School patronage

TheChizler

silverharp wrote: »

In the scenario all non fee paying schools are secular and i assume no fundung for other schools, the school they actually want to send their kids to in this case the now religious private and the place the state would have to provide if they chose that option via their taxes they pay.
The direct cost that religious parents should pay for directly would be the religious element of the schooltime and any costs that are incurred in training teachers to teach religion which I assume are lost in the system at present ie non religious people subsidise the teaching of religion in schools plus their kids have a couple if hours a week wasted on pointless classes or makey uppy classes in my own kids cases.

Oh ok, I suppose the rebuttal to that is the same as an Irish Water one; you pay taxes into one big pot and general services come out of that, and what you get back has very little to do with what you put in, unless it's some PRSI related stuff (or stamps as my Mother calls it) which I've never understood but you can get eyesight/hearing stuff and the likes. To continue the argument, should higher earners children get higher qualified teachers and better facilities because their parents paid more income tax?

There might be some merit if there was a specific education charge, but currently I don't think the religious will be able to make that argument any way credibly.

silverharp

TheChizler wrote: »

Oh ok, I suppose the rebuttal to that is the same as an Irish Water one; you pay taxes into one big pot and general services come out of that, and what you get back has very little to do with what you put in, unless it's some PRSI related stuff (or stamps as my Mother calls it) which I've never understood but you can get eyesight/hearing stuff and the likes. To continue the argument, should higher earners children get higher qualified teachers and better facilities because their parents paid more income tax?

There might be some merit if there was a specific education charge, but currently I don't think the religious will be able to make that argument any way credibly.

The Irish water example doest hold unless there might be an option of sparkling water ;-)
Consumers can drive quality of services not that it shows up much in Irish education to date but innovation in education is important as well and will be held back in a one size fits all education system. As it is I'm basically forced to use a school that provides religion and Irish , neither of which are in keeping with the educational goals of my kids plus creates a time opportunity cost.

Brian Shanahan

K4t wrote: »

What the people you are arguing with do not understand, is that even if 99.99999999% of Irish citizens identified themselves as practicing Roman Catholics, attended mass every week, and all stated they believed in God; It would still NOT be right to have faith schools; Secular schools would still be the correct thing. And if a referendum was held to make schools secular and obviously voted against, secular schools would still be right! Because secular schools do not decide what is right and those who support secular schools admit they do not know everything. Secular schools encourage questioning and reasoning and logic and respect for all other beliefs.
A religious school teaches that a god exists, an atheist school would teach that no gods exist, and a secular school is neutral on the question of religion: it does not teach that gods either do or do not exist.
Instead, a secular school teaches children in a neutral, objective way about the different beliefs that different people have about gods. It teaches that what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

As I've said to the religionistas before, they should be at the very forefront of the fight to make Ireland secular in all areas, because it is the only guaranteed way they have to ensure their religious freedom. As I've said a secular state won't care that they believe in whatever they believe in, as long as their beliefs don't adversly affect other people or the general welfare, whereas a religious regime will inevitably brand them enemies of the state, because eventually the intolerance guiding the state won't be the same intolerance they ascribe to and go after them.

Delirium

Educate Together Schools massively over-subscribed

Educate Together national schools are receiving up to six times more applications than they have available places.

A sample of four of the group's Dublin schools shows more than 1,200 applications were made for 335 places, with significant demand in some areas.

Educate Together said it has been calling on the Government for many years to provide more of its schools in Dublin to meet demand.

Spokesman Luke O'Shaughnessy said over-subscribed schools - based on the number of applications for junior infants this September - include Shellybanks in Dublin 4 with 261 applications for 139 places; Balbriggan, with 258 applications for 48 places; Holywell in Swords with 335 applications for 90 places; and Castleknock with 350 applications for 58 places.

The Department of Education recently appointed Educate Together as patron of a new national school that will open in the Pelletstown area of Dublin in September.

The Department is currently sourcing a premises for the school, according to Mr O'Shaughnessy

"Accommodation arrangements for September 2015 are expected shortly," he said.

mikhail

K4t wrote: »

What the people you are arguing with do not understand, is that even if 99.99999999% of Irish citizens identified themselves as practicing Roman Catholics, attended mass every week, and all stated they believed in God; It would still NOT be right to have faith schools; Secular schools would still be the correct thing...

Now, I'm all in favour of secular schools, but if if 1/1000th of a person is non-Catholic, I think the practical thing to do is to ignore him as 0.1% of a crank and go with faith schools.

