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…5253555758…194

Comments

  • Options
    #1622
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Absolam wrote: »
    'Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school' deals with legislation, not the disbursement of public money.
    Now if the article said 'State aid for schools shall not be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school', and if the schools in question were receiving the same amount of State aid as other schools, you might have the beginnings of an argument..
    I see what you are getting at, your attitude is that the Constitution is something to be interpreted by legislation, which is then applied to the citizens. And you think that the church is protected by a legal loophole here, in that the State should have made public funding conditional on this religious indoctrination/instruction opt-out being made available, but just never got around to it.

    But the Constitution defines rights and responsibilities, which can be either explicit or implied. So in this case the right is very clearly defined as "the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school" and that makes any breach of that right a breach of the law, even without any legislation. The obvious legal remedy is that whoever is denying that right to a pupil should restore the right or else lose public funding.

    Even in the case of an implied constitutional right, once the implied right has been "uncovered" by the courts, then it becomes a legal right even when politicians fail to enact any legislation around it.

    A good example of that was when the courts recognised the right to abortion where there was a substantial risk to the life of the mother including of suicide, as an implied constitutional right, based on the right to life of the mother herself. This was at the time of the X-case. For over 20 years following that, the out-dated legislation still maintained that abortion was always illegal. During that time abortion was permissible in law, in this special circumstance. The only problem was proving that there was a "substantial risk" of suicide within the narrow time frame of less than 9 months, which was well nigh impossible. So when the politicians enacted legislation recently, all they did was clarify what they considered to be a speedy procedure to adequately establish the proof of a "substantial risk". Whether it is a speedy enough procedure remains to be seen.
    My point is that they did not create the right recently. The right existed all along as an implicit right, but was only recognised back in 1991 when it became a legal right. Recent changes in legislation have merely clarified the circumstances in which a citizen can claim that right.

    Now, going back to the right to be free of religious indoctrination imposed by a publicly funded school. It is clearly defined in the Constitution as law, and the circumstances in which it can be claimed by a citizen are reasonably clear. There would not be much point in having a parallel legislation introduced into the statute books which would just repeat the same words. Any legislation might go into the nitty gritty of what is "religious instruction" and what is "religious education". In practice though, I think there is already a broad consensus on that, so defining religious instruction in the statutes is not going to make much difference.

    The State is clearly restrained from bringing in any legislation which would restrict that defined right, which is perhaps the main benefit to having it so clearly enshrined in the Constitution.


  • Options
    #1623
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    recedite wrote: »
    I see what you are getting at, your attitude is that the Constitution is something to be interpreted by legislation, which is then applied to the citizens.
    Nope, not at all. I'm saying that Article 44 of the Constitution, which you've chosen to support your argument that the State has a constitutional obligation to withdraw all funding from such schools that don't provide separate supervision for students not attending religious instruction, doesn't support your argument.
    The Article prohibits the State from enacting legislation to provide State aid for schools which affects prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school.
    That's not at all the same as placing an obligation on the State to withdraw all funding from schools that don't fulfil the States obligations.
    recedite wrote: »
    And you think that the church is protected by a legal loophole here, in that the State should have made public funding conditional on this religious indoctrination/instruction opt-out being made available, but just never got around to it.
    Nope, I don't. First of all, it's not a legal loophole, the Article clearly sets out it's purpose. Secondly, it's not the church, it's religious schools. Thirdly, I'm not saying the State should have done anything, you're asserting the State has a Constitutional obligation which it simply doesn't have.
    recedite wrote: »
    But the Constitution defines rights and responsibilities, which can be either explicit or implied.
    More accurately, they are expressed rights and unenumerated rights; unenumerated rights may be determined by the Supreme Court.
    recedite wrote: »
    So in this case the right is very clearly defined as "the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school" and that makes any breach of that right a breach of the law, even without any legislation.
    Sorry, but the fact that a child has a right not to attend religious instruction in a school receiving public funding does not oblige the State to remove all funding from a school that does not provide separate supervision for a child when religious instruction takes place. It simply means the child can seek a remedy from the State.
    recedite wrote: »
    The obvious legal remedy is that whoever is denying that right to a pupil should restore the right or else lose public funding.
    I rather think that remedy would not occur to the Supreme Court, not least because it doesn't actually remedy the breach, but also because removing all funding to the school would deny the Constitutional rights of the parents of all the other students in the school. The best financial remedy I suspect you might hope for would be the temporary withdrawal of the State aid provided for that one student (since permanently withdrawing it would violate the States obligation to provide for that students education).
    recedite wrote: »
    Even in the case of an implied constitutional right, once the implied right has been "uncovered" by the courts, then it becomes a legal right even when politicians fail to enact any legislation around it.
    I can't tell from what you're saying what unenumerated right you think the Supreme Court is going to find in the Constitution that would be relevant?
    recedite wrote: »
    Now, going back to the right to be free of religious indoctrination imposed by a publicly funded school. It is clearly defined in the Constitution as law, and the circumstances in which it can be claimed by a citizen are reasonably clear.
    The you'll have no problem pointing out where the word 'indoctrination' occurs in the Constitution? I can't seem to find it myself.
    On the other hand, I'm not disputing a childs right to attend a publicly funded school without attending religious instruction; only your assertion that that the State has a Constitutional obligation to withdraw all funding from a school that doesn't provide separate supervision for students not attending religious instruction.
    recedite wrote: »
    There would not be much point in having a parallel legislation introduced into the statute books which would just repeat the same words. Any legislation might go into the nitty gritty of what is "religious instruction" and what is "religious education". In practice though, I think there is already a broad consensus on that, so defining religious instruction in the statutes is not going to make much difference.
    Well, I don't think anyone is proposing parallel legislation, so at least we don't need to worry about that.
    recedite wrote: »
    The State is clearly restrained from bringing in any legislation which would restrict that defined right, which is perhaps the main benefit to having it so clearly enshrined in the Constitution.
    Yes, that's pretty much all that Article does; it prohibits the State from enacting legislation to provide State aid for schools which affects prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school.
    What it doesn't do is place a Constitutional obligation on the State to withdraw all funding from schools that don't provide separate supervision for students not attending religious instruction.


