Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
How to achieve secular schools/educational equality
Options
Comments
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Y
Certainly however one of the first steps is to address this issue of the "integrated curriculum" that we currently have. And to address the issue somehow of schools being able to discriminate at the level of ethos.
just curious what does integrated curriculum mean, I couldnt pick up what it might mean?A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
silverharp wrote: »just curious what does integrated curriculum mean, I couldnt pick up what it might mean?
My understanding is it indicates the religious ethos of the school is integrated into the teaching of the curriculum? So that a religious spirit informs and vivifies the whole work of the school, rather than, for instance, replacing evolution with creationism in lessons.0 -
My understanding is it indicates the religious ethos of the school is integrated into the teaching of the curriculum? So that a religious spirit informs and vivifies the whole work of the school, rather than, for instance, replacing evolution with creationism in lessons.
What does this mean, how exactly does a religious spirit inform or vivify the work of the school?0 -
My understanding is it indicates the religious ethos of the school is integrated into the teaching of the curriculum? So that a religious spirit informs and vivifies the whole work of the school, rather than, for instance, replacing evolution with creationism in lessons.
After posting I was trying to find out about rule 68 and the 2.5 hours of religion that is supposed to taught in schools did see something about religious themes being peppered in other subjects.
It sounds very waffly. At this stage the rule 68 should be dumped. It seems odd for a government to have a view about how religious its population isA belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
What does this mean, how exactly does a religious spirit inform or vivify the work of the school?0
-
Advertisement
-
In a manner that is difficult for inspectors to assess I suspect. I imagine a good argument could be made that a religious spirit informs and vivifies the work of a secular school if someone were minded to do so... after all if the teacher inculcates the practice of charity, justice, truth, purity, patience, temperance and obedience to lawful authority, an inspector would be hard put to say that pupils were not well instructed paragons of religious virtues.
This seems to be a bit of convoluted double-think. If you are saying that this describes the current situation from the point of view of the department, then fair enough. If you are suggesting that the highlighted text can only be achieved through religion then that is nonsense.
I suspect it is the former, but this does appear to run counter to some of your previous observations.0 -
As I have said previously, there is already a system of state schools, the National Schools. They were set up by the state, but the government allowed the patronage system to be taken over by the churches so that the tail is wagging the dog. The patronage system does not mean - or should not mean - that the churches own the schools, and they should be reclaimed by the state, for the people - all the people.Can anyone demonstrate any school currently that has received a direct subvention from a religious body in the past, say, 50 years? To my knowledge the only support towards schools has been from the state, with contributions from parents, which were for their children's education, rather than a donation to a church. Is there an 'Education Fund' operated by any of the churches to which schools can apply for support?0
-
This seems to be a bit of convoluted double-think. If you are saying that this describes the current situation from the point of view of the department, then fair enough. If you are suggesting that the highlighted text can only be achieved through religion then that is nonsense.
I suspect it is the former, but this does appear to run counter to some of your previous observations.
As far as the DoE is concerned, it seems pretty obvious that they've never made any effort to inspect or regulate Religious Instruction in schools; the Dept doesn't even set a curriculum for it. If they did make the effort, given the criteria set out, the argument could be made that having fulfilled the criteria the school was therefore informed and vivified by a religious spirit. I don't see how that observation is counter to any of my previous observations.0 -
There is an article here that I agree with:
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/how-the-catholic-church-could-solve-the-school-patronage-problem-1.2297551
However I have seen numerous references to the (mostly) Catholic Church's 'ownership' of Irish schools. The bottom line seems to be that they have been built and funded by the state and handed over on basis of a Deed of Trust to the church. This seems to be the extent of the 'ownership' in most cases. Undoubtedly there were some schools built by the Catholic Church, but many, many more were built by the state and handed over. Maybe this constitutes 'ownership', I cannot find any evidence either way, and have received no response from the Minister's office to answer my question.
In what sense does the church 'own' these schools?
As to the Patron's contribution; how much of this is covered by 'voluntary contributions' from parents, and to what extent does Rome put its hand in its pocket to find money?
What other organisation would get the government sponsored promotion, and indoctrination of children that the churches receive? There are even regulations about religious advertising (and advertising directed at children) on tv, but the church gets to catch the children of the nation before they have sense and judgement.
