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
-
I'm not really sure what you mean by that. The Constitution says parents have a right and duty to provide for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children, and that the State has an obligation to provide for free primary education. Who keeps saying who has to provide education that suits whose religious view?expectationlost wrote: »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 -
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.
So that's that then! They're meeting their constitutional obligations by abdicating Education to religious orders, so that makes it ok because htat's the status quo.0 -
The thing is, to abdicate something, one must have it in the first place. As I said already 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. Regardless of the status quo.So that's that then! They're meeting their constitutional obligations by abdicating Education to religious orders, so that makes it ok because htat's the status quo.0 -
What difference do you think think it makes which days they are?
Because Monday to Friday is not for religious indoctorination... (unless it's outside school hours).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?
Well I would presume the 5 days of the week they are referring to are Monday to Friday and the 'other 2 days' would be..hmmmm given that it's not monday to friday let me take a guess.... Saturday and Sunday.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.
YEs that would be Monday to Friday, I think you're getting it now.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.
No sorry you've lost it again... religious education was NOT supposed to take place during clearly defined school hours.Having entirely separate days for religious education seems pretty clearly defined, don't you think?
YEs that would be clearly defined as Saturday or Sunday... or outside school hours. Would you agree?0 -
It doesn't say any days are for religious indoctrination though, does it? It assigns four to five days for moral and secular education, and one to two days for religious education; what difference do you think think it makes which days they are? In all there are five to six school days and the letter says nothing of which days of the week must be used for which.Because Monday to Friday is not for religious indoctorination... (unless it's outside school hours).
But.. it doesn't say that, does it? So, the four days for moral and secular education could be Saturday, Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, and religious education could be Tuesdays and Fridays. Could they not?Well I would presume the 5 days of the week they are referring to are Monday to Friday and the 'other 2 days' would be..hmmmm given that it's not monday to friday let me take a guess.... Saturday and Sunday.
So even on the days you would prefer were allocated for moral and secular education (not that they're required by the letter to be), the letter specifices that school hours outside of the ordinary school hours may be used for religious education. That definitely sounds like religious education was supposed to take place during clearly defined school hours, separately from secular education and religious education was considered a part of the overall educational curriculum. Just as I said.YEs that would be Monday to Friday, I think you're getting it now.
So, the one or two days allocated for religious education; are they any less clearly defined than the four or five days allocated for moral and secular education? Do they not take place in the school, just as the moral and secular education days do? The letter certainly gives a very convincing impression that religious and moral and secular education was assuredly to take place during clearly defined school hours.No sorry you've lost it again... religious education was NOT supposed to take place during clearly defined school hours.
Nope, I can't see any reason why Saturday and Sunday would be outside school hours?YEs that would be clearly defined as Saturday or Sunday... or outside school hours. Would you agree?0 -
Advertisement
-
^^^^^^^^^^^
Obstinate meets intransigent.0 -
It doesn't say any days are for religious indoctrination though, does it?
It doesn't say any days were specifically for paramilitary training in bomb making either... but if that were taking place I would also hope it was outside school hours!It assigns four to five days for moral and secular education, and one to two days for religious education;
This is where you are misunderstanding the import of the stanley letter (in relation to denominational schools). It 'assigns' ZERO days for religious education. The point of the Stanley letter was to state that if religious indoctorination were to take place it would be done outside school hours.what difference do you think think it makes which days they are?
MR. Stanley seems to think there is a difference. That's the point of it.In all there are five to six school days and the letter says nothing of which days of the week must be used for which.
Yes because it assumes the majority of sensible people understand what the working week and the weekend are. (Naturally there will be 1 or 2 that don't:rolleyes:).But.. it doesn't say that, does it? So, the four days for moral and secular education could be Saturday, Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, and religious education could be Tuesdays and Fridays. Could they not?
They indeed could, but see above point about assumption on what a weekend is. (and I'm glad you are now accepting that religious indoctorination was not to take place during school days).
it's not my preference. We're talking about the Stanley letter and the history of education for the last 170 odd yearsSo even on the days you would prefer ......were allocated for moral and secular education (not that they're required by the letter to be),the letter specifices that school hours outside of the ordinary school hours may be used for religious education.
"School hours outside of the ordinary school hours"..... you're having a laugh now at this stage. Seriously! Anything outside of school hours you call school hours!That definitely sounds like religious education was supposed to take place during clearly defined school hours, separately from secular education and religious education was considered a part of the overall educational curriculum. Just as I said.
