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

School patronage

Options
1…130131133135136…194

Comments

  • Options
    #3962
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    There is certainly a case to be made that the particular religious orders involved in the abuse scandals have already stashed their assets in the Edmund Rice trust fund, which itself owes the state nothing.
    And there is a case to be made that Starbucks, Apple, Shell etc. earn so little profit that they owe the state virtually nothing in tax.

    But I, for one, would vigorously oppose those assertions.


  • Options
    #3963
    Fleawuss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,681 ✭✭✭Fleawuss


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Amazing.

    The extraordinary stupidity of the post having been repeatedly pointed out one would expect some realization. Truly amazing! But then again....:pac:


  • Options
    #3964
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    Absolam wrote: »
    I think you're muddling yourself; I haven't argued both sides of any coin.

    Taking a school from a denominational patron and giving it to a non denominational patron doesn't change the school, only the patron. The function remains the same; it is a school. It receives the same recognition from the DoE, the same State funding, teaches the same State curricula, almost certainly to the same pupils. The suggestion that the patron has not been disadvantaged due to their professed religion, and that switching one State approved patron for another constitutes a necessary work of public utility is nonsensical.

    It definitely ain't the same school:
    Does the ET prepare students for communion /confirmation?
    Exclude applicants on the basis of not having a baptism cert?

    It's 'unnecessary work' for those that aren't affected.

    And I suppose it'll be claimed that I'm getting confused as is the usual modus operandi. With smiley faces.

    BTW have a look at what happened in St Peters in Walkinstown... Old pupils kicked out and told the school was closing, then ET opening up soon but old students weren't entitled onto the waiting list.

    Definitely not the same pupils.


  • Options
    #3965
    Fleawuss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,681 ✭✭✭Fleawuss


    Gebgbegb wrote: »
    It definitely ain't the same school:
    Does the ET prepare students for communion /confirmation?
    Exclude applicants on the basis of not having a baptism cert?

    It's 'unnecessary work' for those that aren't affected.

    And I suppose it'll be claimed that I'm getting confused as is the usual modus operandi. With smiley faces.

    It's extraordinary how many confused posters there are here!;)


  • Options
    #3966
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,081 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Gebgbegb wrote: »
    BTW have a look at what happened in St Peters in Walkinstown... Old pupils kicked out and told the school was closing, then ET opening up soon but old students weren't entitled onto the waiting list.

    Can you elaborate on this please?

    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.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3967
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Well, after his interview on Matt Cooper this evening, there can be no doubt whatsoever that Cllr Durcan is just opposed to this school without any real rhyme or reason. First it was some weird rant about there being another school outside Castlebar with loads of facilities. Then it was something about how religion isn't a mandatory subject anyway. Even though it is.

    Then it was "shure the austerity, we can't afford it anyway". When it was pointed out to him that the school was going to open either way, he suddenly became very passionate about the fact that the planning application allegedly didn't have proper notice erected outside and such an horrific breach of regulations cannot be allowed to go unheeded. Even though the local council didn't spot this error.

    Then apparently his issue was that the building was too big for the school because they only had one class starting this year.

    And he finished it off with an anecdote about how when he was a boy going to school in Castlebar (no doubt in the fifties at the latest) there were a number of protestant kids who went to the Catholic school and there were never any complaints about diversity.

    A small minded, small town Catholic politician if ever I heard one. No substance to his opposition whatsoever. No doubt the biddies down the church have been having a good whinge at him about this heathen, paganist school being forced into their lovely formerly Catholic building.


  • Options
    #3968
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,770 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    Gebgbegb wrote: »
    It definitely ain't the same school:
    Does the ET prepare students for communion /confirmation?
    Exclude applicants on the basis of not having a baptism cert?

    It's 'unnecessary work' for those that aren't affected.

    And I suppose it'll be claimed that I'm getting confused as is the usual modus operandi. With smiley faces.

    BTW have a look at what happened in St Peters in Walkinstown... Old pupils kicked out and told the school was closing, then ET opening up soon but old students weren't entitled onto the waiting list.

