School patronage

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

Is it the normally understood definition? Is that definition the norm or an exception across the wide variety of online dictionaries?

Yes, it's a normally understood definition; most people understand all words don't have only a single normally understood definition. Yes, that definition is a norm, or substantively similar to, across a wide variety of dictionaries both on and offline. The very fact that you're only now entering into the discussion how common such a usage might be amongst the Internet using public makes me wonder if you ever even bothered to look at what I specified was my meaning at the outset...

Deleted User wrote: »

More importantly though. Is that the definition that was accepted under the drafting of the rules that we were discussing? And in the case that it is the definition of the word that we should observe, then what can this mean let alone what does it mean?

I never specified that it was the meaning intended in the draft; the very fact that I said 'some form of discrimination' rather than simply 'discrimination' made it quite obvious I wasn't restricting what kind of discrimination might be applied.

Deleted User wrote: »

Logically using your contrived version of discrimination, that means that schools are not allowed to not admit any applicants. As no selection can be made without any discrimination being made. So therefore each and every applicant must be accepted into the school, regardless of whether or not the school has space for them.
This does not seem likely.

Now now, hardly contrived; the Marriam Webster dictionary construal of discrimination. And according to that construal, all schools always discriminate in admitting candidates. Whilst the Press Release from the DoE did make the explicit statement "Explicitly ban discrimination in school admissions" I myself wouldn't get hung up on the notion that the legislation will actually say what you seem to think it must say in order to conform to your definitions; I'd treat the bullet point as a loose expression of broad intent meaning that schools will not be permitted to select students based on criteria set out as illegally discriminatory by the equal status act, and perhaps even other criteria as well, so it will 'ban' 'discrimination', unless the school is oversubscribed, in which case it will be permitted to prefer students on the basis of criteria which contribute to its ethos, which may still be the criteria which otherwise set out as illegally discriminatory by the equal status act, and perhaps even other criteria as well.

Or in short, the notion that the legislation will ban discrimination in school admissions appears unlikely to conform to exactly your particular view of the words, particularly given the comments by Minister Bruton and April Duff.

a != the

Will come back at some stage to the rest of forcing the square peg into the round hole.

mohawk

That bill is very disappointing.

We live in South Dublin and my son is in local Catholic Primary. The school he is in is a feeder school for quite a good secondary school, however as he is not baptised means the fact he goes to a feeder primary school doesn't matter - he is bottom of the list. Every Catholic that applies is above him on the list no matter where they live. His school is not a feeder school for any other school.
I thought once he got in to Primary school the battle would be won, but alas this is not the case.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

Well... You say that but it is the dictionary definition I linked quite some time ago;

so it can hardly be a surprise that it's what I'm working from, can it? I know you offered your own understanding later on, but I was hardly going to ignore Marriam Websters expertise in favour of yours, all things considered.

Once again rubbish, as already previously pointed out. That's more than enough pigeon chess for me. I'm out.

looksee

smacl wrote: »

Once again rubbish, as already previously pointed out. That's more than enough pigeon chess for me. I'm out.

You don't have to abandon the overall discussion, just don't get dragged into the absol-ute nonsense that is designed to bore people out of A&A.

looksee

mohawk wrote: »

That bill is very disappointing.

We live in South Dublin and my son is in local Catholic Primary. The school he is in is a feeder school for quite a good secondary school, however as he is not baptised means the fact he goes to a feeder primary school doesn't matter - he is bottom of the list. Every Catholic that applies is above him on the list no matter where they live. His school is not a feeder school for any other school.
I thought once he got in to Primary school the battle would be won, but alas this is not the case.

The bill is totally pointless, but have you specifically been told this is the situation for the secondary school?

recedite

mohawk wrote: »

feeder school

You forgot to read the small print.
Religious discrimination is not religious discrimination if it happens in an oversubscribed religious school.
That's according to the existing equality legislation loophole, and also the proposed 2016 bill.

looksee

looksee wrote: »

You don't have to abandon the overall discussion, just don't get dragged into the absol-ute nonsense that is designed to bore people out of A&A.

says the mod of linguistics and etymology! :pac:

evolving_doors

I just find it odd that you can look down at a child who could potentially.

