School patronage

Bristolscale7

Nine new Educate Together schools:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/nine-new-educate-together-schools-
to-open-this-year-1.2768066

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

in terms of education it depends, diversity of school systems based on education philosophies and goals is a good thing and a basic form of competition which allows cross fertilisation of ideas. Diversity aimed at reinforcing segregation and in group preferences can lead to disconnects. NI is a example of diversity not being a strength

I'm not sure one could hold Northern Ireland up as an example of diversity, but the idea that allowing distinct ethnic/religious/cultural groups to operate schools for their members is reinforcing segregation is pretty dubious I have to say. What segregation is there to reinforce in the first place?

I think the term 'segregation' is thrown about without much thought; people are free to associate with whomever they choose, to form their own groups, cliques, societies, whatever. Segregation occurs when those same people aren't allowed that choice, and are deliberately restricted to groups where they 'supposedly' belong. Segregation is imposed, association is a choice.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not sure one could hold Northern Ireland up as an example of diversity, but the idea that allowing distinct ethnic/religious/cultural groups to operate schools for their members is reinforcing segregation is pretty dubious I have to say. What segregation is there to reinforce in the first place?

that based on ethnicity as defined by religion in this case that both groups raise their kids in an environment where they have limited contact with the other group and where taboos against intermarrying for instance was/is encouraged. the school system reinforced both group's goals

Absolam wrote: »

I think the term 'segregation' is thrown about without much thought; people are free to associate with whomever they choose, to form their own groups, cliques, societies, whatever. Segregation occurs when those same people aren't allowed that choice, and are deliberately restricted to groups where they 'supposedly' belong. Segregation is imposed, association is a choice.

sure its not legally imposed so lets call it self segregation but I see it as dysfunctional if this self segregation creates political problems like NI or potential cultural and integration problems.
people are free to associate which is fine in a relatively homogeneous society but when you see something like terrorism popping up something has gone wrong

Peregrinus

If you have a problem with intercommunal conflict in a society, I'm not convinced that the appropriate response is to attempt to erode the distinct identifies of the various communities. And I'm certain that, if that is the strategy you adopt, it will be experienced as an oppressive and discriminatory strategy by the minority community or communities, since they're the ones which will basically disappear, should the strategy succeed. It's not an even-handed strategy. So my gut feeling is that this more likely to intensify the problem of conflict than to resolve it.

It seems to me that if you have intercommunal conflict, your problem is not the communities but the conflict. You need to reshape the relationships between the communities. And that, basically, is what is being done in NI. For decades they had Westminister-style governmental structures which ignored the existence of distinct communities, and operated in practice as a mechanism for the majority community to dominate the minority. That didn't end well, did it? Now, they have structures which accept the reality that Northern Ireland comprises distinct communities, and seeks to assure both communties of a place in government, and a hand on the levers of power. It's not perfect, but it's working out a hell of a lot better so far.

With respect to integrated education in NI, I think the question really comes down to this; would it work to improve relationships between the two communities, or would it lead one or both communities to think that their distinct identity, their continued existence, was under threat? This is a particularly important question in NI, where the distinct identity of one community partly consists of a firm conviction that they are under threat. My gut feeling is that while you might encourage, applaud and support integrated education, any attempt to impose it, either by making it compulsory or simply by depriving people of alternatives, is likely to work out badly. By and large, I think the UK government has always shared my assessment on this question.

The calculation is different in the Republic, where we don't have two communities that shoot one another. The distinctive feature in the Republic is that we have one extremely dominant community, numerically speaking, and a number of very small minority communities which are in real danger of extinction. I think we could say that for the minority communities, the maintenance of distinct schools really is relevant to their survival as communities, and its very important that we should accommodate this, and be seen to accommodate it. So I think you can make a case for things like a Protestant-only entry stream to, from memory, 30 places in teaching training courses (when there are something like 3,500 places in teacher training courses overall).

