Catholic church should give up control of primary schools

transylman

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0125/1224263037668.html

A new poll gives a pretty conclusive result, with 61% saying the church should give up control of the primary school system, and 28% opposed.

So which political party is going to drag us into the 21st century.

Alex_Jones

"Catholic church should give up control of primary schools", but I don't want to pay for it, nor have I thought about what I'll replace them with.

Good man.

seamus

Alex_Jones wrote: »

"Catholic church should give up control of primary schools", but I don't want to pay for it, nor have I thought about what I'll replace them with.

Good man.

Where did you get that from?

Plenty of people have thought about what we will replace them with. Primary education isn't rocket science (no joke intended). Educate together do a fantastic job with the schools that they have. What's to stop the government handing over running of the schools to them? You have a state who owns the schools and pays the teacher, and a separate experienced body to look after the day-to-day stuff.

T runner

Alex_Jones wrote: »

"Catholic church should give up control of primary schools", but I don't want to pay for it, nor have I thought about what I'll replace them with.

Good man.

In light of the recent Murphy report, pressure could be put to bear on the Catholic Church to hand over control of these schools (maybe 50% of them?) without great expense to the taxpayer (a more significant gesture of penance than Pope Benedicts washing the feet idea).

There are not many clergy teaching any more: most of their they are state paid anyway so converting them to secular state primary schools should not involve much upheavel bar small changes to curriculum, school boards etc.

Sulmac

seamus wrote: »

Where did you get that from?

Plenty of people have thought about what we will replace them with. Primary education isn't rocket science (no joke intended). Educate together do a fantastic job with the schools that they have. What's to stop the government handing over running of the schools to them? You have a state who owns the schools and pays the teacher, and a separate experienced body to look after the day-to-day stuff.

There are also a few primary schools in Dublin controlled by the local VEC, which I think is a model that should be examined further.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1213/schools.html

http://www.codubvec.ie/en/index.cfm/go/news_one/news_key/266

Alex_Jones

seamus wrote: »

Where did you get that from?

Plenty of people have thought about what we will replace them with. Primary education isn't rocket science (no joke intended). Educate together do a fantastic job with the schools that they have. What's to stop the government handing over running of the schools to them? You have a state who owns the schools and pays the teacher, and a separate experienced body to look after the day-to-day stuff.

You mean Columbine High type state-funded education complete with free condoms in the jacks?

Alex_Jones

T runner wrote: »

There are not many clergy teaching any more: most of their they are state paid anyway so converting them to secular state primary schools should not involve much upheavel bar small changes to curriculum, school boards etc.

In Ireland. The Catholic Church is a global organisation with convents and seminaries all over the world.

But you're right. I'd favour a smaller, truer Church than have to put up with the a la carte "I know better than the Catholic Church" types who prance up to recieve Holy Communion at Easter/Xmas/weddings and funerals (often clad in attire that is more suitable for Qbar than the house of Our Lord).

seamus

Alex_Jones wrote: »

You mean Columbine High type state-funded education complete with free condoms in the jacks?

Possibly one of the worst retorts in history. Columbine was the result of a large number of factors, none of which had anything to do with the school being state run.

And what's wrong with free condoms in the toilets? If it means that every teenager is carrying a condom in their pocket and knows how to use it, then win-win.

Alex_Jones

seamus wrote: »

And what's wrong with free condoms in the toilets? If it means that every teenager is carrying a condom in their pocket and knows how to use it, then win-win.

Troll. You know perfectly well the Church's position on condom use. If people like you had their tentacles on the education system, God only knows what kind of liberal agenda you'd force on innocent minds. Go set up your own school with condoms in the jacks and see how many parents will entrust their children into your care.

seamus

Alex_Jones wrote: »

Troll. You know perfectly well the Church's position on condom use. If people like you had their tentacles on the education system, God only knows what kind of liberal agenda you'd force on innocent minds. Go set up your own school with condoms in the jacks and see how many parents will entrust their children into your care.

I wasn't aware that you had any particular Catholic agenda. Obviously I am now so we won't get into the condoms debate because that would be a waste of breath on both sides.

The Catholic church has already recently indicated that it was looking to relinquish control of many schools to the state, primarly because it no longer has the funds to sustain them. There was a time when turning children in good Catholics meant more money in your pocket when the basket came around and more brown envelopes when favours were required.

Now they're seeing diminishing returns - most children that they "pay" to school are not going on to become paid-up church members and they're losing money.

