Schools to be transfered out of Catholic patronage an "immediate priority"

sensibleken

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0311/education.html

Go Ruairi!


Minister for Education Ruairi Quinn has said he will be establishing a forum to identify how schools can be transferred out of Catholic patronage as a matter of immediate priority.
Addressing managers of the country's Catholic primary schools, Mr Quinn said the forum would identify methods and processes by which Catholic schools could be divested.
He said the forum, which forms part of the new Programme for Government, would focus not on whether this was a good idea but on how to make it happen.

Galvasean

What's he talking about? I and hundreds of my friends know this whole Baptismal Cert. lark is a complete red herring :rolleyes:

JimiTime

Galvasean wrote: »

What's he talking about? I and hundreds of my friends know this whole Baptismal Cert. lark is a complete red herring :rolleyes:

Ha ha. u made a funny.

Mongarra

Genuinely, Galvasean, I do not understand what you mean by "this whole Baptismal cert lark". What is your point?

Galvasean

Mongarra wrote: »

Genuinely, Galvasean, I do not understand what you mean by "this whole Baptismal cert lark". What is your point?

It's a forum in-joke. That post was tongue-in-cheek and does not represent my actual opinion on the matter.

mikhail

Mongarra wrote: »

Genuinely, Galvasean, I do not understand what you mean by "this whole Baptismal cert lark". What is your point?

It's a joke regulars on this forum will recognise. Most times discussion here turns to the Catholic church's role in the education system here, someone will appear to deny that schools discriminate on religious grounds. In spite of this, several A&A regulars can attest to the fact that they do discriminate in this way. JimiTime is the most recent example of someone to deny this is a problem - hence his slightly sour post above.

Zombrex

sensibleken wrote: »

focus not on whether this was a good idea but on how to make it happen.

Good stuff. That was all FF seemed to debate, whether it should happen or not, they never did anything to make it happen.

JimiTime

mikhail wrote: »

JimiTime is the most recent example of someone to deny this is a problem - hence his slightly sour post above.

Wrong! And as a non Roman Catholic I will be happy if this process is done correctly.

Dave!

Awesome.

Just read an Irish Times article written by Ruairi Quinn a year ago:

http://www.ruairiquinn.ie/?p=128

NOW THAT our primary schools have reopened after the recent cold spell, and in the light of the astounding revelations in the latest Irish Times opinion poll, it is timely to explore the apparent thaw in the Catholic Church’s attitude to the question of pluralism and patronage in our 3,200 primary schools.

Bishop Leo O’Reilly, chairman of the bishops’ commission on education, recently made an interesting contribution (“Catholics entitled to their schools”, Opinion and Analysis, December 19th).

“There is a need for pluralism of education in Ireland so that parents have a choice, as far as possible, about what kind of school their children will attend,” he wrote. “This right to parental choice in education is recognised in most democracies and enshrined in our Constitution.

“Nobody denies that there are many primary schools under Catholic patronage. In a changing Ireland, additional forms of patronage are emerging. We have welcomed this, and last month Catholic school patrons began discussions with the Department of Education about the transfer of patronage.”

This is a welcome development and it should be encouraged. The Catholic Church is the patron of 92 per cent of 3,200 primary schools in the Republic. This historical legacy does not reflect the reality of modern Ireland.

In recent decades, three new patrons have emerged. The Muslim community has two primary schools in Dublin. The Gaelscoileanna Movement and Educate Together are the other two patrons. One provides primary education through the medium of the Irish language. The other provides a multidenominational ethos through English.

In 2008, Mary Hanafin, then minister for education, requested Dublin County Vocational Education Committee to act as patron to two new primary schools in north Dublin, on an experimental basis. It should be understood that nearly all of the newly built primary schools in areas of population growth are either Gaelscoileanna or Educate Together.

Two issues compound the problem of school provision. Our population is growing. In 2008 Ireland saw its highest birth rate since 1896, with just over 74,500 babies born. In two years’ time, those children will be looking for a place in junior infants classes.

At present there are 498,914 pupils in our primary schools. By 2020 that figure, according to the Central Statistics Office, could be as high as 620,000. Many are living in built-up areas, like in my constituency of Dublin South East where, according to the census, 67.6 per cent are Catholic. Many other constituencies are similar.

