School patronage

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As for the school patronage issue, that’s entirely the fault of the State, and it is the State is responsible for coming up with a solution to the issue, it’s not the responsibility of the Church to provide education to parents who don’t want their education, it’s entirely the responsibility of the State to provide parents with the type of education they want for their children. Government could do that if they actually wanted, and it wouldn’t require any referendums or even any changes in legislation, but they don’t do it, and they are under no real pressure to do it. Why? Because the demand simply isn’t there. There are far more pressing issues on Government than spending money on education, and given the current Governments obsession with being seen to be popular, I don’t expect education reform is actually all that high on their agenda. It hasn’t been in my lifetime anyway, and that’s been the case for successive Ministers for Education, including the current one who is fumbling from one stakeholder to the next making promises he knows he will never have to deliver on.

If the demand wasn't there we wouldn't have an ever increasing number of heavily oversubscribed Educate Together schools. Successive governments are reactive rather than proactive and do the bear minimum necessary to stay in power. By and large this means propping up the status quo until such time as the great unwashed remove their means of doing so.

Hotblack Desiato

smacl wrote: »

Absolutely. If you consider secularism as "freedom of religion and freedom from religion", we do not enjoy these freedoms in this country when it comes to education. There is also no reason to suppose that because someone considers themselves Catholic they are not a secularist.

Exactly, it should make no difference at all to public policy and public services, so apart from historical interest what is the point of the question?

Also worth pointing out yet again that ~50% of the parents of ET pupils identify as catholic.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Absolutely. If you consider secularism as "freedom of religion and freedom from religion", we do not enjoy these freedoms in this country when it comes to education. There is also no reason to suppose that because someone considers themselves Catholic they are not a secularist.

Secularism is the philosophy which holds that decisions and actions should have no regard to God, supernatural considerations, the afterlife, etc. It takes no position on whether God or other supernatural entities are real or meaningful; just that they shouldn't influence our decisions or actions.

As a personal philosophy, it would mean that I consider my own decisions and actions should not be influenced by supernatural claims or considerations. It tends to go hand-in-hand with atheism or agnosticism or religious indifferentism, obviously.

As a political philosophy, it holds that the actions and decisions of the state should not be influenced by considerations or claims about God, supernatural matters, etc. As smacl point's out, its perfectly compatible with religious belief in an individual - as in, an individual may be devoutly religious, but also believe that the state should be secular.

However, state secularism can play out in quite different ways. On one view, state secularism requires the state absolutely to avoid any contact with religious institutions or bodies - there should be a strict separation between church and state. For example, this would preclude the state from funding any church-linked school. On another view, however, state secularism requires the state to ignore the religious characteristics of institutions or bodies, and to treat all in a uniform fashion, regardless of whether they have a religious character or not. This would require the state to apply uniform rules to the funding of schools - rules which took no account whatsoever of whether the schools had a religious character. Proponents of this view would stay that the "strict separation" view isn't truly secular, since it involves making decisions about schools based on their religious character, which is precisely what state secularism seeks to avoid.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

However, state secularism can play out in quite different ways. On one view, state secularism requires the state absolutely to avoid any contact with religious institutions or bodies - there should be a strict separation between church and state. For example, this would preclude the state from funding any church-linked school. On another view, however, state secularism requires the state to ignore the religious characteristics of institutions or bodies, and to treat all in a uniform fashion, regardless of whether they have a religious character or not. This would require the state to apply uniform rules to the funding of schools - rules which took no account whatsoever of whether the schools had a religious character. Proponents of this view would stay that the "strict separation" view isn't truly secular, since it involves making decisions about schools based on their religious character, which is precisely what state secularism seeks to avoid.

I would dispute that anyone could reasonably argue that Ireland's education system is secular in any meaningful sense. It is the imposition of a dominant religious ethos on the majority of the citizenship regardless of their preference, used as a tool for evangelizing this religion, and done at the expense of the tax-payer. This is the polar opposite of even the softest interpretation of secularism and has more in common with theocracy, abeit with smoke and mirrors.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

I would dispute that anyone could reasonably argue that Ireland's education system is secular in any meaningful sense. It is the imposition of a dominant religious ethos on the majority of the citizenship regardless of their preference, used as a tool for evangelizing this religion, and done at the expense of the tax-payer. This is the polar opposite of even the softest interpretation of secularism and has more in common with theocracy, albeit with smoke and mirrors.

