If you are pregnant , don't bother with MY school

crucamim

crucamim wrote: »

Some people cannot accept that a Catholic school has the right to remain a Catholic school.

Why can the anti-Catholics not establish their own schools? Their schools could accept this young woman.

Having a child is not against Catholicism.

Even if you wanted to take the whole "sex before marriage" route, plenty of students her age are having sex, and her case should surely fall under the banner of the Catholic ethos of forgiveness? Almost any story I heard in mass as a child was about how outcasts should be embraced, those in need should be helped and sinners should be forgiven. She's certainly been outcast, she's certainly in need, and according to Catholicism she's also a sinner, so from what I can see she's the perfect candidate for a Catholic school.

hondasam

micropig wrote: »

She attended a meeting with the principal. We only have her word against the principal that a definite offer was made. there is no mention of her parents being at the meeting. Later they contacted a member of staff.

She told her parents she had been accepted. She still hadn't returned the application form.

Giving uniform & books lists - to be able to consider the expense involved with going to the school.

This doesn't make sense to me and I think the Ombudsman, in my opinion has ulterior motives with the release of this information. The department of education carried out an inspection in the school in 2007 and knew about the situation re: the BOM. Rurari Quinn gave a sketchy answer at best on the radio earlier regarding introducing legislation. In his opinion it is needed, but he'd have to wait what the experts say.

Regardless his replies which we have read are pure ignorant and I would expect better from a school principle tbh.
I don't think any school gives a book list to see what expense is involved or suggests buying a uniform either but maybe her parents were not there but I would imagine one parent would have to be at the meeting.

MagicSean

FoxT wrote: »

1 - A Catholic school that is FUNDED ENTIRELY BY THE TAXPAYER, should not have the right to discriminate. They are being paid for by people of all religions & none, and should behave accordingly.

2 - Why cant the Catholics who wish to discriminate, establish their own schools? The existing publicly funded school system must remain open & non-discriminatory.

And finally, Catholic school or not, policies which discriminate against students based on their being pregnant, or already a parent, are simply unchristian.

You do know that most schools were established by Catholics don't you?

jen84

eviltwin wrote: »

I hope they name and shame the school. I was a teenage parent 15 years ago and never had to deal with any crap like this. I would have thought those attitudes were long gone.

I don't get it, okay so its a "sin" to have sex outside marriage, its not a sin to have a baby though, the sin is in having sex so in theory anyone in that school who is sexually active should be booted out.

And nowhere does it say in the bible or is it preached by the church that people who commit sin should be treated like outcasts.

She is entitled to an education. People give out about single parents claiming benefits and here is a girl who wants to get on in life being told NO. Beggars believe.

I completely agree, I actually can't believe that people are siding with the school in this case. I can't believe that a school principle in this day and age would make such derogatory comments about a young 16 year old girl (or child even!).

I have no children myself but as with most people I know I was sexually active as as a teen and I can't believe people are so judgemental about someone who falls pregnant. I have the upmost respect for young single mothers and to be honest any of my friends who fell pregnant young are fabulous mothers! Being mothers has pretty much been our role as women since time began so to condemn women for doing just that boggles the mind!!

Fair play to the girl for wanting to get herself properly educated. I mean people give out about single mothers on benefits and here she is been shunned from education so she can better her circumstances in the future. I really don't understand some of these religious people! God wants us to be kind to each other for gods sake!

Nodin

MagicSean wrote: »

i haven't filled in any gaps nor do i have any prejudices in regard to this situation. As I've said, we don't know the full story so i don't think it's right to judge anyone..

Yet we do have the principals correspondence as referred to in the report. We do not have any information regarding the girl. Going against the declared reasoning of the school principal, and disregarding the lack of any claim whatsoever about the young woman you come out with the following -

"We have no idea why this girl is looking for her third secondary school or how she got pregnant. She could be a career scumbag or a victim of bullying and abuse."

"The school might have a very good reason for not wanting the girl in the school and may only be using the pregnancy as justification because there are no other grounds for exclusion which apply."
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78422800&postcount=278

Actually the reasons only say she could not settle. This could easily mean she was being bullied or she was a pyromaniac psychopath. ....