  • Options
    #1624
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Absolam wrote: »
    Sorry, but the fact that a child has a right not to attend religious instruction in a school receiving public funding does not oblige the State to remove all funding from a school that does not provide separate supervision for a child when religious instruction takes place. It simply means the child can seek a remedy from the State....

    I rather think that remedy would not occur to the Supreme Court, not least because it doesn't actually remedy the breach, but also because removing all funding to the school would deny the Constitutional rights of the parents of all the other students in the school. The best financial remedy I suspect you might hope for would be the temporary withdrawal of the State aid provided for that one student (since permanently withdrawing it would violate the States obligation to provide for that students education).

    Well now we are getting somewhere. You agree that this right is expressed in the Constutution;
    ..the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school..
    And you agree that the existence of a constitutional right for a person implies a corresponding duty on the State and others to respect that right.

    So now, all we disagree on is the legal remedy.
    I suspect you would agree the simplest remedy is for the State to compell the others to restore the right to the victim.

    And I suspect you think the best way to do this is to reward the offender with more public money, and more staff on the State payroll.

    My suggested method is to to threaten a sanction; to withdraw funding from the offending school and provide the same money to another one which is willing to respect the rights of the children. The threat itself would be enough to cause the school to remedy the situation by restoring full rights to the pupils.
    A threat must be credible, so it must be backed by the possibility of real action; If the school building itself was in public ownership, the patronage could be removed from the patron and awarded to a different patron, who would be willing to educate the same number of pupils for the original cost, and without violating any of their rights. In this situation, the education of the pupils would hardly be interrupted at all.

    If the original patron owned the building, the State could build a new school in the same area and award it to a different patron. In the meantime, a temporary remedy would have to be sought. One possibility would be to pay for the transport of the victim to another school, with some extra financial compensation to the victim for the inconvenience.

    The idea of paying extra money to the offender would be akin to the State paying a ransom to a kidnapper.

    Until somebody takes a case to court, we are only speculating on what the legal remedy might be. If and when that happens, we will find out which of us was closer to the mark.