I'm not arguing that the Irish education system is secular. I'm just pointing out that the secularity of the state doesn't require that the state not fund church schools. Nearly all democracies that we consider to be secular do fund church schools. The US is the conspicuous exception, but that arises in a context where the state runs its own school system - i.e. the schools are agents of the state. (The US may be terrified of "socialised medicine", but they have long been committed to socialised education.) They don't fund independent schools at all, whether religious or not. When it comes to third-level education, however, this socialised system doesn't apply, and the US quite happily provides public funding to third-level institutions with a religous character and/or links to churches.

One eyed Jack

smacl wrote: »

If the demand wasn't there we wouldn't have an ever increasing number of heavily oversubscribed Educate Together schools. Successive governments are reactive rather than proactive and do the bear minimum necessary to stay in power. By and large this means propping up the status quo until such time as the great unwashed remove their means of doing so.

We have oversubscribed schools of every description though, not just ET, because people still want to enrol their children in what they feel is the school in their area which will give their children the best education. What people mean when they say they want the best education for their children is undoubtedly going to differ depending upon who you ask.

Divestment IMO has worked out exactly as planned by the State - it has managed to maintain the status quo under the guise of all stakeholders blaming each other for their failures. The DOE for example have hampered the efforts of ET to establish more schools claiming that as long as there are places in the local schools for all children, there’s no need to fund another school. It’s this kind of short-sightedness (I don’t know if it’s wilful, but it sure as hell looks like it!) which means people who move into an area have no alternatives to the main type of education available in the area - see the eight Catholic schools and the parents and staff are unwilling to divest the patronage, yet 26% of parents have expressed a preference for an ET model of education. If the DOE fund the establishment of an ET school, it means those pupils at least will not be enrolled in a Catholic school - parents are happy, children are happy, ET are happy and the Catholic Bishops will claim to be happy at least :pac:

The great unwashed exercised the means to do so back in the 30’s, and again in the 70’s, and even in the 90’s when the great unwashed could no longer hide behind the excuse that they didn’t know about the abuse, and “it was the times”, even still, the Catholic Bishops are still the Trustees of 93% of primary schools in Ireland, and the State, has continued to let them, because it suits people not to have to put their hands in their pockets to provide for education reform. They’ll complain about it incessantly, but they’ll actually do very little about it.

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They’ll complain about it incessantly, but they’ll actually do very little about it.

I don't agree. I was lucky enough to briefly attend the first (proto) educate together school in the late 70s. There are 97 Educate together schools today and not only is the number rising, the rate at which it is rising is increasing though not as fast as the demand for places. This is precisely people doing something about it and is increasingly turning the screw on political intransigence in this matter.

lawred2

because it suits people not to have to put their hands in their pockets to provide for education reform. They’ll complain about it incessantly, but they’ll actually do very little about it.

What does this even mean? People pay their taxes don't they!?

What exactly have you put your hands in your pocket for?

I'd expect that the majority of Catholic schools in Ireland long predate parents of today's children so what is it you expect of others?

One eyed Jack

smacl wrote: »

I don't agree. I was lucky enough to briefly attend the first (proto) educate together school in the late 70s. There are 97 Educate together schools today and not only is the number rising, the rate at which it is rising is increasing though not as fast as the demand for places. This is precisely people doing something about it and is increasingly turning the screw on political intransigence in this matter.

97 ET schools and increasing is not turning the screw on anyone when the political will isn’t there to fund education reform. The establishment of 100 schools in 40 years is an atrocious work rate IMO, especially considering the idea that the ET model of education was supposed to be growing in demand in that time. This is why I say that not only is the demand not there, as in there is no real pressure on Joe McHugh to do anything, but the great unwashed (that was your term) have no interest in education reform, leaving a small group of people (yourselves) lobbying for education reform.

lawred2 wrote: »

What does this even mean? People pay their taxes don't they!?

What exactly have you put your hands in your pocket for?

I'd expect that the majority of Catholic schools in Ireland long predate parents of today's children so what is it you expect of others?