    Definitely not the same pupils.

    so the st paul's girls and and st peters boys school were amalgamated in 2015 http://www.schooldays.ie/sch/st-peters-b-n-s-rollnumber-19158Q/thread/St-Peters-Boys-National-School-ts-1509071456 and it seems they moved them all to the girls school next to the church.

    which frees up accommodation for ET http://www.schooldays.ie/education-news-item/new-educate-together-primary-school-to-open-in-greenhills

    http://www.irelandstats.com/school/st-peters-b-n-s-rollnumber-19158q/

    http://www.echo.ie/clondalkin/article/former-st-peter-s-school-site-to-be-made-available-for-educational-use-says-minister

    did any boys or girls not get into the Holy Spirit Junior Primary School and Holy Spirit Senior Primary School ?


  • Options
    #3969
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    recedite wrote: »
    There is certainly a case to be made that the particular religious orders involved in the abuse scandals have already stashed their assets in the Edmund Rice trust fund, which itself owes the state nothing.
    And there is a case to be made that Starbucks, Apple, Shell etc. earn so little profit that they owe the state virtually nothing in tax.But I, for one, would vigorously oppose those assertions.
    I'd certainly oppose the first one since no one has presented any evidence for it (or that assets in the Edmund Rice Schools Trust are beyond the reach of the State). How other corporate entities manage their tax affairs might be a different conspiracy theory entirely....


  • Options
    #3970
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Gebgbegb wrote: »
    It definitely ain't the same school:
    Does the ET prepare students for communion /confirmation?
    Exclude applicants on the basis of not having a baptism cert?
    Is that what defines a school? Neither is part of the criteria set out in the Education Act for the Minister to recognise a school. The Act says;
    The Minister may designate a school or a proposed school to be a school recognised for the purposes of this Act where the Minister, on a request being made for that purpose by the patron of a school or a proposed school, is satisfied that—
    (a) the number of students who are attending or are likely to attend the school is such or is likely to be such as to make the school viable,
    (b) in the case of a proposed school, and having regard to the desirability of diversity in the classes of school operating in the area likely to be served by the school, the needs of students attending or likely to attend the school cannot reasonably be met by existing schools,
    (c) the patron undertakes that the school shall provide the curriculum as determined in accordance with section 30 ,
    (d) the patron agrees to permit and co-operate with regular inspection and evaluation by the Inspectorate,
    (e) the school complies, or in the case of a proposed school shall comply, with health, safety and building standards as are determined by law and any further such standards as are determined from time to time by the Minister, and
    (f) the patron agrees that the school shall operate in accordance with such regulations as may be made by the Minister from time to time under section 33 and with this Act and with any other terms and conditions as may reasonably be attached to recognition by the Minister.
    (3) A school that, on the commencement of this section, is in receipt of funds provided by the Oireachtas in respect of—
    (a) the education activities for students of that school, or
    (b) the remuneration of teachers in that school,
    shall be deemed to be a school recognised in accordance with this section.


    If a denominational school and a non denominational school both satisfy these criteria, then they are both performing the same function; they are both schools, regardless of the ethos they choose.
    Gebgbegb wrote: »
    It's 'unnecessary work' for those that aren't affected.
    It's not 'necessary works of public utility' if there are no necessary works carried out which are of public utility, regardless of who is affected.
    Gebgbegb wrote: »
    And I suppose it'll be claimed that I'm getting confused as is the usual modus operandi. With smiley faces.
    Are you?
    Gebgbegb wrote: »
    BTW have a look at what happened in St Peters in Walkinstown... Old pupils kicked out and told the school was closing, then ET opening up soon but old students weren't entitled onto the waiting list. Definitely not the same pupils.
    Did the State CPO the school whilst it was a going concern and hand it over to ET? Because if it didn't (and it didn't) then I don't think you're talking about the same situation, are you? St Peters voluntarily amalgamated with St Pauls, leaving a vacant school to be divested, so there was no need for the State to oblige ET to take on their pupils. If however, the State were to attempt to CPO a school and hand it over to another patron, it would have to accommodate the existing pupils, would it not?


  • Options
    #3971
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Fleawuss wrote: »
    It's extraordinary how many confused posters there are here!;)
    It certainly is ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3972
    Fleawuss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,681 ✭✭✭Fleawuss


    Absolam wrote: »
    It certainly is ;)

    Quod erat demonstrandum.

    The gift that keeps giving. :D


  • Options
    #3973
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,129 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    There are some that are confused, and some that seek to create confusion.


  • Options
    #3974
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    And some posts that talk about posters rather than posts...............