I don't think we would have to go too far into the future to look back and say 'what were people thinking of? How could they allow this kind of situation to exist?' And no doubt people will say 'ah you have to remember the mores of the time, it was different back then!'0 -
There is an article here that I agree with:
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/how-the-catholic-church-could-solve-the-school-patronage-problem-1.2297551
What the author of that article seems to have ignored is that parents as their children's legal guardians, advocate for their children with regard to their physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual development, and that includes their education and the type of education they choose for their children.
They also assume that what they think would be good for the RCC, is what the RCC think would be good for the RCC. It reads to me like they think the RCC should just roll over and withdraw from the Irish education system. That's pie in the sky thinking tbh. It's simply not going to happen.However I have seen numerous references to the (mostly) Catholic Church's 'ownership' of Irish schools. The bottom line seems to be that they have been built and funded by the state and handed over on basis of a Deed of Trust to the church. This seems to be the extent of the 'ownership' in most cases. Undoubtedly there were some schools built by the Catholic Church, but many, many more were built by the state and handed over. Maybe this constitutes 'ownership', I cannot find any evidence either way, and have received no response from the Minister's office to answer my question.
In what sense does the church 'own' these schools?
That's pretty much it, the schools are in the Trust of the RCC, owned by the RCC, managed on behalf of the RCC by the Trustees who are the Bishops, who are also the Patrons of the schools. The State can't just roll up and demand the properties back, hence the slow as a funeral procession "divestment process".As to the Patron's contribution; how much of this is covered by 'voluntary contributions' from parents, and to what extent does Rome put its hand in its pocket to find money?
None of it is covered by voluntary contributions from parents. The voluntary contributions from parents vary from school to school, and afaik, Jan O' Sullivan has talked about abolishing AVCs from parents. The Dioscesan offices have a facility where schools that can't manage their budget can apply to the Diocesan office for funding, again it varies and there are criteria that must be met.What other organisation would get the government sponsored promotion, and indoctrination of children that the churches receive? There are even regulations about religious advertising (and advertising directed at children) on tv, but the church gets to catch the children of the nation before they have sense and judgement.
There are many organisations which receive government sponsored promotion if you want to phrase it in those terms. The Church doesn't get to catch any children of the nation before they have any sense and judgement, that their parents want them to catch, by having their children baptised as members of the Church, if you want to phrase it in those terms. Parents are not forced to have their children baptised, they choose to do so.I don't think we would have to go too far into the future to look back and say 'what were people thinking of? How could they allow this kind of situation to exist?' And no doubt people will say 'ah you have to remember the mores of the time, it was different back then!'
But you do have to remember the mores of the time, and it was different back then. Otherwise you're just engaging in historical revisionism and ignoring the role the State (the Government and the people of Ireland at the time), had to play in shaping Irish society at the time.0 -
Advertisement
-
silverharp wrote: »After posting I was trying to find out about rule 68 and the 2.5 hours of religion that is supposed to taught in schools did see something about religious themes being peppered in other subjects.
It sounds very waffly. At this stage the rule 68 should be dumped. It seems odd for a government to have a view about how religious its population is
I'd say the entire rules that contain Rule 68 are of questionable constitutionality.0 -
Ok, I have to concede that in all State references to primary schools, the state says that the patrons own the schools. I cannot see how this ridiculous situation came about but I have no doubt that the Deeds of Trust are watertight in giving the education of the nation's children to the Roman Catholic church. Yes, I know there are a few other churches involved, but at 90-odd percent the RC church is the one that matters.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in maybe 15 or 20 years time when all the Irish priests have died out and we find the power of the church and the ethos of the schools being maintained in Ireland by priests shipped in from all over the world!
http://www.catholicbishops.ie/wp-content/uploads/images/stories/cco_publications/researchanddevelopment/report%20on%20the%20age%20profile%20of%20diocesan%20priests%20currently%20working%20in%20ireland.pdf0 -
Ok, I have to concede that in all State references to primary schools, the state says that the patrons own the schools. I cannot see how this ridiculous situation came about but I have no doubt that the Deeds of Trust are watertight in giving the education of the nation's children to the Roman Catholic church. Yes, I know there are a few other churches involved, but at 90-odd percent the RC church is the one that matters.