Oh I see what you're doing now.... you are calling 'school hours' outside of the 'ordinary school hours'... 'clearly defined school hours'.
Actually they are clearly designated as NOT school hours (the logic being that they are not during school hours.sSo, the one or two days allocated for religious education; are they any less clearly defined than the four or five days allocated for moral and secular education?
No they are not any less more clearly defined.Do they not take place in the school, just as the moral and secular education days do? The letter certainly gives a very convincing impression that religious and moral and secular education was assuredly to take place during clearly defined school hours.
Horay, you've got it Yes that was the point of the letter and each subsequent report on schools under denominatial patronage for the hundred odd years that followed "religious and moral and secular education was assuredly to take place during clearly defined school hours."
And that's the problem Mr. Stanley highlighted.. that's not a solution BTW that's a problem. They've known that it would be a problem even before primary schools were set up... they've known that all the way through... and we know that now. If you are not being inclusive you are being exclusive... unless you can jog on and 'found your own school.... or emigrate or something... or.. just go away or something'Nope, I can't see any reason why Saturday and Sunday would be outside school hours?
Oh dear! I give up. Can someone else tell this guy what days of the week school is on.0 -
So, we can be certain it didn't assign any days either for paramilitary training in bomb making or religious indoctrination, Monday to Friday or Saturday or Sunday. Good stuff.It doesn't say any days were specifically for paramilitary training in bomb making either... but if that were taking place I would also hope it was outside school hours!.
Nope, it quite specifically 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." It clearly sets apart one or two days for religious education. And says nothing about religious indoctrination, or, as you say, paramilitary training in bomb making.This is where you are misunderstanding the import of the stanley letter (in relation to denominational schools). It 'assigns' ZERO days for religious education. The point of the Stanley letter was to state that if religious indoctorination were to take place it would be done outside school hours.
That's a rather odd conclusion to reach when the letter doesn't specify any particular days, only the number of them. What would you say your conclusion is based on?MR. Stanley seems to think there is a difference. That's the point of it.
I suppose it may be true that there are some people who don't realise that the letter was written in 1831, but the modern concept of a five day working week and a weekend didn't exist until the late 19th and early 20th century. So the letter couldn't actually assume something that didn't exist at the time; more accurate to say that you assumed it.Yes because it assumes the majority of sensible people understand what the working week and the weekend are. (Naturally there will be 1 or 2 that don't:rolleyes:).
A fairly erroneous assumption as it turns out though. Much like what you're assuming about religious indoctrination; it's readily apparent that religious education was supposed to take place during clearly defined school hours, separately from secular education, and was considered a part of the overall educational curriculum.They indeed could, but see above point about assumption on what a weekend is. (and I'm glad you are now accepting that religious indoctorination was not to take place during school days).
But the letter doesn't express a preference for which days the various parts of the curriculum are to take place on, so whose preference are you expressing, if not yours?it's not my preference. We're talking about the Stanley letter and the history of education for the last 170 odd years
I don't though; just the hours where children attend school. Do you think they weren't attending the school when they were receiving religious education outside of ordinary school hours?"School hours outside of the ordinary school hours"..... you're having a laugh now at this stage. Seriously! Anything outside of school hours you call school hours!
Well the letter clearly defines when those school hours occur, does it not?Oh I see what you're doing now.... you are calling 'school hours' outside of the 'ordinary school hours'... 'clearly defined school hours'.
How are they not? Children are attending the school and receiving instruction; in time that is designated in the letter. I would be inclined to say that hours that are not school hours are hours that children are not in school.....Actually they are clearly designated as NOT school hours (the logic being that they are not during school hours.
So the letter clearly defines the school time allocated for religious, moral and secular education; religious education takes place separately from secular education, in times that as you say are clearly defined, and is considered a part of the overall educational curriculum.No they are not any less more clearly defined.
Solution to what? The letter lays out how education was to be conducted, as I said at the beginning; 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.Horay, you've got it Yes that was the point of the letter and each subsequent report on schools under denominatial patronage for the hundred odd years that followed "religious and moral and secular education was assuredly to take place during clearly defined school hours."
And that's the problem Mr. Stanley highlighted.. that's not a solution BTW that's a problem. They've known that it would be a problem even before primary schools were set up... they've known that all the way through... and we know that now. If you are not being inclusive you are being exclusive... unless you can jog on and 'found your own school.... or emigrate or something... or.. just go away or something'
Oh, I know what days of the week school is on, but this is the 21st century. The 19th century was a bit different.Oh dear! I give up. Can someone else tell this guy what days of the week school is on.0 -
its not providing for non-religious education for all those that want itThe thing is, to abdicate something, one must have it in the first place. As I said already 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. Regardless of the status quo.0 -
expectationlost wrote: »its not providing for non-religious education for all those that want it
Nor is it providing any alternatives for most other religions.
