rights Commission, October 20, 1996, pg. 5) The duty to accommodate is an obligation that arises when requirements, factors, or qualifications, which are imposed in good faith, have an adverse impact on, or provide an unfair preference for, a group of persons based on a protected ground under the Code. The duty to accommodate must be provided to the point of undue hardship. In determining whether there is undue hardship, section 24(2) of the Code provides that reference should be made to the cost of accommodation, outside sources of funding, if any, and health and safety requirements. 2. Creed Creed is interpreted by the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s 1996 Policy on Creed and the Accommodation of Religious Observances as “religious creed” or “religion.” It is defined as a professed system and confession of faith, including both beliefs and observances of worship. The existence of religious beliefs and practices are both necessary and sufficient to the meaning of creed, if the beliefs and practices are sincerely held and/or observed. According to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, every person has the right to be free from discrimination or harassing behaviour that is based on religion or which arises because the person who is the target of the behaviour does not share the same faith. Atheists and agnostics are also protected under the Code.

329

Creed does not include secular, moral, or ethical beliefs or political convictions. This policy does not extend to religions that incite hatred or violence against other individuals or groups, or to practices and observances that purport to have a religious basis, but which contravene international human rights standards or criminal law (Policy on Creed and the Accommodation of Religious Observances, Ontario Human Rights Commission, October 20, 1996, pg. 2). 3. Undue Hardship

Accommodation will be provided to the point of undue hardship, as defined by the OHRC (for example in the Policy and Guidelines on Disability and the Duty to Accommodate). A determination regarding undue hardship will be based on an assessment of costs, outside sources of funding, and health and safety. It will be based on objective evidence. For more information about the evidence needed to prove undue hardship, see Human Rights at Work, p. 133-134 and Appendix E.

A determination that an accommodation will create undue hardship carries with it significant liability for the Board. It should be made only with the approval of the Board of Trustees.

Where a determination is made that an accommodation would create undue hardship, the person requesting accommodation will be given written notice, including the reasons for the decision and the objective evidence relied upon. The accommodation seeker shall be informed of his or her recourse under the Board’s Equity and Inclusive Education Policy and Anti-Discrimination Policy and Procedure, and under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Where a determination has been made that an accommodation would cause undue hardship, the Board will proceed to implement the next best accommodation short of undue hardship, or will consider phasing in the requested accommodation.

III. ACCOMMODATION GUIDELINES The purpose of this guideline is to ensure that all Board staff, students, parents and other members of the school community is aware of their rights and responsibilities under the Code with respect to religious accommodation. It also sets out the Board’s procedures for accommodation and the responsibilities of each of the parties to the accommodation process. In accordance with the Equity Strategy, the Code and OHRC’s Guidelines on Developing Human Rights Policies and Procedures, it is intended that the accommodation process, as well as the accommodation itself, be effective and respectful of the dignity of accommodation seekers.

The Board is committed to providing an environment that is inclusive and that is free of barriers based on creed (religion). Accommodation will be provided in accordance with the principles of dignity, individualization, and inclusion. The Board will work cooperatively, and in a spirit of respect, with all partners in the accommodation process.

330

1. Accommodation Based on Request The Board will take all reasonable steps to provide accommodation to individual members of a religious group to facilitate their religious beliefs and practices. All accommodation requests will be taken seriously. No person will be penalized for making an accommodation request. The Board will base its decision to accommodate by applying the Code’s criteria of undue hardship with the Board’s ability to fulfill its duties under Board policies and the Education Act. When concerns related to beliefs and practices arise in schools, collaboration among school, student, family, and religious community is needed in order to develop appropriate accommodation. It is the role of the Board and its staff to ensure equity and respect for the diverse religious beliefs and practices of students and their families and other staff in the school system. However, school administrators should not be placed in the position of monitoring a child’s compliance with a religious obligation, and enforcing such practices, e.g. performing daily prayers or wearing a head covering is not the responsibility of the school or the Board. 2. General Procedures for Religious Accommodation Staff

The person requesting accommodation should advise the administration at the beginning of the school year, to the extent possible. If September notice is not feasible, the person should make the request as early as possible. The absence of employees due to religious observances should be granted as determined by this policy and the appropriate collective agreement. Students Students must present verbal or written notice from their parents/guardians specifying their accommodation needs relating to religious observances, including holy days on which they will be absent from school. This notice should be made enough in advance (preferably at the beginning of each school year) to ensure that scheduling of major evaluations, such as tests, assignments or examinations, takes the religious observances into consideration. Student handbooks and parent newsletters should include information about the procedure to follow to request an accommodation for religious observances and/or holy days. Such procedures should be easy for staff, students and parents to understand. 3. Unresolved Requests Despite the Board’s commitment to accommodate, an individual may feel that discrimination based on religion has occurred. The Board will, through its human rights policies, take reasonable and timely steps to address the unresolved issues raised by the affected person which could include dispute resolution mechanism.

331

AREAS OF ACCOMMODATION For many students and staff of the Board, there are a number of areas where the practice of their religion will result in a request for accommodation on the part of the school and/or the Board. These areas include, but are not limited to the following: i. School opening and closing exercises; ii. Leave of Absence for Religious Holy Days; iii. Prayer; iv. Dietary requirements; v. Fasting; vi. Religious dress; vii. Modesty requirements in physical education; and viii. Participation in daily activities and curriculum.

IV. GENERAL GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES This policy will consider each (of the above stated) area of accommodation in turn. 1. School Opening and Closing Ceremonies Pursuant to the Ontario Ministry of Education Policy/Program Memorandum No. 108 (“Memorandum No. 108”), if a student or parent/guardian objects to all or part of the opening or closing exercises due to religious beliefs, the student will be exempted and given the option not to participate and to remain in class or in an agreed upon location through the duration of the exercise. Memorandum No. 108 states the following:

1. All public elementary and secondary schools in Ontario must be opened or closed each day with the national anthem. “God Save the Queen” may be included. 2. The inclusion of any content beyond “O Canada” in opening or closing exercises is to be optional for public school boards. 3. Where public school boards resolve to include, in the opening or closing exercises in their schools, anything in addition to the content set out in item 1 above, it must be composed of either or both of the following: a. One or more readings that impart social, moral, or spiritual values and that are representative of our multicultural society. Readings may be chosen from both scriptural writings, including prayers, and secular writings; b. A period of silence. 4. Parents who object to part or all of the exercises may apply to the principal to have their children exempted. Students who are adults may also exercise such a right. These requirements will be interpreted in accordance with the Code and the Board will consider other requests for accommodation as may be made.

