School patronage

recedite · 21-07-2015 10:16am

Absolam wrote: »

There's no obligation to provide schools that are open to all members of the public on an equitable basis.

This is where we have a fundamental difference of opinion.
Also, there is the obligation to provide free primary education which respects the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation

PopePalpatine · 21-07-2015 1:08pm

expectationlost wrote: »

who said there wasn't significant demand?

The Legatus lackeys, naturally.

Cabaal · 21-07-2015 1:24pm

recedite wrote: »

This is where we have a fundamental difference of opinion.
Also, there is the obligation to provide free primary education which respects the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation

...and as we all know we have a majority of schools who completely disregard and ignore the majority of the Irish people over the age of 18 who recently voted in May.

Crazy when you think about it,
We have a school system that looks down on gay people because of their "ethos".

This in my view makes them unfit to retain this ethos as it sends a rather messed up message to the children of Ireland. "Respect everyone...except for those that you think are unnatural and sinful"

If anyone heard that we had a school system that looks down on black people and calls them unnatural they'd be uproar. But with women and gay people, ah sure its grand.

Now I'm sure certain posters may deny this conflict but at the end of the day you can't have an organization that sees gay people as unnatural also be the same organization that claims acceptance of everyone. It just doesn't work and never will.

Absolam · 21-07-2015 1:32pm

recedite wrote: »

This is where we have a fundamental difference of opinion.

Well, then to be clear, there is no Constitutional obligation to provide schools that are open to all members of the public on an equitable basis, regardless of one's moral view of how a State ought to be obliged :-)

recedite wrote: »

Also, there is the obligation to provide free primary education which respects the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation

No; there's an obligation to provide for free primary education, and, when the public good requires it, to provide educational facilities or institutions other than private and corporate educational initiatives, with due regard for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.
Which is a statement that looks similar, but is in fact substantially different.

lazygal · 21-07-2015 1:32pm

Parents need choice, as long as its the right kind of choice. Like maintaining the current system of choice, where you can choose to send your child to a school that indoctrinates throughout the day, or the schools for weirdos, troublemakers and people who don't accept that Ireland is a Catholic country but need a bit of religion rubbed into them through the learn together and goodness me, goodness you programmes.

SpaceTime · 21-07-2015 1:36pm

On their attitudes to gay people :

Ah no! It just thinks that anything they might do romantically is "intrinsically disordered" and that Ireland's democratic choice to allow gay people to marry is "a defeat for humanity"

They prefix this with "we're not homophobic..." and "many of our best friends are gay..."

lazygal · 21-07-2015 1:38pm

SpaceTime wrote: »

Ah no! It just thinks that anything they might do romantically is "intrinsically disordered" and that Ireland's democratic choice to allow gay people to marry is "a defeat for humanity"

They prefix this with "we're not homophobic..." and "many of our best friends are gay..."

Also here's Paddy. And Keith. Gay men who don't want to get married! They speak for all Teh Gheys!!!!

SpaceTime · 21-07-2015 1:39pm

lazygal wrote: »

Also here's Paddy. And Keith. Gay men who don't want to get married! They speak for all Teh Gheys!!!!

.... Goes off to find anti-marriage straight person to argue that on this basis straight marriage should be abolished...

In general though there are many parents out there who may not necessarily agree with the moral guidance of the church on a lot of issues yet, you're given really nothing but a highly obscure, theoretical loophole kind of choice in most areas as alternatives don't exist.

I just think this is a far broader issue than atheists vs the Catholic Church.

In many areas no non establishment philosophical or religious views are accommodated in education.

It's actually quite a weird situation for an otherwise largely liberal democracy.

It's a major lack of freedom of conscience really.

Cabaal · 21-07-2015 2:27pm

This seems fitting here...

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/things-ive-learned-from-seven-years-as-a-childline-volunteer-2224266-Jul2015/

THIS WEEK I will do my last shift with the ISPCC’s Childline and Teentext service after seven years of volunteering. It’s probably the most fulfilling work I have ever done, and with some of the warmest, most inspiring people.

Here are some of the things I’ve learned that I think are worth sharing;.........

Homophobia is alive and well in our schools.

It’s tempting in the wake of the landslide victory for marriage equality to think that the battle is won, but we’re not quite there yet. I’ve talked to several children in their early teens who know they are gay and who are fine with it themselves, but know they can’t come out until they move away or go to college because their friends say horrible things about gay people and would alienate them completely if they knew.