"Well if she dropped out because she got involved with a violent drug dealing gang the principal would be right to use any means to keep her out of his school...."

"You wouldn't think that if you had a child in the school and the new girl sitting beside her had a very dark past..."
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78426166&postcount=360

....you might do well to sample your own advice. And no, the little caveats do not cover it.

MagicSean wrote: »

What I've said quite a few times now is that there is not enough information and background given to make a fully informed opinion on either of them and it isn't right to make a judgement on the situation.

So the Ombudsmans report is incomplete or unfinished? Or are you saying its inaccurate? Certainly as far as I can detect this is the finished document. If you've definitive evidence to the contrary, or have evidence that this report is in someway inaccurate, please do present it.

micropig

hondasam wrote: »

Regardless his replies which we have read are pure ignorant and I would expect better from a school principle tbh.

Agree, his approach and response to this situation is unacceptable, but who would of though, a teacher, out of touch with the real world....this comes as no surprise to me... the department of Education should have kicked his ass years ago, when they first discovered the set-up.

hondasam wrote: »

I don't think any school gives a book list to see what expense is involved or suggests buying a uniform either but maybe her parents were not there but I would imagine one parent would have to be at the meeting.

Maybe, maybe not..the report seems to indicate that only she met with the principal..which would be strange

omega666

MagicSean wrote: »

You do know that most schools were established by Catholics don't you?

not to mention owned and maintained by the RCC

k.p.h

MagicSean wrote: »

You do know that most schools were established by Catholics don't you?

Burn ..

PrincessLola

You better not kill that fetus its a real human life!!



Oh you didn't kill it?
Stop leeching off welfare and expecting equal treatment in education you little whore!!!!

Nodin

micropig wrote: »

She reports ....( ).accepted?

Did you bother reading the report? Because your posts don't reflect that.

omega666 wrote:

there is no need to justify anything. Schools are allowed by the state to set their own admission policy and every school reserves the right to refuse admission. A school is not obliged to take any student.

...a situation that will be changed by next year, by the looks of things.

However, Ms Logan said the spirit of the Education Act is about accessibility and access, and that the principal did not operate in adherence with that.
Ms Logan found that the school's actions adversely affected the girl in question, were improperly discriminatory, were based on undesirable administrative practice and were contrary to fair and sound administration.
The Ombudsman said the Department of Education has taken the response to her recommendations very seriously and said that the absence of legislation dealing with enrolment is being addressed.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0430/teenage-girl-refused-school-place-over-pregnancy.html

Ghost Buster

crucamim wrote: »

Some people cannot accept that a Catholic school has the right to remain a Catholic school.

Why can the anti-Catholics not establish their own schools? Their schools could accept this young woman.

HEEEEEEEres Crucamin with the usual persecution complex and paranoia.
How is being anti discrimination equated with being anti catholic exactly?
This school may be catholic but it certainly isnt Christian!

Cedrus

omega666 wrote: »

not to mention owned and maintained by the RCC

So what does the RCC do with the subvention from the Dept of Education if they're so generous with their own money?

micropig

PrincessLola wrote: »

You better not kill that fetus its a real human life!!



Oh you didn't kill it?
Stop leeching off welfare and expecting equal treatment in education you little whore!!!!

I'm not religious, but Irish people have brought these kind of situations on themselves

don't believe in religion / Not a practising catholic:
Have a baby.......get it baptised because you have to get your child in to school
Get married in a church...it's the culture (collect the monies)
first communions..collect the monies
conformation..collect the monies
Send you child in to a catholic school, instead of demanding the state provides you with alternatives
declare yourself a catholic on the census..so the state can see there is not need for alternative schools



But if someone points out the hypocrisy of your lifestyle in relation to your 'religion' and actually comments you behaviour is not in keeping with catholic beliefs and what the pope says...well, run them out of the country

Nodin

micropig wrote: »

I'm not religious, but Irish people have brought these kind of situations on themselves

......

Not if you're under 18, you haven't.

k.p.h

steddyeddy wrote: »

ireland's particular prejudice seems to lie with single mothers.