The Catholic Church as an entity has never cared about educating children, ever. It's all about creating new Catholics and generating revenue for the The Vatican, Inc. That is the reason they need to relinquish control to a body with no agenda except to educate.

Nodin

Alex_Jones wrote: »

You mean Columbine High type state-funded education complete with free condoms in the jacks?

That was a secondary school, nor do I see what significance it has in relation to Irish primary schools.

"free condoms in the jacks" would not be appropriate in a primary setting, and given the tendency of lads to mess, would probably end up mostly used as water bombs in a secondary setting.

Alex_Jones wrote: »

You know perfectly well the Church's position on condom use.

Taking the Bishop Casey example - don't use on, but walk around and say a prayer instead? Good for them, I suppose. That would obviously be their own business.

Alex_Jones wrote: »

Go set up your own school with condoms in the jacks .

Hmmmm, I'm detecting a pattern.

brianthebard

T runner wrote: »

In light of the recent Murphy report, pressure could be put to bear on the Catholic Church to hand over control of these schools (maybe 50% of them?) without great expense to the taxpayer (a more significant gesture of penance than Pope Benedicts washing the feet idea).

Schools could be nationalised as the beginning of the Church paying back the state for what its done. Personally I'd like to see both primary and secondary schools taken from the Church, as well as secularised, but obviously no party actually wants to do that.

Alex_Jones

seamus wrote: »

I wasn't aware that you had any particular Catholic agenda. Obviously I am now so we won't get into the condoms debate because that would be a waste of breath on both sides.

The Catholic church has already recently indicated that it was looking to relinquish control of many schools to the state, primarly because it no longer has the funds to sustain them. There was a time when turning children in good Catholics meant more money in your pocket when the basket came around and more brown envelopes when favours were required.

Now they're seeing diminishing returns - most children that they "pay" to school are not going on to become paid-up church members and they're losing money.

The Catholic Church as an entity has never cared about educating children, ever. It's all about creating new Catholics and generating revenue for the The Vatican, Inc. That is the reason they need to relinquish control to a body with no agenda except to educate.

Tell you what: we keep all the good schools (CUS, Blackrock College. Loreto on the Green, etc.) and let the State pay to educate the sprogs (i.e. the future parasitic functionaries of society). Funnily enough, successful people who send their children to the best schools take an active interest in the ethos of the school and will put their hand in their pocket to support those ideals. Lower middle class people are generally too busy working in their crap job or watching Sky TV to take an active interest in how their children are being educated. They also have a big brother mindset and expect the government to wipe their arse for them. And if that means condoms in the jacks, then so be it. Sure don't the schools in "Eastenders" and "Sex in the City" have condoms in them?

Alex_Jones

brianthebard wrote: »

Schools could be nationalised as the beginning of the Church paying back the state for what its done. Personally I'd like to see both primary and secondary schools taken from the Church, as well as secularised, but obviously no party actually wants to do that.

Maybe the socialist party wants to do that. Luckily nobody votes for them.

seamus

Alex_Jones wrote: »

Tell you what: we keep all the good schools (CUS, Blackrock College. Loreto on the Green, etc.) and let the State pay to educate the sprogs (i.e. the future parasitic functionaries of society).

And you were the one calling me a troll?

Let's see how well all of the "good" schools get on when the state refuses to pay for their teachers and the parents are asked to pay a 600% increase in fees. Private education is only important while the parents can afford it.

Funnily enough, successful people who send their children to the best schools take an active interest in the ethos of the school and will put their hand in their pocket to support those ideals.

You're confusing correlation with causation here. These schools have plenty of funding because they're private, not because they're catholic or for any other reason. They are "good" by virtue of being privately funded by parents, which in turn makes them desirable places for parents to send their kids, which gets more funding and so forth.

I put "good" in quotes there because "good" is a difficult measure. A school with a high degree of college-bound graduates isn't necessarily a school which provides the most robust or comprehensive education. Private schools are largely rotten with an elitist, sport-centric and self-centered materialistic point of view, which is one of the primary things that lead to the Columbine massacre you mentioned earlier on.

Public schools (particularly co-ed ones) by and large churn out better adjusted and worldy-wise individuals.

Alex_Jones

seamus wrote: »

Public schools (particularly co-ed ones) by and large churn out better adjusted and worldy-wise individuals.

Mmm. I'd favour the lad who went to the Catholic school.

seamus

Alex_Jones wrote: »

Mmm. I'd favour the lad who went to the Catholic school.

Well of course you would. On the other hand, I'd favour the guy who's actually better, as opposed to discriminating based on religion.

