School patronage

freedominacup

ninja900 wrote: »

True but it doesn't have to be unfair (e.g. kids who live in the area should be favoured, but other admission policies can be a cover for bigotry or snobbery.)



Sectarian means segregated by religion.
How can running separate schools for different religions NOT emphasise the differences between people?
Especially when all religions say that people in the in-group are 'chosen' or 'saved', people not part of the group are misguided at best, evil at worst.



I was talking about the national school system. It was (and is) taxpayer funded, and if it had been allowed to be implemented as it was intended, it wouldn't be a million miles away from the ETs of today (although far greater in numbers.)

To call a school a 'national school' when it is effectively controlled by a religion is ridiculous.

Any admissions policy that doesn't say we will take all comers with no regard to any criteria will be considered unfair by someone.


Sectarian does not mean seperated by religion and I believe you use that word emotively because of it's extremely negative association with violence in Northern Ireland.

If you really believe that had ET schools emerged in great numbers 50-60 years ago that there wouldn't be problems with the patronage of ET at this stage you are very naive. Any organisation that gets well enough established on the state tit will very quickly become focused on making sure that said tit continues to feed them and will start operating in a manner that ensures the best flow. The older members of the organisation would at this stage have decided that they know best how it should be run and despite the fact they haven't had a child in the system for 20+ years would be handing the jobs around and putting systems in place to ensure they kept their salaries and pensions above all other considerations. Not rocking the boat would be number one priority, parents views would be disregarded apart from the occasional bone (such as the survey Quinn is currently undertaking) being thrown in their direction.

The only national school I have ever had any deaings with is effectively controlled by the principal. I'm quite sure of this as I know at least half the school board personally including the patrons representative, all are parents of children in the school and all would tell you that if the principal doesn't want it done it ain't getting done certainly without a serious struggle. Also my own involvement with the parents council in the school would lead me to the same conclusion. I think the perception of church control of schools is fairly far removed from the reality in many cases based on my own experience with a small rural school which should be inclined to be on the more conservative end of the spectrum. I would imagine that larger urban schools with a more diverse student population would have a far more liberal regieme with regard to patrons control.

Hotblack Desiato

freedominacup wrote: »

Any admissions policy that doesn't say we will take all comers with no regard to any criteria will be considered unfair by someone.

There will always be whingers in this country, but there are objectively fair ways of solving this problem. Giving priority on the basis of religion isn't one of them.

Sectarian does not mean seperated by religion and I believe you use that word emotively because of it's extremely negative association with violence in Northern Ireland.

It absolutely does mean that.
And do you think that we can pretend 'down here' that division along religious lines is harmless, when there is ample evidence over the border of the great harm it causes?

If you really believe that had ET schools emerged in great numbers 50-60 years ago that there wouldn't be problems with the patronage of ET at this stage you are very naive.

I didn't say 50 or 60 years ago. I said in the 19th century, when the British administration tried to set up an inclusive, non-discriminatory primary education system here under the name 'National Schools.'

Unfortunately they were unwilling or unable to stand up to the perversion of this system by vested interests. If they had, we might have had a lot less bitterness and division on this island. We probably would still have sought independence, but might have been less willing to allow so much RCC control of this state after it.

The only national school I have ever had any deaings with is effectively controlled by the principal.

The principal didn't appoint him or her self. Some patron body did, most likely one controlled by an RCC bishop who cares not a whit for the concerns of the parents.

freedominacup

ninja900 wrote: »

The principal didn't appoint him or her self. Some patron body did, most likely one controlled by an RCC bishop who cares not a whit for the concerns of the parents.

The thing that swung it for him in the end was his reputed abilities as a footballer. He was appointed by the board of management which in this case usually has at least 4 parents on it including the chairperson of the board. There are 5 parents on it currently out of 8 or 9 members.