For the majority community, it's different. They don't have a dedicated entry stream; they don't need one because, on the demographics, Catholic applicants will secure the vast majority of places in any open entry stream. And we could go further; for example, if Catholic schools were, e.g., required to operate admission policies which did not discriminate on the basis of religion, they'd nearly all still have an overwhelmingly Catholic student body, wouldn't they? So I think you can make a strong case for saying that minority schools should have more latitude than is afforded to majority schools on a variety of fronts.

looksee

Peregrinus wrote: »

The calculation is different in the Republic, where we don't have two communities that shoot one another. The distinctive feature in the Republic is that we have one extremely dominant community, numerically speaking, and a number of very small minority communities which are in real danger of extinction. I think we could say that for the minority communities, the maintenance of distinct schools really is relevant to their survival as communities, and its very important that we should accommodate this, and be seen to accommodate it. So I think you can make a case for things like a Protestant-only entry stream to, from memory, 30 places in teaching training courses (when there are something like 3,500 places in teacher training courses overall).

For the majority community, it's different. They don't have a dedicated entry stream; they don't need one because, on the demographics, Catholic applicants will secure the vast majority of places in any open entry stream. And we could go further; for example, if Catholic schools were, e.g., required to operate admission policies which did not discriminate on the basis of religion, they'd nearly all still have an overwhelmingly Catholic student body, wouldn't they? So I think you can make a strong case for saying that minority schools should have more latitude than is afforded to majority schools on a variety of fronts.

This argument completely ignores the fact that education has nothing to do with religion, except as a 'subject'. If religious belief, including non-belief, were not taught in school there would be no need for different schools for different groupings. I don't know if the question has been asked, but I suspect that if, say, CofI parents were asked if they would prefer a CofI school because they wanted active CofI teaching in the school, or was it that they just did not want Catholic teaching, you would get a different answer than if you asked simply,would you prefer your child to go to a CofI school?

If there is an active faith community to which parents belong and bring their children, then they will get their religious teaching there and in the home. If the parents are not keeping their children in touch with their professed faith, then it probably does not matter much anyway. Certainly it does not matter enough to fund lots of different schools.

It is hard to see how a school will maintain a community. A religious community should be able to maintain itself around the church, not around the school.

All the nonsense about the need to have preferential streams for different religions totally disappears if schools are not divided by religion in the first place.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you have a problem with intercommunal conflict in a society....

In an NI situation the idea is do you aid both groups to be a little less of what they were? and yes would seem to be the obvious answer. its not about quashing one point of view. in the Republic the Anglo Irish are on the way out as an identity. I assume your average Protestant church these days is more likely to have its numbers boosted by people who have moved to Ireland. Now I see no reason for the state to speed things up but neither to give them special favour beyond what any other citizen is entitled to. At the end of the day the Anglo Irish identity will go the way of the Viking or Norman identity , just a quaint part of history.

Peregrinus

looksee wrote: »

This argument completely ignores the fact that education has nothing to do with religion, except as a 'subject'. If religious belief, including non-belief, were not taught in school there would be no need for different schools for different groupings.

And this argument completely ignores reality. In order to reject the validity of a desire for Catholic education, you are starting by reframing Catholic education as something other than what it is, and what it aims to be.

Catholic educators do not claim to provide an education which is identical to secular education, except that it includes religious instruction classes. Catholic (and Christian, and no doubt other educators with a distinct religious or philosophical stance) aim to provide an education, every aspect of which is informed by the beliefs and values that they seek to express.

You're still stuck in denial about the fact that education involves the inculcation of beliefs and values. Once you accept this, it will occur to you that we don’t solely, or even primarily, inculcate beliefs and values in children by telling them “believe this!”. As any parent can tell you, we forms children’s beliefs and values mainly by modelling them; by conducting our own lives according to them, and encouraging our children to do likewise.