These children have usually given it a lot of thought, and are talking to Childline because they can’t talk to anyone else in case their secret gets out. The matter-of-factness with which these kids are resigned to burying such a key part of themselves for the next four or five years is heartbreaking. We owe it to them to keep up the good fight; children shouldn’t have to live a lie.

Can't say I blame many of the kids, they go to mass as part of prep for communion and confirmation and they are told how wrong gay marriage is and how being gay is wrong and sinful etc. Then they go back into their religious school the next day and they are simply acting out against the things they are told are wrong.

Again, as I've said, its a very conflicting message to send the children of Ireland,

SpaceTime · 21-07-2015 2:31pm

In theory having a single parent in 90% of Irish schools could be a major issue and a very high % of births in Ireland occur outside marriage (but mostly in stable relationships).

Schools are very, very out of touch with social norms really and are raising kids for some unrealistic society that hasn't really ever existed (although we did go around pretending it existed for a long time)

I would rather see kids equipped to deal with real Ireland not holy catholic squeaky clean make belief land.

Cabaal · 21-07-2015 2:39pm

SpaceTime wrote: »

In theory having a single parent in 90% of Irish schools could be a major issue and a very high % of births in Ireland occur outside marriage (but mostly in stable relationships).

.

As of 2013 data, 40% of kids born in this country are born outside of marriage
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/40-per-cent-of-babies-born-outside-marriage-29539976.html

and yet you can still encounter a catholic priest that will refuse to christian a single mothers baby. The same parish priest has input on the local school....that's frightening.

Very out of touch indeed,

robindch · 21-07-2015 3:04pm

Secular body challenges decision on patron for new Cork school

Secular Schools Ireland Ltd says it was not afforded fair procedures

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/secular-body-challenges-decision-on-patron-for-new-cork-school-1.2291538

Irish Times wrote:

A secular schools body has brought a legal challenge over a decision that an education and training board should run a new primary school due to open in Co Cork next September. Secular Schools Ireland Ltd (SSI), one of four applicants seeking to open the new school in Carrigtohill, says it was not afforded fair procedures before its application to become patron was rejected.

The Cork Education and Training Board (CETB) was chosen by the Minister for Education and Skills to act as patron. Gerard Humphreys BL, for SSI, was given leave on an ex-parte basis to bring judicial review proceedings against the Minister, Ireland and the AG over the decision.

In its statement of grounds, SSI which was set up to promote secular child-centred co-education, says it is seeking an order quashing the Minister’s decision to refuse to consider its application for patronage of the new school. The June 10th, 2015, decision stated the application had been “deemed invalid”. It also seeks to quash the decision to award patronage of the school to the CETB.

It says the Minister had failed to afford SSI the opportunity to address the purported invalidity of its application or to address any concerns the Department may have had. Mr Humphreys said his client “effectively does not know the reason why it was refused”. SSI met criteria under the Education Act 1998 for patronage requirements and had parents of 78 prospective pupils seeking to have SSI run the school, he said. Despite requests to be given a reason, the Minister had failed to do so, counsel said.

Mr Justice Seamus Noonan said as the school was due to open in September, it was a matter which would have to be heard soon. He said it should come back before the court next week.

expectationlost · 21-07-2015 5:23pm

robindch wrote: »

Secular body challenges decision on patron for new Cork school

Secular Schools Ireland Ltd says it was not afforded fair procedures

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/secular-body-challenges-decision-on-patron-for-new-cork-school-1.2291538

person behind it is registered director of a grinds school

http://www.solocheck.ie/Irish-Company/Secular-Schools-Ireland-Limited-559073

website http://secularschoolsireland.com/

this the application report in question

https://www.education.ie/en/Schools-Colleges/Information/Establishing-a-New-School/New-Primary-Schools/Carrigtohill_Assessment.pdf

Secular Schools Ireland
Profile of applicant
Secular Schools Ireland is a company limited under guarantee, which was registered on 16 March 2015.
The Memorandum of Association states that the main object for which the company is established is to promote, in furtherance of the public good, education which is secular, child centred and co-educational. The Secular Schools Ireland Charter states that they give voice and choice to parents who have a valid preference (irrespective of their own faith background and irrespective of whether they have a faith background or not) for their children to attend a school where religion is not taught during the school -day, as part of their state-funded, nationally provided, primary school education.
School type proposed Secular Schools Ireland proposes a co-educational, non-denominational, English medium school

see page 4 gives list of criteria, could SSI meet them all?, dept says they only said they'd meet one, maybe the SSI didn't even get a meeting the dept of ed to discuss it?