Parents are their own worst enemies in relation to the running of schools, they only turn up if there's an issue directly related to their child or if there's a new building needed or in the offing. I went to two meetings for parents in two schools on consecutive nights a couple of weeks ago. The first one was an information meeting for parents of children starting in first year in a brand new school next Sept, there were two parents at that meeting for most of the children expected to go to that school next year. The following night I went to a parents council agm for the national school my children attend and as usual less than 5% of the parents turned up.

If parents had a real interest in educaion those PC meetings would be well attended as it's the one oppurtunity they have in the year to put the principal or board of management on the spot and make a point or get some information but the vast bulk don't bother their backsides. TBH it should make the task of people like yourself who want changes easier as you'll need to convince a smaller number of people to get your agenda through.

recedite

freedominacup wrote: »

If parents had a real interest in educaion those PC meetings would be well attended as it's the one oppurtunity they have in the year to put the principal or board of management on the spot....
it should make the task of people like yourself who want changes easier as you'll need to convince a smaller number of people to get your agenda through.

The kind of changes we are talking about here can only be imposed by the body providing the main funding of the schools, ie the Dept. of Education.
After a while you will come to realise that the only power available to parents at PA level is choosing which type of supplementary fundraising to pursue, which funds will be spent by the BOM, which is normally chaired by the local priest/godman in a faith school.

Hotblack Desiato

freedominacup wrote: »

If parents had a real interest in educaion those PC meetings would be well attended

What's the point when the parents council has no real input into how the school is run?

as it's the one oppurtunity they have in the year to put the principal or board of management on the spot and make a point or get some information but the vast bulk don't bother their backsides. TBH it should make the task of people like yourself who want changes easier as you'll need to convince a smaller number of people to get your agenda through.

Agenda? Wanting a real chance for parents to avoid their kids being discriminated against on the grounds of religion is an agenda?

This isn't something that parents' councils can achieve, or even setting up ETs (worthwhile as it is, but far too difficult and slow to bring about the necessary change), only the Department of Education can do it.

freedominacup

recedite wrote: »

The kind of changes we are talking about here can only be imposed by the body providing the main funding of the schools, ie the Dept. of Education.
After a while you will come to realise that the only power available to parents at PA level is choosing which type of supplementary fundraising to pursue, which funds will be spent by the BOM, which is normally chaired by the local priest/godman in a faith school.

I know exactly the limits of the PC, I've been involved with my local one for long enough. They do however appoint around 25% of the board of management and those reps report back to the parents council. It's better than nothing. BTW how much input do parents have in an ET school. I presume that ET schools have to stick to the same criteria regarding how a BOM is structured when appointing a board of management. With regard to the chairperson of the BOM neither the current one or the previous one in the school I know best were, local (as in not born locally), a priest or a godman.

How much control do you want parents to have? If parents decide in a particular school that they are happy with the status quo would they be allowed to have this in your ideal world? Or are you only in favour of democracy if the results are going your way?

swampgas

freedominacup wrote: »

How much control do you want parents to have? If parents decide in a particular school that they are happy with the status quo would they be allowed to have this in your ideal world? Or are you only in favour of democracy if the results are going your way?

Generally speaking, when it comes to rights, majority rule doesn't apply. So even if most parents are happy with the school discriminating against some children or some parents, that's not a good enough reason for the discrimination to continue. You have certain rights under the constitution that cannot be overruled by a simple majority. At least, that's how it's supposed to work :-/

freedominacup

swampgas wrote: »

Generally speaking, when it comes to rights, majority rule doesn't apply. So even if most parents are happy with the school discriminating against some children or some parents, that's not a good enough reason for the discrimination to continue. You have certain rights under the constitution that cannot be overruled by a simple majority. At least, that's how it's supposed to work :-/

Speaking in particular about education what law or article in the constitution backs up what you are saying?

We have people on the same side of this argument saying that parents don't have enough say in the running of schools on the one hand and on the other that if given a larger say they decide to go with the status quo then that would be too much of a say for those parents. Either people want parents to have an increased say in the running of schools or they don't. If they do then you must endorse the decisions taken by parents regardless of how these decisions sit with your personal preferences.

lazygal

freedominacup wrote: »

Speaking in particular about education what law or article in the constitution backs up what you are saying?