The solution for the Church of Ireland community not near a school here used to be boarding school! I'm not exhadurating.
Long, long history of educational sectarianism here.
Almost the only bit of progressive policy was setting up the Queen's Colleges now UCC, NUI Galway (and Queen's Belfast). They were setup specifically to be secular to avoid a duplication of what happened in Dublin with a Protestant and Catholic university.0 -
Advertisement
-
It makes a big difference if its only two days at the weekend. Its plain enough to me that Stanley was setting aside the weekend as the suitable time for all the after school religious instruction. And banning it during normal school hours.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.
"Sunday school" type activities to be held on either a Saturday or a Sunday in other words. Possibly different religions could have used different time slots in the same school premises over the weekend, for sacramental preparation etc..
However those early attempts by the British govt. to set up a free multi-denominational National School system in Ireland were thwarted by both Catholic and Protestant church authorities, in what was quite possibly the only time before or since, that they have worked together for a single purpose.
And ever since then, they have both been claiming that if it wasn't for their great efforts to set up the denominational schools under church control, there would have been no schools at all.0 -
PQ about Deeds of trust https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2015-07-14a.1893&s=%22School+Patronage%22 simples0
-
pq about divestment https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2015-07-14a.2060&s=%22School+Patronage%22#g2074.qThere are two cases of actual changes of patronage for existing schools since 2011
and the requirements for patrons http://www.education.ie/en/Schools-Colleges/Information/Establishing-a-New-School/New-Primary-Schools/Invitation-for-applications-for-patronage-of-new-Primary-Schools-to-start-September-2015.pdf0 -
I see Absolam has managed to Gish-gallop this thread to a halt. :rolleyes:0
-
That's potentially true, but a somewhat different thing from abdicating responsibility for something it has never been responsible for.expectationlost wrote: »its not providing for non-religious education for all those that want it
Which just goes back to the point that it's not supposed to provide alternatives; it's supposed to provide for those alternatives. It's even supposed to endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative; just not to actually provide that initiative in the first place.Nor is it providing any alternatives for most other religions.0 -
That's not at all plain though; it says two days, nothing about weekends. And that's because in 1831 the concept of weekends didn't exist. At best Sunday was a day of worship for some people, but the idea of dividing the week into five working days and a two day weekend didn't come about until the early 20th Century. The Stanley Letter clearly shows that schools were intended to be used for religious education; a specific number of days were set out for it, just as for moral and secular education, and Boards were also to encourage the clergy to give religious instruction to children outside ordinary school hours on the other days of the week, as well as required to exercise the most entire control over all books to be used in the schools, whether in the combined moral and literary, or separate religious, instruction.It makes a big difference if its only two days at the weekend. Its plain enough to me that Stanley was setting aside the weekend as the suitable time for all the after school religious instruction. And banning it during normal school hours.
So, you're stretching 'Sunday' school into Saturdays to try and make the rules fit a weekend concept that didn't exist at the time. Far simpler (and historically accurate) to say that religious education was supposed to take place during clearly defined school hours, separately from secular education. Religious education was considered a part of the overall educational curriculum."Sunday school" type activities to be held on either a Saturday or a Sunday in other words. Possibly different religions could have used different time slots in the same school premises over the weekend, for sacramental preparation etc..
I don't think it would be fair to say they worked together to achieve their aims, but they certainly both worked to obtain the kind of education they wanted for their communities; both invested in their desired outcomes, and achieved them. It's a lesson I think ought not to be lost on those who now want to obtain a particular kind of education for their communities.However those early attempts by the British govt. to set up a free multi-denominational National School system in Ireland were thwarted by both Catholic and Protestant church authorities, in what was quite possibly the only time before or since, that they have worked together for a single purpose.