Yes people pay taxes, but it shouldn’t end there. Education reform requires a hell of a lot more investment than Government are willing to invest because the only choices they have are to take funds from somewhere else, or raise taxes - neither of which would be very popular with the great unwashed.

I’ve put my hands in my pocket plenty to help fund all types of education privately, because the State very often makes it incredibly difficult for parents in this country to have access to the type of education they want for their children - Government doesn’t want to know you and doesn’t care whether or not you pay taxes!

The thing I expect of others is that if they’re going to complain about something, they would at least make substantive efforts to help themselves. There are some people are willing to help themselves, but if the demand to remove the Church from the Patronage system was actually there - it wouldn’t have taken 40 years for 100 schools to be established, I would expect 10 times that figure in the same time period if the number of people I’ve met who complain about the status quo are any indication. I do understand though that complaining about something while being unwilling to do anything about it isn’t contradictory, it’s cathartic.

lawred2

Paying Tuition fees doesn't count to anything reformative.. just more money to maintain the status quo

One eyed Jack

lawred2 wrote: »

Paying Tuition fees doesn't count to anything reformative.. just more money to maintain the status quo

Sorry, I should have clarified - when I’ve been asked to fund education, whether it be the local schools collections or the establishment of new schools, the purchase of educational equipment for children, or ensuring children have access to education which their parents support, I’ve always supported them and lead by example. I don’t waste my time or resources lobbying Government or attempting to humiliate people for how they self-identify on the census, because I don’t consider that a very productive use of either my time or resources.

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

97 ET schools and increasing is not turning the screw on anyone when the political will isn’t there to fund education reform. The establishment of 100 schools in 40 years is an atrocious work rate IMO, especially considering the idea that the ET model of education was supposed to be growing in demand in that time. This is why I say that not only is the demand not there, as in there is no real pressure on Joe McHugh to do anything, but the great unwashed (that was your term) have no interest in education reform, leaving a small group of people (yourselves) lobbying for education reform.

You might call it an appalling work rate but it is worth remembering that this is something that has been done by the community with very little help (and a fair bit of resistance) from the state until comparatively recently. Just six new schools opened last year but it is a number growing year on year. To dismiss the work rate as 'appalling' is disingenuous.

In terms of satisfaction with the status quo, have a look at the 2012 RedC poll carried out into parent preferences for school types, where 76% of parents responding indicated they'd prefer an option other than a school owned and managed by the church.



Given attitudes to the church in the intervening period, I would imagine this number is even higher seven years on. The notion that the population of the country have no appetite for change here seems specious on that basis.

One eyed Jack

smacl wrote: »

You might call it an appalling work rate but it is worth remembering that this is something that has been done by the community with very little help (and a fair bit of resistance) from the state until comparatively recently. Just six new schools opened last year but it is a number growing year on year. To dismiss the work rate as 'appalling' is disingenuous.

In terms of satisfaction with the status quo, have a look at the 2012 RedC poll carried out into parent preferences for school types, where 76% of parents responding indicated they'd prefer an option other than a school owned and managed by the church.

I don’t mean to be insulting or disingenuous but I just don’t know any other way to categorise ET Patronage of Irish Primary schools at 3% in 40 years, as anything other than abysmal. Where are the 76% of parents who want an alternative education? That in itself is surely evidence of the fact that people are saying one thing, and they’re doing another - expressing interest in alternative forms of education, yet choosing to remain with the status quo.

I think it’s commendable the work that I’ve seen some people put in in terms of trying to provide alternative education, but even by your own admission which is what I’m always driving at - you’re a small community! It’s no use pointing to 3% Patronage in 40 years and saying that you have the support of 72% of parents. The figures just don’t add up unless people are simply telling surveyors what they imagine will make them sound better.

Given attitudes to the church in the intervening period, I would imagine this number is even higher seven years on. The notion that the population of the country have no appetite for change here seems specious on that basis.

Ok, if we look at the referendum that was held back in 1972 to remove the special position of the Catholic Church in the Constitution - 84% in favour of the amendment, and this was at a time when some people would have us believe Ireland were a nation of ill-educated spud munchers in thrall to the RCC.