The Equal Status Act specifically allows some organizations, such as schools, to discriminate in terms of employment and provision of services (such as education) on the nebulous grounds of 'ethos'. So in law, a teacher who is fired because he or she is gay and perhaps in a civil partnership has no recourse to Equal Status legislation if the school's 'ethos' doesn't approve of that. We got a specific derogation from Europe for this.

In an odd contrast, the State guarantees not to endow any religion, yet our parliament starts every session with a specifically Catholic prayer (appealing to the Holy Trinity, as does the preamble to our constitution from which much of the spirit of our laws flow). So when our legislature is debating and passing laws relating to children and/or education, its appealing to a Catholic deity to aid it in such work.

In the Constitution the family is regarded as the natural and primary educator of the child. Yet, families are often forced to compromise the education they want their child to receive because the only choice for schooling in the locality is a Catholic school, and it is hit and miss as to how devout an individual teacher might be. I know of parents who only discovered their children were being given Alive-O materials when they went to a parent teacher meeting and samples of work were shown-the teacher took it upon herself to include the children concerned in lessons in religious indoctrination on the grounds that the books were 'harmless'. So there's a teacher who's legally allowed to trample all over the rights of parents who want their child educated in a particular fashion. Should such parents homeschool instead?

Hotblack Desiato

lazygal wrote: »

So in law, a teacher who is fired because he or she is gay and perhaps in a civil partnership has no recourse to Equal Status legislation if the school's 'ethos' doesn't approve of that. We got a specific derogation from Europe for this.

A derogation from the EU, perhaps - but we're still bound by the European Convention of Human Rights, and the decisions of its Court are binding on this State as long as we remain a member of the Council of Europe.

Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights is the relevant one here.

Yet, families are often forced to compromise the education they want their child to receive because the only choice for schooling in the locality is a Catholic school, and it is hit and miss as to how devout an individual teacher might be.

And of course schools are permitted to exclude unbaptised children on that ground alone.

freedominacup

ninja900 wrote: »

And of course schools are permitted to exclude unbaptised children on that ground alone.

On a whim or only if the school is full to capacity. There are very few schools in my area turning away students for any reason. Quite the opposite in fact.

Any further thoughts on how much of a role parents should have in the running of schools and the ethos of the schools?

lazygal

freedominacup wrote: »

On a whim or only if the school is full to capacity. There are very few schools in my area turning away students for any reason. Quite the opposite in fact.

Any further thoughts on how much of a role parents should have in the running of schools and the ethos of the schools?

For many parents perceived difficulty in enrolment or participation in school is what prompts a baptism. I recall a poster baptising a four year old to get a school place. As I said,individual teachers or principals can affect how children not doing indoctrination and sacraments are treated, sometimes a vested effort is made to ensure there's no choice but for a child to attend services.


Our system makes no sense for a modern secular state. We've outsourced the vast majority of our primary and secondary education to businesses who have a belief that children like mine, who aren't baptised, need to be converted. Why should this continue? Suppose hospitals refused to treast children with no baptism cert or put them to the end of the queue, ahead of baptised children?

freedominacup

lazygal wrote: »

For many parents perceived difficulty in enrolment or participation in school is what prompts a baptism. I recall a poster baptising a four year old to get a school place. As I said,individual teachers or principals can affect how children not doing indoctrination and sacraments are treated, sometimes a vested effort is made to ensure there's no choice but for a child to attend services.


Our system makes no sense for a modern secular state. We've outsourced the vast majority of our primary and secondary education to businesses who have a belief that children like mine, who aren't baptised, need to be converted. Why should this continue? Suppose hospitals refused to treast children with no baptism cert or put them to the end of the queue, ahead of baptised children?

There's a lot of perception out there. I was at a meeting for parents of prospective first years in a new school a few weeks ago. Still very much a catholic ethos and patrons, religion wasn't mentioned once as a criteria for entry, whether your child was in a feeder school for the new school and where that feeder school was located was. There was no mention whatsoever of baptism as an acceptance criteria.