K4t

mikhail wrote: »

Now, I'm all in favour of secular schools, but if if 1/1000th of a person is non-Catholic, I think the practical thing to do is to ignore him as 0.1% of a crank and go with faith schools.

See below:

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

As I've said to the religionistas before, they should be at the very forefront of the fight to make Ireland secular in all areas, because it is the only guaranteed way they have to ensure their religious freedom. As I've said a secular state won't care that they believe in whatever they believe in, as long as their beliefs don't adversly affect other people or the general welfare, whereas a religious regime will inevitably brand them enemies of the state, because eventually the intolerance guiding the state won't be the same intolerance they ascribe to and go after them.

Exactly; that religious leaders and many followers do not support secular schools, which would truly ensure their freedom to hold and express religious beliefs and all other persons freedom to do the same, is a significant insight into the true aims of organised religion and the kind of thinking it promotes among its more devoted followers, even intelligent, educated ones like you will see posting in this forum; Not only do they most likely compartmentalize as per most educated and enlightened religious believers, but far worse than that, they actively support the indoctrination of children and the enforcement of their beliefs upon others in state funded schools. That is simply unforgivable. The separation of church and state is specifically designed to PROTECT religious freedom.

The Americans really got it so unbelievably right with the 1st amendment; Under U.S. law, religious education is forbidden in public schools, except from a neutral, academic perspective.[21] For a teacher or school administration to endorse one religion is considered an infringement of the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment.

A small piece onThomas Jefferson, who was deeply committed to religious liberty, and the wall of separation between church and state: The “wall of separation” exists to affirm natural rights, including those of faith and religious worship. The “wall” does not imprison the free exercise of religion. Rather, Jefferson sought to prevent the domination of particular sects, making free the religious practices of all.

silverharp

The us system is a good one in this regard. By accident I caught a bit of Dawkins on newsnight and he seemed a bit hesitent in defending the right to private religious schools . in my mind the complentary argument would be I wouldn't want a state powerful enough to close all religious schools because who knows what they would go after next.

K4t

silverharp wrote: »

The us system is a good one in this regard. By accident I caught a bit of Dawkins on newsnight and he seemed a bit hesitent in defending the right to private religious schools . in my mind the complentary argument would be I wouldn't want a state powerful enough to close all religious schools because who knows what they would go after next.

Private religious schools are fine with me, so long as they are in fact private. The problem is when they receive state funding. Public, secular schools should get all public funding; Public schools should be palaces.

silverharp

K4t wrote: »

Private religious schools are fine with me, so long as they are in fact private. The problem is when they receive state funding. Public, secular schools should get all public funding; Public schools should be palaces.

I admire your "faith" in public schools ;-) . I'd prefer a system which would support innovation in education and a top down model tends to fight against this. An equitable situation would be to give every child an educational account and let families deal directly with schools , the state would then by truly neutral as to how kids are educated. Parents would then be free to top up as they wish instead of having the all or nothing at the moment.
When you see the potential of guys like khan of khanacademy , I'm of the view that important developments in education will come from outside of education.

recedite

silverharp wrote: »

An equitable situation would be to give every child an educational account and let families deal directly with schools , the state would then by truly neutral as to how kids are educated.

A school is not a sweet shop where you can go in and spend your credit on whatever takes your fancy. A school has its policies. What if there is only one school in the area? How are you going to spend your "educational account" credit? You either take the place in the school, or you go without. So in effect, this is advocating the status quo, which is biased towards those who control the existing schools.

silverharp

recedite wrote: »

A school is not a sweet shop where you can go in and spend your credit on whatever takes your fancy. A school has its policies. What if there is only one school in the area? How are you going to spend your "educational account" credit? You either take the place in the school, or you go without. So in effect, this is advocating the status quo, which is biased towards those who control the existing schools.

Someone posted that some educate together school is several times over subscribed , instead of waiting for the dead hand of the dept of education to get its finger out , if the parents held the purse string then the educate could start building using the future fees for loans or to take over an empty school if suitable.For other reasons I know parents who can't get the schools they want for their kids. There is more to education reform than rolling out cookey cutter schools just to get religion out of schools.

As for places where there is only one school in the area, there are other issues to do with poor spatial planning in Ireland which rewards living in out of the way areas, but indeed an unwinding of the present situation would need to happen as the ethos of schools doesn't represent what people want.

shruikan2553

People really love to make things complicated. Simply make the standard state funded schools suitable for everyone and people can go up the mountains and sacrifice goats to whatever god they want.

