School patronage

expectationlost

recedite wrote: »

I see the autism specialists have been granted some kind of joint patronage, whatever that means.... Scoil Sinead as "a Trustee Partner" with the ETB for the new school in Lucan.

You can see here the stupidity of the whole system. A new patron who doesn't like autistic pupils being sent to separate schools applies to be patron of a new 1000 pupil school.

are they?

recedite wrote: »

So it would have been a school run principally for the benefit of a minority of its pupils. Echoes there of the new CoI school in Greystones (Templecarrig) Such a school receives some sort of "bonus points" from the Dept. in the selection process because, being novel and somewhat wacky, it "increases the diversity" in the range of local schools.

However, unlike religion, autism is not a condition which allows the "afflicted" any exemption from equality legislation. Therefore, those who would benefit most from such a school would be unlikely to get into it. Suppose they lived 5 or 6 Km away, they could not receive any priority admission over more local (non-autistic) kids. Very local autistic kids would of course benefit, but they would be such a tiny minority that whatever special facilities were provided would be under utilised.

ADMISSION POLICY http://scoilsineadss.com/admission_policy

This policy is on the admissions to the school through the following circumstances:

• Students applying for a place in first year
• Students with special needs applying for the autism class and the mainstream class
• Sibling of students already in the school
• Ratio of boys and girls
• Students from outside of the school applying for a place in any other year group whether with or without special needs
• Students applying to repeat any year

recedite wrote: »

It seems from the level of support the proposed Scoil Sinead received, that parents who recognise the poor environment for pupils on the autistic spectrum in most "traditional" schools have supported Scoil Sinead, even if their own kids would not directly benefit. Which is a great credit to the people of Lucan.

apparently they went door to door to sign people up, did DDLETB do that?

recedite wrote: »

And as always, the obvious solution is ignored. The state should be the patron of its own schools, and ensure they are all equally suitable for all its citizens, including those from minority religions and those who are on the autistic spectrum. As a rare exception, if somebody is severely handicapped in some way, then they may be better off in a special school, again run by the state.

agreed

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Only 18 valid <..> run by the state.

In short, once again it appears just about nobody is on board with your idea of exclusively local schools for exclusively local people? Shocking.

recedite

expectationlost wrote: »

ADMISSION POLICY http://scoilsineadss.com/admission_policy

They have made a couple of basic mistakes there (or perhaps deliberate attempts to mislead).

1. They don't actually mention priority in their proposed admissions policy. Either because they already know they can't legally prioritise "special needs" kids in a mainstream class, or they just don't know what they are doing. Discrimination in favour of special needs kids in a mainstream class would be illegal even if they could get the funding for all the extra SNA teachers that would be required.
Language such as "admission through the following circumstances" is just fancy sounding bull$hit.

This policy is on the admissions to the school through the following circumstances:

• Students applying for a place in first year
• Students with special needs applying for the autism class and the mainstream class
• Sibling of students already in the school
• Ratio of boys and girls
• Students from outside of the school applying for a place in any other year group whether with or without special needs
• Students applying to repeat any year

2. The main agenda seemed to be to run an ASD (autism spectrum) class separate to the "normal" class. Initially I thought the plan was to have the ASD kids integrated into the mainstream class, but that's because I read the Dept Ed report which said

Scoil Sinead intends to move away from the traditional model of autism and special needs units that are separate and generally far away from the mainstream classes and proposes to have resource facilities in each mainstream class for those who need to learn in a smaller, less populated environment, but still allow them to participate in everyday school life and to progress with their peers through their post primary years, while having the curriculum tailored to their individual needs.

So here the Dept may have been deceived. Either the ASD classes are separate classes which can give priority admission to ASD kids. Or they are not separate, and they cannot give priority. Maybe the Dept. was not deceived, and has now given the go ahead for joint patronage of two separate schools with separate classes in the same building? One which can prioritise ASD and one which cannot. Who knows? A two-headed beast which can't make up its mind which direction its going in. Its a mess.