Hasschu

I strongly object to free condoms in the loo, price them so as to maximize profit. The country is facing bankruptcy, it will be necessary to sell off school properties as well as Garda stations, hospitals, post offices, parks (as in Phoenix Park), greens (as in Stephens Green). In the meantime the gov't is subsidising car dealers and senior civil servants, the party is coming to an end. We will not like it when the country is on the rocks but most of us will survive. The state could not manage its way out of a wet paper bag, what makes you think they can operate schools.

Alex_Jones

brianthebard wrote: »

Schools could be nationalised as the beginning of the Church paying back the state for what its done. Personally I'd like to see both primary and secondary schools taken from the Church, as well as secularised, but obviously no party actually wants to do that.

Well at least you're being up-front with your socialist ideals.

Also, you talk as if the society that you subscribe to (and pay taxes towards) never abused a child...

Sleepy

I was actually delighted to see this question included in the poll.

Now I have something to point to when people try to insist that the majority of Irish parents want their children brainwashed by the Catholic Church. Though I suspect him to be a troll, reading Alex Jones' posts above reminded me of another good reason to avoid this: can you imagine trying to convince global businesses that Ireland had a 'highly educated' workforce if even a significant minority were going around spouting the nonsense he posted above?

brianthebard

Alex_Jones wrote: »

Well at least you're being up-front with your socialist ideals.

Also, you talk as if the society that you subscribe to (and pay taxes towards) never abused a child...

Why did you reply to me twice? And why are you suggesting I support child abuse somehow?

Nodin

Alex_Jones wrote: »

Tell you what: we keep all the good schools (CUS, Blackrock College. Loreto on the Green, etc.) and let the State pay to educate the sprogs (i.e. the future parasitic functionaries of society).

"we"?

Very christian attitude towards the rest of society, I must say.

Alex_Jones wrote: »

And if that means condoms in the jacks, then so be it

Yep, a definite pattern.

Alex_Jones

Sleepy wrote: »

can you imagine trying to convince global businesses that Ireland had a 'highly educated' workforce if even a significant minority were going around spouting the nonsense he posted above?

Why do you care what Intel/Microsoft/HP/Wyeth/Pfizer think? Hello? We're talking about the education of 4 to 12 year-olds here! (then again, they might be interested in selling condoms, the pill or Xboxes to your son/daughter)

kev9100

Alex_Jones wrote: »

Why do you care what Intel/Microsoft/HP/Wyeth/Pfizer think? Hello? We're talking about the education of 4 to 12 year-olds here! (then again, they might be interested in selling condoms, the pill or Xboxes to your son/daughter)

Well, I would much prefer 4-12 year olds be taught skills that would lead to these companies hiring them instead of learning about a guy with a beard who lives in the sky.

P.S Why the hell do you keep going on about condoms?

Alex_Jones

kev9100 wrote: »

Well, I would much prefer 4-12 year olds be taught skills that would lead to these companies hiring them instead of learning about a guy with a beard who lives in the sky.

Nah, you'd prefer to indoctrinate them with a nihilistic, relativistic outlook on life where annual salary is the primary metric for success in life. Computer games, cable TV and free love all round!

Nodin

Alex_Jones wrote: »

Nah, you'd prefer to indoctrinate them with a nihilistic, relativistic outlook on life where annual salary is the primary metric for success in life.

What exactly then, was behind the remark.....

Alex_Jones wrote: »

Tell you what: we keep all the good schools (CUS, Blackrock College. Loreto on the Green, etc.) and let the State pay to educate the sprogs (i.e. the future parasitic functionaries of society). Funnily enough, successful people who send their children to the best schools take an active interest in the ethos of the school and will put their hand in their pocket to support those ideals.

...looks to me like you're equating success with money there yourself.

kev9100

Alex_Jones wrote: »

Nah, you'd prefer to indoctrinate them with a nihilistic, relativistic outlook on life where annual salary is the primary metric for success in life. Computer games, cable TV and free love all round!

I would appreciate it if you did'nt put words in my wouth BTW. Of course I don't believe someones wealth is the primary barometer of their life. But I don't think religious belief is either.

Let me ask you a question. Who would you hire in this situation?
Person A, who is highly qualified but an atheist or person B, who is not as qualified but a practicising Catholic?

dvpower

transylman wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0125/1224263037668.html

A new poll gives a pretty conclusive result, with 61% saying the church should give up control of the primary school system, and 28% opposed.

So which political party is going to drag us into the 21st century.

The people might want it but the church are not so keen
The Labour party made some noise on this issue last year.