All schools - religious or otherwise - transmit beliefs and values by conducting the school and its communal life and activities according to those beliefs and values. This, together with explicit reflection on those beliefs and values (which in a Catholic school takes place in RE class, but not only there) is what determines the philosophical character of the school.

looksee wrote: »

It is hard to see how a school will maintain a community. A religious community should be able to maintain itself around the church, not around the school.

I come back to what I said before. If you can find Protestants, Jews, etc who say their schools don’t play a role in maintaining the social health of their communities, produce them, please. In the meantime, I’d just point out that the whole point about religion is that it doesn’t just happen a church. The notion that the only social institutions in which religiously-identified communities realise themselves and express themselves are churches is just bizarre, frankly.

looksee

Well then we will just have to disagree. I can see no validity in your argument, and apparently you can see none in mine, so we may as well go our separate ways.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

The notion that the only social institutions in which religiously-identified communities realise themselves and express themselves are churches is just bizarre, frankly.

"Expressing themselves" is fine. Taking control and having undue influence over state institutions, such as hospitals and schools; not fine.

expectationlost

Failure to provide non-religious schools 'ignores parents' human rights': Quinn http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/failure-to-provide-non-religious-schools-ignores-parents-human-rights-quinn-751557.html so why didn't you tackle this properly when you were Minister

from newstalk this moring https://www.newstalk.com/poll-are-parents-limited-when-choosing-a-school-for-their-children

I don't why they had Bobby Kerr on waffling

matrim

expectationlost wrote: »

Failure to provide non-religious schools 'ignores parents' human rights': Quinn http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/failure-to-provide-non-religious-schools-ignores-parents-human-rights-quinn-751557.html so why didn't you tackle this properly when you were Minister

Doesn't that show the problem. Even a minister who believes in diversifying schools struggled to get anything done.

expectationlost

matrim wrote: »

Doesn't that show the problem. Even a minister who believes in diversifying schools struggled to get anything done.

Doesn't that show the problem.

what?

matrim

expectationlost wrote: »

what?

You said asked "why didn't Quinn tackle the problem when he was minister?" He probably tried but the the system is so dysfunctional that he couldn't make many changes because of push back from vested interests.

expectationlost

matrim wrote: »

You said asked "why didn't Quinn tackle the problem when he was minister?" He probably tried but the the system is so dysfunctional that he couldn't make many changes because of push back from vested interests.

who is charge of the system?

evolving_doors

expectationlost wrote: »

who is charge of the system?

I don't think it's one group anyhow...
Govt. Provides 'for' education.
School provides education.
Ncca sets out the syllabus.
Inspectors have a look and recommend stuff.
BOM/patron do what they think is in the school's interests.
Parents council have a say.
Students supposed to have a say.
Teachers have a say through union action.
Loads of stakeholders all take an interest in various ways (depending on the school makeup).

Who's in charge?... Minister maybe ... although briefly.
Ministers advisors and dept officials probably have a 20 year plan to outsource the lot, like charter schools or academies.

Is that everyone?

techdiver

I can't even believe this is still a ****in discussion! If you want your children to have religious brain washing, do so at the weekend!

Stop holding the rest of us to ransom!

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

that based on ethnicity as defined by religion in this case that both groups raise their kids in an environment where they have limited contact with the other group and where taboos against intermarrying for instance was/is encouraged. the school system reinforced both group's goals

I'm pretty dubious about the idea that ethnicity can be defined by religion, but actually I was thinking that it takes more than two groups for 'diversity' to be an issue.

silverharp wrote: »

sure its not legally imposed so lets call it self segregation but I see it as dysfunctional if this self segregation creates political problems like NI or potential cultural and integration problems.
people are free to associate which is fine in a relatively homogeneous society but when you see something like terrorism popping up something has gone wrong

Well, I'd say what you're describing as self segregation is what I was describing as freedom of association, and that was pretty much my point; segregation is imposed, association is a choice. If they're choosing, they're not being segregated, and the word is only used to cast a negative aspersion on the choice they make.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

"Expressing themselves" is fine. Taking control and having undue influence over state institutions, such as hospitals and schools; not fine.

