Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
School patronage
Options
Comments
-
All of this depends on the school in question. You'd be better off asking the schools you plan on enrolling in to address these matters, because every school operates in its own manner when it comes to indoctrination.
Where we live, out in the sticks, the choices available to us are catholic, catholic and surprisingly enough catholic. I am not going to rock the boat before she starts secondary school but if she does not want to attend religion class, no one is going to force her. I relish the battle if someone tries.
The only reason she might attend is if she wants to take it as an exam subject.0 -
Where we live, out in the sticks, the choices available to us are catholic, catholic and surprisingly enough catholic. I am not going to rock the boat before she starts secondary school but if she does not want to attend religion class, no one is going to force her. I relish the battle if someone tries.
The only reason she might attend is if she wants to take it as an exam subject.
Honestly, the only way to find out how the school deals with religion is to ask them. Any stories here are anecdotal and probably won't be related to the schools you're considering. For example, there's about six primary schools near us, all but one is religious, and of the remaining five we're only considering one because it is much better at dealing with those children that aren't catholic. One of the schools is full on catholic and makes no bones about it. It's the same for secondary schools, I went to one that was pretty liberal (sex ed in first year, no real indoctrination and a fairly good approach to other faiths) but other schools close to us are much more religious.0 -
Honestly, the only way to find out how the school deals with religion is to ask them. Any stories here are anecdotal and probably won't be related to the schools you're considering. For example, there's about six primary schools near us, all but one is religious, and of the remaining five we're only considering one because it is much better at dealing with those children that aren't catholic. One of the schools is full on catholic and makes no bones about it. It's the same for secondary schools, I went to one that was pretty liberal (sex ed in first year, no real indoctrination and a fairly good approach to other faiths) but other schools close to us are much more religious.
Yeah, I will have to do a bit of digging during the next year. She will have to travel as there is no secondary school in our immediate area. 5 mins less or more is not going to make much of a difference. Everyone I have talked to has differing opinions on each of the available schools. It will probably come down to her choice and where her friends are going.0 -
Also, what' constitutes a 'good' school varies wildly. We're living where I grew up so I'm familiar with the schools in the area. While one single sex school is considered academically the 'best' school, I know it has had a big bullying problem for many years. And while the primary school we favour for our children is 'good' other parents think its not academic enough. I'm also not 100% sure I'd base the decision on friends. I remember lots of breakups in first and second year as primary school friends realised all they had in common was having been in primary school together.0
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
Advertisement
-
My secondary school was very relaxed about religion as well, unlike primary school which presented religion as literal, unquestionable fact, from 1st to 3rd year in secondary school it was treated for what it actually is, just a story, without any foundation that you can either choose to or not to believe.
In 5th and 6th year it became a complete farce, there was no actual religion teacher, just a supervisor and occasionally they didn't even turn up. We never once done any sort of formal religion class in those last 2 years either, we genuinely spent the bulk of our time down the back playing cards (switch usually, or lives as some people call it) while other students just talked to the teacher, t'was a great aul class altogether :-)0 -
My schools here were varied. Some laid back, others really over the top.
We had a lot of religion laid on though. In primary there was mass once every few weeks.
I also got detention in secondary for not going to a "graduation mass". This was for the 6th years when I was about 15.
Apparently I was being "disrespectful".
We had a statue of the blessed Virgin in every classroom and a cross over every whiteboard...
Also one or two teachers would start every class with standing up and saying the Our Father. This used to happen a lot before maths and French classes and often ate a good 5 mins of class time by the time she's fussed about people not having shirts tucked in etc etc
I also remember being sent home for wearing a slightly grey shirt instead of a white one even though it was in the uniform spec!!!0 -
My secondary school, a so-called "community school" still had a graduation mass for 6th years led by a priest. We also had to go to Catholic services twice a year.
0 -
The uniform thing was ridiculous though. I was 13 and got sent home to change. Got home, there was nobody there and couldn't get in, so I spent the afternoon in a local cafe instead because I was afraid to go back without the white shirt. Then got spotted by a teacher and got suspended for 5 days and accused of lieing about being told to go home and change!!0
-
No - catholic schools have been welcoming all faiths and none for a very long time.