  • Options
    #1625
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    recedite wrote: »
    Well now we are getting somewhere. You agree that this right is expressed in the Constutution;
    Oh, I don't think anyone disagreed about what is actually written in the Constitution, only with your extrapolation from what's written in the Constitution.
    recedite wrote: »
    And you agree that the existence of a constitutional right for a person implies a corresponding duty on the State and others to respect that right.
    Well, no, I'm afraid not. The only duty imposed by this particular Article is a duty on the State to not enact legislation to provide State aid for schools which affects prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school. As to who might have a duty to respect rights in general, and what obligations that duty might place them under, that would seem to be a much broader, possibly even philosophical issue to be honest.
    recedite wrote: »
    So now, all we disagree on is the legal remedy.
    Again, I'm afraid not. You're rather ignoring the actual disagreement; your assertion that the State has a constitutional obligation under Article 44 to withdraw all funding from such schools that don't provide separate supervision for students not attending religious instruction. I can see why you'd want to move the discussion away from that, but it is actually the point that I disagreed with. The State has no such Constitutional obligation.
    recedite wrote: »
    I suspect you would agree the simplest remedy is for the State to compell the others to restore the right to the victim. And I suspect you think the best way to do this is to reward the offender with more public money, and more staff on the State payroll.
    Those are two quite odd suspicions.
    I would actually start with the question; what obligation does the State have with regard to asserting this right on behalf of those who have it? The Constitutional Article does not set out any requirement with regard to asserting the right, so it falls under the broad provision of Article 40, which states "The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen." Since in the particular circumstance you've set out, the State cannot be said to have taken any action to disrespect the Right of the citizen, the first requirement is fulfilled. The second requirement needs only for the State to have (as far as practicable) enacted legislation to protect and vindicate that Right in order to be fulfilled. The (various) Education Acts taken together seem to fulfil that obligation.
    Contrary to your suspicions, I would say myself that any remedy that does not actually provide the child with the facility to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school, is not, in fact, a remedy at all.
    recedite wrote: »
    My suggested method is to to threaten a sanction; to withdraw funding from the offending school and provide the same money to another one which is willing to respect the rights of the children. The threat itself would be enough to cause the school to remedy the situation by restoring full rights to the pupils.
    The Education Acts already require that the managers (BoM) of a school that fails in its' legal (as opposed to Constitutional) obligation to ensure that 'no pupil attending the school is permitted to remain in attendance during the time of any religious instruction which the parents or guardians of such pupil have not have sanctioned' receive no payment from the Dept of Education (Yes, I did get bored waiting for you to figure that out for yourself. Whilst it's not the function of the DoE to micro manage the budgets of schools, the BoM of the school cannot ignore their obligations under the Education Acts without risking losing DoE funding). I'm not sure any additional, punitive, action would be warranted. Or Constitutional.
    recedite wrote: »
    A threat must be credible, so it must be backed by the possibility of real action; <...>Until somebody takes a case to court, we are only speculating on what the legal remedy might be. If and when that happens, we will find out which of us was closer to the mark.
    Well, the fact that no one has yet taken a case based on the States Constitutional obligation to withdraw all funding from such schools to court despite your claim that 'it is quite common for a religious school to say we'd love to let your child do something else in a different classroom, but we just haven't got the staff to supervise him/her, unfortunately', rather suggests that so far no one thinks a legal case is likely to succeed, for whatever reason?

    Personally, I think a specific action against the DoE based on the existing legislation and one of these 'common' occurrences is likely to be far more fruitful.


  • Options
    #1626
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Absolam wrote: »
    Well, no, I'm afraid not. The only duty imposed by this particular Article is a duty on the State to not enact legislation to provide State aid for schools which affects prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school. As to who might have a duty to respect rights in general, and what obligations that duty might place them under, that would seem to be a much broader, possibly even philosophical issue to be honest.
    Thats where you are wrong. It's not a "philosophical issue", its a legal imperative which demands action by the State.
    The existence of a constitutional right for a person implies a corresponding duty on the State and others to respect that right. The state is required to take action to protect and uphold the rights of its citizens. The duty of the State which you mention; to "not enact legislation" which would undermine the specified right, is an additional specification which follows on from the main duty which is to protect and uphold the right.
    Absolam wrote: »
    Again, I'm afraid not. You're rather ignoring the actual disagreement; your assertion that the State has a constitutional obligation under Article 44 to withdraw all funding from such schools that don't provide separate supervision for students not attending religious instruction.....

    The Education Acts already require that the managers (BoM) of a school that fails in its' legal (as opposed to Constitutional) obligation to ensure that 'no pupil attending the school is permitted to remain in attendance during the time of any religious instruction which the parents or guardians of such pupil have not have sanctioned' receive no payment from the Dept of Education (Yes, I did get bored waiting for you to figure that out for yourself.
    Nice of you to point out that some existing legislation backs up my view; that the legal remedy should be the withdrawal of funding from the offending school.

    Am I to understand now that your entire argument is based on semantics, ie that the sanction of withdrawing public funding is a "legal" duty and not a "constitutional" duty? Because as well as being mischievous, that would be nonsense; the Constitution is a part of Irish law, and any constitutional obligation is a legal obligation.