Sleepy

Alex_Jones wrote: »

Why do you care what Intel/Microsoft/HP/Wyeth/Pfizer think? Hello? We're talking about the education of 4 to 12 year-olds here! (then again, they might be interested in selling condoms, the pill or Xboxes to your son/daughter)

Because our almost economy is entirely dependent upon them right now.

This will be my last post in reply to you as I've learnt from experience on these boards that arguing with those who believe in things blindly is rather futile. If, or when, you start posting in a manner which suggests you're capable of taking part in a conversation rather than simply "testifying", I may reconsider.

T runner

brianthebard wrote: »

Schools could be nationalised as the beginning of the Church paying back the state for what its done. Personally I'd like to see both primary and secondary schools taken from the Church, as well as secularised, but obviously no party actually wants to do that.

I agree. I think Murphy etc has shown us the dangers of Church being intertwined with State.

As citizens we should bring pressure to bear on the political parties to completely divorce the church.

97i9y3941

if they are sending home letters to parents asking for funds like some catholic schools i know did,then they shoundnt be bothering to running the schools,the church is well loaded to run the schools themselfs..

rubensni

The Brits established a secular national schools system in the 19th century which the church destroyed. They will never give up the schools. Never.

GuanYin

Guys, can we please cut out the accusations of trolling and poking? It's against the rules here.

IF you have a problem with someone's post, please report the post. It makes our job easier and it means you don't break the rules.


@Alex_jones, please try keep your replies centered on the actual topic and not on the posters your debating with. Misrepresentation is also against the rules here.

Thanks

GY

Mod post

T runner

rubensni wrote: »

The Brits established a secular national schools system in the 19th century which the church destroyed. They will never give up the schools. Never.

State national schools mean something quite different when the State
is supranational. The ethos in those schools would have been British and Protestant and were therefore not truly secular. The Irish language was banned in them for example. It was easy for the church to discredit them.

The Church will let go if the population demands it, and we should.

sfakiaman

The fact that the members of the present government are mostly a product of the catholic education system is all the argument needed for secularisation.

Pittens

The Brits established a secular national schools system in the 19th century which the church destroyed.

It wasnt secular. English schools tend to do Anglican stuff.

The fact that the members of the present government are mostly a product of the catholic education system is all the argument needed for secularisation.

So was James Joyce. etc. Most people in Ireland would have been educated in a Catholic school, mostly non-fee paying.

Copying the factory schools of the US, and the UK would be a disaster. Irish schools have kept their standards and the amount of religion is minimal.

In the UK - where I live - I know people who convert to Catholicism to avoid secular schools. The idea is fine, in practice it means copying the discredited "progressive" non-education system where people dont know who Shakespeare is after 14 years of "education". No.

Lets not do that.

Alex_Jones

sfakiaman wrote: »

The fact that the members of the present government are mostly a product of the catholic education system is all the argument needed for secularisation.

Funny how people who were educated by the Catholic Church have a propensity to come out with smart-arsed comments such as the one above.

Incidentally, there is a higher proportion of Protestants in Dail Eireann.

dvpower

Pittens wrote: »

It wasnt secular. English schools tend to do Anglican stuff.

Faith schools are very much in the minority in England and the majority of people there oppose government funding of them.

Pittens wrote: »

Copying the factory schools of the US, and the UK would be a disaster. Irish schools have kept their standards and the amount of religion is minimal.

In the UK - where I live - I know people who convert to Catholicism to avoid secular schools. The idea is fine, in practice it means copying the discredited "progressive" non-education system where people dont know who Shakespeare is after 14 years of "education". No.

Lets not do that.

Why is it that when people call for a non discrimitory school system in this country where children of all faiths and none are equally welcomed, we invariably get this kind of response? How do you conclude that secularising the school system would automatically lead to a dropping of standards?

Alex_Jones

dvpower wrote: »

How do you conclude that secularising the school system would automatically lead to a dropping of standards?

Could you give me an example of a high quality "secular" school that you would be happy sending your child to please.

seamus

Alex_Jones wrote: »

Could you give me an example of a high quality "secular" school that you would be happy sending your child to please.

Define "quality". Take a pick out of most of the educate together N.S.'s and I'd be more than happy to send my (theoretical) child there than to the local Catholic school (even though I went there myself).

Alex_Jones

seamus wrote: »

Define "quality". Take a pick out of most of the educate together N.S.'s and I'd be more than happy to send my (theoretical) child there than to the local Catholic school (even though I went there myself).