The written application from Secular Schools Ireland did not satisfy all of the relevant published requirements by providing the necessary
confirmation sought from all applicants for the award of patronage for new schools. Accordingly, its application was deemed invalid.

page 13

result report https://www.education.ie/en/Schools-Colleges/Information/Establishing-a-New-School/New-Primary-Schools/Report_for_NSEG.pdf

Fred Swanson · 21-07-2015 8:15pm

This post has been deleted.

SpaceTime · 21-07-2015 8:19pm

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Are The Cork Education and Training Board a front for anyone we know?

Looks to be mostly made up of Cork City and County councils.

If the Cork Education & Training Board is secular and publicly accountable, I'd fully support them.

I think the education system should be run by publicly accountable, open, transparent non-sectarian, secular management much like any other normal public service.

I really think the need for "sponsors" is absolutely ridiculous in the first place. The obvious "sponsor" is some kind of local government setup.

What I want to see is *public schools*, open to everyone, without a religious or any other 3rd party bias being imposed on students.

I don't think that's a radical position in 2015 to be perfectly honest.

lazygal · 21-07-2015 9:01pm

The education and training boards are the old VEC system. The model primary schools were set up by Mary Hanafin and use the divisive goodness me goodness you programme and separate children for indoctrination during school hours, something Catholic bishops lobbied hard for. They claim to be multi denominational but I don't think it's a particularly good system.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_and_Training_Board

expectationlost · 21-07-2015 9:08pm

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

the local authorities and the government and the churches

SpaceTime · 21-07-2015 9:09pm

expectationlost wrote: »

the local authorities and the government and the churches

Can we see a list of the reps on the CETB ?

lazygal · 21-07-2015 9:13pm

http://cork.etb.ie/about-us/welcome-for-ceo/

You could ask the CEO.

expectationlost · 21-07-2015 9:13pm

SpaceTime wrote: »

Can we see a list of the reps on the CETB ?

http://cork.etb.ie/about-us/etb-members/

SpaceTime · 21-07-2015 9:54pm

lazygal wrote: »

http://cork.etb.ie/about-us/welcome-for-ceo/

You could ask the CEO.

Tells me nothing about him really.

There does appear to be one Chuch of Ireland? priest on the board though...

expectationlost · 21-07-2015 9:58pm

SpaceTime wrote: »

Tells me nothing about him really.

There does appear to be one Chuch of Ireland? priest on the board though...

nope catholic, but the rev confuses me too

http://www.catholicbishops.ie/2014/02/28/address-father-tom-deenihan-general-secretary-catholic-primary-schools-management-association-cpsma-annual-general-meeting/

recedite · 21-07-2015 10:00pm

Being director of a grinds school currently would not necessarily mean they intended the new non-denominational patronage model to be anything like a grinds school. It would just mean that they have some relevant experience.

Its a very interesting application. I like the "ethos", and the rules on uniforms and the wearing of logos/commercial brand names seem to be very well thought out.

AFAIK this is the first time an openly non-denominational patron has applied to the Dept. of Education. They used to say that all schools must incorporate religious teaching, as per the infamous Rule 68. But this stance has become very wobbly in recent years, and last year when the Irish delegation were grilled by the UN at Geneva in regard to human rights breaches the Dept. of Justice spokesperson said that there was...

.. no obstacle to the establishment of non-denominational schools if there is sufficient demand.

There are a couple of things the Dept. of Education has done here which seem "contrary to natural justice" to me. As such they are indeed obstacles.

1. While not knowing anything about why some of the necessary boxes were not ticked by Secular Schools Ireland, it looks to me like a simple oversight of some kind.
At any rate, the Dept. should have checked with the applicant, to see whether they were actually and deliberately refusing to comply with these fairly routine requirements. As I'm sure they would have done if it had been an application from the Bishop.

2. The Dept. has counted some votes twice, and the vast majority of the duplicated votes were from people who voted for both ETB and RC patronage. In both of these patronage models, children of RC parents get preferential treatment. The ETB plan is to provide religious instruction/indoctrination and communion classes during school hours. To achieve this while still claiming to be "multi-denominational" the plan is to separate RC kids from "Christian" kids. The segregated "Christians" group is presumably any non-Catholic Christians which would be removed from the classroom. Also removed to their own special place are "Muslims" (both Sunni and Shia factions together) to be taught a special Irish version of shiunni Islam.
Lastly, all other world religions, plus the atheists and agnostics, form Group 4; the miscellaneous prayer and meditation group.

So, basically if you want your kid to get the usual communion classes and all that malarkey at school, vote for both the ETB and RC patrons. Your vote will be doubled.

There are ways of counting votes which account for an individual persons preference, such as proportional representation and the preferendum. But counting some peoples votes twice is not one of them.