No they haven't, even if schools want to they have to teach to an exclusivist catholic curriculum if they are under catholic "patronage". Look at the Alive-O books which are a requirement in over 90% of fully state funded schools (for which your taxes pay).
The only other countries which permeate exclusivist religion through their education this way are racist theocracies like Saudi Arabia or Israel. Are we seriously wanting to be at their level?0 -
Advertisement
-
Brian Shanahan wrote: »
The only other countries which permeate exclusivist religion through their education this way are racist theocracies like Saudi Arabia or Israel. Are we seriously wanting to be at their level?
Well, Saudai Arabia did praise our recent Blasphemy legislation and the Israeli Constitution is loosely based around some ideas from the Irish one.
So, I can only assume some of our establishment is more than delighted to be in the theocracy club.
Our laws on contraception until the 1990s, our lack of divorce until 1995 and our current incredibly restrictive abortion laws would even make some of the most theocratic regimes look quite liberal in those areas!
...
The French constitution simply says
"The Nation guarantees equal access for children and adults to instruction, vocational training and culture. The provision of free, public and secular education at all levels is a duty of the State."
And the preamble is a tad more modern than ours, which is more like the start of Mass:
France - (A republic)
"In the morrow of the victory achieved by the free peoples over the regimes that had sought to enslave and degrade humanity, the people of France proclaim anew that each human being, without distinction of race, religion or creed, possesses sacred and inalienable rights. They solemnly reaffirm the rights and freedoms of man and the citizen enshrined in the Declaration of Rights of 1789 and the fundamental principles acknowledged in the laws of the Republic."
(Full thing.. http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/root/bank_mm/anglais/cst3.pdf .. This is amended by the 1958 constitution, but the general gist of it stays exactly the same)
Ireland - (claims to be a republic)
"In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial..."
---
While the French get plenty of things wrong, they do at least have a sense of what a republic is and a very nobel idea of what a modern, post-enlightemnet country should be all about and hold themselves to some pretty high ideals in that document.
Ireland on the other hand kind of humbly thanks god for everything and defines sovereignty, like a monarchy, as being from god and not from the people.
The US, despite many attempts to hijack it (including inserting "in God We Trust" instead of "E pluribus unum" in the 1950s) is a proper republic too. Flaws and all, it will stand up for your right to be religious or not religious and rigorously holds up that church/state separation.0 -
another op-ed from Paul Rowe
Minister should accelerate school divestment programme
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/minister-should-accelerate-school-divestment-programme-1.2284828Dublin 6 was listed as a “divestment area” in 2012, but there are no schools available for divestment. Furthermore, there are no plans to open a new school, as the population is considered to be stable.
could ET start a new school in D6 without the gov funding?
not just could it be funded would they be allowed?
wheres the gov constitutional zeal for these parents to get the kind of (non) religious education they want?0 -
Actually, what I said was the government is not obliged to provide public education , it's obliged to provide for public education. It probably would be incompetent in fairness, if it didn't know what it's obligations were.So basically what you're saying is that the Irish government is so deeply incompetent it actually doesn't have a public education system!0 -
It most assuredly is. Spacetime has made it clear over and over that (s)he thinks (s)he should leave; I'm only saying no one is arguing (s)he should stay. Apart from Huntergonzo after the factrainbow kirby wrote: »It is perfectly possible to want to improve the current state of affairs in a country while getting the hell out of there until things improve.
0 -
Not really; religious education was (and still is) supposed to take place during clearly defined school hours, separately from secular education. Religious education was (and still is) considered a part of the overall educational curriculum, which is borne out by the Stanley Letter in 1831 and Rules for National Schools, which haven't really changed that much.Actually they weren't founded as 'religious' schools. Their remit was to provide an education with religious instruction supposed to take place outside school hours. Monies funding the school were not supposed to be given if this was being done during school time. . but Ireland being ireland .. a blind eye was being turned.
But the State couldn't have abdicated responsibility to provide education; it only ever had responsibility to provide for education. You can't abdicate a responsibility you never had.Sure, we all know the way that went but that still doesn't make it right just because the state abdicated it's responsibilities to provide education (instead of provide 'for' education). The 19th century is over, the state now has a responsibility to provide education (not just provide 'for' education.