TBH I think there's a certain amount of looking for problems going on here. I was given one example of a teacher being sacked on some sort of religious pretext 30+ years ago to support the contention that teachers were living in fear of their lifestyles or beliefs being discovered by vengeful boards of management who are primed to fire any ofending teacher at the drop of a hat. I would say at the very least there's a don't ask don't tell thing going on.

I must have missed the memo about us becoming a secular state whatever about a modern one. Personally I would have thought that would have required that the entire constitution be torn up and a completely new one written, no bad thing IMV should it happen, but AFAIK this hasn't happened.

lazygal

No one is looking for problems. Parents have enough to be getting on with without having to deal with the issue of religion in state funded schools.

Hotblack Desiato

freedominacup wrote: »

There's a lot of perception out there. I was at a meeting for parents of prospective first years in a new school a few weeks ago.

We're discussing primary education mostly. That's usually where the greatest pressure on numbers is. It's also where religious segregation and forced religious indoctrination are most influential and damaging.

Still very much a catholic ethos and patrons, religion wasn't mentioned once as a criteria for entry, whether your child was in a feeder school for the new school and where that feeder school was located was. There was no mention whatsoever of baptism as an acceptance criteria.

Just because they didn't mention it...
Did you get a written copy of the admissions policy?
If they have one place and two kids looking for it and all circumstances are identical save for religion, do you really think the child from a family of the 'wrong' religion will get an equal chance?

TBH I think there's a certain amount of looking for problems going on here.

Forced indoctrination of kids from junior infants on IS a problem.
Segregation of kids according to religion IS a problem.
Refusing employment to teachers on the basis of their religion IS a problem.

I was given one example of a teacher being sacked on some sort of religious pretext 30+ years ago to support the contention that teachers were living in fear of their lifestyles

They wouldn't get away with the pregnancy one any more, although it's still legal under the so-called 'Equal Status Act', employment protection legislation almost certainly forbids it. Public opinion would no longer tolerate it anyway (even the RCC has to take public opinion into account, sometimes) so I would hope that it would no longer happen even if legal.

or beliefs being discovered by vengeful boards of management who are primed to fire any ofending teacher at the drop of a hat. I would say at the very least there's a don't ask don't tell thing going on.

Yes, a lot of don't ask don't tell is going on. It's not acceptable for an employee to endure. It's not acceptable for gay pupils to get the message that an essential part of their being is so shameful it must be hidden.

http://www.into.ie/ROI/Equality/

The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights survey found the following:

Percentage of respondents who reported experiencing discrimination in employment
Bisexual women and men 16%
Gay men 20%
Lesbian women 21%
Trans people 29%

Average 20%

Bear in mind this is an average from all types of employment, not just ones run by deeply conservative religious bodies who openly campaign against LGBTI rights - so the latter are bound to be worse than average.

Section 37.1 of the Employment Equality Act – INTO Submission
The Equality Authority has invited submissions from interested parties in relation to a proposed amendment of the Employment Equality Acts 1998–2011. The Programme for Government stated, "People of non-faith or minority religious backgrounds and publicly identified LGBT people should not be deterred from training or taking up employment as teachers in the State". The amendment this section of the employment equality act has been a long held demand of the INTO. Accordingly, the INTO has prepared a submission for the Equality Authority.

I must have missed the memo about us becoming a secular state whatever about a modern one. Personally I would have thought that would have required that the entire constitution be torn up and a completely new one written, no bad thing IMV should it happen, but AFAIK this hasn't happened.

Given how timid governments are about relatively minor amendments, there is no chance of total constitutional change however desirable. Change will come but incrementally and because of people 'looking for problems' as you charmingly put it

Cabaal

freedominacup wrote: »

TBH I think there's a certain amount of looking for problems going on here. I was given one example of a teacher being sacked on some sort of religious pretext 30+ years ago to support the contention that teachers were living in fear of their lifestyles or beliefs being discovered by vengeful boards of management who are primed to fire any ofending teacher at the drop of a hat. I would say at the very least there's a don't ask don't tell thing going on.