Attend every class with positive attitude.
Help other students.
Help the teacher.
Fundraise for the school.
Creates a sense of friendship and comradery within this class.
Stick up for vulnerable kids.
Play sport
Play music
Put themselves forward

And not be allowed in, simply because they are a threat to the ethos!

How christian do you have to be? Would Jesus - had he been born today as a Jew -have gotten into his local over subscribed roman Catholic school?

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

a != the Will come back at some stage to the rest of forcing the square peg into the round hole.

Well, aren't I glad I pointed out that most people understand all words don't have only a single normally understood definition.. Wouldn't want anyone to think I'm the one trying to force anything

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

Once again rubbish, as already previously pointed out. That's more than enough pigeon chess for me. I'm out.

I can't help it if you don't like what the dictionary says, any more than I can help you acknowledge there has been more to the discussion than you want to admit. So, yes, you're probably better off abandoning your attempts.

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

Well, aren't I glad I pointed out that most people understand all words don't have only a single normally understood definition.. Wouldn't want anyone to think I'm the one trying to force anything

I'm am literally glad you're glad.

silverharp

mohawk wrote: »

That bill is very disappointing.

We live in South Dublin and my son is in local Catholic Primary. The school he is in is a feeder school for quite a good secondary school, however as he is not baptised means the fact he goes to a feeder primary school doesn't matter - he is bottom of the list. Every Catholic that applies is above him on the list no matter where they live. His school is not a feeder school for any other school.
I thought once he got in to Primary school the battle would be won, but alas this is not the case.

what is also amusing is if the kids were asked honestly what their religious views are , a number of the "catholic" kids would say they don't believe in that rubbish and know its nonsense.

robindch

Good morning, Absolam -

Absolam wrote: »

Yes, it's a normally understood definition; most people understand all words don't have only a single normally understood definition. Yes, that definition is a norm, or substantively similar to, across a wide variety of dictionaries both on and offline. The very fact that you're only now entering into the discussion how common such a usage might be amongst the Internet using public makes me wonder if you ever even bothered to look at what I specified was my meaning at the outset.

This post adds nothing to this debate or any other.

I trust that you will recall the multiple previous occasions upon which you've been asked to debate rather than waffle. As these gentle requests seem to have fallen on deaf ears, I'd now like to issue you with a formal warning that if you post any more vacuous waffle like the above, you'll be carded.

Please note that there is nothing in the forum charter which prohibits posters from posting vacuous waffle from time to time. However, the charter does forbid soapboxing, which in your case, constitutes the waffle which you post on a regular basis.

Thanking you for your generous attention to this note.

Absolam

My point remains what it was in the first place...

Absolam wrote: »

But it won't prevent schools preferring students when they are oversubscribed.... Which is precisely the discrimination that exercises the secularists on the thread.

Anyone who wants to debate the words I'm using will have to do it without me

mohawk

looksee wrote: »

The bill is totally pointless, but have you specifically been told this is the situation for the secondary school?

I have read the enrolment policy and clarified situation with the school. I have read lots of enrolment policies for other schools in area and this school is unusual. It seems by second level alot of schools don't pay attention to religion as they base enrolment on siblings and feeder schools.

expectationlost

Education (Admission to Schools) Bill 2016 http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=33318&&CatID=59

Bill entitled an Act to make provision,
in the interests of the common good,
that a school recognised in accordance with section 10 of the Education Act 1998 shall prepare and publish an admission policy and that such policy shall include a statement that the school shall not discriminate in its admission of a student to the school on specified grounds,
and to provide that in certain circumstances the patron or Minister may issue a direction to a board of management in relation to the admission of students to a school and to provide that in certain circumstances the patron may appoint an independent person to comply with such direction,
and to provide that in certain circumstances the National Council for Special Education or the Child and Family Agency may designate a school or centre for education which a child is to attend,
and for those and other purposes to amend the Education Act 1998 ,
the Education (Welfare) Act 2000 and the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004,
and to provide for related matters.

what the difference with the Education (Admission to Schools) Bill 2015 http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=28712&&CatID=59&StartDate=01%20January%202015&OrderAscending=0