This is where the second issue arises. Catholic and Protestant primary schools have admission policies which require them to give priority to members of their own church. Some Catholic schools in Dublin South East require a baptismal certificate for the child and a utility bill in the name of the parents for a dwelling within the parish.

Some 90 per cent of the primary schools in Dublin South East have waiting lists. Newborn infants have their names put on a waiting list for schools by parents aware of the local situation. Young new parents or people who grew up in other parts of the country are astounded when they cannot get their children into their local school.

For some, the request for a baptismal certificate is an affront, if not a surprise. The parents assumed, wrongly, that the primary school was the local school.

As a result a new phenomenon is developing; the emergence of “compulsory Catholic”. One parent may be lapsed, the other a committed agnostic, humanist, or atheist. They realise that a visit to the baptismal font is between them and access to a primary school place for their child.

Parents and godparents, not practising, lapsed, agnostic or atheists are now required to make solemn vows, before a priest, to raise the child as a practising Catholic. The priest, who has not seen the parents before and does not expect to see them again, goes along with this charade. Neither party seems to worry that the hypocrisy involved may damage the children or undermine the coherence of the Catholic ethos.

The problem is not confined to the parents or pupils. Many teachers belong to the growing denomination of agnostics, humanists and atheists and non-religious in Ireland. In the 2006 census, 186,000 people replied “no religion” – the second largest “religious group” in the country.

The answer to Bishop O’Reilly’s welcome call for pluralism is the orderly transfer of Catholic patronage of some primary schools to other patron bodies under supervision of the Department of Education and Science.

This would reflect modern day practice and observance. It would enable Catholic parents to have Catholic schools which would deliver Catholic education for observant Catholic parents and their children.

It would also facilitate other Catholic parents who consciously want their Catholic children to be educated within a multidenominational ethos where they would learn openly about other religions and belief systems such as humanism and atheism.

We need to be extremely careful about how we proceed. At all times, our primary concern must be to ensure the maintenance of the continued quality of education for the children involved in our primary school system. To achieve this, teachers must have security and certainty about the process. Existing contracts and years of service must be fully recognised. We do, fortunately, have some experience from the past that can help us into the future.

The amalgamations of secondary schools, in the past, provide many lessons that will help to inform the future. The fact that the Department of Education and Science provides the salaries for teachers is a major factor for stability and continuity.

Article 42 of our Constitution recognises the parent as the primary educator of the child. The Labour Party believes that this is a good starting point from which to address the issue of the provision of education. I agree with Bishop O’Reilly: parents should have a choice, as far as possible, about what kind of school their children will attend. This will maintain standards and quality through effective competition, across our primary school system.

Getting from where we are, to a pluralism of choice in primary education which reflects the needs of Ireland today and into the future, is a journey which we need to take. But we must embark carefully and with concern, first and foremost, for our young students and their teachers.

That is why I fully support Archbishop Diarmuid Martin’s calls for a national forum on patronage in primary schools. Such a forum would involve all the stakeholders, parents, patrons, teachers, principals and others. This would provide the road map to the future of our primary school system.

Wolfe Tone

But the church often owns the school grounds, sounds like this "forum" is a fob off in which many will be overpaid for doing fcuk all.

mikhail

JimiTime wrote: »

Wrong! And as a non Roman Catholic I will be happy if this process is done correctly.

Jimi, being wrong is okay. It happens to the best of us all of the time. Denying that you said something when I can pull up the written record though, that's just making a fool of yourself. Here is the written record of you denying that schools here discriminate on the basis of religion.

JimiTime wrote: »

I see this said all the time, but its simply not the case. Myself, and a whole ream of people I know have not been baptised into the RCC and never had an issue going to a RC school. Its a total red herring. In fact, that would be the best thing the RC schools could do for atheists, as it would mean that there would be an outcry where there was something of substance in it.

Dave!

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

But the church often owns the school grounds, sounds like this "forum" is a fob off in which many will be overpaid for doing fcuk all.

The Church is volunteering to hand over patronage of some schools, so I don't see what obstacles stand in the way for the transferal of those schools at least.

strobe

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

But the church often owns the school grounds, sounds like this "forum" is a fob off in which many will be overpaid for doing fcuk all.