With all allowance for boastful exaggeration, they're probably not far wrong either. I very much doubt the Irish State would/could have stumped up the cash and resources that the Churches did to open as many schools as they did. Both communities rightly saw it as an investment in their future, just as those looking to foster different educational opportunities probably do now.And ever since then, they have both been claiming that if it wasn't for their great efforts to set up the denominational schools under church control, there would have been no schools at all.0 -
There is no point in nit-picking the point too much, because the proposed system would have been subject to change and evolution anyway. Suffice it to say, that proselytising was to be strictly forbidden during normal school hours, but was to be allowed at certain designated times outside of school hours when the relevant religious authorities would be allowed to use the premises to give specific religious instruction to pupils of their own religious persuasion.So, you're stretching 'Sunday' school into Saturdays to try and make the rules fit a weekend concept that didn't exist at the time. Far simpler (and historically accurate) to say that religious education was supposed to take place during clearly defined school hours, separately from secular education.
And now in 2015, nearly 200 years later, we are once again approaching this level of sophistication; The ET schools have moved to (only) allow preparation for the sacraments outside of school hours.
And I'm aware of an RC school near me that provides communion classes on a Saturday morning for RC pupils who attend other local primary schools which do not provide the classes.
At the time of the Stanley Letter, in 1831, Parliament had already agreed funding for the project. We don't know how history would have played out if a free, inclusive, and non-sectarian National School system had been set up at that time throughout the 32 counties.With all allowance for boastful exaggeration, they're probably not far wrong either. I very much doubt the Irish State would/could have stumped up the cash and resources that the Churches did to open as many schools as they did.
But skipping forward to 1916, 1919, 1937, or 1948 or whenever you think "the Irish State" started, any pre-existing schools would presumably have continued much as before.0 -
That's potentially true, but a somewhat different thing from abdicating responsibility for something it has never been responsible for.
Which just goes back to the point that it's not supposed to provide alternatives; it's supposed to provide for those alternatives. It's even supposed to endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative; just not to actually provide that initiative in the first place.
its not even doing that0 -
I agree, though I don't think it's nit picking to say that the Stanley Letter doesn't prohibit proselytising, it simply notes previous attempts to do so, and that it specifies that religious instruction was to take place during school hours set out for the purpose. It should be noted that the intent behind that separation of instruction had far more to do with a desire to minimise conflict between, and appease, the Established Church and the Catholic Church, than any desire to ensure children received a secular education.There is no point in nit-picking the point too much, because the proposed system would have been subject to change and evolution anyway. Suffice it to say, that proselytising was to be strictly forbidden during normal school hours, but was to be allowed at certain designated times outside of school hours when the relevant religious authorities would be allowed to use the premises to give specific religious instruction to pupils of their own religious persuasion.
Well, we know they started out with just over 1,000 National Schools in 1831 (out of a total of about 12,000 schools), and by 1924 when the Dept of Education took over there were well over 5,000 National Schools in operation. At that point the Rules for National Schools had been in place for some time, and continued the requirement of separating religious instruction from secular instruction during school hours. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the National School system was always intended to be simply multi-denominational, not purely secular.At the time of the Stanley Letter, in 1831, Parliament had already agreed funding for the project. We don't know how history would have played out if a free, inclusive, and non-sectarian National School system had been set up at that time throughout the 32 counties.But skipping forward to 1916, 1919, 1937, or 1948 or whenever you think "the Irish State" started, any pre-existing schools would presumably have continued much as before.0 -
How so? We've discussed the National Schools, but in addition to those there are obviously Gaelscoilenna, Educate Together schools, and prep schools. These are all variously private and corporate educational initiatives, they are alternatives to the National Schools, and their numbers (with the exception of prep schools) are growing, so if anything the State is doing more than ever before?expectationlost wrote: »its not even doing that0 -
Advertisement
-
I agree, though I don't think it's nit picking to say that the Stanley Letter doesn't prohibit proselytising, it simply notes previous attempts to do so, and that it specifies that religious instruction was to take place during school hours set out for the purpose. [...]
No, religious instruction was Not to take place during school hours. Here's the extract of the letter you're misquoting.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.
Why does he say "separately" if it is as you incorrectly assert 'during school hours'.
Unless you are also asserting that "before or after the ordinary school
hours" are the same as ordinary school hours!0 -
Because it is separate to moral and secular instruction. If it wasn't taking place during school hours, there would be no need to set apart days for it; yet days are clearly set apart for it.No, religious instruction was Not to take place during school hours. Here's the extract of the letter you're misquoting. Why does he say "separately" if it is as you incorrectly assert 'during school hours'.