Lol. "Educate Together" have a stricter ethos than 95% of the Catholic-by-name schools in this country.

For example, read their "Business Plan" at:

http://www.educatetogether.ie/pdf_downloads/Business%20Plan-%20final%20verison.pdf

where they describe themselves as being an "inclusive, secular alternative" to faith-based schools.

The reality is that you can happily wear a head scarf to your local Catholic school, but woe-be-tied any girl caught in wearing a set of rosary beads or a crucifix around her neck at an Educate Together school. The heathen liberal arts graduate teachers who got their PGCE in a foreign odd-ball institute would have a hissy fit.

dvpower

Alex_Jones wrote: »

Could you give me an example of a high quality "secular" school that you would be happy sending your child to please.

Most of the ET schools in this country.
Now can you answer the question that I asked?

seamus

Alex_Jones wrote: »

The reality is that you can happily wear a head scarf to your local Catholic school, but woe-be-tied any girl caught in wearing a set of rosary beads or a crucifix around her neck at an Educate Together school.

For a start, that's complete and utter nonsense. Can you prove that this is the case? And even if it was, I wouldn't see a major problem with it. If a school has a dress code which bans religious iconography, so be it. If you don't like it, pay for the privilege of a religious education.

A religion-specific education should be something you choose, not something that's inflicted on you by default. The ETs give religious education which is a discussion on various philosophies and belief systems, which is an essential part of any curriculum. Most of us never got this growing up.

dvpower

Alex_Jones wrote: »

The reality is that you can happily wear a head scarf to your local Catholic school, but woe-be-tied any girl caught in wearing a set of rosary beads or a crucifix around her neck at an Educate Together school. The heathen liberal arts graduate teachers who got their PGCE in a foreign odd-ball institute would have a hissy fit.

Source for that?

Here's what, for example, the Le Cheile ET National School say:

It is understood that pupils may wish to express their individuality, confidence and culture though their clothes and appearance. Students are free to wear items related to their religion or creed e.g. a cross or a head-dress, as this respects our multi-denominational expression. Parents of students who, for religious, cultural or health reasons may need to modify the school dress code significantly, are invited to discuss this with the Principal.

Sleepy

TBH, Seamus, I see ET as a compromise in that it even gives religious education. I'd be far happier to see educational institutions not spend their time educating our children about superstitions.

In the Short Term, I can see value in it in (a knowledge of the cultural aspects of religion can help avoid faux-pas's when carrying out international business etc) , however I wonder does entertaining religion impede our race's progresses towards a point where religions become nothing more than a historical curiosity (similar to the Ancient Roman Gods etc.).

sfakiaman

Alex_Jones wrote: »

Funny how people who were educated by the Catholic Church have a propensity to come out with smart-arsed comments such as the one above.

Actually I was taught in a non-denominational school, but I have taught in a catholic secondary school.

Alex_Jones

dvpower wrote: »

Source for that?

Here's what, for example, the Le Cheile ET National School say:

In other words: you need a license from a secular authority in order to practice your religion.

dvpower

Alex_Jones wrote: »

In other words: you need a license from a secular authority in order to practice your religion.

Let me repost the quote that this is a reply to:

Le Cheile ET National School wrote:

It is understood that pupils may wish to express their individuality, confidence and culture though their clothes and appearance. Students are free to wear items related to their religion or creed e.g. a cross or a head-dress, as this respects our multi-denominational expression. Parents of students who, for religious, cultural or health reasons may need to modify the school dress code significantly, are invited to discuss this with the Principal.

Now, if you wouldn't mind, could you point out how you got from this quote to "In other words: you need a license from a secular authority in order to practice your religion"

And then could you back up this assertion you made earlier.

Alex_Jones wrote: »

The reality is that you can happily wear a head scarf to your local Catholic school, but woe-be-tied any girl caught in wearing a set of rosary beads or a crucifix around her neck at an Educate Together school. The heathen liberal arts graduate teachers who got their PGCE in a foreign odd-ball institute would have a hissy fit.

kev9100

Alex_Jones wrote: »

In other words: you need a license from a secular authority in order to practice your religion.

No, in other words you need to get your eyes tested or just stop posting such idiotic drivel like the above quote.

Alex_Jones

Your gripe with regard the lack of choice for parents educating their children is with your government, not the Catholic Church.

dvpower

Alex_Jones wrote: »

Your gripe with regard the lack of choice for parents educating their children is with your government, not the Catholic Church.

Primarily yes, but not soley. The RCC also need to do more to heed the will of the people and get involved in the process.