Compulsory purchase order. Value the grounds, subtract the amount of money the state have paid into the schools in maintenance of the grounds and school over the years and then hand the church a bill for the difference. They can pay it along with the compensation they owe to the victims of abuse in the one check to save paper.

JimiTime

mikhail wrote: »

Jimi, being wrong is okay.

And if you'd bothered to read on, you'd have seen that I have no bother in admitting when I'm wrong.

It happens to the best of us all of the time. Denying that you said something when I can pull up the written record though, that's just making a fool of yourself. Here is the written record of you denying that schools here discriminate on the basis of religion.

If you had followed the thread, you'd have seen me recant this view too.


"Fair enough, apologies so. If this really is an issue of modern Ireland, that Schools are finding that they have to invoke the Catholics first thing due to lack of places, then something needs to be done."

It might be foreign to some, but I accept gladly when some of my ignorance is chipped away.

Wolfe Tone

strobe wrote: »

Compulsory purchase order. Value the grounds, subtract the amount of money the state have paid into the schools in maintenance, heating etc over the years and then hand the church a bill for the difference. They can pay it along with the compensation they owe to the victims of abuse in the one check to save paper.

I dont think that is a realistic proposal.

strobe

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I dont think that is a realistic proposal.

I'm only being half serious WT.

Wolfe Tone

Dave! wrote: »

The Church is volunteering to hand over patronage of some schools, so I don't see what obstacles stand in the way for the transferal of those schools at least.

Why do we need a forum at all then?

Dave!

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Why do we need a forum at all then?

Dunno, I don't know what the process is when it comes to that kind of thing. Maybe there's some legal and other such stuff that needs to be sorted out? As the minister said, the forum is not to determine whether it's a good idea, it's to sort out the logistics of actually doing it. I don't think it's just a case of the bishop handing the keys to the minister, and then heading off.

mikhail

JimiTime wrote: »

And if you'd bothered to read on, you'd have seen that I have no bother in admitting when I'm wrong.

What part of "JimiTime is the most recent example of someone to deny this is a problem" was wrong so? Did someone else do it after you? :rolleyes:

Wolfe Tone

Dave! wrote: »

Dunno, I don't know what the process is when it comes to that kind of thing. Maybe there's some legal and other such stuff that needs to be sorted out? As the minister said, the forum is not to determine whether it's a good idea, it's to sort out the logistics of actually doing it. I don't think it's just a case of the bishop handing the keys to the minister, and then heading off.

Maybe, but it sounds like a token gesture so he can safely ignore the issue while a team of solicitors get paid to come back in a year or so with a figure which will be deemed too expensive.

Dave!

I don't think he has any intention of ignoring it, Labour have not hidden their intention of transferring patronage from the Church, and as their are alot of atheists in the party I don't see why they'd want to ignore it They're also setting a limit of 1 year for the forum to sit.

Seems to me like gratuituous cynicism on your part! Suppose we'll have to wait and see. I think we'll all be disappointed if they don't follow through with the plan.

Wolfe Tone

Dave! wrote: »

I don't think he has any intention of ignoring it, Labour have not hidden their intention of transferring patronage from the Church, and as their are alot of atheists in the party I don't see why they'd want to ignore it They're also setting a limit of 1 year for the forum to sit.

Seems to me like gratuituous cynicism on your part! Suppose we'll have to wait and see. I think we'll all be disappointed if they don't follow through with the plan.

I think its just being realistic tbh, but we will see, I just hate the idea of these forums.

robindch

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

But the church often owns the school grounds [...].

I believe that in general, the church used to organize public or private whip-arounds to acquire the money to buy the grounds upon which the schools were built. Or, it would receive bequests for sums specifically allocated to school building.

The church, so far as I am aware -- and I'd love to see hard stats on this -- generally did not allocate money from its central funding apparatus and I believe the Vatican rarely, if ever, did.

Helix

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

But the church often owns the school grounds, sounds like this "forum" is a fob off in which many will be overpaid for doing fcuk all.

perhaps the catholic church can give the grounds back by way of payment to the irish taxpayers for having to foot the bill for the comphensation paid to victims abused at the hands of the clergy

Wolfe Tone

Helix wrote: »

perhaps the catholic church can give the grounds back by way of payment to the irish taxpayers for having to foot the bill for the comphensation paid to victims abused at the hands of the clergy

For gods sake there is no point posting stuff like that which is massively unrealistic.