3. In their admission policy, they say;

The school is particularly aware of its statutory responsibilities under the Equal Status Acts 2000-2004 in relation to the admission of students with disabilities and other special educational needs, and in relation to the relevant discriminatory grounds as set out in section 3 of the 2000 Act.

...as if that was going to allow them to prioritise ASD kids in a mainstream school.
No, it would not. Section 3 says that people with a disability cannot be treated differently to people with no disability. These people are so used to fighting discrimination against special needs pupils in discriminatory private religious schools that they have failed to realise the same legislation would protect the "non-disabled" people from discrimination in a mainstream class in their proposed school.

The exemption to Equality Legislation that religious schools habitually avail of is to be found in Section 7, and it is only for a religious ethos, not for an autistic ethos.

4. Their biggest mistake was in neglecting to obtain charitable status, which made them ineligible to be a school patron at all.

If I can see all these problems with the application (and the end result of it) in a few minutes, it just shows what a farcical time and money wasting nonsense the whole patron selection system is. Especially when you see that the easy answer to all this patronage nonsense is staring us in the face.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

In short, once again it appears just about nobody is on board with your idea of exclusively local schools for exclusively local people? Shocking.

Eh?? The 18 figure tells us that very few parents expressed support for the RC religious patron.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Eh?? The 18 figure tells us that very few parents expressed support for the RC religious patron.

Which goes to show the flexibility of the system; we're not stuck with your just your way or the Catholic Church way, we can have a great diversity serving parents needs, as demonstrated by your example; as you say ETB are patrons with Scoil Sinead as "a Trustee Partner", and Scoil Sinead don't even mention locality or religion in their admissions policy.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

...and Scoil Sinead don't even mention locality or religion in their admissions policy.

It should be obvious by now that the "special interest" of that patron is ASD, not religion. As a general rule, every special interest group wants a higher priority for themselves compared to everyone else.

A priority access policy for kids from named local feeder primary schools is something that will be foisted upon them as a condition for being joint manager/patron of the proposed publicly owned school. Not because its their preference, or my preference, but because the school will be built and maintained with public money to meet a projected local demand for schooling.
From the report;

Demographic analysis shows that the enrolment figure for the Lucan school planning area is projected to grow to approximately 5,930 pupils by the year 2025 based on a 100% intake in the school planning area. This is a potential 1,374 extra pupils requiring school places. However, the actual intake at post primary level in the Lucan school planning area is currently 118 %. At the current level of intake, enrolment would increase to approximately 7,016 pupils by 2025.
This is a potential 2,460 extra pupils. The demographic data for the Lucan area, overall, indicates that demand for post primary pupil places over the last number of years has increased and is projected to grow considerably over the next number of years to peak in 2025. Demand in the majority of adjacent school planning areas is projected to increase over the coming years. This indicates that the level of pupil intake at post-primary level in Lucan is likely to continue at or close to the current actual intake level 118% and therefore it is prudent to plan provision in the Lucan school planning area on this basis.

It is ridiculous for you to suggest that "local priority" is an equivalent form of discrimination to "priority for members of a particular religion". The school is being built specifically to cater for a rise in the local population of kids.
Its the same with virtually all new schools these days. Very few are built privately nowadays, although there is a new Islamic school complex (separate male and female schools) in the pipeline for Blanchardstown I hear, to be funded by private donors from here and abroad. In that kind of situation they would not have to accept a whole range of stipulations that the Dept. would normally make mandatory in a new publicly built school, which would normally be there for the good of society in a school built with public money. But that's another story.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

It should be obvious by now that the "special interest" of that patron is ASD, not religion. As a general rule, every special interest group wants a higher priority for themselves compared to everyone else. A priority access policy for kids from named local feeder primary schools is something that will be foisted upon them as a condition for being joint manager/patron of the proposed publicly owned school. Not because its their preference, or my preference, but because the school will be built and maintained with public money to meet a projected local demand for schooling.