That was nearly 50 years ago, and in all that intervening time between then and now, to suggest that people saying they want change, is indicative of the idea that there’s going to be some gigantic shift in attitudes of the great unwashed to actually act on what they’ve been saying for the last 50 years... I just don’t see what could actually cause this paradigm shift tbh.

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t mean to be insulting or disingenuous but I just don’t know any other way to categorise ET Patronage of Irish Primary schools at 3% in 40 years, as anything other than abysmal. Where are the 76% of parents who want an alternative education? That in itself is surely evidence of the fact that people are saying one thing, and they’re doing another - expressing interest in alternative forms of education, yet choosing to remain with the status quo.

You don't mean to be insulting or disingenuous yet you refer to getting close on to one hundred child centered schools up and running as abysmal. Really? If you honestly don't believe there is strong public appetite for change here, why exactly do you think the government is pushing for divestment and we're even having this conversation? That the DOE is being ham-fisted about it and quite probably being unduly influenced by the church is no doubt the case, but they are clearly acting out of public demand for change.

Quite a good piece in yesterdays Guardian on the topic.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but I doubt that taking the label means just that the label has been taken.

If you are taking the position, as some here are, that the label means nothing about the persons beliefs then that is all that's left.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Only if the only function or use you can imagine is to identify differences ...

But that is what labels are for!
How do we differentiate things that are superficially identical? You have two containers of liquids, both odourless and colourless, one is water and one is poison. How do you differentiate them? By labelling the containers, appropriate to their contents, so that you don't mix them up.

Peregrinus wrote: »

More to the point, perhaps, it's not really the points of doctrinal difference that interest the census-takers.

Isn't it? The point of every other question in the census is to figure out the different groups of people in society and hopefully make legislative decisions that reflect the different make-up of those groups. What use is the census question on religion if it is not asking you what religion you follow? If the question does not want or claim to know anything about the religious differences of the respondents then all answers are equally meaningless.

Mark Hamill

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You asked is there any other labelling scenario, where this level of ambiguity, that labelling as “X” only tells you that “X” is the label. And I gave you the example of gender, and the label appears to be perfectly functional, and recognised in law by the Gender Recognition Act of 2015.

There is often uncertainty and ambiguity there, but it’s still perfectly functional - employers are under no obligation in a personal capacity to recognise someone as their preferred self-identified gender, but in an employer/employee capacity, employers have a legal obligation to respect their employees self-identified gender identity.

I'm talking about ambiguity after the label is self-applied, not ambiguity in applying the label to a third party who hasn't declared for one.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s entirely accurate as far as they’re concerned

Subjective opinion is not objective reality.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It creates ambiguity for you, but it’s perfectly functional for me.

It's not functional though, because labels aren't for you, they are for everyone interacting with you. If your usage of a label is inconsistent with everyone else's usage, then it is not functional.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The reason it might make no sense is because you’re taking what we were talking about and applying it in a completely different context. People are perfectly entitled to put down what they want on the Census form. I’m not the person questioning any individuals claims, you are, and so it is up to you (or rather the State), to present evidence that people are mis-identifying their religious affiliation on the Census. You don’t have any evidence, all you have is the belief that they are, because the results don’t make any sense when held up against your assumptions about other people.

Still nonsense. You are not entitled to brake the law until you are caught braking it.

Mark Hamill

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This is why I say that not only is the demand not there, as in there is no real pressure on Joe McHugh to do anything, but the great unwashed (that was your term) have no interest in education reform, leaving a small group of people (yourselves) lobbying for education reform.

smacl wrote: »

In terms of satisfaction with the status quo, have a look at the 2012 RedC poll carried out into parent preferences for school types, where 76% of parents responding indicated they'd prefer an option other than a school owned and managed by the church.

Does it really matter, either way, how many people want what? If we start going by the numbers, then we would have to have some schools to suit the likes of tretorn, who a few pages ago admitted that they just don't want their kids mixing with foreigners in school.

If education really is so important as to be guaranteed in our constitution, then an equal baseline level should be equally available to everyone in the state, and the only way to do is to have 100% State run secular schools. All kids get the same access to the same education in the school closest to them (easing a load of traffic problems), with any desired religious formation scheduled after school (can even rent out school classrooms for it, to recuperate a little of costs).

Anteayer

Why do I get the sense that this is one of these issues that will just never be reformed or resolved and we’ll be looking back in 2050 at this era much like we’re looking at 1972 now.