Bill entitled an Act to make provision,
in the interests of the common good,
that a school recognised in accordance with section 10 of the Education Act 1998 shall prepare and publish an admission policy and that such policy shall include a statement that the school shall not discriminate in its admission of a student to the school on specified grounds,
and to provide that in certain circumstances the patron or Minister may issue a direction to a board of management in relation to the admission of students to a school and to provide that in certain circumstances the patron or Minister may appoint an independent person to comply with such direction,
and to provide that in certain circumstances the National Council for Special Education or the Child and Family Agency may designate a school or centre for education which a child is to attend,
and for those and other purposes to amend the Education Act 1998 ,
the Education (Welfare) Act 2000 and the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004,
and to provide for related matters.

comparing both bills...
difference on page 12 (10)

Regulations
64. [3] (d) (i) a student’s connection to the school by virtue of his or her
relationship with a specified category or categories of person;
(f) the granting of a derogation to a school, category of school or
category of student, in respect of the selection criterion referred to
in paragraph (d)(i);
(g) the circumstances in relation to which a derogation under
paragraph (f) may be granted or extended, the manner in which and
periods during which such a derogation may be applied for, the
conditions that may attach to such a derogation and, where the
derogation is to remain in operation for a specified period, the date
on which the derogation shall cease to have effect.

in 2015 bill not in 2016 bill

all of

Appointment of independent person by Minister
70.

in 2015 bill not in 2016 bill

Burton: Education Bill will disappoint Fine Gael, schools and parents
https://www.labour.ie/news/2016/07/06/education-bill-will-disappoint-fine-gael-schools-a/

Third, judged against the Bill being developed by his predecessor Jan O’Sullivan, the new measure is a retrograde step. By removing all control over reserving places for the children of old boys and old girls, this Government is merely cementing a system of educational separation, for the benefit of some fee-paying schools. Richard Bruton’s decision will help perpetuate inherited socio-economic advantage in our country.

i thought I had read he was keeping it in, ah here,

Bruton: I want 25pc cap for family of past pupils http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/bruton-i-want-25pc-cap-for-family-of-past-pupils-34863607.html

In relation to reserving places for relatives of past pupils, the Dublin Bay North TD said he acted on the advice of Attorney General Máire Whelan by referring the measure to an Oireachtas committee.

"We will deal with that at committee stage. The advice from the Attorney General was very clear that such a provision should not be dealt with my way of ministerial intervention. So instead we will bring forward a committee stage amendment to do that," Mr Bruton said.

But Mr Bruton said he favours a system previously proposed by former Education Minister Ruairí Quinn, which would see up to 25pc of places reserved for relatives of past pupils.

hmmm *shrug*

recedite

I see what Bruton is doing there; he has removed the ban on "reserved places for old boys" from the 2015 bill altogether. So in theory 100% of school places can be reserved for well connected persons.
Then at some late stage of the 2016 bill he will table an amendment restricting that to 25% of places, so he gets to look like some great egalitarian.

Its the equivalent of a shop putting the price of an item up by 100% for a month just so they can advertise a "75% price reduction sale" after the month has elapsed. When in reality, its more like a 25% price increase.

recedite

mohawk wrote: »

It seems by second level alot of schools don't pay attention to religion as they base enrolment on siblings and feeder schools.

This was discussed earlier in the thread in relation to Loreto schools. They were looking for the RC baptismal cert at primary level, and then those primary schools fed into secondary schools which ostensibly did not have discriminatory admissions policies. But if the religious pre-selection was done at primary level, then the second level school would have an intake of the right sort without any further selection.

The school you mention appears to be talking a "belt and braces" approach which catches out the few such as your own child that slipped through the net at primary level. I suppose in this situation there must be more classes at primary level, so this strategy allows them to fill up the classes to full capacity with a less preferred group of kids who will be bumped off the list later at the transition to second level.
Its a terrible way to treat kids.

expectationlost

recedite wrote: »

I see what Bruton is doing there; he has removed the ban on "reserved places for old boys" from the 2015 bill altogether. So in theory 100% of school places can be reserved for well connected persons.
Then at some late stage of the 2016 bill he will table an amendment restricting that to 25% of places, so he gets to look like some great egalitarian.

Its the equivalent of a shop putting the price of an item up by 100% for a month just so they can advertise a "75% price reduction sale" after the month has elapsed. When in reality, its more like a 25% price increase.

but Labour claim that it was this 25% rule was the reason Fine Gael blocked it for the length of the previous Dail term, so why would Fine Gael be ok with this term and not last?