So... it's not just your way or the Catholic Church way. The 'special interest' of this patron is no more or less special than your own... and there is room for them in our system.

recedite wrote: »

It is ridiculous for you to suggest that "local priority" is an equivalent form of discrimination to "priority for members of a particular religion". The school is being built specifically to cater for a rise in the local population of kids. Its the same with virtually all new schools these days.

It's not what I'm suggesting though. I'm saying that your own particular brand of exclusively local schools for exclusively local people is manifestly not one with a great deal of traction, as there are a wonderful variety of schools of varying patronage with different ethoi being chosen by parents, and some of them don't even include locality in their admissions criteria. The "stupidity of the whole system" seems very much not in evidence... and we haven't even had to nationalise the private schools!

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

I'm saying that your own particular brand of exclusively local schools for exclusively local people is manifestly not one with a great deal of traction...

What is my brand of "exclusively local schools?" When the state builds a new secondary school, and puts out an offer to the so called "patrons" to manage it, they always specify that the patron must agree that local kids attending feeder primary schools in the local area (which the school is built to service) will get first priority admission. Not some special interest group. Its not "my brand", its public policy, even if its not always enforced very well.

Absolam wrote: »

there are a wonderful variety of schools of varying patronage with different ethos being chosen by parents, and some of them don't even include locality in their admissions criteria.

Locality is what's left when all the special interest group discrimination is removed. Even a "first come first served" admission policy is discriminatory - the multi-year waiting lists associated with this policy discriminate against "blow-ins" and immigrants.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

What is my brand of "exclusively local schools?"

I'd say it's the one size fits all, parental preference free, secular only, exclusively for local children educational system you've been pushing throughout the thread. Is there anything in your preferred educational system that I've missed out there?

recedite wrote: »

When the state builds a new secondary school, and puts out an offer to the so called "patrons" to manage it, they always specify that the patron must agree that local kids attending feeder primary schools in the local area (which the school is built to service) will get first priority admission. Not some special interest group. Its not "my brand", its public policy, even if its not always enforced very well.

So the State allows Patrons (including religious ones) to run schools with criteria in line with their ethos, selected from Patrons who submit their applications with evidence of interest from parents who would use their schools? Yep, it's public policy, and it's great to see it in action, though I can't say it seems to conform to your 'brand' of education preference...

recedite wrote: »

Locality is what's left when all the special interest group discrimination is removed. Even a "first come first served" admission policy is discriminatory - the multi-year waiting lists associated with this policy discriminate against "blow-ins" and immigrants.

All admissions policies are discriminatory, including your preferred method of discrimination; by locality. Whether they are illegally, or immorally, discriminatory depends on the law, or one's opinion, respectively.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

All admissions policies are discriminatory, including your preferred method of discrimination; by locality.

If the state builds a school to serve a particular area, its fine to prioritise people in that area. Its not fine to prioritise according to their skin colour or their religion.

If the state hands out medical cards for low income families, its fine to prioritise according to means.

If a religious organisation provides a school for people of their own religion, its fine for them to prioritise according to religion.

I'm not against prioritisation. I'm against state sponsored discrimination against people on certain grounds (religion, skin colour, sexual orientation etc.) which in a normal civilised society would be illegal.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

If a religious organisation provides a school for people of their own religion, its fine for them to prioritise according to religion.

Provided it accepts no taxpayer funding, and standards are met to ensure it doesn't fill kids' heads with harmful creationist / jihadist nonsense.

Even then, it's not good for society to have members of a religion segregate themselves or their kids away.

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Even then, it's not good for society to have members of a religion segregate themselves or their kids away.

No, but you can't stop them if that's what they want, and they are willing to pay for it privately.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

If the state builds a school to serve a particular area, its fine to prioritise people in that area. Its not fine to prioritise according to their skin colour or their religion.