Do they? Are they? I suspect they don't now feel any such thing, or that they're afraid of a Sunday school model. Why would they be?If the religious orders now feel that that a community should be provided religious indoctorination... then so be it. Why are they so afraid of the Sunday school model?
Someone has a right to have their education provided for, and someone has a right to provide an education for their children. I think you're confusing what someone has a right to, and what someone wants to have a right to.It's not about being given what someone wants, it's about being give what someone has a RIGHT to. That's what a liberal society is.
Is anyone afraid of it?You want religious education.. why so afraid of doing it on Sunday's after mass?0 -
Not really; religious education was (and still is) supposed to take place during clearly defined school hours, separately from secular education. Religious education was (and still is) considered a part of the overall educational curriculum, which is borne out by the Stanley Letter in 1831 and Rules for National Schools, which haven't really changed that much.
But the State couldn't have abdicated responsibility to provide education; it only ever had responsibility to provide for education. You can't abdicate a responsibility you never had.
Do they? Are they? I suspect they don't now feel any such thing, or that they're afraid of a Sunday school model. Why would they be?
Is anyone afraid of it?
This is actually what the Stanley letter says....
"They will require that the schools be kept open for a certain number of hours, on four or five days of the week, at the discretion of the Commissioners, for moral and literary education only; and that the remaining one or two days in the week be set apart for giving, separately; such religious education to the children as may be approved by the clergy of their respective persuasions. They will also permit and encourage the clergy to give religious instruction to the children of their respective persuasions, either before or after the ordinary school hours, on the other days of the week. "
I think the days of the state saying that they only pick up the tab by providing 'for' education is a total abdication of their responsibilities. The EU court has proved this as was evidenced by their overturning of the case of Louise O' Keefe v the dept of education. Clinging on to this word is just weaseling out of responsibilities.
Who creates the syllabus by the way? The dept of education.
Who registers the teachers? The teaching council
Who keeps tabs on the rolls? The dept of education
This is the 21st century now... the problem was even recognised form the very inception of Irish education (as is evidenced by the Stanley letter).
The church are afraid of Sunday schools.. because they know that very little would go... Also there wouldn't be the primary school teachers being used to get the kids ready for the communions and confirmations. Maybe somebody else would do it... why don't we try and find out?Someone has a right to have their education provided for, and someone has a right to provide an education for their children. I think you're confusing what someone has a right to, and what someone wants to have a right to.
I say they do have an absolute right to have education provided for them by the state. Look at the Cathy Sinnot case, or maybe she only had a right "to want" to have an education for her son going by your logic.
Also, if as you claim "Someone has a right to have their education provided for" ONLY, then why is it the case that the Dept. of education pretends to give a damn about early school leavers (before age 16)? Could a parent not turn around to the dept and say "well my child only needed to have his education provided for, he doesn't actually have to go to school". The fact that the state sees that the mother is denying this childs right shows that they have taken a responsibility IN everyone's education (and not just to provide 'for' it).0 -
A bit late, but these good students have the right idea:The uniform thing was ridiculous though. I was 13 and got sent home to change. Got home, there was nobody there and couldn't get in, so I spent the afternoon in a local cafe instead because I was afraid to go back without the white shirt. Then got spotted by a teacher and got suspended for 5 days and accused of lieing about being told to go home and change!!
Scotland: Students Sign Petition to End Religious Assemblies in School
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/news/scotland-students-sign-petition-end-religious-assemblies-school
BTW, what a wonderful name for a religious preacher (and it is his real name) :rolleyes:Atheist Republic wrote:In an attempt to end religious assemblies in their schools, at least 300 Scottish students signed a petition last month. The petition stated that the Christian assemblies at North Berwick High School were outdated and discriminatory, while insisting that there should be no religious influence in educational institutions; or if there are any, they should at least include more religions than one. Neil Barber, spokesperson of Edinburgh Secular Society, hailed the petition, saying his organization was delighted to hear that hundreds of students at a single school had pushed for a secular move and demanded to end Christian assemblies.