While this particular case is troubling and I don't think any school should be allowed to discriminate against anyone. I will admit to finding it hard not to fall into the trap of believing the single mother stereotype.

I think maybe the particular reason I find this hard is because I live in a town full of them. Estates full of them, ques of prams outside the post office with the obligatory fag hanging out of the mouth.

I do force myself to take every case on it's own merits, I have friends who are single mothers and I know plenty who do a great job parenting. Hopefully the girl in question will do a great job and her keeping education to the forefront of her life is admirable.

But the single mother stereotype like all stereotypes is grounded somewhere.

It's far from ideal, but again prejudice and discrimination are not the answer.

PrincessLola

micropig wrote: »

I'm not religious, but Irish people have brought these kind of situations on themselves

don't believe in religion / Not a practising catholic:
Have a baby.......get it baptised because you have to get your child in to school
Get married in a church...it's the culture (collect the monies)
first communions..collect the monies
conformation..collect the monies
Send you child in to a catholic school, instead of demanding the state provides you with alternatives
declare yourself a catholic on the census..so the state can see there is not need for alternative schools



But if someone points out the hypocrisy of your lifestyle in relation to your 'religion' and actually comments you behaviour is not in keeping with catholic beliefs and what the pope says...well, run them out of the country

monies from relatives, not the Catholic Church. So irrelevent

The church doesn't do jack****, all the Catholic schools are funded by us, the taxpayer.

These 'Catholic' schools are the real hypocrites. God forbid they show compassion to a young mother, compassion, you know, what Jesus would have done. That might actually be a Christian thing to do :eek:

Nope can't have that, lets shame young women (no mention of the father of the child, and whether he's allowed to stay in school)

MagicSean

Nodin wrote: »

Yet we do have the principals correspondence as referred to in the report. We do not have any information regarding the girl. Going against the declared reasoning of the school principal, and disregarding the lack of any claim whatsoever about the young woman you come out with the following -

"We have no idea why this girl is looking for her third secondary school or how she got pregnant. She could be a career scumbag or a victim of bullying and abuse."

"The school might have a very good reason for not wanting the girl in the school and may only be using the pregnancy as justification because there are no other grounds for exclusion which apply."
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78422800&postcount=278

Actually the reasons only say she could not settle. This could easily mean she was being bullied or she was a pyromaniac psychopath. ....

"Well if she dropped out because she got involved with a violent drug dealing gang the principal would be right to use any means to keep her out of his school...."

"You wouldn't think that if you had a child in the school and the new girl sitting beside her had a very dark past..."
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78426166&postcount=360

....you might do well to sample your own advice. And no, the little caveats do not cover it.

From the posts you quoted I clearly give two completely different possibilities for what the girl might be like yet you focus on only the negative ones and say that I am making assumptions about her? Clearly I amn't as I am giving two polar opposite possibilities.

Nodin wrote: »

So the Ombudsmans report is incomplete or unfinished? Or are you saying its inaccurate? Certainly as far as I can detect this is the finished document. If you've definitive evidence to the contrary, or have evidence that this report is in someway inaccurate, please do present it.

There's loads of stufff it doesn't cover, particularly in regard to the girls past and circumstances. That's evident to anyone.

Nodin

MagicSean wrote: »

From the posts you quoted I clearly give two completely different possibilities for what the girl might be like yet you focus on only the negative ones and say that I am making assumptions about her? Clearly I amn't as I am giving two polar opposite possibilities.

Why do you presume that there may be some 'dark side' with no basis for it?

Why, for the love of all fuckery, would you introduce such derogatory speculation on no grounds whatsoever while at the same time urging people not to judge a party on statements that clearly indicate their line of reasoning? It defies all reason.

MagicSean wrote: »

There's loads of stufff it doesn't cover, particularly in regard to the girls past and circumstances. That's evident to anyone.

(...let's see...it doesn't cover whether the mother is a closet satanist...doesn't say she isn't one certainly....doesn't say the child wasn't convicted of murder carried out in a form consistent with ritual sacrifice....)