Dept. of Education wrote:

There are 13 duplicates between the Bishop of Cloyne list and the Cork ETB list. While the names and addresses for the pupils concerned correspond, the applicant patrons may have provided different years of entry to school for some of the pupils. Provided the pupils in question reside within the area to be served by the school, they have been included in both lists in accordance with the year of entry provided by the relevant applicant patron body.

3. When it came to counting the votes of the parents who were already enrolled in a RC school (simply because they had no choice because it was the only school available) these votes were not counted.
So the ET list which originally had more votes than the ETB list, took a haircut of 52 votes.
22 from within the area and 30 from an adjacent area wanted to switch from the RC school they were attending and attend the proposed new ET school. But their votes were simply removed from the list by Dept. of Education, apparently because they were already being taken care of and should have no reason to complain.
After all these people were disenfranchised, the ETB list came out as the top "multi-denominational". No account at all was taken of the difference between the ET model and the ETB model, or that in some ways the ETB model may as well be classed as an RC school.

lazygal · 21-07-2015 10:04pm

I have a letter from the Dept of Education in response to a written question from me about where my children can attend a non denominational primary school. Of course I know no such schools exist here, but the letter states it will be open to all patrons, "including non denominational patrons" to apply for patronage of any new schools. I'm planning on addressing this, along with a more recent letter, in the near future in further correspondence with the Dept, with specific references to Rule 68 and non denominational patrons.

PopePalpatine · 21-07-2015 10:30pm

lazygal wrote: »

The model primary schools were set up by Mary Hanafin and use the divisive goodness me goodness you programme and separate children for indoctrination during school hours, something Catholic bishops lobbied hard for.

Not surprising when you consider who her father is.

SpaceTime · 21-07-2015 10:49pm

Honestly, it's like trying to get past a cult!

They're not even able to see how bizarre and totally unfair the situation is.

Just swap Catholic ethos for Church of Ireland and wind the clock back to the 1800s and what's going on now would be called proselytising.

It's not right in what's otherwise a liberal democracy to do this!

Hotblack Desiato · 22-07-2015 12:57am

SpaceTime wrote: »

an otherwise largely liberal democracy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tqHUf5wmLg

Absolam · 22-07-2015 9:10am

recedite wrote: »

1. While not knowing anything about why some of the necessary boxes were not ticked by Secular Schools Ireland, it looks to me like a simple oversight of some kind. At any rate, the Dept. should have checked with the applicant, to see whether they were actually and deliberately refusing to comply with these fairly routine requirements. As I'm sure they would have done if it had been an application from the Bishop.

It seems a pretty huge oversight to fail to agree to six of the seven criteria for being a patron though, doesn't it? They're the very first items on the list of requirements, yet SSI overlooked them; that's not exactly confidence building.
We could speculate that the Dept. didn't check with them (though whether SSI did it on purpose or not doesn't change that they did it), and even speculate that they would have checked if it was the Bishop. Or we could just acknowledge that the Bishop made the effort to demonstrate compliance with the criteria, and SSI didn't?

recedite wrote: »

2. The Dept. has counted some votes twice, and the vast majority of the duplicated votes were from people who voted for both ETB and RC patronage. In both of these patronage models, children of RC parents get preferential treatment.

Is that not a bit misleading? The Dept didn't count votes twice; some parents put forward their children for more than one type of school, and the Dept allowed the eligible children to be included in each plan. I'd suggest that less indicates 'shenanigans' by the Dept, and more anxiousness by parents to assure their children of a school place (regardless of ethos, if they went for all 3 or 4 patrons, which potentially 5 did).

recedite wrote: »

So, basically if you want your kid to get the usual communion classes and all that malarkey at school, vote for both the ETB and RC patrons. Your vote will be doubled.

Or.... if you want to be sure of getting your kid into a local school, you put their name down for every local school going?

recedite wrote: »

There are ways of counting votes which account for an individual persons preference, such as proportional representation and the preferendum. But counting some peoples votes twice is not one of them.

That's probably true, but did any of the parents actually think they were voting for the kind of school that would be built? I don't think they did.
Did they perhaps think they were being asked if their children would attend a particular school if it were built? I think they did, because the criteria in the application process specifies "Patrons will be asked to sign up lists of parents who indicate interest in having their children educated in their new school. These lists are to be broken down by the age of the children, including year of proposed entry to school, and by where they are living, having regard for the area to be served by the school. A template for submission of parental demand will be provided for this purpose, and all information must be presented in this format only"

recedite wrote: »

3. When it came to counting the votes of the parents who were already enrolled in a RC school (simply because they had no choice because it was the only school available) these votes were not counted. So the ET list which originally had more votes than the ETB list, took a haircut of 52 votes. 22 from within the area and 30 from an adjacent area wanted to switch from the RC school they were attending and attend the proposed new ET school. But their votes were simply removed from the list by Dept. of Education, apparently because they were already being taken care of and should have no reason to complain.