    Absolam wrote: »
    Well, the fact that no one has yet taken a case based on the States Constitutional obligation to withdraw all funding from such schools to court despite your claim that 'it is quite common for a religious school to say we'd love to let your child do something else in a different classroom, but we just haven't got the staff to supervise him/her, unfortunately', rather suggests that so far no one thinks a legal case is likely to succeed, for whatever reason?
    No, it does not.
    It could be because no child has ever had to sit through religious instruction which the parents did not support. (Unlikely)

    Or, more likely, it could be that the parents have accepted the indoctrination because;
    (a) They had no idea that they had a constitutional and legislative right to be free of it
    or (b) They did not want to place their child at the centre of a dispute for fear of future victimisation at the school
    or (c) They were unwilling to take on the expenditure of time, hassle and expense involved in a legal case.

    All of which allow the church authorities to effectively continue to breach that particular constitutional right, while still being in receipt of public funds.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1627
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    recedite wrote: »
    Thats where you are wrong. It's not a "philosophical issue", its a legal imperative which demands action by the State. The existence of a constitutional right for a person implies a corresponding duty on the State and others to respect that right. The state is required to take action to protect and uphold the rights of its citizens. The duty of the State which you mention; to "not enact legislation" which would undermine the specified right, is an additional specification which follows on from the main duty which is to protect and uphold the right.
    Soooo... where exactly does the legal imperative demand action? In fact, where is the legal imperative? And, where is it implied (or even expressed, which might be more useful) that the State (and, of course, 'others') have a duty to 'respect' the right? And what exactly does 'respect'ing the right entail? Legally, obviously.
    recedite wrote: »
    Nice of you to point out that some existing legislation backs up my view; that the legal remedy should be the withdrawal of funding from the offending school.
    Really? I thought your point of view was that the State has a constitutional obligation under Article 44 to withdraw all funding from such schools that don't provide separate supervision for students not attending religious instruction. I'm sure that's the first sentence you quoted there. Yep, I checked; it is.
    Anyway, your suggestion that the State should threaten schools with funding sanctions for not complying with their 'duty' to 'respect' a constitutional right doesn't quite amount to equivalence with the State actually enacting legislation which protects Constitutional rights as it is (legally) required to do, but good on you for trying.
    Knowing the legislation existed in the first place might have spared you coming up with such a convoluted construction of speculative assertions though; even if it did acknowledge that the State actually does provide a mechanism to assert this particular right.
    recedite wrote: »
    Am I to understand now that your entire argument is based on semantics, ie that the sanction of withdrawing public funding is a "legal" duty and not a "constitutional" duty? Because as well as being mischievous, that would be nonsense; the Constitution is a part of Irish law, and any constitutional obligation is a legal obligation.
    I suppose you could try to take that tack, it only takes a little bit of twisting to try to make it look like you were proposing something that already exists, and passing that off as semantics probably looks better than ignorance. Though it is hardly semantics to say that I haven't proposed that the withdrawing of public funding is either a "legal" duty or a "constitutional" duty (nor have I lost sight of who has what duties either).
    The legal duty imposed on a schools board of management by legislation simply can't be passed off as being the same thing a Constitutional obligation imposed on the State by a Constitutional article simply because 'they're both legal obligations'.
    Regardless, I'm afraid the legislative obligation placed on schools still simply doesn't support your assertion that the State has a constitutional obligation under Article 44 to withdraw all funding from such schools that don't provide separate supervision for students not attending religious instruction. It really just demonstrates that the State has fulfilled the real Constitutional obligations it does have.
    recedite wrote: »
    No, it does not. It could be because no child has ever had to sit through religious instruction which the parents did not support. (Unlikely)
    As you say; since you say these occurrences are common it seems unlikely indeed.
    recedite wrote: »
    Or, more likely, it could be that the parents have accepted the indoctrination because; (a) They had no idea that they had a constitutional and legislative right to be free of it or (b) They did not want to place their child at the centre of a dispute for fear of future victimisation at the school
    or (c) They were unwilling to take on the expenditure of time, hassle and expense involved in a legal case.
    Yes, that must be so. So few people seem inclined to dispute how their children are educated, and there are so few groups with an interest in curtailing religious involvement in schools that all of the above seem very likely.
    I did notice the sneaky slipping in of indoctrination there, but I suppose you just needed to feel you were making a point.
    recedite wrote: »
    All of which allow the church authorities to effectively continue to breach that particular constitutional right, while still being in receipt of public funds.
    Or would, if your speculations were correct. Which does rather neatly bring us back around to your assertion that "Its quite common for a religious school to say we'd love to let your child do something else in a different classroom, but we just haven't got the staff to supervise him/her, unfortunately.", You never did say whether you were saying that the religious schools actually do have the staff to supervise the children and are deliberately lying to parents, or that you were saying that they are so incredibly badly managed that that can't stretch their (admittedly 30% less than other schools) resources to cover that supervision. Which was it?