And by that "logic" you introduce the notion that there may be an invisible pink unicorn in the room, and that people should run off and prove conclusively it's not there.

The principal gave reasons why he did not want that student in the school. Do please give a reason why we should discount their own words, and why we should even suspect the teenage girl of being some form of 'dubious' character.

prinz

PrincessLola wrote: »

The church doesn't do jack****, all the Catholic schools are funded by us, the taxpayer.

LOL. Apart from in the vast majority of schools, provide the land, provide funds to build them, provide funds to help run them etc etc.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/education/primary_and_post_primary_education/going_to_primary_school/ownership_of_primary_schools.html

steddyeddy

omega666 wrote: »

not to mention owned and maintained by the RCC

Jesus is this a joke? Really is it? The same rcc who protected peadophiles in this country for decades? The very same who treated single mothers like animals in the laundries and the same ones that made our country a laughing stock. I dont care which organization runs what they have no right what ever to discriminate.

languagenerd

Spent a while reading through this thread - some of the wild assumptions and ridiculous excuses are nothing short of shocking!

We don't know ANYTHING about this girl, other than her age and the county she lives in. There is absolutely no basis for deciding she's a slut, or a troublemaker, or a wannabe welfare scrounger.

Obviously, teenagers shouldn't get pregnant, but it happens. Accepting that it happens does not equal accepting it to be the norm! But someone should not be ostracized for something they did when they were 15/6, and especially not for having a baby. We don't know the circumstances in which she got pregnant - whether it was a long-term relationship, whether it was her first time - there's no reason to assume she's "putting it around". But even she'd slept with every teenage boy in her town, that's none of the school's business. Your private life has nothing to do with your school or your work. She wasn't asking to bring the baby to class with her!

Yes, it's a school with a Catholic ethos - but it's a public school. If you get the state's funding, you play by the state's rules. If it was a private school, then that would be their decision, but it's not.

As for all this crap about her being a bad influence or a troublemaker: she was not rejected for being a troublemaker, the letters quite clearly state she was rejected for being pregnant / an unmarried mother. I went to an all-girls Catholic school and there were a couple of girls in my year who had babies in 6th year. One took just three weeks off to have her baby and came back to class, another sat her exams over 8 months pregnant. If anything, we admired them for continuing to study, but they did not "glamourise" teenage pregnancy for us - we saw how hard they had it! The LC was bad enough without having a screaming baby to look after or dealing with morning sickness, thanks. And as for them being a distraction, I assure you that not once was a class interrupted so that "30 people could feel the baby kicking" ffs!

From what I can see, this was a case of a public school telling a sixteen year old who was already in a very stressful situation that she was inferior to them and not good enough for them. Yes, she had another school to go to, but that is completely besides the point. This school had no right to treat her like that. I can only imagine what effect that would have on someone's self esteem!

(Apologies for the long post, but this thread has made me angry!)

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

LOL. Apart from in the vast majority of schools, provide the land, provide funds to build them, provide funds to help run them etc etc.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/education/primary_and_post_primary_education/going_to_primary_school/ownership_of_primary_schools.html

...did you read that yourself?

steddyeddy

languagenerd wrote: »

Spent a while reading through this thread - some of the wild assumptions and ridiculous excuses are nothing short of shocking!

We don't know ANYTHING about this girl, other than her age and the county she lives in. There is absolutely no basis for deciding she's a slut, or a troublemaker, or a wannabe welfare scrounger.

Obviously, teenagers shouldn't get pregnant, but it happens. Accepting that it happens does not equal accepting it to be the norm! But someone should not be ostracized for something they did when they were 15/6, and especially not for having a baby. We don't know the circumstances in which she got pregnant - whether it was a long-term relationship, whether it was her first time - there's no reason to assume she's "putting it around". But even she'd slept with every teenage boy in her town, that's none of the school's business. Your private life has nothing to do with your school or your work. She wasn't asking to bring the baby to class with her!

Yes, it's a school with a Catholic ethos - but it's a public school. If you get the state's funding, you play by the state's rules. If it was a private school, then that would be their decision, but it's not.

