School patronage

Swanner wrote: »

There are at least 3 community schools within a few miles of Loreto Rathfarnham open to those of all faiths and none.

There's also a Jewish school, a CoI school and a number of other RC schools.

I would have thought this provides plenty of choice for people in the area of all faiths and none.

Why would an atheist want to send their child to an RC school such as Loreto when there are non denominational options available ?

There's no non denominational school in Ireland funded by the state.

lazygal wrote: »

Maybe it's a reference to the school that excluded a pregnant teenager but might not do the same to a male pupil who was responsible for a pregnancy.

Is it not a reference to the fact that where an underage boy and girl have sex only the boy is criminalised?

MrP

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What is the ethos of these schools? (Only in Ireland could a school entirely paid for and run by the state have a representative of a bishop on the board of management.

And that's what's great about boards. Every day is a school day

I wasn't aware who the patron was and would agree that it certainly puts a different slant on it.

recedite wrote: »

An interesting take on it, but the error here is in their use of the word "area".
In one sense they mean the "catchment area" and in another "the local area" and they mix and conflate the two meanings to make the policy seem reasonable.

As an example, lets say the state is funding a school and CoI gains control of "the patronage". The catchment area is very large and therefore it is quite possible for people outside the local area to take most of the places.
In that situation a child from outside the area could be considered for a school place before a child from the local area, if the local child is not of the denominated religion of the school/ or is of no religion at all.

Its not the worst proposal yet, but still it does not address the basic issue. The simple and obvious solution; secular schools with religion practiced outside school hours.

Yes, I was just thinking this. The fact that they say the catchment area would be sized according to the popularity of a particular ethos seems to be something that would allow a school to continue to discriminate.

This was actually a point that someone brought up a couple of weeks ago, in relation to UK faith schools, which I asked for clarification on. They said something along the line of "the faith schools have much larger catchment areas". MY immediate thought was, all the better to discriminate against local children.

Whilst I agree that it is not the worst possible proposal, I do think it is pretty terrible.

MrP

The old "we need a referendum" excuse was trotted out ad nauseam by previous ministers for education. I think it's a total red herring, designed to make out that inaction isn't really inaction and there's a political will for equal that's blocked by the constitution.

Jan O'Sullivan I met with the Education and Training Boards, Educate Together and with representatives of the Catholic Church in December. I will be meeting with An Foras Pátrúnachta, and Gaelscoileanna Teoranta in January. Following those meetings I will outline a number of actions to advance the recommendations which arose from the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism, and these actions will include the immediate repeal of rule 68.

https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2016-01-13a.2211&s=%22School+Patronage%22

How can handing control of a State asset to a religious body be legal?

Greystones is another clear example. A church gets to run a school as it sees fit despite not having contributed a cent towards it.

The position with respect to many schools' ownership is (deliberately) hazy, but there is no question who built and owns the model schools, and who built and owns recent schools like the one in Greystones.

Article 42 probably has some relevance as well, to be fair...

ARTICLE 42
1 The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.
2 Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.
3 1° The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.
2° The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.
4 The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

If there's something you're missing, it may well be in there. I'd suggest that focusing on the idea that it's big bad religions forcing this system on the unfortunate parents could well be missing the notion that the religious bodies involved are simply the vehicles that delivered the education that parents wanted. We now have a situation where there are more and more parents wanting to use different vehicles to provide the education they want (not to mention the odd crusader who wants all children to receive the education that is best for them in the crusaders view) and not much means to provide those vehicles (hence the desire to 'liberate' vehicles from the religious bodies who own them).

Deleted User wrote: »

You're getting totes emosh. Calm down. I didn't attack religion or the religious orders. I just suggested that the constitution did a decent job at protecting both the rights of the religious orders as well as the rights of kids to an education. They balanced it fairly well in my opinion. I can't fault it unless there is a line I misinterpreted a line in the constitution. Article 42 doesn't add much in my mind as it just deals with education rather than the religion/education overlap.

Hardly; I never said you attacked anyone. I said that if there's something you're missing it's probably in Article 42. As you can see it deals with education (rather than religion, like Article 44), so it probably holds some clues as to why educational institutions are in a position to deliver religious and moral education in a particular fashion.

Deleted User wrote: »

The problem is that at the moment schools have the right to reserve admission to schools for those of that religion where the waiting lists to enter the school are greater than the number of places in the school. So non Christians are being rejected or at risk of being rejected from publicly funded schools because they are not Christians. That's just wrong.

Certainly that's what some people see as a problem; others see the problem as the inclusion of religion in the education system at all. The reverse could become true; people might see it as a problem that they couldn't send their children to schools which pro-actively preserve the ethos they want for their children, or they could have a problem with the State refusing to allow them to provide what they feel is appropriate religious and moral education in schools established by the State.

Deleted User wrote: »

And the government is dragging its feet about getting rid of these laws and in cases they are lying to bodies like the UN who quiz them on the Irish laws.

I think lying is a fairly extravagant claim; certainly what was posted would give the impression that Mr O Reilly wasn't fully forthcoming with all information, but I think I'd like to see full transcripts before I accused anyone of lying.

Deleted User wrote: »

The government suggest that they have to allow this sort of discrimination because the work of religious institutions are protected in the constitution. I am saying that I see no evidence that religious institutions are protected to that degree in the constitution. I see plenty of lines in the constitution that indicate that schools cannot discriminate against kids so they can easily change the law.

Which is why I referred you to Article 42. The Constitution does obviously provide various protections to religious institutions; the State cannot seize their property, nor can it interfere with their manage of their affairs, their ownership, acquisition and administration of their property, or their maintenance of institutions for religious or charitable purposes. But the protection provided to parents prevents the State from obliging parents to send their children to schools they don't want to (which, if they favour a religious ethos, would mean a secular school) and obliges the State to provide the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education parents want for their children in a school established by the State. I'd suggest it's not just the rights of religious bodies, but also the rights of parents, that leads to the fact that it can be argued that ethos can and should be preserved in schools in the fashion it is.

Deleted User wrote: »

They are protected in civil law and that can be easily changed by the government without a referendum.

Well.. the facility to preserve ethos through selective admission is protected in civil law and is easily changed. The basis for it may not be so easily overturned.

Deleted User wrote: »

And no I'm not advocating making schools with a religious ethos (whatever that means) more secular. But they should allow non Christians into the schools where they are a minority in the area. In certain schools, you might be only talking about letting in a handful of kids who are non christian into a christian school.

There are those who would (and do) argue that allowing non Christians into the schools where they are a minority in the area would make schools with a religious ethos more secular. My own feeling is both arguments are satisfied as long as there is no shortage of school places; currently ethos criteria only kick in when a school is oversubscribed. Increase the capacity of schools that are likely to be oversubscribed and you solve the problem of ethos discrimination. The 'problem' of State funded schools engaging in faith formation, which is in fact the issue most A&A regulars have with our education system is a somewhat thornier one I think.

I have to say I'm inclined to agree with Ms Duff that the admission policy of a school can hardly considered to be a part of a religious denomination's right to manage it's own affairs.
On the other hand, I'm inclined to agree with the High Court that a body funded by the State is not an organ of the State (though that does not absolve the State of all responsibility for what occurs in it), and a school is not therefore responsible for implementing the obligations placed on the State by international agreements any more than any other body; therefore not prohibited from discriminating on the basis of religion except as prohibited by Irish law.