How do people manage to work or go to university while being mixed with those filthy non <Enter your religion here>

PopePalpatine

Funnily enough, I remember from my history classes how the Catholic hierarchy despised the Queen's Universities for being non-denominational.

byhookorbycrook

silverharp wrote: »

Someone posted that some educate together school is several times over subscribed

Most Gaelscoileanna are oversubscribed, especially the multi-denom ones.

Gaelscoileanna as a general rule, were founded where parents got together and set up the school, waiting for the DES is like waiting for Godot.

lazygal

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

Most Gaelscoileanna are oversubscribed, especially the multi-denom ones.

Gaelscoileanna as a general rule, were founded where parents got together and set up the school, waiting for the DES is like waiting for Godot.

What has that got to do with school patronage? It's a legal obligation to send your children to school. I don't see why parents have to supply something we're legally obliged to use. Maybe if parents stopped filling in for the department's obligations and teachers stopped facilitating indoctrination things might change.
The most local gaelscoil to us is by far and away the most Catholic. The principal takes the patronage and indoctrination side of things very seriously. Not in any way a welcoming or inclusive environment. I find gaelscoils generally to be quite exclusionary and self selecting because of the obsession with the language.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

What has that got to do with school patronage? It's a legal obligation to send your children to school.

Actually, it's not. You're obliged to ensure your children receive a certain minimum standard of education, but you can do that in the privacy of your home, if you choose. In fact, it's your Constitutional right (and duty) to provide for the religious, moral, intellectual, physical and social education of your children, and to do so in your own home if you choose to do so. The Constitution actually guarantees that the State shall not oblige parents to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.

lazygal wrote: »

I don't see why parents have to supply something we're legally obliged to use. Maybe if parents stopped filling in for the department's obligations and teachers stopped facilitating indoctrination things might change.

As above... it's up to you to choose. Maybe if parents stopped expecting the Department to fill in for their obligations things might change.

PopePalpatine

Absolam wrote: »

As above... it's up to you to choose. Maybe if parents stopped expecting the Department to fill in for their obligations things might change.

Oh it's terrible, expecting the Department of Education to leave the era of DeV kissing bishops' rings.

Absolam

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Oh it's terrible, expecting the Department of Education to leave the era of DeV kissing bishops' rings.

Stratford Jewish National School was established in 1934, whilst DeV was Taoiseach.
The first Educate Together was established in 1978, just three years after DeVs death.
The Muslim National School was established in 1990, when most young people would have struggled to tell you who DeV was.
It seems that where there's a will there's a way, despite DeVs proclivities or other peoples desire to blame their problems on them....

swampgas

Absolam wrote: »

Stratford Jewish National School was established in 1934, whilst DeV was Taoiseach.
The first Educate Together was established in 1978, just three years after DeVs death.
The Muslim National School was established in 1990, when most young people would have struggled to tell you who DeV was.
It seems that where there's a will there's a way, despite DeVs proclivities or other peoples desire to blame their problems on them....

But what's wrong with insisting that the government provide an education service in line with the constitutional rights of the people?

Your solution - work around the problem, by-passing the state - is a typical Irish response. Don't fix the real problems with the state education system, instead set up a parallel educational system because (apparently) challenging the status quo isn't a valid option.

.

Absolam

swampgas wrote: »

But what's wrong with insisting that the government provide an education service in line with the constitutional rights of the people?

Well, for a start it's ignoring the fact that it's not the governments responsibility to provide the service; it's the peoples. The government is responsible for providing for the service. That's a fact that's readily acknowledged by those prepared to shoulder their responsibilities, which by and large has so far been religious communities.

swampgas wrote: »

Your solution - work around the problem, by-passing the state - is a typical Irish response.

I don't think I proposed that though. I pointed out that the problem is not what you think it is; sometimes instead of complaining about not being given what you want you have to go out and get it, like others do.

swampgas wrote: »

Don't fix the real problems with the state education system, instead set up a parallel educational system because (apparently) challenging the status quo isn't a valid option.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with challenging the status quo, but that's not the same as whinging that other people have what you want.

Dades

Absolam wrote: »

There's absolutely nothing wrong with challenging the status quo, but that's not the same as whinging that other people have what you want.

They have what we want because we're paying for it.

lazygal

It is not legally possible for me to have a state funded and staffed non denominational primary and secondary school for my children. And if you can't afford to set up your own school and then get the government and state to pay for it, what then? Should every parent be able to set up their own school exactly in line with their own family's requirements, and have the state provide for that to happen?

