Labour party could make harder to get into an ET school for some people

I've often argued that Educate Together should adopt policies to discriminate in favor of people who support its ethos just as the religious schools do. It's worth a motion at the next ET AGM.

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Nah, it's a bull**** policy.

I was at a PA meeting for an ET school last winter and had to listen to three people bitch for half an hour about how they wanted the "Winter Concert" to be renamed the "Christmas Concert." These three parents all live across from the school and chose the ET for no other reason than convenience--they freely admit it. They contribute nothing to the school other than the capitation grant from their kids--they don't fund raise they don't volunteer for library--yes they're useless. Meanwhile a family that lives thirty minutes away could not get their child into the ET school because they were new--as in two years--to the area. This is a family that would have been committed and engaged for the duration of their association with the school. Nope, they were sent packing.

I can kinda see where you are coming from. My son's ET has a fair amount of Catholics despite there being plenty of Catholic schools in the area. The school is massively over subscribed so it means some non Catholics have missed out. But the ethos of ET is that everyone is equal so it wouldn't make sense to deny places to Catholic children.

lazygal wrote: »

I don't think educate together should facilitate indoctrination after school hours. It's one of the main issues I have with our local one. Those doing sacramental preparation are lined up during home time so it's immediately obvious who's "doing communion" and as its the majority of children it leads to others feeling left out. That and the learn together programme makes me feel.educate together is being religious to suit.department of education rules and wishes and will mean my children will never have a real secular option for education.

I don't have an issue with that. Our school does this kind of thing for everything from English lessons to sport and music. The school aren't involved, they just provide a room for an outside agency to use. In most ET schools diversity is the norm anyway so the kids are well used to classmates doing cultural or religious things they don't. Even in a school system with no religion our kids will be exposed to different people, it's a good thing.

Qualitymark wrote: »

Surely "Educate Together" suggests inclusivity?

Oh yes, it was a rant really, but there is nothing like enough (in number and geographic distribution) of non-RC schools, and nothing like enough places within those schools, so lots of non-catholic and non-religious parents have no choice at all but to send their kids to an RC school.

Meanwhile the RC parents have it both ways, priority in 90% of schools while still being able to get their kids into ETs as easily as anyone else.

Getting back to the question of whether school choice should be locality-based, one big advantage is that your kids' friends will be local, in this case. If you bring your children 10km across the city to school, and later if your children take buses or cycle that 10km, there's a good chance that their friends will be from all the way over there. This means that as they get older, they're likely to be spending a lot of time far away from home. Much nicer to have their friends within walking distance.

Absolutely and that's one of the major advantage of having truly inclusive schools.

We'd rather send our kids to a non-denominational school but they don't exist, next up an ET but there are none within a few km, and those are full anyway. The nearest school to us is a small CoI school and it's very good, and it's mixed gender too which we prefer. There are a lot of kids of all sorts of religions there and they don't seem to push religion too much at this age, they do take it seriously in 5th and 6th class (Bible studies) but this is strictly optional and at the end of the school day.

We were lucky to get our daughter in there as they only take in half a class of junior infants a year, and non-religious kids with no sibling already there are right at the bottom of the admissions policy list. Luckily for us the school wasn't full then but it is now, and our son will only start in Sept because of the sibling rule.

Second level is a disaster in this area though, no options at all except single-sex RC schools and they put quite an emphasis on religion from what we hear. No other English-medium options at all.

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Straight geographically based lottery.

There is no correct answer to this problem.
Your solution could results in parents with children in 3, 4 or 5 schools whilst trying to get to work so now you've managed too discriminate against working parents.

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

This assumes ET will continue to prevent any of its schools from adopting a sibling policy.

True. I know there was a vote in February to adopt a Siblings priority to the ET in Firhouse in Dublin.
My point is, there is no such thing as a fair approach to school enrollment policies. All you can do is aim for the fairest.
I personally think the first come first served is the least worst option.

robindch wrote: »

But that discriminates against people who live far away from the school.

Try again?

If you're planning on a family or have one already it makes sense to live near where essential services are readily available. Before I bought a house I looked into things like schools in the area and this was before I even met my husband. We could live in the arse end of nowhere and have to travel for education purposes and we'd certainly have a much larger house if we did, but we want to live in an urban area so we pay the price accordingly.