332

2. Absence for Religious Holy Days The Board is committed to affirm and value equally the faith diversity in our schools. Section 21(2) (g) of the Education Act provides that a person is excused from school attendance in observance of a “holy day by the church or religious denomination to which he/she belongs.” This requirement will be interpreted in accordance with the Code. All staff and students who observe religious holidays in accordance with section 21(2) (g) of the Education Act may be excused from attendance, subject to the particular request for religious leave process. The Board will encourage members of different faith-based groups to identify their religious holy days at the beginning of each school year. The Board will make reasonable efforts to acknowledge the different observances of their community when planning programs and events, such as Board- wide tests and examinations. To the extent possible, conferences, meetings, workshops, co- curricular activities and exams/tests, will not be scheduled on these significant faith days:

(Examples of) Significant Faith Days:

Baha’j Ridvan

Buddhist Lunar New Year/Chinese

Western Christian Good Friday

Eastern Christian Christmas Holy Friday

Hindu Diwali

Jewish Rosh Hashanah (2 days) Yom Kippur Passover (first day)

Muslim Eid-ul-Fitr Eid-ul-Adha

Sikh Baisakhi

(A multi-faith calendar will be provided on a yearly basis to help schools make appropriate accommodations.)

333

Guidelines for Administrators

In accordance with their rights, all staff and students who request to observe a religious holy day should be allowed this right without having to undergo any unnecessary hardship. Staff requesting a leave should advise the school administration at, or as close as possible to, the beginning of the school year and leave should be granted in accordance with the terms of the appropriate collective agreement. Students requesting a leave should give verbal or written notice from their parent/guardian to the school at, or as close as possible to, the beginning of the school year. Such procedures should be easy to understand and follow. Student agendas, school newsletters and announcements should include information about the procedures for requesting leaves. All staff members acting on behalf of/representing the Board on other organizations, which in partnership with the Board are planning events or activities that involve students and/or staff of Board schools, have the responsibility to bring this procedure to the attention of these organizations. For consultation or further clarification of questions, administrators and managers should contact [insert name and contact information of Board Equity Officer]. Unresolved Requests

a. Employee In the event that, after an employee’s consultation with the school administration and the Superintendent of Education, unresolved issues remain, then the matter will be referred to the Superintendent of Human Resources. b. Students In the event that a student maintains that his or her rights under the Board’s religious accommodation policy have been compromised, then the matter will be referred to the appropriate Superintendent of Education.

3. Prayer The Board recognizes the significance of prayer in religious practice. Board schools will make reasonable efforts to accommodate individuals’ requirement for daily prayer by providing an appropriate location within the building for students and staff to participate in prayer. This may mean a quiet space in the library, an empty room, or wherever it is mutually satisfactory for the school and the student or staff member requesting the accommodation. Particular accommodation for prayer may include late school arrival, early school leaving or seasonal adjustment. Adult presence should be for supervision purposes only.

334

4. Dietary Restrictions The Board is sensitive to the different dietary restrictions of various religious groups. Such sensitivity includes attending to issues related to the menus provided by catering companies, snacks in elementary schools, and food provided within schools, at school-sponsored activities and community events. Breakfast and lunch programs in both secondary and elementary schools will consider relevant dietary restrictions in their menu planning. Availability of vegetarian options is recommended as a form of inclusive design. Special attention needs to be given to overnight outdoor education activities, as well as field trips that extend over a mealtime period. 5. Fasting The Board is sensitive to religious periods of fasting. Board schools will endeavour to provide appropriate space, other than cafeterias or lunchrooms, for individuals who are fasting in religious observance. The Board recognizes that students who are fasting may need exemptions from certain physical education classes and Board schools should make reasonable efforts to provide appropriate accommodations. 6. Religious Dress “Dress Code” is the appropriate dress policy established by a school, and may include a school uniform. Such policies should be designed inclusively, taking into account common religious needs that may exist. The Board recognizes that there are certain religious communities that require specific items of ceremonial dress. The Board understands that some religious attire, which is a requirement of religious observance, may not conform to a school’s Dress Code. Board schools will reasonably accommodate students with regard to religious attire. Religious attire is not cultural dress; it is a requirement of religious observation. Religious attire that should be reasonably accommodated in Board schools includes, but is not limited to:  Head covers: Yarmulkes, turbans, Rastafarian headdress, hijabs  Crucifixes, Stars of David, etc.  Items of ceremonial dress

Where uniforms are worn, administrators may ask the student to wear religious attire in the same colour as the uniform (e.g. the head scarves for females); however, there may be religious requirements of colour that cannot be modified. Special attention must be given to accommodations necessary for a student to participate in physical education and school organized sports. Where possible, these should be incorporated into Board policies as part of an inclusive design process.

335

The Board seeks to foster an atmosphere of cultural understanding in order to be proactive in addressing potential harassment about religious attire. Schools should be aware that harassment about religious attire is one of the most common types of harassment and bullying. The Board and its schools will not tolerate any teasing directed at, or inappropriate actions taken against, an individual’s religious attire and there will be appropriate consequences for individuals who violate this rule. There are religious communities that require specific items of ceremonial dress which may be commonly perceived as contravening Board policies, for example the use of the Kirpan by Khalsa Sikh students. For specific guidelines on the accommodation of Khalsa Sikh students wishing to carry a Kirpan, please see Schedule “A.” 7. Modesty Requirements for Dress in Physical Education Classes The Board recognizes that some religious communities observe strict modesty attire in respect of their religion. This can become a matter of concern when students are asked to wear the clothing used in physical education activities. Such policies should be designed inclusively, taking into account common religious needs that may exist. If a family has concerns that cannot be addressed through inclusive design the school should discuss the modesty requirements with them, and, taking into consideration the Ministry of Education’s mandated expectations in the physical education curriculum, provide reasonable accommodation. The curriculum requirements should be explained to the family so that it has sufficient information to understand the physical education curriculum and to select available curriculum alternatives. 8. Participation in Daily Activities and Curriculum The Board will seek to reasonably accommodate students where there is a demonstrated conflict between a specific class or curriculum and a religious requirement or observance. Where academic accommodation is requested, the school should have an informed discussion with the student’s parents/guardians to understand the nature and extent of the conflict. The school should make it clear during the discussion that its role is to protect students and staff from harassment and discrimination because of their religion and cultural practices. Where these conflict with the school routines and activities or curriculum, the school should consider accommodation. It cannot, however, accommodate religious values and beliefs that clearly conflict with mandated Ministry of Education and Board policies. It is important to note that when an individual requests an accommodation related to the curriculum, the accommodation applies to the individual in question and not to the whole class or to classroom practices in general. The Ministry of Education recommends substitutions when there are exemptions requested related to specific curriculum (Ontario Secondary Schools, Grades 9-12, Program and Diploma Requirements).