Absolam

Dades wrote: »

They have what we want because we're paying for it.

Aren't 'they' paying for it too?

Don't get me wrong, if If Lazygal is prepared to build The Lazygal National School for Children of Indeterminate Gender and Unknown Religious Affilation Staffed Entirely by Morally Upright Secularists, I will applaud her enterprise and send my children there if the school can demonstrate an ability to produce academic results (and its' nearby). But if she wants the Faithful Companions of Jesus to hand over the school they built with money from their community so that she can have the kind of school she wants, I'm a little less inclined to heap praise on the endeavour.

lazygal wrote: »

It is not legally possible for me to have a state funded and staffed non denominational primary and secondary school for my children.

That is certainly the oft repeated notion of one particular pressure group. I did ask before though... has a State Inspector censured any school in the last ten years for non compliance with Rule 68? Is there a list of non denominational schools the DoE doesn't fund because they're non denominational?
Is there any (current) guidance from the State that enforces Rule 68?

lazygal wrote: »

And if you can't afford to set up your own school and then get the government and state to pay for it, what then? Should every parent be able to set up their own school exactly in line with their own family's requirements, and have the state provide for that to happen?

The State has to provide for their education; as long as they get the State minimum education, and the provision for it is no more than it is for every other child, why shouldn't every parent parent be able to set up their own school exactly in line with their own family's requirements?

lazygal

Absolam wrote: »

Aren't 'they' paying for it too?

Don't get me wrong, if If Lazygal is prepared to build The Lazygal National School for Children of Indeterminate Gender and Unknown Religious Affilation Staffed Entirely by Morally Upright Secularists, I will applaud her enterprise and send my children there if the school can demonstrate an ability to produce academic results (and its' nearby). But if she wants the Faithful Companions of Jesus to hand over the school they built with money from their community so that she can have the kind of school she wants, I'm a little less inclined to heap praise on the endeavour.

Leaving aside the fact that I haven't mentioned anything of the sort, that's a pretty low blow at the children who are born of indeterminate gender, and who are currently the subject of Bill in the Oireachtas to sort out the fact that their birth cert details affect their choice of school in Ireland due to the fact that many people have to send their children to single sex schools. Children of indeterminate gender face an uphill struggle in life, and I think you should stop throwing that term about as some kind of attempt at winning every single argument in favour of religion being immersed in the provision of state services in which you are constantly engaged.

Of course I expect nothing less from a poster who's myriad obfuscations, muddy waters and twisting of who said what and why and how and when to whom generally means I avoid even bothering with this drivel. Playing devil's advocate for every religion out there will get boring and tiresome soon enough.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

Leaving aside the fact that I haven't mentioned anything of the sort, that's a pretty low blow at the children who are born of indeterminate gender, and who are currently the subject of Bill in the Oireachtas to sort out the fact that their birth cert details affect their choice of school in Ireland due to the fact that many people have to send their children to single sex schools.

Perhaps you're taking offense (on behalf of others) where there is none? A school for children of indeterminate gender is quite capable of being a school which simply does not acknowledge gender as a factor of admission; given your opposition to single sex schools.

lazygal wrote: »

Children of indeterminate gender face an uphill struggle in life, and I think you should stop throwing that term about as some kind of attempt at winning every single argument in favour of religion being immersed in the provision of state services in which you are constantly engaged.

I ahrdly think using a phrase once (ever) qualifies as throwing it about, never mind an attempt to win 'every single argument in favour of religion being immersed in the provision of state services' (when did I argue for that by the way?).

lazygal wrote: »

Of course I expect nothing less from a poster who's myriad obfuscations, muddy waters and twisting of who said what and why and how and when to whom generally means I avoid even bothering with this drivel. Playing devil's advocate for every religion out there will get boring and tiresome soon enough.

In fairness, I think it's your own expectations rather than what I've said that have coloured your post....

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

But if she wants the Faithful Companions of Jesus to hand over the school they built with money from their community so that she can have the kind of school she wants, I'm a little less inclined to heap praise on the endeavour.

It would still be in the interest of these institutions to let a lot of their schools go or officially open up their ethos. failure is guaranteed as the schools are geared to churning out aethists as the number of places far exceeds the number of "genuine" catholics. Kids aren't stupid , a10 year old can easily pick up on the idea that going through the motions of religion is a con or that stopping believing in god is a right of passage along the lines of stopping to believe in Santa. That's how I see it with my son's cohorts anyway.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

It would still be in the interest of these institutions to let a lot of their schools go or officially open up their ethos. failure is guaranteed as the schools are geared to churning out aethists as the number of places far exceeds the number of "genuine" catholics.