State funded institutions, like so many including schools and hospitals, on the other hand, might be subject to all sorts of influences. Being influenced by the desires of the people they exist to service isn't the worst kind of influence they could be under. The State certainly doesn't have a mandate to prevent it's institutions being influenced by the will of the people, does it.

evolving_doors

Absolam wrote: »

State funded institutions, like so many including schools and hospitals, on the other hand, might be subject to all sorts of influences. Being influenced by the desires of the people they exist to service isn't the worst kind of influence they could be under. The State certainly doesn't have a mandate to prevent it's institutions being influenced by the will of the people, does it.

So if the will of the people was for hospitals to admit only those with baptism certs the state wouldn't have any mandate!

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

I'm pretty dubious about the idea that ethnicity can be defined by religion, but actually I was thinking that it takes more than two groups for 'diversity' to be an issue.

in terms of NI many would believe it to be true. I didnt introduce "diversity" into the discussion but in terms of it being used to describe the catholic/protestant situation in the Republic I can pull in other examples. Multiculture can be defined as defined as 2 or more and in any case there are integrated schools in NI so there are at least 3 broad types of school

Absolam wrote: »

Well, I'd say what you're describing as self segregation is what I was describing as freedom of association, and that was pretty much my point; segregation is imposed, association is a choice. If they're choosing, they're not being segregated, and the word is only used to cast a negative aspersion on the choice they make.

one can look negatively on the situation, choosing where to live based on religion are choices I would be critical of, the are no Catholic parts of New York or Protestant parts of London.

Absolam

Gebgbegb wrote: »

So if the will of the people was for hospitals to admit only those with baptism certs the state wouldn't have any mandate!

Any mandate at all?

expectationlost

Gebgbegb wrote: »

I don't think it's one group anyhow...
Govt. Provides 'for' education.
School provides education.
Ncca sets out the syllabus.
Inspectors have a look and recommend stuff.
BOM/patron do what they think is in the school's interests.
Parents council have a say.
Students supposed to have a say.
Teachers have a say through union action.
Loads of stakeholders all take an interest in various ways (depending on the school makeup).

Who's in charge?... Minister maybe ... although briefly.
Ministers advisors and dept officials probably have a 20 year plan to outsource the lot, like charter schools or academies.

Is that everyone?

and he wants to use a the son millionaires money to change the system such a better way to do it

Hotblack Desiato

expectationlost wrote: »

who is charge of the system?

The Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Ireland. They have direct control of 96% of primary schools between them and a majority of secondaries. Nothing happens at primary or secondary that they disagree with.

evolving_doors

Absolam wrote: »

Any mandate at all?

I dunno, what do you think, would the state have any mandate to prevent it?

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

in terms of NI many would believe it to be true. I didnt introduce "diversity" into the discussion but in terms of it being used to describe the catholic/protestant situation in the Republic I can pull in other examples. Multiculture can be defined as defined as 2 or more and in any case there are integrated schools in NI so there are at least 3 broad types of school

You did introduce Northern Ireland as an example of diversity; what I'm saying is a group consisting of only two can hardly be considered diverse.

silverharp wrote: »

one can look negatively on the situation, choosing where to live based on religion are choices I would be critical of, the are no Catholic parts of New York or Protestant parts of London.

And I'm sure you can be critical of peoples choices if you like, however, it would be incorrect to construe their choice as their being segregated.

Absolam

Gebgbegb wrote: »

I dunno, what do you think, would the state have any mandate to prevent it?

You offered the statement to be fair, can you not defend your thinking?