"We will deal with that at committee stage. The advice from the Attorney General was very clear that such a provision should not be dealt with my way of ministerial intervention. So instead we will bring forward a committee stage amendment to do that," Mr Bruton said.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/bruton-i-want-25pc-cap-for-family-of-past-pupils-34863607.html
reading this again its seems to be that they want the patrons to agree to it being in the bill and them imposing it on themselves rather then have a minister impose it?

expectationlost

Dail from Thursday https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2016-07-07a.48&s=console#g52
Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My question relates to an issue in the Minister's own area. Yesterday he put out a statement on an admission to schools Bill but I have not been able to find it on any website. It does not appear to be available yet so can the Minister tell me if this is the case? I have checked on the Department's website and on merrionstreet.ie.

The previous Government published the Education (Admissions to School) Bill 2015 and the reason given for not proceeding with it was that the new legislation would be substantially different. From what I have read in the media, however, it does not appear to be different, nor does it appear to deal with the issue of restricting the percentage of children of past pupils in terms of their right of entry to a school. Can the Minister clarify the position regarding the new Bill, if it is available and whether it deals specifically with that issue?

so Jan says its not different and in the next sentence says it is?

i thought Regulations 64. [3] (d) (i) (F) and (G) was the 'schoolties' bit and that the percentages would be specified in a subsequent statutory instrument


Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That Bill was approved by Government this week and it is being published in the normal way. I indicated yesterday that I had obtained approval for the Bill. In terms of dealing with the issue of a ceiling on past pupils, the major change in that sphere is that whereas the previous Bill proposed it would be done by means of regulations, on the advice of the Attorney General that will now be done by way of substantive primary legislation. That will be included as an amendment on Committee Stage.

so did they just take out the bit they wanted to change just to get the bill out (because they've beeen criticised for not (publishing and) passing any legislation yet) and they'll put back in under a different section of the bill at committee state

recedite

2015; no places to be reserved for the kids whose parents attended the school. This order to be made by the Minister. The bill would have given the power to make this order to the minister.

2016; Nothing about this in the bill initially. Then later on an amendment to be inserted specifying that only a certain % of school places can be reserved. Bruton's suggested figure is 25% apparently, but open to debate.

No change to the current legalised religious discrimination in either bill.

looksee

It makes sense to have siblings attending the same school, but I really don't understand this business of children of past pupils having priority.

Bristolscale7

looksee wrote: »

It makes sense to have siblings attending the same school, but I really don't understand this business of children of past pupils having priority.

Social reproduction of privilege.

expectationlost

looksee wrote: »

It makes sense to have siblings attending the same school, but I really don't understand this business of children of past pupils having priority.

its the business of money

expectationlost

Equate demanding that Bruton does what their advisor Ruairi Quinn didn't do when he was Minister for Education http://www.equateireland.ie/#!New-School-Admissions-Bill-Published-today-Urgent-action-still-required-to-end-baptism-barrier-in-state-funded-schools/jqfhl/577f83c80cf2e63d2660f1dc


ps IT editorial http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/school-admissions-bill-time-to-tackle-the-baptism-barrier-1.2717294#.V4NLNv7aCgE.twitter

smacl

expectationlost wrote: »

Equate demanding that Bruton does what their advisor Ruairi Quinn didn't do when he was Minister for Education http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/school-admissions-bill-time-to-tackle-the-baptism-barrier-1.2717294#.V4NLNv7aCgE.twitter

From memory Quin tried and got blocked by FG, I'll see if I can dig up the references. I say fair play to him for sticking with it.

expectationlost

smacl wrote: »

From memory Quin tried and got blocked by FG, I'll see if I can dig up the references. I say fair play to him for sticking with it.

but its ridiculous for them not to mention it.

Hotblack Desiato

expectationlost wrote: »

Equate demanding that Bruton does what their advisor Ruairi Quinn didn't do when he was Minister for Education http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/school-admissions-bill-time-to-tackle-the-baptism-barrier-1.2717294#.V4NLNv7aCgE.twitter

Equate are not mentioned in the article??

expectationlost

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Equate are not mentioned in the article??

sorry meant to use this link http://www.equateireland.ie/#!New-School-Admissions-Bill-Published-today-Urgent-action-still-required-to-end-baptism-barrier-in-state-funded-schools/jqfhl/577f83c80cf2e63d2660f1dc

Six years after the last government first considered tackling this issue we have made very little progress.

akward sentence