It came about as a result of the RCC injecting itself into every facet of Irish society and a Government that even then hadn't the hands to wipe their own backside, so they outsourced all State services, including health and education to the religious orders and still do to this day because they haven't a pot to piss in and can't be dealing directly with the administrative headaches if they had to take on and manage State services themselves.It will be interesting to see how this plays out in maybe 15 or 20 years time when all the Irish priests have died out and we find the power of the church and the ethos of the schools being maintained in Ireland by priests shipped in from all over the world!
http://www.catholicbishops.ie/wp-content/uploads/images/stories/cco_publications/researchanddevelopment/report%20on%20the%20age%20profile%20of%20diocesan%20priests%20currently%20working%20in%20ireland.pdf
My own thoughts on that (certainly solidified by the diocesan seminar I was at the other night) is that the Irish Bishops are going to push the Catholic ethos even harder in Catholic schools than they do now in preparation for when in about 20 years time they're competing for funding from the State with numerous other patronage organisations. I think that's likely the only way there's going to be any diversity in the Irish education system - with what are minority religions in Ireland right now growing in numbers who will want to educate their own religious adherents in their beliefs and cultures. Governments will still be dragging their heels in providing secular schools, but at least they'll be able to tell the UN that there is diversity and equality in the Irish education system - just look at the percentages and statistics, and ignore the reality on the ground.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »My own thoughts on that (certainly solidified by the diocesan seminar I was at the other night) is that the Irish Bishops are going to push the Catholic ethos even harder in Catholic schools than they do now in preparation for when in about 20 years time they're competing for funding from the State with numerous other patronage organisations. I think that's likely the only way there's going to be any diversity in the Irish education system - with what are minority religions in Ireland right now growing in numbers who will want to educate their own religious adherents in their beliefs and cultures.
But... what do you think yourself, is this a desirable outcome?
More diversity, more social segregation, more travelling for kids whose parents are seeking out "their own" particular niche ethos.
What is so good about having "diversity" in this state service (education).
We are seeing the opposite in the health service. Diverse small hospitals being amalgamated and made to conform to a common national standard.
That's all about common standards and centres of excellence, not diversity. Which is the right approach?0 -
I agree, the RCC will withdraw into fewer schools, but with a tighter grip on their ethos. From a marketing perspective, they will attempt to make the catholic schools seem more "desirable" and "exclusive". No school with good quality buildings or playing fields will be divested.
But... what do you think yourself, is this a desirable outcome?
More diversity, more social segregation, more travelling for kids whose parents are seeking out "their own" particular niche ethos.
What is so good about having "diversity" in this state service (education).
We are seeing the opposite in the health service. Diverse small hospitals being amalgamated and made to conform to a common national standard.
That's all about common standards and centres of excellence, not diversity. Which is the right approach?
I think education services and health services are too different to draw any real comparisons between them tbh. There are similarities of course in both systems (public and private, etc), but hospitals provide a different service than education. Even in hospitals they have an ethos to maintain that means they aren't required to perform procedures that conflict with that ethos. It's discriminatory against people who require a particular procedure that the hospital is under no legal obligation to perform.
Getting back to education - I don't think diversity is a bad thing. I don't think social segregation is something that can realistically be prevented, because people for the most part will stick to their own, and have no interest in integration. We can see already if we look at other countries in Europe and even across the pond in the US - integration cannot be forced, it just doesn't work - it's an impossible ideology which ignores so many ethnic and cultural factors.
The good thing about facilitating diversity in State services is that all people, in spite of their differences, are accommodated equally in society, and no one group is given special preference over another. The problem with this idea is that from the perspective of each group, they're all going to claim they're being hard done by, and if everyone else would just agree with their vision for society, everyone would all get along.
That kind of thinking ignores the fact that not everyone agrees that one particular groups vision for society is the ideal one, as it would mean them having to compromise their values, and there aren't too many people willing to do that. I don't think we actually can legislate for equality without someone getting the hump. There are just too many self-interested groups involved, all making their own demands on the State, and all thinking their ideology is the way society should be, to suit them, amd their needs, from their perspective - to hell with everyone else and what they want (so to speak, no pun intended).0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Even in hospitals they have an ethos to maintain that means they aren't required to perform procedures that conflict with that ethos. It's discriminatory against people who require a particular procedure that the hospital is under no legal obligation to perform..