  • Options
    #1628
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Absolam wrote: »
    Soooo... where exactly does the legal imperative demand action? In fact, where is the legal imperative? And, where is it implied (or even expressed, which might be more useful) that the State (and, of course, 'others') have a duty to 'respect' the right? And what exactly does 'respect'ing the right entail?
    What part of the following statement of mine do you not understand, or not agree with?
    The existence of a constitutional right for a person implies a corresponding duty on the State and others to respect that right.
    The State must take action to ensure rights are protected, eg if someone kills another person, the State takes action to catch the murderer. The job is not just left to the next of kin.
    Absolam wrote: »
    You never did say whether you were saying that the religious schools actually do have the staff to supervise the children and are deliberately lying to parents, or that you were saying that they are so incredibly badly managed that that can't stretch their (admittedly 30% less than other schools) resources to cover that supervision. Which was it?
    Post here the set of accounts for the school you are thinking of, and I'll tell you.


  • Options
    #1629
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    recedite wrote: »
    What part of the following statement of mine do you not understand, or not agree with? The existence of a constitutional right for a person implies a corresponding duty on the State and others to respect that right.
    I understand the statement you made perfectly. What I asked you was:
    Where exactly does the 'legal imperative demand action'?
    Where is the legal imperative?
    Where is it implied (or even expressed, which might be more useful) that the State (and, of course, 'others') have a duty to 'respect' the right?
    What exactly does 'respect'ing the right (legally) entail?
    recedite wrote: »
    The State must take action to ensure rights are protected, eg if someone kills another person, the State takes action to catch the murderer. The job is not just left to the next of kin.
    That's all very well, but it doesn't answer any of the questions I asked?
    Neither does it seem to have any relationship to your assertion that the State has a constitutional obligation under Article 44 to withdraw all funding from such schools that don't provide separate supervision for students not attending religious instruction?
    recedite wrote: »
    Post here the set of accounts for the school you are thinking of, and I'll tell you.
    Why would I be thinking of a school? I didn't make the assertion; you did. Weren't there schools you had in mind whose accounts you can post for us?


  • Options
    #1630
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    If you have anything new to add to this discussion, I'll respond. Otherwise feel free to have the last word.


  • Options
    #1631
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    recedite wrote: »
    If you have anything new to add to this discussion, I'll respond. Otherwise feel free to have the last word.

    You reminded me, I wasn't in the mood to respond to this post a few days ago, but I don't think I want to leave someone thinking that they got the last word either :)
    Absolam wrote: »
    That's a bit of a blatant strawman though really, isn't it? Your opinion of why the State is obliged to do what it is in fact obliged to do has nothing to do with your misrepresention of the States obligation to provide for education as outsourcing a state funded service...

    What I was saying is the constitution isn't some kind of magic document passed down by aliens, someone drew it up in the 1920s and 30s and it is reflective of that time and the 'the powers that were' at that time.
    So, the document sets out a lot of things that were designed to ensure heavy church influence over education.

    The state's obligations are what the state decided that it was going to be obliged to do in 1937. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's something that shouldn't be challenged and changed, even if it were to require a referendum to do so.
    Absolam wrote: »
    Maybe. That doesn't explain why you're claiming the State is outsourcing a service which it's not actually obliged to provide though.

    The state is obliged to provide education under European Human Rights law and under various aspects of United Nations agreements to which it is a signatory as well as under Irish law and it does outsource it to third party providers. I don't really see what's so complicated about that or why you're even arguing that.

    By outsourcing I mean it pays another organisation (96 of which are religious organisations) to operate and manage the schools which it pays for.
    Absolam wrote: »
    So even if they'd wanted to change what they were obliged to provide they couldn't have? Fair enough... it still doesn't really have any bearing on your assertion that religious schools are providing ~96% of the states' education primary and secondary education services as an outsourced, state funded service though?