Responding to the petition, Reverend Laurence Twaddle, minister at Belhaven Parish Church, said Scotland had been founded because of Christianity and thus it was only justified for the school to emphasize on Christian teachings. He also referred to a ‘local vibe’ in the region that according to him seems more Christian than anything else, while explaining how educationalists feel it is important for religion to be included within school communities.Neil Barber wrote:“They are understandably concerned that these discriminatory assemblies represent only the Christian religion and are led only by Christian church members. The days of Christians having exclusive and privileged control over the ‘spirituality’ of pupils in our state schools are clearly numbered,” he said.
Yet, students protested against the longstanding tradition, alleging that the assemblies in their school were out of touch with the views of young people; and more importantly, today’s society. Not to forget, the nature of these school assemblies has become an established source of controversy. The Contender, a newspaper published by a group of youngsters in the locality, earlier reported how students have been subjected to a noticeable degree of spiritual influence while at school. It also reported how many students find such influences inappropriate, as they believe no particular belief system should be pushed within the realm of public education. In that report, one student was quoted as saying, “For a public school to influence children in one way or another towards religion is morally wrong.”
In the meanwhile, National Secular Society decided to launch yet another petition that calls upon the Scottish government to revise a law that currently requires all schools to conduct compulsory collective worship.
And here:
http://www.eastlothiancourier.com/news/roundup/articles/2015/06/18/536763-north-berwick-high-school-pupils-unhappy-at-christian-assemblies/0 -
It's all about power and control.
Our republic was hijacked fairly early on and we've never really managed to get it working right.0 -
Yes it is; the schools are kept open one or two days in the week for giving religious instruction, and clergy are permitted and encouraged to give religious instruction either before or after the ordinary school hours,on the other days of the week.This is actually what the Stanley letter says....
"They will require that the schools be kept open for a certain number of hours, on four or five days of the week, at the discretion of the Commissioners, for moral and literary education only; and that the remaining one or two days in the week be set apart for giving, separately; such religious education to the children as may be approved by the clergy of their respective persuasions. They will also permit and encourage the clergy to give religious instruction to the children of their respective persuasions, either before or after the ordinary school hours, on the other days of the week. "
That reads exactly like religious instruction is taking place during clearly defined school hours (the one or two days a week), separately from secular education. Which is what I said.
Which responsibilites? Are they written down anywhere? Has the State ever claimed to have these responsibilities? Or are they just responsibilities you think the State should have?I think the days of the state saying that they only pick up the tab by providing 'for' education is a total abdication of their responsibilities.
I think it's more than a bit of a stretch to claim that the State is responsible for providing education because it is responsible for the protection of people in it's care. Imagining that clinging onto the word is weaseling out of responsiblities is just imagination; if the word is present in the Constitutional responsibility (which it is), the State has a specific responsibility. If the word was not present (and, be honest, it's present), the State would have a different responsibility; the one you wish it had, but it doesn't.The EU court has proved this as was evidenced by their overturning of the case of Louise O' Keefe v the dept of education. Clinging on to this word is just weaseling out of responsibilities.
Who creates the syllabus by the way? The dept of education. Who registers the teachers? The teaching council Who keeps tabs on the rolls? The dept of education
The Stanley letter, and the Rules for Schools, both recognise that religious education should be separate from secular education. But I don't think anyone here is arguing that they shouldn't.This is the 21st century now... the problem was even recognised form the very inception of Irish education (as is evidenced by the Stanley letter).
I think you're literally making that up. Can you find a single statement from any Church in Ireland that says they're afraid of Sunday schools? You haven't even come up with a reason for why they'd be afraid of Sunday schools; knowing (or believing) that very few would attend them is no reason at all to be afraid of them.The church are afraid of Sunday schools.. because they know that very little would go... Also there wouldn't be the primary school teachers being used to get the kids ready for the communions and confirmations. Maybe somebody else would do it... why don't we try and find out?
The Constitution says different.I say they do have an absolute right to have education provided for them by the state. Look at the Cathy Sinnot case, or maybe she only had a right "to want" to have an education for her son going by your logic.