336

In general, the Board recommends an informed, common-sense approach to questions of religion and curriculum. Hopefully, these questions can be solved by an open discussion between the teacher, the student and his/her family.

V. LIMITATIONS TO RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATION The Board is committed to preventing and eradicating within its school community discrimination and harassment based on enumerated grounds set out in the Code, including creed. The Board supports freedom of religion and an individual’s right to manifest his/her religious beliefs and observances. The right to freedom of religion, however, is not absolute. The Board will limit practices or behaviour in its schools which may put public safety, health, or the human rights and freedoms of others at risk. As well, the Board will limit practices or behaviours in its schools that are in violation of other Board policies. These decisions will be made in accordance with the principles of the Code.

Schedule “A” [Attached to Guidelines]

GUIDELINE FOR KIRPAN ACCOMMODATION

A Kirpan is a ceremonial sword that must be worn by all baptised Khalsa Sikhs. The Board seeks to accommodate Khalsa Sikhs who wear a kirpan under the following conditions as follows:  At the beginning of the school year or upon registration, the student and parents/guardians must report to their respective school administration that they are Khalsa Sikhs and wear the five articles of faith, including a Kirpan.

 The principal, in consultation with the student and his/her parents/guardians will develop appropriate accommodations to allow the student to wear the Kirpan while ensuring the safety of others. These may include the following conditions

o The Kirpan is six inches or less.

o The Kirpan will be sufficiently secured with a stitched flap so it is not easily removed from its sheath.

o The Kirpan will not be worn visibly, but under the wearer’s clothing.

o There is notification in writing to the principal by the parents/guardians and student and, where possible, from the Guardwara (place of worship), confirming that the student requesting accommodation is a Khalsa Sikh.

o Students under the age of eighteen must be accompanied by parents/guardians when discussing the rules regarding the wearing of a Kirpan.

337

Appendix B: Interview Protocol

Interview Protocol:

The interviews for research purposes will focus on how public school principals exercise the legal duty to accommodate faith and religion in Ontario. The questions for the principals are drawn from the content of the Ministry of Education’s document, Realizing the Promise of

Diversity: Ontario’s Equity and Inclusive Education Strategy (2009) and the accompanying

Appendix “A”, Religious Accommodation Guideline. Additionally, some questions reflect faith and religious accommodation issues drawn from other sources, such as court decisions and newspaper articles.

Outline of Questions for Participants:

1) General: a) Number of years in role. b) Self-identification. c) Religious affiliation

d) Description of school. i) number of teachers; ii) students iii) special/unique features

2) a) Level of familiarity with content of Ontario’s inclusive strategy and the Religious Accommodation Guideline? b) Is this level of familiarity reflective of most staff members? c) The document is referred to on what frequency? i) By all staff members? ii) By you?

3) a) Are there students in your school being accommodated differently due to faith-based and religious reasons?

b) If so, to which religious groups do these students belong?

4) In what ways are the religious needs of students being accommodated at your school?

a) Clothing? b) Food/Fasting? c) Remaining seated while O Canada is being played? d) Prayer/Meditation Rooms?

338

e) Absences from school? 5) In what ways, if any, have you been involved in religious accommodation in your school?

6) How was the policy on religious accommodation communicated to you by the Board?

7) What has occurred at the school level in order help teachers accommodate religion in the schools? (eg. professional development; staff meeting discussions). 8) Kindly complete the following statement: In general, teachers are informed of the religious accommodation needs of individual or groups of students in our school through these means…. 9) Please fill in the following blanks: In our school, assurance that the religious accommodation needs of students are met is overseen by ______, in the following way(s)…. 10) a) How would you describe the general attitude toward faith-based religion in your school? b) Example(s)? 11) a) Are students that do not request or need religious accommodation made aware of how and why certain students are treated differently for faith-based religions? b) If so, in what way are the students informed? 12) Would you say that there is a “whole school” approach to religious accommodation in that open discussion is encouraged…eg a) between teachers and administration; b) between teachers; c) between teachers and students; d) between students. 13) In your view, how does religious accommodation affect school climate? 14) Has the outside school community been made aware of the Ministry’s focus on the inclusive school, particularly the accommodation of faith and religion? a) If so, how? b) If the community has been made aware of the inclusive school ideal and the duty to accommodate faith and religion, what commentary have you received, if any, from community members? 15) How would you rate the level of importance of religious accommodation in your school compared to other Board and Ministry mandates? (ie Special Education, Anti-Bullying, etc.) 16) Accommodation requirements in institutions, like schools, are mandated up to the point of undue hardship. This means that should the time, money, and impact on other people involved prove too costly for the institution, the accommodation of the individual would have to be denied. a) Are you able to envision a request for religious accommodation that could involve undue hardship for your school? b) If so, could you describe this scenario?

339

17) Next, I invite your comments on the following statements: a) Acknowledging multi-faiths in the school benefits all students.

b) Prayer activities in schools, as a result of faith-based requests, should not be monitored, directed, or enforced by staff.

c) The following is an example of a response received from a written survey that was given to teacher participants: “When we are trying to book a field trip that lands on a faith-based day, we are usually not allowed to go. Even if no one going on the trip is of that faith-base.”

d) In view of faith-based accommodation, school holidays could be expanded to include the holy days of more religions.

e) The wearing of religious clothing and/or symbols influences the religious beliefs of other staff and students in your school.

f) In Toronto, there have been community protests about a school providing a dedicated time and room for Muslim students to participate in prayers led by an Imam (religious leader) during school time. The protesters claim that public schools are supposed to be secular and that this practice must be stopped.

g) In the Multani Supreme Court decision, it was held that a Sikh child should be allowed to wear a concealed ceremonial sword (kirpan) to school as that child had expressed a “seriously held belief” that wearing a kirpan was an integral part of his religion.

h) The wearing of a headscarf (hijab) and/or a face covering (niqab) by women for religious reasons has been questioned by citizens and governments when these women participate in sporting events, receive government services, and/or attend certain educational institutions.

18. This marks the end of the formal questions prepared for the interview. a) Do you have any further comments, thoughts, opinions, or observations you would like to add about the accommodation of faith and religion in schools? b) Do you have any further comments, etc. about the interview itself? 19) I sincerely thank you for your participation in this research project. I will be in contact with you again regarding the overall research findings and my final paper submitted for the course.