    I'm not really sure how else you could describe it.
    The state pays money to a bunch of private organisations most of which are religious 96% at last count, and 4% are not (mostly Educate Together) and those organisations provide the education service. The state pays for it through a convoluted rather cumbersome outsourcing system.

    If it wasn't outsourced the state would simply run the schools as a public service and teachers would be actual public servants with employment contracts with the Department of Education, not the schools. That is not what happens at present.
    Absolam wrote: »

    Which is fascinating, but still.... hardly relevant to the point you were making?

    Well, it's not relevant if you choose to ignore it.
    It's a huge and very unusual feature of Ireland and it would be described as classical corporatism in political science theory. It's not normally something that's seen as a very positive thing as it's usually associated with dictatorships and fascist state.

    Basically you bring powerful organisations into the state structures and give them official status without any democratic oversight and hey presto! You've elements of fascism in the middle of what is nominally a democracy i.e. things like book banning by strange committees, heavy censorship, deeply dogmatic education systems that are about social engineering rather than education, gate keepers on health and education that are designed to marginalise non-mainstream groups (e.g. atheists who might upset the apple cart), heavy use of influences on social policy / justice policy and use of them as a social engineering / control tool : banning contraceptives, banning divorce, magdalene laundries... endless list you could refer to here.

    What we had here was a complete and total destruction of democracy by vested interests. To me, it doesn't matter if those interests are the church, the banks, the mafia or a political party that wants absolute control it's all the same thing - corruption of democracy and removal of accountability.

    Ireland needs to face up to the fact that that's pretty much what went on here in the 20th century and that we still have many of the vestiges of it still in place in education and health.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1632
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    By outsourcing I mean it pays another organisation (96 of which are religious organisations) to operate and manage the schools which it pays for.

    Actually under departmental rules all schools which get state funding have to be run religiously. The 4% of Educate Together schools get the option of running under multiple religions and not just the single one (ET was originally set up to provide a secular patron for state schools. The state refused to allow them patronage until they changed their provision to multi-denom.).


  • Options
    #1633
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    recedite wrote: »
    If you have anything new to add to this discussion, I'll respond. Otherwise feel free to have the last word.
    No problem. If you ever feel able to substantiate any of your points, I'll be happy to discuss them with you.


  • Options
    #1634
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    What I was saying is the constitution isn't some kind of magic document passed down by aliens, someone drew it up in the 1920s and 30s and it is reflective of that time and the 'the powers that were' at that time.
    Ah. I didn't actually get the impression that you were saying that at all, but I totally agree, no one has asserted that the Constitution is some kind of magic document passed down by aliens. However, that doesn't mean it's not a contemporary document; it has been altered since the the 20s and 30s by plebistice, and it's scope has been illuminated by the Supreme Courts decisions. Both of these things are likely to occur in the future as well, which ensures the document, whilst being reflective of that time and the 'the powers that were' at that time, continues to be reflective of this time, and 'the powers that are' at this time.
    SpaceTime wrote: »
    So, the document sets out a lot of things that were designed to ensure heavy church influence over education.
    Specifically?
    SpaceTime wrote: »
    The state's obligations are what the state decided that it was going to be obliged to do in 1937. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's something that shouldn't be challenged and changed, even if it were to require a referendum to do so.
    And of course, what the people have decided it should be obliged to do since 1937 as well. Just as it can be challenged and changed in the future, it has been equally open to challenge and change in the past, which is why the obligations are as they are now.
    SpaceTime wrote: »
    The state is obliged to provide education under European Human Rights law and under various aspects of United Nations agreements to which it is a signatory as well as under Irish law and it does outsource it to third party providers. I don't really see what's so complicated about that or why you're even arguing that.
    Ah, that's a tidy little segueway from the States legally enforceable obligations under the Irish Constitution and Irish Legislation, to the States notional obligations under various treaties and agreements (despite your earlier assertion that the State is only 'obliged' to do what a bunch of religious conservatives decided they'd be obliged to do when the constitution was drafted in 1937, which I'm guessing your recanting now?) , though you have conflated the two there which rather muddies the point.
    To stick momentarily to the Irish Law part of your point, since that's what we've been discussing so extensively so far; where exactly do you find that the state is obliged to provide education under Irish law?