Lets look at the Kathy Sinnott case; the High Court held that there was a constitutional obligation upon the State to provide for free, basic, elementary education of all children, and granted an injunction directing the defendants to provide for free education for the first plaintiff appropriate to his needs for as long as he was capable of benefiting from same and damages.
In short the High Court held, and the Supreme Court agreed, that Mr Sinnott had at all material times a constitutional right to free primary education appropriate to his needs as a severely autistic child, and a right to be provided with free primary education.
Neither stated that he had a right to education provided by the State, nor could they, because the Constitution clearly confers a right to free primary education, not to have that provided specifically by anyone other than a parent.
I note your 'ONLY', but you probably noticed it's not a word I used? The State has lots of obligations under the Constitution, it's a bit silly to think it ONLY has an obligation to provide for education.Also, if as you claim "Someone has a right to have their education provided for" ONLY, then why is it the case that the Dept. of education pretends to give a damn about early school leavers (before age 16)? Could a parent not turn around to the dept and say "well my child only needed to have his education provided for, he doesn't actually have to go to school". The fact that the state sees that the mother is denying this childs right shows that they have taken a responsibility IN everyone's education (and not just to provide 'for' it).
To your example, I can't really comment on whether 'the Dept. of education pretends to give a damn about' anything at all, but I would consider the circumstance in the light of the fact that the Constitution does say "The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social."
It doesn't say the State will provide that education, but that it will require that children receive it. The State doesn't necessarily see that the mother is denying the childs rights so much as it acknowledges it's own responsibilities; to provide for education and to require that a minimum level of education is received.0 -
I asked about the provision of non-denominational education in our area. I did not ask about existing enrollment policies of schools. This is what the Department sent me in response to a question about non-denominational schools:
This Department’s main responsibility is to ensure that schools in an area can, between them, cater for all pupils seeking school places in the area. It is the responsibility of the managerial authorities of all schools to implement an enrolment policy in accordance with the Education Act, 1998.
Parents can choose which school to apply to and where the school has places available the pupil should be admitted. However, in schools where there are more applicants than places available a selection process may be necessary. This selection process and enrolment policy on which it is based must be non-discriminatory and must be applied fairly in respect of all applicants. However, this may result in some pupils not obtaining a place in the school of their first choice.
The Equal Status Act provides that a primary or post-primary school does not discriminate where the objective of the school is to provide education in an environment which promotes certain religious values, it admits persons of a particular religious denomination in preference to others or it refuses to admit as a student a person who is not of that denomination and, in the case of a refusal, it is proved that the refusal is essential to maintain the ethos of the school.
The Education (Admission to Schools) Bill was published in early April 2015. This Bill provides an over-arching framework to ensure that how schools decide on who is enrolled and who is refused a place in schools is more structured, fair and transparent.
The Bill does not propose changes to the existing equality legislation. The Bill while including provision for single sex schools and denominational schools to reflect in their admission policy the exemptions applicable to such schools under equality legislation, provides for schools to explicitly state in the school’s admission policy that it will not discriminate against an applicant for admission on the grounds of disability, special educational needs, sexual orientation, family status, membership of the traveller community, race, civil status, gender or religion.
The Bill also provides for schools to publish an enrolment policy which will include details of the school’s arrangements for students who do not want to attend religious instruction.
Furthermore, the patronage determination process for new schools requires prospective patrons to commit to enrolling pupils from the area to be served by the new school.
I hope this is of assistance to you.
I have the letter here if mods need to check the accuracy of this. Note how in one paragraph discrimination isn't okay, but in another it is.0 -
Advertisement
-
I also had a response from Frances Fitzgerald: Minister for Justice
As regards equality legislation, section 7 of the Equal Status Act 2000 provides that an educational establishment shall not discriminate in relation to its admission policy except where the objective is to provide an education in an environment which promotes certain religious values. In such circumstances, the school may favour the enrollment of students of a particular religious denomination in preference of others, of refuse to admit a student who is not of that denomination. However, any preferential admissions policy in this regard is only permitted to the extent that it is essential to maintaining the religious ethos of the particular school.