More specifically; all children who were not from the catchment, or who were already being provided for, or could not be ascertained to exist at all, were removed from each of the prospective patrons submissions. The fact that the ET proposal was padded with 30 children from outside the catchment, and a further 22 already being catered for (and there's no indication that their inclusion was a complaint, by the way) may indicate an 'oversight' by ET, but it remains a fact that ETB elicited more interest from prospective new students in the local area for the new school than ET did, and the Bishop of Cloyne got even more, so there appears to still be an appetite for denominational education, at least in Carrigtohill anyways.
The interest from parents of pupils in existing schools in the ET proposal certainly suggests that there is a desire for change in the provisions for existing demand; but I think that would seem to be better catered for by divestment than by opening a new school and leaving an existing one underused. Perhaps ET might consider buying out a denominational interest in another school and taking over the patronage there instead.

recedite wrote: »

After all these people were disenfranchised, the ETB list came out as the top "multi-denominational". No account at all was taken of the difference between the ET model and the ETB model, or that in some ways the ETB model may as well be classed as an RC school.

Since there was no vote, I think claiming disenfranchisement may be a bit hyperbolic... but I think perhaps parents may have been cogniscant of the difference between the ET and ETB models, which is why there are more pupils in common with the Bishop of Cloyne list and the ETB list than there are with the ETB list and the ET list; the general preference in the area largely leaned more towards Catholic schools.

alaimacerc · 22-07-2015 9:27am

SpaceTime wrote: »

It's not right in what's otherwise a liberal democracy to do this!

ITYM "otherwise claims to be"?

recedite · 23-07-2015 12:24am

Absolam wrote: »

Or.... if you want to be sure of getting your kid into a local school, you put their name down for every local school going?
That's probably true, but did any of the parents actually think they were voting for the kind of school that would be built? I don't think they did.
Did they perhaps think they were being asked if their children would attend a particular school if it were built? I think they did, because the criteria in the application process specifies "Patrons will be asked to sign up lists of parents who indicate interest in having their children educated in their new school. These lists are to be broken down by the age of the children, including year of proposed entry to school, and by where they are living, having regard for the area to be served by the school. A template for submission of parental demand will be provided for this purpose, and all information must be presented in this format only"

The people are not "putting their names down" for a school, because the proposed school does not yet exist. They are effectively voting for a particular type of school to get the patronage.

Lets say for example, a parent misunderstood the situation and thought they were putting the childs name on a waiting list. It would make sense to put the name on each list, then they would definitely be on the waiting list of whichever one won the patronage. But in reality the vote would have no effect, because all were voted for. Then when the school was opening, and the actual waiting list came out, all parents would have an equal opportunity to put their name down, even if they had voted for a different patronage. Unless if course the school decided to renege on their agreement with the Dept. to give equal priority to all kids in the catchment area, as denominational patrons have been known to do.

Absolam wrote: »

More specifically; all children who were not from the catchment, or who were already being provided for, or could not be ascertained to exist at all, were removed from each of the prospective patrons submissions. The fact that the ET proposal was padded with 30 children from outside the catchment, and a further 22 already being catered for...

A couple of points here;

1. If ET and SSI had played the double voting game in the same way that RC and ETB played it, then ET would have benefited from both sets of votes and they would have been awarded the patronage.
Its an unacceptable system to allow some people to vote twice. Either create a preferendum, or only allow one vote. But either way, apply the same rule to all voters.

2. Being in an adjacent catchment, and enrolled in an RC school because there was no choice, should not exclude people when their Constitutional right not to be exposed to unwanted religious indoctrination is being infringed. The same obvoiously goes for someone already enrolled in the catchment area itself, who wants to change schools. There is a likelihood that there would be enough pupils to start the new school off with several classes (not just the entry level class) or at least this possibility should be investigated.

3. Lets say there are a series of small villages or towns, and it is established that in each town two thirds favour a RC patronage and one third favour a non-denominational patronage. Is it fair to put a RC school in each village because of the simple majority? No. The Dept recognises this and so has decided to exclude the RC patron in this case on the grounds of lack of school diversity. But this same principle means they should count the votes of those parents who represent the "losing" minority group in the adjacent areas.

School patronage

Comments