Ickle Magoo

Why is it massively unrealistic? Other than vatican greed?

If the buildings and their grounds were purchased by public funds given to the church - the same church that owes an enormous debt, in more that monetary terms, to that public for some truly obscene behaviour, why couldn't they "donate" the schools and grounds back to that public? Seems like the decent thing to do given the circumstances.

Wolfe Tone

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Why is it massively unrealistic? Other than vatican greed?

If the buildings and their grounds were purchased by public funds given to the church - the same church that owes an enormous debt, in more that monetary terms, to that public for some truly obscene behaviour, why couldn't they "donate" the schools and grounds back to that public? Seems like the decent thing to do given the circumstances.

If you think that will happen you are being massively unrealistic.

The church will not simply hand over some vastly valuable land, who knows what loans etc they may have taken with that land listed as assets.

strobe

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

If you think that will happen you are being massively unrealistic.

The church will not simply hand over some vastly valuable land, who knows what loans etc they may have taken with that land listed as assets.

Hence the forum.

Ickle Magoo

Well, last time I looked the vatican had rather a lot of assets, I can't believe that would form a serious issue - other than as a smoke-screen to shirk some basic responsibilities and avoid doing the decent thing...which they have become rather adept at.

Wolfe Tone

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Well, last time I looked the vatican had rather a lot of assets, I can't believe that would form a serious issue - other than as a smoke-screen to shirk some basic responsibilities and avoid doing the decent thing...which they have become rather adept at.

Im talking about loans which parishes may have taken, and listed that land as assets and whatnot. I agree they should hand the schools over(tbh the state should have done so from the beginning and not relied on the church to educate people)

But if you think the church will hand over property they own for free I think you are being unrealistic. What we will have is this forum for a year issuing a report which will be ignored, or it will prove too expensive.

sensibleken

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Im talking about loans which parishes may have taken, and listed that land as assets and whatnot. I agree they should hand the schools over(tbh the state should have done so from the beginning and not relied on the church to educate people)

But if you think the church will hand over property they own for free I think you are being unrealistic. What we will have is this forum for a year issuing a report which will be ignored, or it will prove too expensive.

Well dont write it off just yet. Quinn has a knack of getting shít done

Wolfe Tone

sensibleken wrote: »

Well dont write it off just yet. Quinn has a knack of getting shít done

They wont change the system, the system will change them.

robindch

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Im talking about loans which parishes may have taken, and listed that land as assets and whatnot.

Totally illegal -- you can't put up something that's unsaleable as collateral for a loan.

All the same, it wouldn't surprise me to hear that it's common practice.

Ickle Magoo

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Im talking about loans which parishes may have taken, and listed that land as assets and whatnot. I agree they should hand the schools over(tbh the state should have done so from the beginning and not relied on the church to educate people)

But if you think the church will hand over property they own for free I think you are being unrealistic. What we will have is this forum for a year issuing a report which will be ignored, or it will prove too expensive.

That's all just conjecture and surely what the forum is there to find out? What if the parishes don't have loans on the school lands? What if they can be transferred to church land? What if the government threatens to renegade on promises of compensation ceilings and not holding a public enquiry and prosecutions, etc, etc?

While I don't think for a minute the RCC will want to hand over anything gratis, far less do so by way of apology, I'm sure there are ways and means to excite their generosity - and I think the last thing the government will want to do is walk into a theological version of the tax-payer funded bail out of the corrupt; a lá Anglo Irish.

Wolfe Tone

I'm sure there are ways and means to excite their generosity

Like what?


If this comes back with a big bill how can paying it be justified? Considering education is underfunded as it is I cant see a big check being written

sensibleken

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

They wont change the system, the system will change them.

eh what?

Ickle Magoo

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Like what?


If this comes back with a big bill how can paying it be justified? Considering education is underfunded as it is I cant see a big check being written

Did the past government not agree to stop public inquiry at the Dublin diocese? Was there not mention of no state prosecutions? Given this is a country which has thousands of people claiming members of the RCC abused them, I think there is plenty of room to negotiate.