340

Appendix C: Letter of Informed Consent

Information for Participation in a Research Study

The Legal Duty to Accommodate Faith and Religion in Ontario’s Public Schools

From: Wendy Dunlop Doctoral Candidate

Dear

Thank you for considering participation in and contribution to this proposed research. As I noted in our initial contact, I am currently enrolled at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education in the Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education as a doctoral student. An integral requirement for the completion of the degree is a written thesis based on qualitative and/or quantitative research. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with information that you will need in order to understand what my research entails, and in order for you to make an informed decision about whether you will choose to be a participant in the research interviews. Involvement in such a study is a completely voluntary act. Should you initially decide to participate, but change your mind about taking further part at any point, you are free to withdraw at the time of your choosing.

Due to administrative and ethical issues related to research conducted in universities, this letter is a form letter. At the end of the letter, you will find a place to indicate whether or not you wish to participate. Please check the appropriate box, sign, and provide the date. Return one signed copy to me and keep the other for your personal records.

The full name of the research project is: The Legal Duty to Accommodate Faith and Religion in Ontario’s Public Schools: A Qualitative Study on the Interconnection of Jurisprudence, Education Policy, and the Role of the Principal.

The nature and purpose of the research is to gain an understanding of how principals in public boards enact, integrate, and mobilize the duty to accommodate faith and religion in their schools. The qualitative research will also explore the impact of accommodation of religion on the functioning of schools; the issues arising, such as conflicting Human and Charter rights; and when or if a point of “undue hardship” is ever realized. Additionally, the research is focused on obtaining an understanding of principals’ views about their involvement with the religious accommodation of their staff and students, as well as their views on religious accommodation in general. Questions asked in the interviews will be drawn from the Ministry of Education’s document, Religious Accommodation Guideline, as well as from current faith and religious accommodation issues drawn from other materials, such as court decisions and newspaper articles. My essentially purpose in conducting qualitative research is in trying to obtain an overview of the range of requests for religious accommodation made by staff, students and their parents; how these requests are being

341

accommodated in the schools by teachers and administrators; and the ways schools are able to provide these accommodations.

Your part in the research, if you agree, is to participate in a one hour interview with me, face-to-face. During this time I hope to discuss with you your experiences, and views on, the faith-based and religious accommodation of staff and students in your school. Additionally, you will be asked to comment on certain current and past events (outside your school) that are related to the accommodation of faith and religion in public schools.

I assure you of the complete confidentiality of the content of your interview, and of you personally. Once the recording of each interview has been transcribed, the data will be stored in a locked cabinet in my home office. Only my thesis supervisor, Professor John Portelli will have access to this raw data. In the transcript of each interview, the name of the principal participant and any other identifying information will be encoded to assure anonymity and privacy. The fact that you were/are a participant, as evidenced in the signed participation agreement, will also be safely locked in a cabinet in my home office.

As an interview participant, you will be provided with a transcript of what was discussed during our face-to- face meeting. Should you request any particular part of the interview transcript to be deleted, this will be executed as per your instructions. Furthermore, should you decide that the entire transcript of your interview must be redacted, all evidence of your participation will be destroyed and will not form any part of the study.

The potential personal and professional benefits derived from participating in this research on the accommodation of faith and religion in public schools is that you may be contributing to a more general inclusive climate for all staff and students. Additionally, the contribution of your observations and thoughts to the creation of this doctoral thesis may serve to influence the creation and content of future government and ministry policy.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Wendy A. Dunlop PhD Candidate Department of Leadership, Higher & Adult Education Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto (OISE/UT)

Address: (Redacted)

Phone: (Redacted)

342

To Be Completed by the Participants:

I have read the attached first two pages of this document and any enclosed documents. I understand what is being asked and the accompanying conditions and promises. I understand the nature and limitations of the research.

I understand that I am free to withdraw my participation at any time.

I agree to participate in the ways described.

If I am making any exceptions or stipulations, these are ______

I do not wish to participate in the research.

______

Participant’s printed name Participant’s signature Date

Wendy A. Dunlop, Researcher ______Researcher’s signature Date

343

Appendix D

Ethics Approval

344

Appendix E

4.2. The role of the principal in the accommodation of faith and religion

How principals enact, integrate and mobilize the duty to accommodate faith and religion

Students Staff Community Board + Personal + Professional Skills/ + School (4.2.2.2.) (4.2.2.3.) Ministry of the Principal (4.2.2.1.) (4.2.2.4.) (4.2.2.5.) JACOB Mennonites -Jacob + staff are -specially designed co- -need to manage -‘street credit’ with Mennonites prominent group not ‘the white op program to engage tensions + as Jacob has in-depth -aim to re- knights’, but community that was not parameters or knowledge of this group engage ‘servants’ attending school ‘bumpers’ -Jacob oversees, but credits Mennonites in -not a power -content + design (realities of entire school + community with public school issue, but invite formulated from collective program’s success system voluntary religious requirements of agreements + -in five years – from time when -incorporated participation in Mennonites Ministry policy) group ‘would not darken Mennonite’s public school -works ‘because of buy- [school’s] doorstep to 350 needs + values in process + the time students enrolled into a co-op investment in the family -there is ‘a lot of room to play’ program that is + the relationship’ when limits of bumpers ‘still -through series of understood accountable + meetings with clergy, -need to be ‘transparent’, transparent from families learned why ‘professional’ + űber vigilant’ an education Mennonites not sending model delivery children to Jacob’s high perspective’ school -school seen as -reasons faith + ‘not such a bad culturally based, as well place’ + as need to have children Mennonites are work on farms transferring to main campus

WILLIAM -previous school -‘what works for -parent + principal need -board policies -part of Board’s Equity + multi-cultural the kids, works to discuss supervision simply Inclusivity committee which -40 nations for the staff’ -‘team approach’ needed ‘highlight the developed policy on reflects war -staff aware of things’ already accommodation of faith + zones ‘people to go to’ being done religion -influx of if issues arise --satisfaction with realization of students from -if absence religious accommodation Middle East required for -addresses requirements of -‘every effort religious holiday Code + Charter made to there is special accommodate’ code -‘nothing punitive’ -‘doesn’t matter what their faith is’→ ‘people are comfortable’ at school TREVOR -knowledge arms -word ‘accommodation’ -only in past 5 -avoids the word principal to lead, not used when ‘talking years ‘hard + ‘accommodation’ as sounds like but staff views + about our community’ fast policy’ ‘inconvenience’ + ‘guilt’ experience -principal tries to created -too tied to policy incorporated anticipate needs of -board ‘reactive’ -prefers ‘awareness + support’ community + meetings + ‘responsive’ or ‘partnership’ are ‘run in many -ensures policy -accommodation of religion is different ways with is ‘clear’ + ‘a minor aspect’ of the ‘greater many different intents’ ‘enforced’ piece’ of ‘tolerance, social -understand that religion -board equity justice, kindness and curiosity’- is ‘closely tied to consultants need to ‘get facts straight’ as culture’ + ‘certain -principals there is ‘tension’ with the behaviours seem normal receive emails accommodation of religion for their communities’ as issues arise -principals ‘don’t deal with -‘conversation about -board provides emotional swelling’ as ‘you’ll