    Then, with regard to the new issues of European Human Rights Law & United Nations agreements that you've submitted, don't you think it would aid the discussion if you were to set out where the obligation to provide education occurs in those laws and agreements, and the means by which the State is obligated to comply with them?
    SpaceTime wrote: »
    By outsourcing I mean it pays another organisation (96 of which are religious organisations) to operate and manage the schools which it pays for.
    To be clear, your original statement was that 'Religious schools are providing ~96% of the states' education primary and secondary education services as an outsourced, state funded service.'
    Now to my mind, outsourcing involves contracting another party (in this case religious schools, amongst others) to provide a service you have undertaken to provide.
    This being distinct from contracting another party (again in this case being religious schools, amongst others) to provide a service which you have an obligation to provide for.
    The obvious distinction being the obligation to provide, which would be passed on in an outsourcing situation, and the obligation to provide for, which is retained in non outsourcing situation. Do you feel the distinction requires discussion, or is it agreeable?
    SpaceTime wrote: »
    I'm not really sure how else you could describe it.
    I think I would describe it as; the Irish State, in fulfilling it's obligation to provide for education, regulates and makes available funding for an educational system in which the service of education is largely provided by third parties.
    SpaceTime wrote: »
    The state pays money to a bunch of private organisations most of which are religious 96% at last count, and 4% are not (mostly Educate Together) and those organisations provide the education service.
    True enough.
    SpaceTime wrote: »
    The state pays for it through a convoluted rather cumbersome outsourcing system.
    Not so much. Since the State doesn't need to provide an education service, it's not outsourcing it. Paying third parties for education services fulfills the obligation to provide for those services.
    SpaceTime wrote: »
    If it wasn't outsourced the state would simply run the schools as a public service and teachers would be actual public servants with employment contracts with the Department of Education, not the schools. That is not what happens at present.
    That's a bit of a non-sequiteur I'm afraid. If it wasn't outsourced any number of other situations might pertain, including the one that actually does pertain at the moment, where the State provides for education services, but doesn't provide the majority of education services.
    The State would (probably) only run the schools as a public service and have teachers as actual public servants with employment contracts with the Department of Education if it were actually obliged to provide education services.
    SpaceTime wrote: »
    Well, it's not relevant if you choose to ignore it.
    If I were ignoring it, I certainly wouldn't have mentioned it :-)
    SpaceTime wrote: »
    It's a huge <...> in education and health.
    I have to say, that reads rather more like a conspiracy theory than a discussion on school patronage. In short, we simply haven't had a complete and total destruction of democracy. Ireland is (still) a democracy, and like all democracies has faced challenges and issues in its history, if not quite the challenges other democracies faced from fascism as you alluded, and although the influence the Catholic Church has exerted on the opinions of the people who participate in our democracy is undeniable, the Church didn't take away anyones right to vote.
    Would it suffice to say that the we can all agree that the Catholic Church has had a very substantial influence on Irish society since long before the inception of the State, and that that influence has not always been a positive one? That's pretty much the angst-less version really. Either way, I still don't see how it is relevant to your assertion that the State is outsourcing it's obligation?


  • Options
    #1635
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    Honestly I'm not going to waste my time rebutting all that as I'm clearly having an argument with a brick wall. It's fairly pointless.

    Let's just agree to disagree. I absolutely disagree with you and I'm not going to change my mind on the subject no matter what you post or what you attempt to rebut. So let's save ourselves a lot of typing and call it stale mate.


  • Options
    #1636
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Actually under departmental rules all schools which get state funding have to be run religiously.
    Do you by any chance have a link to the Department rules that require schools to be run religiously in order to get State funding?
    This has been brought up a number of times on this thread and others, but no one ever seems to quote or link the rules. I'd be interested in reading them.


  • Options
    #1637
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,767 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    Education Committee to consider role of primary school boards: Education Committee to consider role of primary scbool management boards... http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/mediazone/pressreleases/name-24860-en.html


  • Options
    #1638
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    expectationlost wrote: »
    Education Committee to consider role of primary school boards: Education Committee to consider role of primary... http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/mediazone/pressreleases/name-24860-en.html
    Interesting.
    "The Committee are particularly interested in exploring issues relating to the accountability of the Boards and the transparency with which they perform their functions."

    I wonder does the Committee publish the minutes of its meetings?


  • Options
    #1639
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,103 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Not just minutes; a full transcript of the hearings will be included in the Oireachtas reports - every word spoken by the witnesses and by each of the committee members. (Plus, the hearings are public and you can attend if you want. Plus, they are usually live-webcast.)

    And the hearings may be followed in due course by a report from the Committee, which will summarise the conclusions the Committee reaches, and the recommendations they make, after hearing the evidence.