I do think that if people had a right to to provide for the religious and moral hospital care of themselves and their children, in private hospitals or in hospitals recognised or established by the State, and could not be obliged in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children (or themselves) to hospitals established by the State, or to any particular type of hospitals designated by the State, whilst observing the States obligation to ensure they and their children receive a certain minimum hospital care, and if the State were also obliged to provide for free primary hospital care and endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate hospital initiatives, and, when the public good requires it, provide other hospital facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of people, especially in the matter of religious and moral care, then, in those circumstances, the State would have no mandate to prevent people having the kind of religious and moral hospitals they want. Would it?

That said of course, hospitals have a rather different function to schools, so it's probably fair to say that they are no more analogous to schools than they are to, say, forestry services.

evolving_doors

Absolam wrote: »

You offered the statement to be fair, can you not defend your thinking?

I do think that if people had a right to to provide for the religious and moral hospital care of themselves and their children, in private hospitals or in hospitals recognised or established by the State, and could not be obliged in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children (or themselves) to hospitals established by the State, or to any particular type of hospitals designated by the State, whilst observing the States obligation to ensure they and their children receive a certain minimum hospital care, and if the State were also obliged to provide for free primary hospital care and endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate hospital initiatives, and, when the public good requires it, provide other hospital facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of people, especially in the matter of religious and moral care, then, in those circumstances, the State would have no mandate to prevent people having the kind of religious and moral hospitals they want. Would it?

That said of course, hospitals have a rather different function to schools, so it's probably fair to say that they are no more analogous to schools than they are to, say, forestry services.

I ran out of breath and fainted reading the bolded part. Did you copy and paste that from somewhere?

Anyhow, sorry if I've confused you. I'll rephrase the question.
Here is your assertion below from above
"...in the matter of religious and moral care, then, in those circumstances, the State would have no mandate to prevent people having the kind of religious and moral hospitals they want"

1. Would you be happy for a hospital to refuse a child entry on the grounds of not having a baptism cert?
And
2. Do you assert that the State have no mandate to interfere in this situation?

Bristolscale7

Absolam wrote: »

I do think that if people had a right to to provide for the religious and moral hospital care of themselves and their children, in private hospitals or in hospitals recognised or established by the State, and could not be obliged in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children (or themselves) to hospitals established by the State, or to any particular type of hospitals designated by the State, whilst observing the States obligation to ensure they and their children receive a certain minimum hospital care, and if the State were also obliged to provide for free primary hospital care and endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate hospital initiatives, and, when the public good requires it, provide other hospital facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of people, especially in the matter of religious and moral care, then, in those circumstances, the State would have no mandate to prevent people having the kind of religious and moral hospitals they want.

That is one sentence.

Absolam

Gebgbegb wrote: »

I ran out of breath and fainted reading the bolded part. Did you copy and paste that from somewhere? Anyhow, sorry if I've confused you. I'll rephrase the question.

Don't worry nothing at all confusing; I figured if we're to compare State support of education to State support of health care, we should consider the context in which the State does actually support education. Makes sense, no?

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Here is your assertion below from above
"...in the matter of religious and moral care, then, in those circumstances, the State would have no mandate to prevent people having the kind of religious and moral hospitals they want"
1. Would you be happy for a hospital to refuse a child entry on the grounds of not having a baptism cert?
And
2. Do you assert that the State have no mandate to interfere in this situation?

1. Why would I be happy? If it were necessary for a hospital to refuse a child entry on the grounds of not having a baptism cert then I'd presume there must be some reason it's necessary. Can you think of a reason it would be necessary?
2. Why would I assert that? Seriously, you're the one offering the assertion, why do you think I'd be doing it?

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

You did introduce Northern Ireland as an example of diversity; what I'm saying is a group consisting of only two can hardly be considered diverse.

as an example, P was talking about in term or the Republic which is basically a catholic /protestant system as well

Absolam wrote: »

And I'm sure you can be critical of peoples choices if you like, however, it would be incorrect to construe their choice as their being segregated.

stating a point as being incorrect doesnt carry much weight