Its still a risk to teachers, doesn't matter if last case was 30 years ago,
Teachers also actually fear coming out as gay as it could put their job at risk, this isn't just from a news story this is from talking to teachers myself.

http://www.thejournal.ie/seanad-to-discuss-equality-for-gay-teachers-and-doctors-437033-May2012/

As for ethos affecting schools, well as we know from more recent events its ok to kick a student out of a school if they get pregnant....purely on the basis of catholic ethos

http://www.thejournal.ie/not-a-dumping-ground-pregnant-girl-turned-away-from-school-433812-Apr2012/

But maybe that student was looking for a problem eh?

freedominacup

Cabaal wrote: »

Its still a risk to teachers, doesn't matter if last case was 30 years ago,
Teachers also actually fear coming out as gay as it could put their job at risk, this isn't just from a news story this is from talking to teachers myself.

http://www.thejournal.ie/seanad-to-discuss-equality-for-gay-teachers-and-doctors-437033-May2012/

As for ethos affecting schools, well as we know from more recent events its ok to kick a student out of a school if they get pregnant....purely on the basis of catholic ethos

http://www.thejournal.ie/not-a-dumping-ground-pregnant-girl-turned-away-from-school-433812-Apr2012/

But maybe that student was looking for a problem eh?

If that's the case I'm thinking of the whack job in charge shouldn't be allowed to run a dog training venture nevermind a school. He somehow managed to runa school without any board of management at all. Is that place still in business?

Brian Shanahan

ninja900 wrote: »

They wouldn't get away with the pregnancy one any more, although it's still legal under the so-called 'Equal Status Act', employment protection legislation almost certainly forbids it. Public opinion would no longer tolerate it anyway (even the RCC has to take public opinion into account, sometimes) so I would hope that it would no longer happen even if legal.

If it were the "right" school they'd try it for sure. Remember it's not twelve months since a religious school kicked a student out because she was pregnant.

freedominacup

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

If it were the "right" school they'd try it for sure. Remember it's not twelve months since a religious school kicked a student out because she was pregnant.

It might have been run by a religious nutter but I don't think the catholic church was the patron. AFAIK it was a private business that had found some loophole in the regulations that allowed them to operate and draw state funding for teaching staff etc. I hope it's activities have or are in the process of being wound up.

Brian Shanahan

freedominacup wrote: »

It might have been run by a religious nutter but I don't think the catholic church was the patron. AFAIK it was a private business that had found some loophole in the regulations that allowed them to operate and draw state funding for teaching staff etc. I hope it's activities have or are in the process of being wound up.

That's (the bolded bit) the definition of a catholic school in this country. And while us plebs don't know the exact school in question, all the media reported it as a catholic school.

freedominacup

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

That's (the bolded bit) the definition of a catholic school in this country. And while us plebs don't know the exact school in question, all the media reported it as a catholic school.

The details were all in the national media a short while after the report originally linked.

https://www.google.ie/search?q=tipperary+school+expels+girl+over+pregnancy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&gws_rd=cr&ei=MYOWUpfQCIiN7Abax4GgDA

Within 2 days of the linkposted in fact.

I wouldn't consider any catholic school I have had any dealings with a business on that we differ. The school in the links was a business owned and directly controlled by one man.

Cabaal

freedominacup wrote: »

If that's the case I'm thinking of the whack job in charge shouldn't be allowed to run a dog training venture nevermind a school. He somehow managed to runa school without any board of management at all. Is that place still in business?

The school is still very much in business, I'm pretty sure he's still in the position as well

recedite

freedominacup wrote: »

On a whim or only if the school is full to capacity. There are very few schools in my area turning away students for any reason....

So you think that's alright then? If there are places in a state funded school "left over" after all the people of a certain religion are catered for, then these miscellaneous others, the second class citizens, can have them.

freedominacup wrote: »

Any further thoughts on how much of a role parents should have in the running of schools and the ethos of the schools?