345

how we can together ‘how’ and ‘why’ never get anything done. envision our education -experience provides system’ ‘advantage’ of understanding -‘it’s about being a good ‘signals’ which ‘give your dancer’ clues’ -also need for mindful -‘re-package’ in context of balance with agnostics + purpose of school + principal’s atheists→ ‘increases role as ‘guarantor of the anxiety levels’ province’ TERRENCE 22% of students -unaware of -have to listen to parent - requires visibility through Mohawk but procedure for + community → ‘spend various means ‘inclusive’ of all teacher absence a lot of time’ to ensure -understand own privilege + First Nations for religious school is ‘inclusive + help others ‘deconstruct’ → -school must reasons welcoming’ ‘that’s where you’ll change ‘over -part of fabric of -continual ‘trying’ to them forever’ communicate -devotes staff engage First Nations -helps staff ‘understand why about the meeting time to community they have to fight for the possibility’ of discuss First -more than newsletter children’ participation Nations issues needed -understand that equity + school →O democracy ‘aren’t necessarily in Canada sung in the same family’ Mohawk -mindful religious language accommodation is part of -allow others ‘equity family’ with more -‘always deal with one person at knowledge to a time’ lead →i.e. smudging at school THOMAS -65% Muslim -not aware of -important ‘to know -board is -‘when push comes to shove’ students → main formal process community’ + to develop ‘proactive’ + know where to go for assistance religious for religious a relationship inclusive → i.e. -principal ‘shouldn’t have to accommodation accommodation -agreement + provision of problem solve on his own’ focus understanding must be sport hijabs -teachers + community = ‘my -‘transient ‘negotiated’ -board informs class’ -gaining trust is key of ‘compliance -responsible for being ‘aware of school’ → 60% needs’ turnover days’ -school is ‘wonderful place’, but ‘difficult’ -honours all faiths + ‘part of all, responsive to...community’ -has ‘everything for everybody’ DANA -due to -when teachers -education, -assisted by -‘you try to accommodate as transience + ‘forget’ to book communication/dialogue, board’s much as you can’ poverty school a supply for + clarification → i.e. ‘significant faith -‘have to respect one another’ is in a religious issue with parent + Lent day calendar + -discuss meaning of equity + ‘challenging observances, -speaks to students about ‘massive practice of it → ‘it’s about circumstance’ Dana spends 2 ‘everyone’s faith’ so no reminder levelling the playing field’ -students are hours doing this one is ‘invisible’ in the emails’ of comfortable -sometimes school ‘diamond days’ communicating school is -teacher absence for faith accommodation ‘working short’ days → at times 20% needs when not enough -ensures meal absent supply teachers programs are available accommodate →i.e. halal, kosher + vegetarian food

LINDY -25% of -34% of staff -‘relax’ + communicate -board’s plan -accommodation is ‘common students accommodated with parent → then plan ‘took a long sense’ → diverse staff = ‘you accommodated for religion ahead time to do’ ask’

346

for religion -community + religious -boards need to -‘something’ always comes up -if child needs to leaders consulted be ‘proactive’ + as ‘we don’t have all the be accommodate ‘start expertise’ through communicating -need to establish if there is a withdrawal → more’ competing right ‘fairly simple -board’s multi- -‘curious’ about outcome of sex scheduling faith calendar, education issue thing’ framework + -nothing in the ‘trillion’ -withdrawn ‘point person’ documents that says ‘state your students placed helps ‘keep it religion’, so principals have to in another class, consistent’ + interpret but cannot assists ‘if you -‘you have to figure out a ‘pierce class come into a system’ size’ situation that -in smaller might be school complicated’ withdrawal is -avoids ‘more randomness + challenging’ inequity -religious accommodation ‘delicate, complicated thing’ + co- ordination between boards needed ANNE -‘small nucleus -teachers -issue of tokenism -board provides -‘this is about respect’ of First Nations informed + addressed with all principals -religious accommodation is with ‘no -Anne has staff community with ‘massive’ ‘just part of the privilege of accommodation’ ‘unpack’ the -issue of educators + in-service + being a public servant’ but ‘disappear’ board ‘full Status teaching updated policy -need to ‘find creative solutions for 2 to 3 weeks accommodation Aboriginal studies documents for ‘coming of document to courses age ritual’ know ‘the -finances dictated -curriculum not essential outcome altered, but expectations’ + assessment information ‘pared back’ students are given ‘complete leeway on assignments’ MARIA -school in flux -benefits teachers - issue with other -board has ‘issue -been involved in anti- as more students as there is more principals that want one around oppressive research + advocacy move in access to prayer size fits all approach → exempting kids’ for several decades religious spaces in school resistance to which does not -‘puts a fire in your belly’-need accommodation + ‘quiet rooms’ individualized align with stance for nuanced approach to is about anti- = ‘a really good accommodation of OHRC religious accommodation → oppressive outcome’ -2 realities counteract: ‘there’s diversity within training + the Code + board policy diversity’ culturally -for Maria there is no debate as relevant → helped parents to understand rights ‘an exemption is an pedagogy → ‘It accommodation’ is student voice’ -school moved to more ‘invitational approach’ which ‘removes the whole power piece’ ELAINE -‘very mixed’ -‘any idea that -if needed, minister or -religious -principal gets copy of request community with we need to imam is included→ to accommodation for teacher religious absence 6 mosques that develop + work better understand is ‘embedded from board ‘feed’ into on together we religion into the -not charged against sick days school + do that’ -parent council of limited contracts for all -have to ‘use better judgment’ + Christians + -teachers assistance as not the different ‘kind of triage it’ when child is Sikhs = ‘real informed by reflective of entire employee injured + family Jehovah