  • Options
    #3975
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Fleawuss wrote: »
    Quod erat demonstrandum.

    The gift that keeps giving. :D
    I have to agree :D


  • Options
    #3976
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,770 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    expectationlost wrote: »
    so the st paul's girls and and st peters boys school were amalgamated in 2015 http://www.schooldays.ie/sch/st-peters-b-n-s-rollnumber-19158Q/thread/St-Peters-Boys-National-School-ts-1509071456 and it seems they moved them all to the girls school next to the church.

    which frees up accommodation for ET http://www.schooldays.ie/education-news-item/new-educate-together-primary-school-to-open-in-greenhills

    http://www.irelandstats.com/school/st-peters-b-n-s-rollnumber-19158q/

    http://www.echo.ie/clondalkin/article/former-st-peter-s-school-site-to-be-made-available-for-educational-use-says-minister

    did any boys or girls not get into the Holy Spirit Junior Primary School and Holy Spirit Senior Primary School ?

    some may remember Reuben, he is now going to this Riverview ETNS (formerly St Peters) (although he was offered a late cancellation place in catholic school), listen to his mother on RTE Radio http://www.rte.ie/lifestyle/living/2016/0818/810208-un-baptised-son-rejected-from-17-national-schools/


  • Options
    #3977
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,129 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    But...that PROVES there is no problem, he was offered a place in a Catholic school, you see there is a place for everyone.

    Well OK it was a late cancellation...after his mother had made a big fuss...but you HAVE to give priority to baptised children, after all its what the majority want! She could have saved herself a lot of hassle by just getting him baptised...attention seeking that's what it is, more concerned about her own fads and fancies than the child's education (and his soul) ...child neglect, so it is.









    :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #3978
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Absolam wrote: »
    If a denominational school and a non denominational school both satisfy these criteria, then they are both performing the same function; they are both schools, regardless of the ethos they choose.
    That does not follow. You and a snail both have all the characteristics of an animal. It does not mean you share the same function.


  • Options
    #3979
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,131 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    recedite wrote: »
    That does not follow. You and a snail both have all the characteristics of an animal. It does not mean you share the same function.
    Certainly they do. Survival and reproduction are the core functions of all animals.


  • Options
    #3980
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    Absolam wrote: »

    Did the State CPO the school whilst it was a going concern and hand it over to ET? Because if it didn't (and it didn't) then I don't think you're talking about the same situation, are you? St Peters voluntarily amalgamated with St Pauls, leaving a vacant school to be divested, so there was no need for the State to oblige ET to take on their pupils. If however, the State were to attempt to CPO a school and hand it over to another patron, it would have to accommodate the existing pupils, would it not?

    I thought you said earlier that it made no difference as the pupils remained the same?


  • Options
    #3981
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Certainly they do. Survival and reproduction are the core functions of all animals.

    Before the semantics fight, consider that the term 'Function' (and its equivalence or not) is not well defined in the respect of a School nor indeed in the regard that Absolam has attempted to use it to suggest that a CPO of a school to change patronage would be 'nonsensical', nor indeed is it mentioned in the Constitutional Protection afforded to religious orders nor the legislation surrounding CPOs. The term has come from this Absolam themselves in post and been used repeatedly in this.

    Let's attempt to stay out of the rabbit hole for once.

    Here's the constitutional protection afforded to religious orders.
    Article 44.2.6 wrote:
    The property of any religious domination or any educational institution shall not be diverted save for necessary works of public utility and on payment of compensation.

    The question is whether a change in Patronage of a school could indeed be deemed a 'necessary work of public utility' and so a CPO would cross the 'sensical' rubicon.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3982
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Gebgbegb wrote: »
    I thought you said earlier that it made no difference as the pupils remained the same?
    The pupils are the same in the sense that they are all humans.
    Which is a much greater degree of "sameness" than absolams's alter ego, the snail.


  • Options
    #3983
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    recedite wrote: »
    The pupils are the same in the sense that they are all humans.
    Which is a much greater degree of "sameness" than absolams's alter ego, the snail.

    Ah, I see, the same species.