Nor is there any advantage to be had by patients waving a baptismal certificate when trying to skip the queue.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »I don't think we actually can legislate for equality without someone getting the hump. There are just too many self-interested groups involved, all making their own demands on the State, and all thinking their ideology is the way society should be, to suit them, and their needs, from their perspective - to hell with everyone else and what they want (so to speak, no pun intended).0
-
Actually, there is no opt-out for procedures due to "ethos" in a state funded hospital.
Nor is there any advantage to be had by patients waving a baptismal certificate when trying to skip the queue.
That's an interesting one, I had previously thought alright that hospitals had that exemption and abortion was one of the issues I was thinking of. Circumcision was the other, but that's more of an issue in Europe and the US.I can't agree with that. Its quite possible to provide state services in a non-discriminatory way, and its also possible to have equality legislation that is fair to everybody.
Well yes, it's certainly possible to provide State services in a non-discriminatory, secular way, and yes, it's also possible to have equality legislation that is fair to everybody, but the key factor there is that everyone is going to have their own ideas of what's fair, and what's unfair.
For example the RCC are putting forward the idea in schools that they're being fair and inclusive and all the rest of it, and then there's that Ali Selim chap calling for a fair and inclusive education system, while he sits on the Board of the Islamic faith schools, and then there's ET who claim they're all about fairness and inclusivity and respecting diversity, until one of their teachers pulls out a Charlie Hebdo mag for the class to discuss, and a Muslim student tells him put that away! Suddenly the school Principal is all about liberty and freedom of expression and blah dee blah...
And then there's Atheist Ireland calling for equality for minority religions and none, while at the same time taking the piss out of Ali Selim who is calling for equality and inclusion (that's why the article I posted earlier confused the hell out of me, I thought they were on the same team!!).
It seems very much like a case of "the enemy of mine enemy is my friend" kind of thing going on, and I don't think there's likely to be any real headway made on the issue of making it a priority of the Government to provide for a State secular education, apart from the usual political posturing and telling each group what they want to hear.0 -
silverharp wrote: »just curious what does integrated curriculum mean, I couldnt pick up what it might mean?
Sorry I was off line for the majority of the weekend. Did this get replied to by others to your satisfaction? Perhaps this article here will help also further?
The phrase essentially refers to how religion or religious indoctrination is integrated so heavily throughout the school day that there is no coherent way to "opt out" of religious education during it. You can opt out of the module specifically labels as the religion bit, but the rest of the day you can not.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »It would be remiss of me
.....
Kinda missing the beam in their own eye.
No idea what your point is here or how it replies to the post you are replying to. It appears to have replied to nothing I actually said, nor made any actual point in relation to anything I actually said.
If you are trying to suggest that in quote 1 and 2 I engaged in the kind of behavior I decry in point 3, then you have failed. I have done no such thing. Try again. If your point is something else however, you will need to work on it a little harder.0 -
Advertisement
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »No idea what your point is here...
Wrong thread, haven't had my morning coffee yet :pac:0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »It came about as a result of the RCC injecting itself into every facet of Irish society and a Government that even then hadn't the hands to wipe their own backside, so they outsourced all State services, including health and education to the religious orders and still do to this day because they haven't a pot to piss in and can't be dealing directly with the administrative headaches if they had to take on and manage State services themselves.
This is nonsense (except for the RCC injecting itself into every facet of society bit.)
The state built most of the national schools, the state paid the teachers, the state paid maintenance and running costs, as it does today. Same with hospitals, staff and running costs paid for by the state. The explanation is not financial. Staff who were members of religious orders still got paid by the state, they sacrificed their pay cheques to their order by their own choice, it didn't save the state a penny.
The horrors of Tuam took place even as the council was paying the nuns for the upkeep of the women and children incarcerated there. What happened to this money, along with the profits from slave laundries and baby sales has never been explained, but it certainly wasn't spent on the welfare of these unfortunate people apart from the barest possible minimum.Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.
0 -
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »This is nonsense (except for the RCC injecting itself into every facet of society bit.)
The state built most of the national schools, the state paid the teachers, the state paid maintenance and running costs, as it does today. Same with hospitals, staff and running costs paid for by the state. The explanation is not financial. Staff who were members of religious orders still got paid by the state, they sacrificed their pay cheques to their order by their own choice, it didn't save the state a penny.