  • Options
    #1640
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Well, I see where the webcast will be
    Committee Room 3
    But the website is a pain... the reports section is obviously where the final report including the minutes of the meeting will end up but i can't see a separate minutes/hearings section for the committees. Ah well. Patience is a virtue I suppose.


  • Options
    #1641
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,103 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    The report, when it's published, will be listed on this page. But note that the report may not be published for weeks or months; the Committee may want to have further hearings with other witnesses, and then they will take time to prepare and settle the report.

    The transcript of the hearing, however, should be up within a couple of days of the hearing - a week at the latest. You should find it here.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1642
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,767 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    Absolam wrote: »
    Well, I see where the webcast will be
    Committee Room 3
    But the website is a pain... the reports section is obviously where the final report including the minutes of the meeting will end up but i can't see a separate minutes/hearings section for the committees. Ah well. Patience is a virtue I suppose.

    the transcript will take about a week http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/committeebasebyyear/2014?opendocument

    if you are in work and miss it tmw you get raw video here http://oireachtas.heanet.ie/CR4/


  • Options
    #1643
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    Honestly I'm not going to waste my time rebutting all that as I'm clearly having an argument with a brick wall. It's fairly pointless.
    Let's just agree to disagree. I absolutely disagree with you and I'm not going to change my mind on the subject no matter what you post or what you attempt to rebut. So let's save ourselves a lot of typing and call it stale mate.
    If you like. For my part, I'm happy to change my mind on the subject if someone presents compelling evidence at odds with what I think.


  • Options
    #1644
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    Absolam wrote: »
    If you like. For my part, I'm happy to change my mind on the subject if someone presents compelling evidence at odds with what I think.

    You're not presenting compelling evidence though, rather you're just repeating a dogmatic PR type defence exercise on any poster whose opinion differs from yours. That's not really going to lead to a discussion.


  • Options
    #1645
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,767 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    Education Dept receives up to 30 school complaints a week http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1022/654155-department-of-education-complaints/ still abdicates responsibility


  • Options
    #1646
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,767 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    http://oireachtas.heanet.ie/CR3/ you can dowload or stream this file http://oireachtas.heanet.ie/CR3/CR3_20141022-13.00.wmv each 200mb file overlaps half an hour


  • Options
    #1647
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,767 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    Catholic educationalists have launch an attack on integrated schools sectorhttp://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/education/catholic-educationalists-have-launch-an-attack-on-integrated-schools-sector-30683573.html northern ireland
    The Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) has questioned why the Executive retains its statutory duty - enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement - to encourage and facilitate integrated education.
    "CCMS believes that the time has come for the department to dispense with its duty to encourage and facilitate integrated education," the body said.

    "If after 30 years the sector has grown to the point where it commands only 6.89% of the school-age population, the department should evaluate the public appetite for integrated education, reconsider the statutory duty and look to the promotion of other initiatives which have a greater chance of making more effective use of limited resources.

    "The existence of various forms of education, each espousing its own distinctive ethos, is evident throughout the world, as is the recognition that where change is deemed to be necessary, it can be brought about while maintaining respect for each individual education sector or provider."

    the CCMS has no shame


  • Options
    #1648
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    You're not presenting compelling evidence though, rather you're just repeating a dogmatic PR type defence exercise on any poster whose opinion differs from yours. That's not really going to lead to a discussion.
    Is there any evidence you asked for that I didn't provide? I'm happy to make the effort if you ask.
    As far as dogmatic goes, I think if I were actually adopting a dogmatic approach I might say something like "I absolutely disagree with you and I'm not going to change my mind on the subject no matter what you post or what you attempt to rebut", but I didn't say that. Certainly, that kind of attitude would make participating in a discussion fairly redundant.
    As for PR type defence exercises, well, that sounds a little bit like CT thinking creeping in...


  • Options
    #1649
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,022 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    You're not presenting compelling evidence though, rather you're just repeating a dogmatic PR type defence exercise on any poster whose opinion differs from yours. That's not really going to lead to a discussion.

    >500 posts later and still the same going around in circles.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90291202&postcount=1099

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Options
    #1650
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    >500 posts later and still the same going around in circles.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90291202&postcount=1099
    Yep, still the same rationale too... but weren't you all for challenging the substance of the statement? What changed your mind?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1651
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,022 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    My mind hasn't changed and your post proves my point rather nicely I think.

    Life ain't always empty.



Advertisement