We’ll be stuck with an ever more segregated education system because there’s been no effort to create a genuine public school system and it will be totally reasonable for other religious communities to demand funding of their own schools as no public system exists.

There was a demand for change but it was met by massive inertia and a completely cowed and disinterested state that won’t rock the boat, even though it owns and paid for the boat many times over, but for some reason has outsourced its management.

Personally, I just don’t see change happening. It doesn’t matter how you vote, the church wins on this issue.

smacl

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Does it really matter, either way, how many people want what? If we start going by the numbers, then we would have to have some schools to suit the likes of tretorn, who a few pages ago admitted that they just don't want their kids mixing with foreigners in school.

If education really is so important as to be guaranteed in our constitution, then an equal baseline level should be equally available to everyone in the state, and the only way to do is to have 100% State run secular schools. All kids get the same access to the same education in the school closest to them (easing a load of traffic problems), with any desired religious formation scheduled after school (can even rent out school classrooms for it, to recuperate a little of costs).

I agree entirely with this as an aspiration, though I don't see any government managing to implement it where incremental change is achievable. I think going to the local school is hugely important as it gives kids friends in walking / cycling distance and provides the opportunity to walk or cycle to school. This is good for children, parents and the community in addition to the benefit of removing congestion. Fewer, larger, co-educational schools also benefit for economy of scale and can thus have better facilities and offer a broader range of subjects to all students. I've no problem with choice in education, but not at the cost of sacrificing the above.

Hotblack Desiato

smacl wrote: »

Fewer, larger, co-educational schools also benefit for economy of scale and can thus have better facilities and offer a broader range of subjects to all students.

Fewer principal posts though, so teachers hoping for promotion will be opposed (taxpayers and kids bedamned!)

tretorn

smacl wrote: »

I agree entirely with this as an aspiration, though I don't see any government managing to implement it where incremental change is achievable. I think going to the local school is hugely important as it gives kids friends in walking / cycling distance and provides the opportunity to walk or cycle to school. This is good for children, parents and the community in addition to the benefit of removing congestion. Fewer, larger, co-educational schools also benefit for economy of scale and can thus have better facilities and offer a broader range of subjects to all students. I've no problem with choice in education, but not at the cost of sacrificing the above.

Lots of parents dont want large impersonal community schools and some parents living in ghetto areas will prefer their children to move out of the area for school. This is why you have schools in Dublin which are almost entirely full of non national children. The principals and teachers in these schools will say its a wonderful multicultural experience but their own children will be in the local RC school. Everyone is no hypocritical about this, you will probably find the parents in North Dublin said divesting is a great idea but they thought it wouldnt be their schools that would be touched, they changed their minds once it dawned on them that instead of a nativity play with Silent Night and Away in a Manger their Christmas concert would be something Disney like with Jingle Bells and Santa kissed Mama etc. People actually dont appreciate how much tradition means until they cant practice their traditions anymore.

Odhinn

tretorn wrote: »

Lots of parents dont want large impersonal community schools and some parents living in ghetto areas will prefer their children to move out of the area for school. This is why you have schools in Dublin which are almost entirely full of non national children. The principals and teachers in these schools will say its a wonderful multicultural experience but their own children will be in the local RC school....................

So theres these non-RC schools available all over the place?

Mark Hamill

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Might this be because so many schools are segregated by religion (and therefore race)? Because I am white Irish and I am engaged to a Filipino and I weekly meet up with other Asians, Europeans of all types, Americans North and South, and any other ethnic group I've forgotten to play board games in Dublin city centre.


Firstly, all kids have poor English, it's why they have to do it in school.
Secondly, and again, do you not think these issues you have with foreigners might be aggravated by segregation? How will their English and customs improve if they don't get to integrate with our "better" English and customs?

Why do you think that I don't have a problem with their English and customs?

Any chance I could get answers to these questions tretorn?

Mark Hamill

tretorn wrote: »

People actually dont appreciate how much tradition means until they cant practice their traditions anymore.