Wolfe Tone

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Did the past government not agree to stop public inquiry at the Dublin diocese? Was there not mention of no state prosecutions? Given this is a country which has thousands of people claiming members of the RCC abused them, I think there is plenty of room to negotiate.

So you propose that the state threatens a private body using the legal system unless it gives up its property?

Ickle Magoo

I propose that every diocese is fully investigated and the findings shouted from the roof tops; along with the arrest, hopefully conviction and incarceration of all those involved.

I see no reason why the state shouldn't remove any protections the RCC may be enjoying at the tax-payers expense, especially if they don't play ball. The alternative of being granted state protection from prosecution and from being inundated with court cases and compensation claims while refusing to give the schools over to the state without being fully compensated or even earning a handsome profit - given the lands and buildings were funded from the coffers of the same congregations the RCC is protected from prosecutions and compensation claims from - would be more ridiculous.

Mind you, given the way the banking crises and subsequent bailouts were handled here - I won't be holding my breath.

Wolfe Tone

You cant simply seize land from a group without paying for it. Nor should the govt threaten a group and force them into giving up property, thats a dangerous precedent

Ickle Magoo

Actually, not pursuing criminals and standing in the way of justice in terms of limiting compensation is a dangerous precedence...swings and roundabouts.

Wolfe Tone

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

You cant simply seize land from a group without paying for it. Nor should the govt threaten a group and force them into giving up property, thats a dangerous precedent

Being realistic do you expect the forum to come back and suggest doing what you say?


I agree with you btw, but it simply will not happen like that

Ickle Magoo

I hope they open up the public enquiries and start prosecutions, lift the ceiling on compensations and remove any public responsibility in funding compensation claims - however, at the very least I would settle for the RCC handing over most of the schools without any or at least nominal remuneration.

Realistically, I think the forum would be pointing something similar out.

Wolfe Tone

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I hope they open up the public enquiries and start prosecutions, lift the ceiling on compensations and remove any public responsibility in funding compensation claims - however, at the very least I would settle for the RCC handing over most of the schools without any or at least nominal remuneration.

Realistically, I think the forum would be pointing something similar out.

I think you and I both know nothing of the sort will happen unfortunately.

axer

I think now is the most important census ever for getting this change. If the census can show the real number of catholics in this country then there is a clear strong mandate for change.

I just wonder, what is RCC's play here? Is it PR? Is it that they dont have enough funds or priests? I cannot imagine they are doing it for the good of country (going by previous behaviours).

robindch

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

You cant simply seize land from a group without paying for it.

You mean, like when the church collected money, then kept the land they bought?

I have to say -- your namesake would have not had held opinions like yours.

magicbastarder

Helix wrote: »

perhaps the catholic church can give the grounds back by way of payment to the irish taxpayers for having to foot the bill for the comphensation paid to victims abused at the hands of the clergy

seems like a realistic enough solution to me. the church can deal with grounds they've no other way of selling, and they do have a big debt they still owe the state for the compensation for victims of abuse.

Wolfe Tone

robindch wrote: »

You mean, like when the church collected money, then kept the land they bought?

I have to say -- your namesake would have not had held opinions like yours.

I said they can't, as in legally I would imagine it is an impossibility. Governments cant just go around taking land and not paying for it. Look at it objectively.

I agree the church should give the land, but they wont and the govt cant just take it.

robindch

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

[...] legally I would imagine it is an impossibility [...]Governments cant just go around taking land and not paying for it. [...]

Doesn't seem to have stopped the church doing it.

Are you saying one law for them, another for the rest of us?

And what happened to the church's notion that it was the country's moral guardian?

From this, and the ongoing clerical abuse scandal and much else besides, I'd have thought that many people must be starting to suspect that what the church preaches about itself may not, after all, be fully true in all respects.

.

Wolfe Tone

The money was donated to the church, they own the land.

No, the two arent even comparable, you know that yourself. The church receiving donations and spending them on land is totally different to the govt going around seizing land.

As for the rest of your post, Im not the person to ask, Im not religious or anything.

dvpower

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

The money was donated to the church, they own the land.

No, the two arent even comparable, you know that yourself. The church receiving donations and spending them on land is totally different to the govt going around seizing land.

As for the rest of your post, Im not the person to ask, Im not religious or anything.

The land where schools are built is zoned for educational purposes. It has very little value except for schools.