Yes. If a school is entirely privately funded, let them teach whatever they like and refuse admission to whoever they don't like. In that situation parents are the pipers that call the tune.

If they receive state funds, there should be no discrimination tolerated against any citizen of this state. They should teach only an approved curriculum, and no religious indoctrination should be allowed whatsoever. In that situation parents can only complain if proper procedures are being neglected /abused.

The situation of state-funded religious control, which you are happy with, is neither one nor the other.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

Yes. If a school is entirely privately funded, let them teach whatever they like and refuse admission to whoever they don't like.

I would take issue with this bit. I don't think it's healthy for a school, even if 100% privately funded, to teach whatever they like (sexism, homophobia, racism, jihad?) and even private members' clubs aren't allowed discriminate entirely freely.

freedominacup

recedite wrote: »

So you think that's alright then? If there are places in a state funded school "left over" after all the people of a certain religion are catered for, then these miscellaneous others, the second class citizens, can have them.


Yes. If a school is entirely privately funded, let them teach whatever they like and refuse admission to whoever they don't like. In that situation parents are the pipers that call the tune.

If they receive state funds, there should be no discrimination tolerated against any citizen of this state. They should teach only an approved curriculum, and no religious indoctrination should be allowed whatsoever. In that situation parents can only complain if proper procedures are being neglected /abused.

The situation of state-funded religious control, which you are happy with, is neither one nor the other.

Where did I say it was alright? But at the same time how is it any worse than the situation I outlined where children of teachers regardless of where they live in relation to the schools catchment area are top of the list for enrollment. Policies like this are indicative of weak boards of management.

I could not agree with you that parent should have no role in the running of schools regardless of how they are funded and thankfully the criteria laid down for the apointment of school boards ensures that a minimum of 25% of the boards are parents. It means that sometimes there is a chance that parents can get into a controlling position on the board which is a good thing IMO regardless of what said parents views are.

recedite

freedominacup wrote: »

Where did I say it was alright?

It seemed to be your attitude, but answer a direct question then; is it alright for a publicly funded school to give priority to kids based on the religion of their family?

freedominacup wrote: »

I could not agree with you that parent should have no role in the running of schools regardless of how they are funded and thankfully the criteria laid down for the apointment of school boards ensures that a minimum of 25% of the boards are parents. It means that sometimes there is a chance that parents can get into a controlling position on the board which is a good thing IMO regardless of what said parents views are.

25% is a minority stake, not a controlling position, even if all the parents were in complete agreement on an issue.
I didn't say parents should have no role, I said their role should be limited within a publicly funded school. If all the parents decided they didn't want traveller children in the school for example, or that the hours should be changed to 8am to 6pm, they should remember that the school caters to them but is not controlled by them.

recedite

ninja900 wrote: »

and even private members' clubs aren't allowed discriminate entirely freely.

This is true. But that is not such a clear cut issue, in that the rights and wrongs of it are debatable. You can legally ask a person to leave your private house just because you don't like their skin colour or religion.

Any organisation in receipt of public funds should be entirely free of any kind of discrimination though.

freedominacup

recedite wrote: »

It seemed to be your attitude, but answer a direct question then; is it alright for a publicly funded school to give priority to kids based on the religion of their family?


25% is a minority stake, not a controlling position, even if all the parents were in complete agreement on an issue.
I didn't say parents should have no role, I said their role should be limited within a publicly funded school. If all the parents decided they didn't want traveller children in the school for example, or that the hours should be changed to 8am to 6pm, they should remember that the school caters to them but is not controlled by them.

To answer your question it's a simple no. Now answer mine. On what did you base your assertion that "It seemed to be your (my) attitude"?