The provision reflects the freedom of religion guaranteed in Article 44 of the Constitution and in particular the right of every religious denomination to manager its own affairs and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes.
There are currently no places to amend this section of the Equal Status Act 2000.
She is oblivious that this practically, in a baby boom, restricts access to state funded school places by children of no or monitory faiths. Therefore, also unconstitutional.0 -
Yes it is; the schools are kept open one or two days in the week for giving religious instruction, and clergy are permitted and encouraged to give religious instruction either before or after the ordinary school hours,on the other days of the week.
That reads exactly like religious instruction is taking place during clearly defined school hours (the one or two days a week), separately from secular education. Which is what I said. .
??? Ahh read it again. I'll break it down for you...
"They will require that the schools be kept open for a certain number of hours, on four or five days of the week, at the discretion of the Commissioners, for moral and literary education only;"
That would be Monday to Friday (4 to 5 days a week)
Moral and literary education only
"and that the remaining one or two days in the week be set apart for giving, separately; such religious education"
The remaining 2 days in the week would be Saturday and Sunday (unless they've changed the days of the week and not informed me.!
" They will also permit and encourage the clergy to give religious instruction to the children of their respective persuasions, either before or after the ordinary school hours, on the other days of the week. "
Before or after the ordinary school hours = not during school hours...
That reads exactly like religious instruction is taking place during clearly defined school hours (the one or two days a week), separately from secular education. Which is what I said. .
Yes, and that's the whole problem. It was taking place, and Stanley was saying that it WASN'T SUPPOSED to be. The deal was that schools would get the money from the state as long as they didn't undertake religious instruction during regular hours.0 -
@absolom...
What clergy? There are no more clerics around anymore.....its lay women now.
Seriously the death knell is here...0 -
If clergy aren't providing the instruction in religion what does that mean for the rules?0
-
-
What difference do you think think it makes which days they are? There are four to five days given for moral and secular education, and one to two days given for religious education. It doesn't say any of them aren't school days???? Ahh read it again. I'll break it down for you..."They will require that the schools be kept open for a certain number of hours, on four or five days of the week, at the discretion of the Commissioners, for moral and literary education only;" That would be Monday to Friday (4 to 5 days a week) Moral and literary education only "and that the remaining one or two days in the week be set apart for giving, separately; such religious education" The remaining 2 days in the week would be Saturday and Sunday (unless they've changed the days of the week and not informed me.!
Indeed; on the days not allocated for religious instruction. And, of course, acknowledging that hours used on those days are not ordinary schools hours demonstrates that they are school hours nonetheless." They will also permit and encourage the clergy to give religious instruction to the children of their respective persuasions, either before or after the ordinary school hours, on the other days of the week. " Before or after the ordinary school hours = not during school hours
Eh.. no. It said it was supposed to take place on the days allocated for it, and outside ordinary school hours on the days not allocated for it. Which is what I said; religious education was supposed to take place during clearly defined school hours, separately from secular education. Having entirely separate days for religious education seems pretty clearly defined, don't you think?Yes, and that's the whole problem. It was taking place, and Stanley was saying that it WASN'T SUPPOSED to be. The deal was that schools would get the money from the state as long as they didn't undertake religious instruction during regular hours.0 -
I'm afraid I've no idea. What clergy are you talking about?zeffabelli wrote: »@absolom... What clergy? There are no more clerics around anymore.....its lay women now. Seriously the death knell is here...0 -
Actually, what I said was the government is not obliged to provide public education , it's obliged to provide for public education. It probably would be incompetent in fairness, if it didn't know what it's obligations were.
its not even doing that according to the constitutional provision it always cites0 -
I don't think that's true though. They may not be providing for education in a way that suits everybody, and the education that's provided for may not be provided in a fashion that suits everybody, but that doesn't rise to a failure to meet Constitutional obligations.expectationlost wrote: »its not even doing that according to the constitutional provision it always cites0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't think that's true though. They may not be providing for education in a way that suits everybody, and the education that's provided for may not be provided in a fashion that suits everybody, but that doesn't rise to a failure to meet Constitutional obligations.
it does they keep saying that have to provide education that suits their religious view but they don't, not for the non-religious.0
Advertisement