As far as I'm aware it is fine to prioritise by religion if it's school with a religious ethos though? It's certainly legal, so the distinction between what you feel is fine and what you feel is not is a personal one; like I said, it's just a matter of opinion.

recedite wrote: »

If the state hands out medical cards for low income families, its fine to prioritise according to means. If a religious organisation provides a school for people of their own religion, its fine for them to prioritise according to religion. I'm not against prioritisation. I'm against state sponsored discrimination against people on certain grounds (religion, skin colour, sexual orientation etc.) which in a normal civilised society would be illegal.

So in short, normal civilised societies apply criteria that make some kinds of discrimination in various circumstances illegal, and others not. You're just at odds with the criteria our own normal civilised society applies, which I suppose is fair enough, especially since in this particular arena our society affords you to freedom to stand over your principles and offer them as an alternative schooling option for parents who agree with you. Unlike the society you propose, which would allow them no choice at all.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

No, but you can't stop them if that's what they want, and they are willing to pay for it privately.

Actually, you just can't stop them. The outstanding freedom of our system is if parents are prepared to put the effort into providing the education they want for their children the State not only can't stop them, it is obliged to provide for and give reasonable aid to them.

RobbieTheRobber

Absolam wrote: »

ou feel is not is a personal one; like I said, it's just a matter of opinion.
So in short, normal civilised societies apply criteria that make some kinds of discrimination in various circumstances illegal, and others not. You're just at odds with the criteria our own normal civilised society applies, which I suppose is fair enough, especially since in this particular arena our society affords you to freedom to stand over your principles and offer them as an alternative schooling option for parents who agree with you. Unlike the society you propose, which would allow them no choice at all.

Can you please explain your use of normal civilised societies here. I find it somewhat confusing. Are you saying that religious discrimination is a criteria applied by normal civilised societies?

Peregrinus

Depends on exactly what you consider to be "religious discrimination". But it you ask more specific questions - Do normal civilized societies have anti-descrimination laws which allow religious discrimination in some contexts? Do normal civilized societies provide public funding for religiously-linked schools? - the answer is, yes, absolutely they do, it's pretty standard.

Absolam

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Can you please explain your use of normal civilised societies here. I find it somewhat confusing. Are you saying that religious discrimination is a criteria applied by normal civilised societies?

I'd say it's a largely consensual perspective; recedite introduced the notion of what a normal civilised society would do, so absent his own (potentially over-selective) criteria, I'd suggest there aren't a preponderance of nations (or people) which would consider Ireland not to be a normal civilised society. What do you think; would you consider Ireland to be a normal civilised society?

recedite

Give us an example of another country where the state would build a public school, then allow it to be managed and controlled by a religious organisation whose admissions policy discriminates on the basis of a kid's religion.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Give us an example of another country where the state would build a public school, then allow it to be managed and controlled by a religious organisation whose admissions policy discriminates on the basis of a kid's religion.

Well, the UK would be the nearest example. In England and Wales about one-third of primary schools, and one-fifth of secondary schools, have a religious character and all are permitted to adopt admission criteria which prioritises applicants on the basis of religion. Germany would be another example, through the operation of the church tax.

Public funding of religious schools, and a regulatory regime which allows religious schools to treat religion as a factor in admission policy, are both common in liberal democracies. What's unusual in Ireland is the overwhelming domination of the educational system by schools of this type, associated with one church. But the basic principle of publicly funding religious schools with religiously-selective admission policies is widely accepted.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Give us an example of another country where the state would build a public school, then allow it to be managed and controlled by a religious organisation whose admissions policy discriminates on the basis of a kid's religion.

Why? Would such a country be more, less, or equally a normal civilised society in your view? Do you think that country would be more, less, or equally a normal civilised society in most peoples view? Or is it possible it would make no difference whatsoever to whether people consider it a normal civilised country?