  • Options
    #3984
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    recedite wrote: »
    That does not follow. You and a snail both have all the characteristics of an animal. It does not mean you share the same function.
    A snail and I do not however conform to the "Functions of a school" as laid out in the Education Act, and receive funding on that basis for the performance of that function. Though on the most most basis level, you, I and and the snail all share the same function; we all exist to reproduce and continue our respective species. It may not be (well, isn't, in fairness) the best analogy, but I think you're proving my point all the same; schools under both Patrons fulfil the same function, or they wouldn't be funded by the State.


  • Options
    #3985
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Gebgbegb wrote: »
    I thought you said earlier that it made no difference as the pupils remained the same?
    Actually, what I said was "It receives the same recognition from the DoE, the same State funding, teaches the same State curricula, almost certainly to the same pupils." You should recall; you highlighted it when you asked about your St Peters example. Unlike St Peters, if the State were forcibly changing the Patron, it would have no reason to kick the pupils out of the school, would it? Though it would have a reason to keep them there; to avoid having to open another school to service them. So almost certainly the same pupils would be there, wouldn't they?


  • Options
    #3986
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The question is whether a change in Patronage of a school could indeed be deemed a 'necessary work of public utility' and so a CPO would cross the 'sensical' rubicon.
    Not 'a necessary work of public utility' but 'necessary works of public utility'. I'd argue firstly that recognising a Patron for any school is not a 'works' at all, it's a function of the Minister as laid down by Statute. Secondly, it could only be considered 'necessary' if the existing Patron wasn't fulfilling their obligations, and there is no reason to think they are not. And thirdly, it cannot be of public utility given that it would not serve the public; it would please one part of the public, whilst displeasing another part (all the while imposing a disability on the grounds of religious profession on the existing patron). Per your own reference; "Of the various works provided by local authorities, some are clearly of general public utility - such as roads, bridges, and public open spaces in that every member of the community can use them. Less obviously 'public' are water and sewerage works in that while they will benefit a large number of people they are often localised as to the extent of their benefit. Housing is probably the most restricted in the extent of its benefit in that it may be said to benefit only those in possession of the houses. The application of this article of the Constitution awaits judicial consideration but the likelihood is that the Courts will give a wide interpretation of 'public utility'." Given that the same number of people will benefit from the school whether it has the existing patron or a new one, it's hard to see how a Court might think it's a public utility to make such a change, even if it thought it was 'necessary' and a 'works' to do so.


  • Options
    #3987
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,722 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    recedite wrote: »
    The pupils are the same in the sense that they are all humans.
    Which is a much greater degree of "sameness" than absolams's alter ego, the snail.

    I had thought absolam's alter ego to actually be a hookah smoking caterpillar, but that apparently is Absolem. Anyway, enough of that, wouldn't want to be accused of dragging this thread down a rabbit-hole ;)

    latest?cb=20130428095123&path-prefix=es


  • Options
    #3988
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Flattered as I am to be the subject of such attention, I can't help but think it belies a desire to attend to the subject of the posts :)


  • Options
    #3989
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    Absolam wrote: »
    Actually, what I said was "It receives the same recognition from the DoE, the same State funding, teaches the same State curricula, almost certainly to the same pupils." You should recall; you highlighted it when you asked about your St Peters example. Unlike St Peters, if the State were forcibly changing the Patron, it would have no reason to kick the pupils out of the school, would it? Though it would have a reason to keep them there; to avoid having to open another school to service them. So almost certainly the same pupils would be there, wouldn't they?


    I'd be interested to know if there were any cases where a school premises changed over from a religious patron to ET in the space of 2 months (presuming it closes at the end of June and restarts again in September).

    Similarly (leaving aside the 2 month switchover), are there any cases whereby the same pupils remained at all?


  • Options
    #3990
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Gebgbegb wrote: »
    I'd be interested to know if there were any cases where a school premises changed over from a religious patron to ET in the space of 2 months (presuming it closes at the end of June and restarts again in September). Similarly (leaving aside the 2 month switchover), are there any cases whereby the same pupils remained at all?
    I'd be more interested in whether an operating school was ever subject to the CPO then handed to another patron to continue operating as a school. I suspect it's so unlikely to have ever happened as to be nonsensical.....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3991
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    Absolam wrote: »
    I'd be more interested in whether an operating school was ever subject to the CPO then handed to another patron to continue operating as a school. I suspect it's so unlikely to have ever happened as to be nonsensical.....

    Aye, just as nonsensical as it retaining the same pupils too I'd imagine.


Advertisement