347

melting pot’ memo of community→ e.g. groups’ Witness →parents want -on Fridays accommodations Muslims + Hindus do -contact person conversation first before Muslim students required + ‘no not take part at the board to medical attention sign out or go to questions asked’ -communication difficult assist principals -if bias is ingrained + teachers a designated -in staff meetings -Elaine’s with non-English ’really cross a line’→ threat of prayer room in Elaine speaking members of concern about school emphasizes staff the lack of OCT + Blue Pages help with community compliance →or could lead to a -student absence must be ‘allies’ -Elaine’s concern has led representation not penalized by with students on school grievance through OSSTF to conversations with the lower grades from diverse board council -Muslim club + communities -family member discussed with Christian -teachers are calls/comes into school the board interfaith club ‘allowed’ to take -board sends out religious days to talk to principal → monthly bulletin → both have ‘Whatever the need is, activities in -teacher does not with faith days have to prove we try to accommodate listed school that’ - school is ‘open religious -link on board to all groups, all affiliation website with faiths’ -cost of supply pull down for -school for religious religious acknowledges reasons ‘comes accommodation faith days in from a different + request calendar + envelope of submitted scheduling funding’ MADELEINE -students from -teachers that -‘really works’ on parent -board -making sure accommodations ‘number of refused to engagement introduced are in place = ‘principal’s job’ continents’ accommodate -once relationship is built policy with ‘big -‘challenged by the -sanctuary + were introduced up, principal ‘can push at hoopla’ communities in which you work circle room built to unique those boundaries a little -discussions because racism exists’ for smudging professional bit farther’ between boards -‘dialogue is not just about for First Nations development→ -to request + principals listening, it’s also the idea of -part of fabric of field trip to First accommodations parents about sex interculturalism’ school Nations reserve write a letter to the education = dialogue -school focus on = school curriculum, no -religious accommodation is social justice ‘cure for deficit -with new sex education procedure ‘just part of what we do as thinking’ curriculum parents need established principals’ to specify what ‘they are -‘tricky’ keeping personal objecting to’ as there is values at bay also a human rights issue -consultations with 10 First nations groups LAMA -‘community -biggest -inner city parents do not -online request -great deal of experience in has a huge accommodation ‘feel a lot of power or for equity work range’ is staff absence privilege’ accommodation -accommodation ‘depends on -many recent -pork ‘avoided at -‘have to name’ what you call accommodation’ immigrants + staff meetings’ religious day refugees because of from list -‘pink days’ in Muslim and recognition of Jewish teachers LGBTQ community -gender neutral bathrooms

348

Appendix F

4.3. The impact of the accommodation of faith and religion on the school

Students Staff School Community Issues Arising (4.3.2.1.) (4.3.2.2.) (4.3.2.3.) ( 4.3.2.4.) (4.3.2.5.) JACOB -‘connections + -inclusive -accommodates -dialogue with Bishop friendships’ curriculum – non-Mennonite + Mennonite -seamlessness of perspective of students that are community accommodation ‘radical peace unable to attend - instead of building seekers’ during the regular own schools school day Mennonites see public ‘sustained school school ‘as an option’ during declining -parents of home- enrollment’ schooled children see -‘the tide that co-op program as floats our boat’ option -enabled more staffing + programs

WILLIAM -‘most accepting -discussions with ‘whole school -multicultural school of kids’ students on approach’ to community ‘the norm’ -students know ‘character traits + accommodation ‘why’ of respecting people -accommodation difference – of different faiths’ is ‘invisible’ accept ‘this is the -school norm – way it is’ students ‘treat each other with respect TREVOR -students coached -never have to deal -‘old thinking’ has to get involved with issues about to be dealt with ‘if someone’s religious dress as -‘a lot of leg work’ making a ‘other kids jump in’ needed to address comment’ + stop comments ‘deep seated -‘kids kind of concerns police -sometimes staff in themselves’ ‘mud on particular topics’ -religion can be ‘explosive ‘ topic + ‘take whole school off the rails’

TERRENCE -‘made a huge -‘great group of -‘made us a better difference for our educators’ that school’ children to be create open + -‘everyone sees it proud’ accommodating as part of our -students see school family’ First Nations as environment’ -First Nations not ‘their brothers + seen as ‘the other’ sisters -‘schools must change to adapt to their students’ needs’

THOMAS -‘put it to the ‘teachers buy in’ -unintended kids’ how to that school is a impact on kids not accommodate ‘very included’ in grade 8 accommodating Ramadan -choice celebratory place’ of ‘fun + dinner when -special code for awesome activity’ Muslims are teacher absence benefits students fasting that do not have -‘kids recognize the financial the situation’ for means Muslim classmates

349

DANA -school is -‘we celebrate -infused into -moms in school -some principals say welcoming + safe diversity’ culture of school during the day to cook they are ‘non- -‘we don’t - ‘spills over into ‘representative of religious’ + do not indoctrinate’ everything’ everything’ celebrate anything -principals ‘from one extreme to another’ LINDY -number of -absences have -absences greatest -need to know -good policy as absences of staff impact as number accommodation community to prepare ‘we’re strapped to a + students for of supply teachers -collapsing, -dialogue with Roman Christian Rosh Hashanah + limited cancelling students + community calendar’ Hanukah -half the staff could programs, prep as ‘I don’t have all the -‘What about -accommodation be away coverage answers’ everyone else?’ ‘has to be really -program less -faith calendar embedded in ‘robust’ outlines when your school -need to ‘go with school ‘can’t have approach’ the flow’ trips, meetings, -tied to equity + -compromise + assign tests, social justice + flexibility required projects’ ‘embracing -thinking about diversity’ accommodations ‘we find out others feel the same way’ ANNE -practicing -some staff -accommodation -issue of poor social Wiccans were ‘a ‘uncomfortable’ difficult when integration challenge for + ‘very, very religious practice intersecting with people in the careful’ outside norm religious building accommodation -unclear whether ‘chicken or egg thing’ MARIA -‘great thing’ in -school culture is -parents are ‘greeted at -attitude of staff school is 95% of like ‘a family’ the door’ + ‘walk ‘refreshing’ teachers ‘open to -‘leading with freely’ through the day -‘it’s not like that learning’ about heart’ everywhere’ religious needs -when ‘gap in understanding’ it is due to lack of exposure – ‘a sincere ignorance’ -staff not diverse, but ‘inclusive in their mindset’ ELAINE -Islamic funeral -15 teachers -whole school -bus for students ‘quite a learning ‘applied for leave reaction to funeral would have been experience’ for for a funeral of a of young Muslim provided if numbers staff + students close friend’ boy known in advance -provided supply coverage MADELEINE First Nations -professional -with indigenous -school board -teachers ‘need to smudged during development is religious leader ‘certainly has lens of understand from school day about challenging ‘we acknowledge differentiation + their Wonder Bread -‘load of kids’ ideas ‘about what the land we’re on accommodation’ point of view’ + taken to the Truth equity is’ + + who provided privilege + Reconciliation understand children the resources’ -concern that some Day they work with -whole school teachers view -‘learning on approach in ‘equity as charity’ multiple levels’ seeking equity for all students