You mean like a baby who doesn't realise they want a unnoticed toy until you pick it up off the floor beside them?

tretorn

Its not my problem to worry about their integration and english, its my job to make sure my children go to the best school in the neighbourhood and if a teacher tells me most of her Junior infant class have english as a second language then I scratch that school off my list, teacher herself doesnt bring her children to the school, she chooses the local Gaelscoil in the hope those parents with poor english wont send their children to the Gaelscoil.

Anyway, all the filipinos that live nearby stick to each other too, marriage is hard work so why make it even harder by marrying outside your culture, what if your marriage breaks up and your partner wants to go back to the Filipines, what happens to the children then.

The Filipinos are very religious so they will choose the RC school over the ET school. I dont know what religion most of them are, probably Catholic. The local ones choose the single sex RC secondary schools too and they are very happy with their choice. The children dont mix with local children though, they seem to spend their time watching cartoons on enormous TVS in their bedrooms, I like the Filipinos, they are boring and hard to talk too but very nice, sweet but a bit dim I suppose.

One eyed Jack

smacl wrote: »

You don't mean to be insulting or disingenuous yet you refer to getting close on to one hundred child centered schools up and running as abysmal. Really?

You’re leaving out that I was making the point in relation to the fact it’s taken 40 years to do so, and the strong desire for public change hasn’t been capitalised upon in the wake of scandal after scandal after scandal. My point was that I was wondering what do you think it’s going to take to turn that strong desire for change into actual change? After all the scandals that have come out in the last 40 years, and still the RCC have Patronage of 3,000 schools in comparison to ETs 100 in that same time period.

If you honestly don't believe there is strong public appetite for change here, why exactly do you think the government is pushing for divestment and we're even having this conversation? That the DOE is being ham-fisted about it and quite probably being unduly influenced by the church is no doubt the case, but they are clearly acting out of public demand for change.

Quite a good piece in yesterdays Guardian on the topic.

I do believe there’s strong public appetite for individual parental choice, I do believe there’s strong public appetite for change from the status quo. I don’t believe there’s any appetite to pay for it though which is why we have the farce that is divestment and the DOE acting out of self-interest, same as every other stakeholder involved in Irish education.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Does it really matter, either way, how many people want what? If we start going by the numbers, then we would have to have some schools to suit the likes of tretorn, who a few pages ago admitted that they just don't want their kids mixing with foreigners in school.

If education really is so important as to be guaranteed in our constitution, then an equal baseline level should be equally available to everyone in the state, and the only way to do is to have 100% State run secular schools. All kids get the same access to the same education in the school closest to them (easing a load of traffic problems), with any desired religious formation scheduled after school (can even rent out school classrooms for it, to recuperate a little of costs).

Of course it matters, to quite a lot of people, all with their own reasons as to why it matters.

An equal baseline level is equally available to everyone in the State - the National curriculum is that baseline level, and it’s on the basis of teaching that curriculum that schools, regardless of their Patronage, receive funding. It’s being done without the State spending anything on schools run by the State.

I don’t see any reason though why there couldn’t be funding for religious education, and funding for secular education, that way the parents who want it can have either religious or secular education in the school closest to them (if that’s what they want, plenty of parents choose schools closer to where they work), with any desired faith formation done in religious schools as it is now, or not done at all in secular schools.

tretorn

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Does it really matter, either way, how many people want what? If we start going by the numbers, then we would have to have some schools to suit the likes of tretorn, who a few pages ago admitted that they just don't want their kids mixing with foreigners in school.

If education really is so important as to be guaranteed in our constitution, then an equal baseline level should be equally available to everyone in the state, and the only way to do is to have 100% State run secular schools. All kids get the same access to the same education in the school closest to them (easing a load of traffic problems), with any desired religious formation scheduled after school (can even rent out school classrooms for it, to recuperate a little of costs).

But nobody except you wants 100% state run schools.

The vast majority of parents are happy with the choice at the moment, there is no indoctrination going on in Catholic schools, they are Educate together schools and have always welcomed children of all faith and none. They will accommodate children who dont want to be in the religion class and the religion class in primary school is about being children being nice to each other and who would object to lessons like that.

I cant understand why people dont want their children to learn about Catholicism but then they go on to say ET schools are great because children learn about the Muslim religion, the Hindu religion, the Jewish religion etc what is the point in Irish children learning about Hindu customs, its totally irrelevant and I would rather my children went for a walk than sit and learn anything about the Koran for example.