25% is the starting point, I said that there is a chance for parents to get into a majority position on a school board. While you did not say that parents should have no role you did seem to indicate that their only role was to complain if "proper procedures were being neglected/abused". I don't agree with that. Personally I think parents should have a proactive role in the running of the schools their children attend and should be encouraged in this.

recedite

I'm not going to get into a you said/I said type argument, but I'll answer your question out of courtesy because you answered mine.
The following quotes seem to indicate the attitude that "positive" religious discrimination (in favour of those showing the"right" baptismal cert) is OK if the majority of parents support it, and its just tough luck on those who haven't got one if the school is full to capacity;

freedominacup wrote: »

Any admissions policy that doesn't say we will take all comers with no regard to any criteria will be considered unfair by someone.

freedominacup wrote: »

Sectarian does not mean seperated by religion and I believe you use that word emotively because of it's extremely negative association with violence in Northern Ireland.

freedominacup wrote: »

I think the perception of church control of schools is fairly far removed from the reality...

freedominacup wrote: »

Either people want parents to have an increased say in the running of schools or they don't. If they do then you must endorse the decisions taken by parents regardless of how these decisions sit with your personal preferences.

freedominacup wrote: »

... only if the school is full to capacity. There are very few schools in my area turning away students for any reason. Quite the opposite in fact.

I think in theory you like to oppose discrimination, but in practice you can't or won't see it when its in front of your own eyes. Its what they call cognitive dissonance, and its one of those qualities that is especially well developed in a religious education.

robindch

"Vatican encourages renewed missionary zeal in Catholic schools"

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-encourages-renewed-missionary-zeal-in-catholic-schools/

CNA wrote:

Vatican City, Dec 26, 2013 / 08:02 am (CNA/EWTN News).- A recently released Vatican document is calling for a fresh commitment to Catholic identity within what it calls an increasingly secularized educational system. At a press conference held Dec. 19, Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski, prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education, said, “the Catholic identity of the school is fundamental.” Noting the many challenges facing Catholic schools, the Cardinal added, “today one of the greatest problems is when large organizations want to impose gender ideology.”

“Today, due to the advanced process of secularization, Catholic schools find themselves in a missionary situation, even in countries with an ancient Christian tradition,” reads the congregation's “Educating To Intercultural Dialogue in Catholic Schools.” “Catholic schools' primary responsibility is one of witness. In the various situations created by different cultures, the Christian presence must be shown and made clear, that is, it must be visible, tangible and conscious,” the document continues. “Catholic schools have in Jesus Christ the basis of their anthropological and pedagogical paradigm; they must practice the 'grammar of dialogue,' not as a technical expedient, but as a profound way of relating to others. Catholic schools must reflect on their own identity, because that which they can give is primarily that which they are.”

Cardinal Grocholewski reaffirmed this vision at the press briefing. “Catholic schools are best not just because they give knowledge and competence, but because they show interest in the person for the good,” he said. According to data from the Annual Church Statistics given at the press conference, the number of students in Catholic schools has risen from nearly 55 million in 2008 to around 58 million in 2011.

The document notes, however, that “Catholic schools are seeing an ever growing presence of students with different nationalities and religious beliefs. In many countries of the world, most students profess a non-Catholic religion and the theme of interreligious encounter is now unavoidable.” Archbishop Angelo Vincenzo Zani, Secretary for the Congregation of Catholic Education, said today that “the differences between cultures are not obstacles, but opportunities.” The goal of Catholic schools should be to find balance between the two cultural extremes found in the world today, advises the document.

On the one hand, “one needs the ability to witness and dialogue, without falling into the trap of that facile relativism which holds that all religions are the same and are merely manifestations of an Absolute that no-one can truly know.” On the other, “what is important is to give answers to the many young people 'without a religious home,' the result of an ever more secularized society.” “The final aim of education in intercultural dialogue,” Cardinal Grocholewski concluded, “is the construction of a civilization based on love. The civilization of love, for Christians, does not mean a vague solidarity, but rather an expression of Christ's charity.

“This is the service through which Catholic schools, which always strive to join their work of education with the explicit proclamation of the Gospel, are a most valuable resource for the evangelization of culture, even in those countries and cities where hostile situations challenge us to greater creativity in our search for suitable methods.”

Hard to understand exactly what the Vatican wants, other than the opportunity to control the thoughts of more kids.