LAMA -students are -‘fair bit’ of work -not ‘a big heroes -some schools have encouraged ‘to on diversity with + holidays type of 90% absence for speak + develop staff person when it Jewish holidays their voices’ communities’ comes to equity’ accommodation -staff are aware -religious ‘embedded’ in -a ‘few’ teachers accommodation +

350

school’s (6) are absent for ‘cultural ‘culturally Orthodox difference...drives responsive Christmas = 10% this school’ pedagogy’ + in of staff -‘real focus of the ‘professional -teachers absent for school to learning religious reasons recognize identity use their + recognize contractual five students’ voice in miscellaneous days its relationship to -board budgets for identity’ supply teachers

351

Appendix G

4.4. The management of conflict arising and the realization of undue hardship in the accommodation of faith and religion

Students Staff School Principal Undue Hardship (4.4.2.1.) (4.4.2.2.) (4.4.2.3.) (4.4.2.4.) (4.4.2.5.) JACOB -need to review ‘work within the -need ‘to go -‘work together ‘No, not at all’ curriculum ‘from bumpers’ beyond to best serve -undetermined different vantage ‘understand how compliance + students’ breadth points’ + ‘without all stakeholders work toward -not ‘issue of violation of work’ collaboration’ who has control beliefs’ -respect other’s or power ‘stake in the operation’ WILLIAM -‘must be -supervision may -in large board -unease with ‘not one flexibility in the be issue, but ‘could accommodation carrying kirpan instance’ system’ to address be easily dealt issues ‘can look to school – -something that needs of diverse with’ very different’ would ‘take took students communities to depending on direction’ from away from class ‘ensure’ location + school superintendents + instruction accommodation community -supervision may

TREVOR -lack of physical -expanding -limitation of -limitation space for prayer hierarchy of resources imposed by for Muslims requests + opening available teacher contracts up ‘a can of + unions worms’ when one -collective request is agreement does addressed not allow for supervision of prayer room TERRENCE -to be inclusive -principals ‘need to -there is ‘always -‘only place -does not school has ‘to stay resilient’ to somewhere in they’re not envision adapt’ work with teachers the middle’ marginalized’ + possibility as + community -‘we’re a helping safe from inclusion members that want hand’ in ‘persecution’ of embraces status quo becoming ‘a media ‘spirituality of bigger family’ child’ THOMAS -‘the unintended -same sex marriage -‘fact is clear’ all -‘if push came to -‘not an option’ curriculum’ – + conflict with family units are shove’ the to remove topic principal ‘can’t religious beliefs of discussed as they superintendents of same sex from possibly let parents some reflect school ‘would bring in curriculum know all’ + community the experts’ -issue of human conflict may arise -parents ‘can rights after the fact negotiate’ in own home

DANA -conflict between -conflict over -segregation of -work with -parental different sects of young Sikh girl boys + girls in parents on equal differential Islam wearing kirpan + the classroom treatment of sons treatment of boys -dictating dress showing because of - + daughters + girls ‘wasn’t right’, classmates – safety parental requests -discussions -undue hardship inequitable, + not issue -‘There was an ‘most if request what principals are uproar’ + challenging’ contravenes the ‘supposed to ‘became a battle’ Code + safety of promote’ -like ‘little students academy in -will not publicly funded accommodate if school’ does not -arrangement ‘to ‘promote an keep the peace’ equitable -did not realize environment’ ‘broader implications’ LINDY -difficulty of -‘not a set answer’ -withdrawal from determining -each school has sex education to

352

‘accurately’ unique needs ‘appease’ parents competing human -need for - if ‘fallout’ rights consistency across means students -need to be careful board leave + decline in as ‘can open up enrollment = loss another can of of teaching staff worms’ -public protesting outside school -unwanted media attention ANNE -‘would essentially mean the bankruptcy of the board...to make something take place -must be demonstrable

MARIA -conflict with -supervising -‘racist -scheduling for -‘We need to teacher librarians students praying ideologies + a teacher prayer deconstruct supervising ‘became messy fear base’ in the time became what’s public students praying + from a labour board that question of because by union intervention relations ignores equity for non- design our school -viewed as ‘extra perspective legislation religious teachers system is a very work’, but ‘what -for some -accommodation European, they should do principals issue of for prayer colonial, anyways’ scheduling for became Christian space’ teacher prayer time ‘racialized’ -‘So why do we get off for Christmas and not for Eid? ELAINE -issue where -‘family morals + -student wore -reconciling parents want values…sometimes niqab to school conflict between student to wear come in conflict + -time needed to student + parents hijab + student seep into the discuss matter over niqab refuses school’ with parents + -parents saw with student student’s choice as ‘oppressive’ + ceding ‘her power’ MADELEINE -tries to explain -point of -issues arising -‘line in the sand’ ‘different aspects reconciliation is with religious but must find of human the importance of communities + space + provide sexuality’ + to family to all faiths same sex opportunity as help community -can be ‘act of personal board values are understand subversion’ -‘just done’ with equity + -protects students trying to inclusiveness with same sex understanding =‘it’s not cut + parents from being prejudice against dry’ ‘marginalized’ homosexuality -removal of Lord’s Prayer ‘test of undue hardship’ -could have been ‘an opportunity’ to talk about faith + religion – need something ‘to hang on to’ -removal ‘almost like a punishment’ - LAMA -any issues arising -if difficulties - specially -‘clash’ between -‘So what would be with arose would follow trained social LGBTQ + ‘very actually are the education of board policy ‘to workers would religious’ lines we can families, not help educate’ come to school Christians + draw?’ students ‘to help educate’ Muslims

353

Appendix H

4.5. The growing presence of Muslims and influence of Islam on the accommodation of

faith and religion

Prayer/Space Religious Attire Food/Fasting Imams Programming (4.5.2.1.) (4.5.2.2.) (4.5.2.3.) (4.5.2.4.) (4.5.2.5) JACOB -2 recent refugees from Iraq -learning English is the focu WILLIAM -offered prayer -norm that -series of -in phys. ed. room, but no students ‘can outreach to accommodation student interested wear’ hijabs Imams for dress ‘for -‘absolutely no -issue with music modesty for concerns’ about at other schools some’ hijabs until Imam -norm of school reviewed -no reason for Muslim parents to withdraw students