I just dont get this at all, is it just so the parents can get a warm fuzzy feeling about how cool and liberal they are.

nozzferrahhtoo

^ I think the distinction you are missing there is that they in fact DO want their children to learn ABOUT Catholicism. Just as much as they want them to learn ABOUT Islam and ABOUT Hinduism.

They want them to learn ABOUT all of them. It is learning that any one of them is actually true, teaching them they are themselves in fact Catholic, teaching them not just about the rituals but having them follow those rituals..... that is the issue many people have.

Learning ABOUT every major religion however, I think you will find most of us are all for that. I mean if your kids came home from school and you heard they learned all about who FF, FG and SF are as political parties, and their history.... I suspect you would be happy. If they came home however and were being taught they themselves were in fact members of FF/FG/SF you might have a somewhat different response.

All that said however I have seen little or no sign that people in Catholic Schools are being taught about "their" faith all that well at all. Which makes me wonder why the religious are so invested in it in the first place. I have talked to many Catholics and most of them have it entirely wrong what the Catholic position actually is on quite a lot of issues, and quite a lot of ceremonies.

Many I met for example were divided into three main camps as to what they thought was actually going on during the Consecration and what the Haunted Bread actually is. Most of them when I ask them the difference between the Catholic Religion and the Protestant religion actually can not articulate to me one major difference. And as for knowing any Canon Law or church Doctine, I find the phrase "canon law" itself to be one many of them have never actually heard.

So one would be forgiven for thinking the curriculum of such an ethos school runs to a single line. "Teach them they ARE Catholic.... all else is secondary and irrelevant". And given how the results of the Census looks compared to surveys which find that nearly 1 in 10 "Catholics" does not even believe there is a god...... a rather low hurdle for using the Label one would have thought...... let alone what the haunted bread or zombie crackers are actually meant to be and why......... that suspicion does seem to bear out in reality. THAT they are catholic very often does seem to be the only thing these people come out of years of schooling actually "knowing".

Mark Hamill

tretorn wrote: »

Its not my problem to worry about their integration and english, its my job to make sure my children go to the best school in the neighbourhood and if a teacher tells me most of her Junior infant class have english as a second language then I scratch that school off my list

Again, all children have poor English at junior infant age, what difference does it make at that point? Hell, my fiancée moved here at 14 with no English, but you wouldn't know it now, 10 years later, she has better English than me.

tretorn wrote: »

Anyway, all the filipinos that live nearby stick to each other too, marriage is hard work so why make it even harder by marrying outside your culture, what if your marriage breaks up and your partner wants to go back to the Filipines, what happens to the children then.

The Filipinos are very religious so they will choose the RC school over the ET school. I dont know what religion most of them are, probably Catholic. The local ones choose the single sex RC secondary schools too and they are very happy with their choice. The children dont mix with local children though, they seem to spend their time watching cartoons on enormous TVS in their bedrooms, I like the Filipinos, they are boring and hard to talk too but very nice, sweet but a bit dim I suppose.

Might all these problems; the culture clashes, the segregated kids, your racial stereotyping; not be solved by more integration though? Even your "ghettos", they only happen because foreign groups are segregated from us and each other. If people just mixed all the time, then maybe their cultures and traditions might grow and their opinions of each other might improve.

Mark Hamill

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Of course it matters, to quite a lot of people, all with their own reasons as to why it matters.

An equal baseline level is equally available to everyone in the State - the National curriculum is that baseline level, and it’s on the basis of teaching that curriculum that schools, regardless of their Patronage, receive funding. It’s being done without the State spending anything on schools run by the State.

I don’t see any reason though why there couldn’t be funding for religious education, and funding for secular education, that way the parents who want it can have either religious or secular education in the school closest to them (if that’s what they want, plenty of parents choose schools closer to where they work), with any desired faith formation done in religious schools as it is now, or not done at all in secular schools.

You ignored the supporting point in my post:
If we start going by the numbers, then we would have to have some schools to suit the likes of tretorn, who a few pages ago admitted that they just don't want their kids mixing with foreigners in school.
Should there be separate funding for racially discriminating schools.


And as religious schools alter the curriculum to enforce religious formation, it is not equal to a purely secular education.