As for all this crap about her being a bad influence or a troublemaker: she was not rejected for being a troublemaker, the letters quite clearly state she was rejected for being pregnant / an unmarried mother. I went to an all-girls Catholic school and there were a couple of girls in my year who had babies in 6th year. One took just three weeks off to have her baby and came back to class, another sat her exams over 8 months pregnant. If anything, we admired them for continuing to study, but they did not "glamourise" teenage pregnancy for us - we saw how hard they had it! The LC was bad enough without having a screaming baby to look after or dealing with morning sickness, thanks. And as for them being a distraction, I assure you that not once was a class interrupted so that "30 people could feel the baby kicking" ffs!

From what I can see, this was a case of a public school telling a sixteen year old who was already in a very stressful situation that she was inferior to them and not good enough for them. Yes, she had another school to go to, but that is completely besides the point. This school had no right to treat her like that. I can only imagine what effect that would have on someone's self esteem!

(Apologies for the long post, but this thread has made me angry!)

Well said. I bet you the guy who got her pregnant wont face the same level of discrimination she has.

prinz

Nodin wrote: »

...did you read that yourself?

Yes I did. Are you going to argue that it says the taxpayer funds everything for every national school in the country?

MagicSean

Nodin wrote: »

Why do you presume that there may be some 'dark side' with no basis for it?

Why, for the love of all fuckery, would you introduce such derogatory speculation on no grounds whatsoever while at the same time urging people not to judge a party on statements that clearly indicate their line of reasoning? It defies all reason.

I haven't made any presumption. That's why I made two polar oppsite suggestions. My whole point is that we can't make a presumption based on what we know. You're just ignoring it.

Nodin wrote: »

(...let's see...it doesn't cover whether the mother is a closet satanist...doesn't say she isn't one certainly....doesn't say the child wasn't convicted of murder carried out in a form consistent with ritual sacrifice....)

And by that "logic" you introduce the notion that there may be an invisible pink unicorn in the room, and that people should run off and prove conclusively it's not there.

The principal gave reasons why he did not want that student in the school. Do please give a reason why we should discount their own words, and why we should even suspect the teenage girl of being some form of 'dubious' character.

I've already said we can't make assumptions and I've given reasons why. You're just ignoring and being ridiculous.

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

Yes I did. Are you going to argue that it says the taxpayer funds everything for every national school in the country?

No, I will point out that they fund a hell of a fucking lot of it.

Do you have a breakdown of actual church contributions as a percentage of the total funding?

steddyeddy

Nodin wrote: »

No, I will point out that they fund a hell of a fucking lot of it.

Do you have a breakdown of actual church contributions as a percentage of the total funding?

It wouldnt matter who funds it. Discrimnation against and sexisim like this shouldnt go on in this day and age!

prinz

Nodin wrote: »

No, I will point out that they fund a hell of a fucking lot of it.

Then your point is redundant, have a read of my post that you responded to and point out anything that is false... it's plainly there who traditionally provided the lands, paid towards building costs, contributed to running costs... and guess what? It was the church. Only in recent years has that started to change. So comments like...

The church doesn't do jack****, all the Catholic schools are funded by us, the taxpayer.

Sound great and all, but don't actually reflect the reality of the history of our national school system.

Nodin

MagicSean wrote: »

I haven't made any presumption. That's why I made two polar oppsite suggestions. My whole point is that we can't make a presumption based on what we know. You're just ignoring it..

Somehow I think - if the circumstances demanded it - I could have made the point without mentioning "career scumbag", "drug gang" "pyromaniac psycopath" etc. In fact I'm fairly positive. It looks like an attempt to undermine or blacken one of the parties to me. Why, I have no idea.

You still haven't explained why somebody can't make a presumption/assumption, based on the principals correspondence released by the Ombudsman in the report.

dvpower

Nodin wrote: »

No, I will point out that they fund a hell of a fucking lot of it.

Do you have a breakdown of actual church contributions as a percentage of the total funding?

... and maybe a figure for the amounts that priests and religious have drawn down in salaries from the Dept. of Education for jobs that they didn't have to compete for to get.