Personally, I'm inclined to think a society is more or less 'civilised' based on the level of individual freedoms it permits and supports for it's people (though I'll admit that's an entirely subjective view); that Irish society permits parents to determine the kind of schooling they want to provide their children, and provides for that education, strikes me as more civilised than a country that dictates the schooling children must have and won't support any alternative (such countries are few and far between, I know), which seems overly authoritarian to my mind. But I'm sure your own view is quite different, from your posts on this thread.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, the UK would be the nearest example.

Can you give the name of a school in the UK which the state built/owns, and subsequently allowed a private "patron" type entity to manage with their own discriminatory admissions policies.
Of course there are privately owned religious schools which have traditionally been in receipt of various amounts of public funding, but that is not what I asked about.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Why?

Because a civilised society protects its citizens from discrimination "as far as reasonably possible" even in the private sphere. But in the sphere of public services provided by the state, it has zero tolerance.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Because a civilised society protects its citizens from discrimination "as far as reasonably possible" even in the private sphere. But in the sphere of public services provided by the state, it has zero tolerance.

That doesn't sound like a reason for me to give you an example of a country where the state would build a public school, then allow it to be managed and controlled by a religious organisation whose admissions policy discriminates on the basis of a kid's religion, though, it sounds like your (fairly spurious) idea of what you'd like a civilised society to be. Can you point out a State that actually has zero tolerence for discrimination in the sphere of public services it provides? Does it prohibit single gender bathrooms for instance, since providing them would constitute gender discrimination?
I have a feeling there aren't actually any States that measure up to your test without you doing some serious redefining of your test...

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

... Can you point out a State that actually haszero tolerence for discrimination in the sphere of public services it provides? ...

I shoudn't need to clarify this, but you are being mischievously pedantic, as usual. I mean "Discrimination on protected grounds" which as you know, are normally (in a civilised society) specified and named grounds such as race, religion, sexual orientation and the like. I don't mean something like the "discrimination" between the innocent and the guilty when sending people to jail.

Now, can you point out that discriminatory state school which is located outside Ireland, please.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

I shoudn't need to clarify this, but you are being mischievously pedantic, as usual. I mean "Discrimination on protected grounds" which as you know, are normally (in a civilised society) specified and named grounds such as race, religion, sexual orientation and the like. I don't mean something like the "discrimination" between the innocent and the guilty when sending people to jail. Now, can you point out that discriminatory state school which is located outside Ireland, please.

Well discrimination on protected grounds is a pedantic thing; for instance, discrimination by religion in schools admission in Ireland is not legally discrimination on protected grounds. Discrimination by gender in bathroom admission is not legally discrimination on protected grounds in the US. Even though both religion and gender are characteristics of protected grounds for prohibiting discrimination in both States... and both States are indeed generally considered to be civilised societies despite manifestly not having zero tolerence in the sphere of public services provided by the State (or even public services provided for by the State).

Looks like even with your first redefinition of your test you seem to be falling on stony ground.

recedite

Still waiting for someone to name that school.....

Absolam

Still waiting for a reason to bother....

Commotion Ocean

I believe that if a school has a particular religious patronage or tries to teach a certain religion as a fact, then they should not receive a penny in government money.

Schools can only receive government money if they are secular or teach an insight into ALL religions from a cultural point of view and spend no more that 30 mins per week on it.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Still waiting for a reason to bother....

That must be one of your shortest ever posts
Its almost as if you thought about it for a while, and then realised you had no answer.

Absolam

dfeo wrote: »

I believe that if a school has a particular religious patronage or tries to teach a certain religion as a fact, then they should not receive a penny in government money.
Schools can only receive government money if they are secular or teach an insight into ALL religions from a cultural point of view and spend no more that 30 mins per week on it.

It's certainly an interesting point of view. It would require some work; obviously the State by withdrawing funds from schools that are not secular and and don't teach religion from a cultural point of view and spend no more that 30 mins per week on it would be trampling all over Constitutional rights to support your point of view, so that would be tricky. But I imagine you and recedite would agree on a great deal, so there's that.