Well, given that the RCC has already said it wishes to divest itself of some schools, that one's a bit of a no-brainer. As for opening up their ethos; I think that shows a misunderstanding of the term ethos. Ethos defines the character of the institution, a different ethos is a different character. I don't think the church is likely to change its character to facilitate people who don't share its character, do you?

silverharp wrote: »

Kids aren't stupid , a10 year old can easily pick up on the idea that going through the motions of religion is a con or that stopping believing in god is a right of passage along the lines of stopping to believe in Santa.

And yet literally billions of kids have grown up, and lived and died believing in gods. I find it hard to believe that they were all more stupid than your son and his cohorts. It's far more likely that children these have access to more freely available information than any generation before them, and like generations before them make their choices based on the available information. More diverse information means more diverse life choices.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Well, given that the RCC has already said it wishes to divest itself of some schools, that one's a bit of a no-brainer. As for opening up their ethos; I think that shows a misunderstanding of the term ethos. Ethos defines the character of the institution, a different ethos is a different character. I don't think the church is likely to change its character to facilitate people who don't share its character, do you?

its not for me to say , catholic hospitals dont just treat catholics or force them to attend mass if they happen to be treated in one. There is the case of just giving back to the community not just have a catholic "club".

Absolam wrote: »

And yet literally billions of kids have grown up, and lived and died believing in gods. I find it hard to believe that they were all more stupid than your son and his cohorts. It's far more likely that children these have access to more freely available information than any generation before them, and like generations before them make their choices based on the available information. More diverse information means more diverse life choices.

its more than that , kids in the 70's grew up surrounded by parents and kids that all went to mass on a sunday yada yada, this was reflected in the schools. For a 10 year old then to say he didnt believe in God would have probably led to some frowning from some of their classmates and probably a rebuke from the teacher and thier parents for that matter. Roll on to now where the majority of kids in a city "catholic" school dont go to mass and where the parents dont give a monkeys about the religion. There simply isnt enough conditioning to keep up the facade.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

its not for me to say , catholic hospitals dont just treat catholics or force them to attend mass if they happen to be treated in one. There is the case of just giving back to the community not just have a catholic "club".

Catholic schools don't just educate catholics or force non catholics to attend mass if they happen to be educated in one either; the point doesn't really speak to 'opening up their ethos' though? I don't there's a school that claims having a catholic "club" is an ethos?

silverharp wrote: »

its more than that , kids in the 70's grew up surrounded by parents and kids that all went to mass on a sunday yada yada, this was reflected in the schools. For a 10 year old then to say he didnt believe in God would have probably led to some frowning from some of their classmates and probably a rebuke from the teacher and thier parents for that matter. Roll on to now where the majority of kids in a city "catholic" school dont go to mass and where the parents dont give a monkeys about the religion. There simply isnt enough conditioning to keep up the facade.

So you're saying that it's not that 'kids aren't stupid, a10 year old can easily pick up on the idea that going through the motions of religion is a con or that stopping believing in god is a right of passage along the lines of stopping to believe in Santa', it's that kids are susceptible to peer pressure, and the things they're pressured to do now are different to the things they were pressured to do in the 70s? That's reasonably fair, though I think having access to more freely available information than any generation before them allows them more avenues of response to that peer pressure.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Catholic schools don't just educate catholics or force non catholics to attend mass if they happen to be educated in one either; the point doesn't really speak to 'opening up their ethos' though? I don't there's a school that claims having a catholic "club" is an ethos?
So you're saying that it's not that 'kids aren't stupid, a10 year old can easily pick up on the idea that going through the motions of religion is a con or that stopping believing in god is a right of passage along the lines of stopping to believe in Santa', it's that kids are susceptible to peer pressure, and the things they're pressured to do now are different to the things they were pressured to do in the 70s? That's reasonably fair, though I think having access to more freely available information than any generation before them allows them more avenues of response to that peer pressure.

Peer pressure is a tiny part ,its the fact that now they are less likely to be surrounded by religious adults including parents or family or any pretence that they live in a catholic country. The control is gone and it simply isn't a relevant part of their lives now. 10 year olds having access to information doesn't mean much in this context ,they are unlikely to even be curious about asking if there is a god or not , a minecraft video Is far more interesting.