TREVOR -students leaving -students ‘fully -space provided -discussion with -dress for school to pray dressed; wrists, for fasting so local Imam re phys.ed. flexible =lost classroom hijab, the whole students ‘didn’t prayer space on –‘completely instruction time statement’ feel centred out’ Fridays covered’ member -establishment of -monitored -‘wasn’t certain on basketball prayer room not younger students how far this team made public if they ‘needed leader wanted to -prayer space in support’ and take this’ school=students parent called for -need to consider not leaving ‘guidance’ all factors school for Mosque= ‘helping ourselves out’ -supervision required ‘flexibility of staff’ -assured students ‘weren’t being disturbed’ -teachers in classroom beside + doors open to ensure safety TERRENCE -no Muslim students, but aware of impact on other schools in board of Syrian refugees

THOMAS -dedicated prayer -controversy over -relationship with room provided student who Imam ‘pretty -teachers ‘on chose to remove good’ beat’ circulate + hijab -provided ‘the supervise lunch -community parameters’ of rooms + ‘the consulted to prayer times students praying’ resolve -students aware -some students -need to ‘know that Imam ‘talks attend mosque on class’ + to have to the principal’ Fridays + some ‘community with pray in room in infrastructure’

354

school DANA -students pray in -during Ramadan -extra percussion principal’s office fasting students instruments are on Fridays bring ‘a provided to book...and some accommodate of their friends to students that may principal’s office not use wind instruments LINDY -for prayer -wearing a hijab -when fasting -modesty in dress ‘there’s a room in not ‘a difficult students are for phys. Ed. is front of the challenge to encourage to ‘doable + office. We have accommodate’ advocate for temporary’ a visual. The -‘they just wear themselves + say - concern is kids went in them’ ‘Look, I can’t comfort + safety there’ really do all the -helps awareness phys.ed. stuff’ of other students that are not comfortable in gym shorts - withdrawal from music -have to ‘figure out’ alternative programing + supervision ANNE -‘dealt with’ -issue with girls -called Imam to -female students prayer rooms at a in gym class + help resolve supervised by previous school wearing hijabs prayer room issue male relatives at -‘real breaking because ‘hair -‘time consuming lunch + at school points’ – access ornamentation or project’ which dances for female jewellery’ not became ‘more + students + allowed in more complex supervision phys.ed. -Imam advised -male students not to proceed protested both with prayer room -tension between -students could Islamic males go to mosque to and females at pray school MARIA - provides office -meetings with -dance class for staff + ‘over eight accommodation – students to pray Muslim leaders’ full inclusion - some principals when developing when comfort cited lack of religious level understood space as reason accommodation for no prayer strategies room ELAINE -prayer space in -wearing hijabs -during Ramadan -many meetings study rooms and takiyahs is teachers with Imams re adjoined to ‘really up to them reminded that accommodation library + what they do in students are in school -students their community’ fasting + may be -six mosques supervised by tired with different librarian sects + differing -list in office + prayer times treated as ‘a regular trip’. MADELEINE -opportunity for -ensures school prayer room in serve Halal food school, but no daily requests -food program -3 families take co-ordinators are their children to Muslims pray on Fridays LAMA -prayer room -number of -none ask to be issue at Valley students that excused from Park Middle wear hijabs music or dance School affected -‘pretty -in gym, students all schools in normalized’ can wear yoga

355

board -‘up there with pants, rather than -provision of their hijabs in the shorts prayer room + talent show supervision as dancing around’ required

356

Appendix I

4.6. The impact of the new health education curriculum on the accommodation of faith

and religion246

Discussions with the Student Other actions taken Board and Ministry Concerns of the religious religious communities withdrawal by religious actions communities (4.6.2.1.) from school communities (4.6.2.4.) (4.6.2.5.) (4.6.2.2.) (4.6.2.3.) JACOB – with Mennonites - - some –but - new religion- – provide option of but ‘corporate’ realized more based school built opportunities in position on how to in elementary nearby public education ‘no implement not yet schools sheep stealing decided mentality’ + alter curriculum

TREVOR – used parent council - colleagues faced - principals received -‘excited about an idea and + experienced chair to ‘some real hot resources from not really about an issue’ ‘slow down rhetoric’ tempered parents’ Ministry and board -‘blanket’ letters to get ‘out in front from licenced of the issues’ institutions ‘like their mosques’

THOMAS -experts will be – 50 or 60 -board ‘taking a available to speak to students kept closer look at rolling parents of Muslim home by out the health community parents at 3 curriculum’ schools in area -letters of explanation sent to community - students will be ‘removed for some aspects’ -open house is planned

DANA -talks to parents about – lost 1 -local Imam -board has changed -encouraging same sex different familial Muslim student encouraging religious coupling makeup participation as accommodation -curriculum ‘scares’ some ‘need to know procedure this’. LINDY -having meeting or – several – board anticipating -issues with accepting conversation over parental ‘significant’ number LGBTQ + talking about phone ‘not working’ requests for of protests’ sexual identity or -not enough education exemption -withdrawal as orientation if families and -‘sheer ‘temporary’ -some teachers ‘not communities + ‘myths numbers’ will accommodation comfortable’ talking about transferring into make it -for consistency same sex marriage as school’ difficult to ‘message has to against their religion -not easy in public create parallel come from board’ education to programs accommodate everyone + ‘could backfire’

246 Anne, William and Terrence made no comments about the introduction and impact of the Ministry’s new health education curriculum.

357

MARIA – ‘navigating’ with – 3 requests for – ‘lost’ 20 Quaker -objection to same sex Christian families exemptions + Mennonite parents + transgender - children to private identity + ‘teaching’ about schools homosexuality

ELAINE – trustees and – not a lot of – nearby mosque – board has superintendents met reaction in her has started a new introduced new with Imams school elementary school religious in reaction to accommodation curriculum + forms – full despite board withdrawal from efforts program allowed -board anticipatory and thorough - provided teachers with lessons + learned from what Toronto did MADELEI - ‘able to stick handle - lost 35 – signing letters -community must Objections to discussion of NE [35]’ – assured parents students – and petitions apply + make homosexualiy she would remain at following specific exemption school religious -some schools with requests to principal leaders’ advice parents protesting -parental on school grounds behaviour ‘subversive’ ‘a large can of worms’ LAMA – with Christian + - Imam told -board changed Discussion of same sex Muslim parents – parents to keep notification marriage + explicit diffused concern children home procedures + language -aided by secretary – 15 absent for community not 1 day properly informed

358