It's true of course that the State pays all of the above, but the State pays none of the costs of managing the schools. That's paid for by the Trustees of the schools.The horrors of Tuam took place even as the council was paying the nuns for the upkeep of the women and children incarcerated there. What happened to this money, along with the profits from slave laundries and baby sales has never been explained, but it certainly wasn't spent on the welfare of these unfortunate people apart from the barest possible minimum.
It's no stretch of the imagination to assume that those nuns kept all the profits for themselves.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »It's true of course that the State pays all of the above, but the State pays none of the costs of managing the schools. That's paid for by the Trustees of the schools.0
-
0
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »[...] the costs I'm talking about are the staff in the Diocesan offices who manage the schools on behalf of the Bishops.0
-
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »This is nonsense (except for the RCC injecting itself into every facet of society bit.)Hotblack Desiato wrote: »The state built most of the national schools, the state paid the teachers, the state paid maintenance and running costs, as it does today. Same with hospitals, staff and running costs paid for by the state. The explanation is not financial. Staff who were members of religious orders still got paid by the state, they sacrificed their pay cheques to their order by their own choice, it didn't save the state a penny.Hotblack Desiato wrote: »The horrors of Tuam took place even as the council was paying the nuns for the upkeep of the women and children incarcerated there. What happened to this money, along with the profits from slave laundries and baby sales has never been explained, but it certainly wasn't spent on the welfare of these unfortunate people apart from the barest possible minimum.
The fact is, if the State were to take ownership (by which I mean pay for, rather than steal) all schools, and emplace equivalent management systems and support structures to replace those provided by religious orders now, it would cost no small amount. It would still have to fulfil its constitutional obligations with regards to parental choice and religious education, which I think means it would be prohibited from enforcing the kind of exclusively secular education some posters are wishing for. I'm all for spending as much money as possible on improving our education system (particularly 3rd level access), but I'm nowhere near convinced this would be money well spent.
Personally, I think we can achieve secular education by revising the Rules for Schools to remove any requirements referring to religious elements (as well as all the archaic rubbish such as coal for classrooms etc) and implementing a State curriculum of religious education which conforms to all other curricula. That removes the perception of the possibility of objections to secular patronage, and requires religious patrons to teach an objective (if not necessarily anti-theist) curriculum on religions. None of which would require legislation, let alone a referendum.
Educational equality on the other hand, I think requires a lot more fleshing out in terms of what it actually is before we decide if we want it, need it, or can reasonably achieve it. As a starter for ten, I don't see why parents should be obliged to use co-educational schools if they want and could avail of same sex schools. I don't see why parents of special needs children should be obliged to only give their children equal education, when they require far more elaborate education. I think we need to give some careful thought to what 'equal' really means in practice.0 -
I'd love to see some information about how much general management actually going on, compared, say to the amount of "ensuring that kids are told that the RCC's view of the world is gospel" and "preparation for the nativity play and communion".
There's quite a bit more to managing the schools than just ensuring their adherence to, and maintaining of, the Catholic ethos of the school, but you could do worse than call them up and ask them exactly what the hell is it they do anyway -
http://education.dublindiocese.ie/meet-the-team/0 -
Personally as a parent, if the state won't/can't fix the fact it unconstitutionally endows the Catholic religion within the education system anytime soon, I would be happy enough for now if the religious nonsense ceased to 'infiltrate the school day' and had an allotted time slot where all religious instruction were done, either at the beginning or end of the day, so I could realise my constitutional right to remove my child from religious indoctrination with relative ease.0
-
Advertisement
-
Kiwi in IE wrote: »Personally as a parent, if the state won't/can't fix the fact it unconstitutionally endows the Catholic religion within the education system anytime soon, I would be happy enough for now if the religious nonsense ceased to 'infiltrate the school day' and had an allotted time slot where all religious instruction were done, either at the beginning or end of the day, so I could realise my constitutional right to remove my child from religious indoctrination with relative ease.
We know there's no reference to 'infiltrate the school day', nor is there a constitutional right to remove a child from religious indoctrination with relative ease (or even a reference to indoctrination in the Constitution).
Throwing snarl words to the gallery really doesn't contribute anything to a discussion of how to achieve secular schools, does it? It just perpetuates miscomprehension.0
Advertisement