Nope, I'm quite clearly asserting that school hours that occur before or after ordinary school hours on the four to five days set aside for moral and secular instruction are school hours nonetheless, just not ordinary ones. And, of course, that school hours on the one or two days set aside for religious instruction are ordinary school hours, just as the school hours on the four to five days set aside for moral and secular instruction are ordinary school hours.Unless you are also asserting that "before or after the ordinary school hours" are the same as ordinary school hours!0 -
How so? We've discussed the National Schools, but in addition to those there are obviously Gaelscoilenna, Educate Together schools, and prep schools. These are all variously private and corporate educational initiatives, they are alternatives to the National Schools, and their numbers (with the exception of prep schools) are growing, so if anything the State is doing more than ever before?
but clearly not enough to provide for education of the non-religious0 -
That's dubious; not enough is clearly a different assertion from not even, but even so there appears, largely, to be enough provision for education to cover education for everyone.expectationlost wrote: »but clearly not enough to provide for education of the non-religious
There does not appear to be enough (or, in some cases, any) educational institutions providing the kind of education some parents want their children to have; but it's not up to the State to provide those institutions, only to provide for them, or at least to provide for them on an equitable basis with other institutions.
If it were the case that the majority of parents in a particular area where there was need of a primary school wanted to establish a school which was entirely secular, but the State instead provided for an alternate plan for a Catholic school by a minority of parents in the same area, I would say the State is answerable, just as if the opposite were true. But if no one is making the effort to establish those schools, or is trying to establish them where there simply isn't enough relative demand for them, I can't see how that's the fault of the State.0 -
If it were the case that the majority of parents in a particular area where there was need of a primary school wanted to establish a school which was entirely secular, but the State instead provided for an alternate plan for a Catholic school by a minority of parents in the same area, I would say the State is answerable, just as if the opposite were true. .
why a majority? why does that come in to it?0 -
You are suggesting here that its up to the parents to build the kind of schools they want, and then the State would "provide for" the upkeep of those institutions.There does not appear to be enough (or, in some cases, any) educational institutions providing the kind of education some parents want their children to have; but it's not up to the State to provide those institutions, only to provide for them, or at least to provide for them on an equitable basis with other institutions.
But this is not quite correct. The State is not obliged to provide for the institutions, it is obliged to provide for education. So this would include building the necessary schools as well as maintaining them. If parents wish to build their own private schools, the State is obliged to give reasonable aid. But if they don't wish to, then the State is obliged to build public schools.
If no new schools are to be built (because the schoolgoing population is stable) then existing public schools must be divested and re-distributed "on an equitable basis" as you put it yourself.
Therefore in many parts of the country the State is in violation of its constitutional obligations. For example in Dublin 6.Article 42 wrote:The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.
In this situation, the State appears to be only "providing for" privately owned religious schools, while refusing to provide schools that are open to all members of the public on an equitable basis. This is a flagrant violation of "the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation".Dublin 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.
So, no divestment, no new school – what’s to be done? Perhaps unsurprisingly, a parent-led campaign for an Educate Together school in Dublin 6 has garnered almost 500 expressions of interest in the two months it is running.0 -
Because where availability of funding is a constraint, I think a Supreme Court would lean towards the best use of funds in fulfilling the States obligation to provide reasonable aid; I don't think the State is likely to be held responsible for failing to fund a private or corporate educational initiative for which there is not significant demand, when instead it funds a a private or corporate educational initiative for which there is significant demand.expectationlost wrote: »why a majority? why does that come in to it?0 -
To a degree, but not entirely. The State didn't bear the entire cost of building the majority of National Schools; it shared it with the patrons of those schools. I don't see why it shouldn't continue to do that with new patrons of new schools.You are suggesting here that its up to the parents to build the kind of schools they want, and then the State would "provide for" the upkeep of those institutions.
Again, to a degree, but not entirely. There's no expressed obligation in how it is to provide for education; building, or co-building, new schools are options, but not necessarily an obligation.But this is not quite correct. The State is not obliged to provide for the institutions, it is obliged to provide for education. So this would include building the necessary schools as well as maintaining them. If parents wish to build their own private schools, the State is obliged to give reasonable aid. But if they don't wish to, then the State is obliged to build public schools.
Why? I don't see where there is any obligation on anyone (least of all the Patrons) to divest schools. The State can fulfil it's obligation to provide for education by retaining existing schools regardless of whether they're the kind of schools most parents want, if it's to the public good (ie economically more sensible) to do so. I'm not saying this would be the case, but I don't think there's any straightforward requirement to act as you envision; there's no must about it.If no new schools are to be built (because the schoolgoing population is stable) then existing public schools must be divested and re-distributed "on an equitable basis" as you put it yourself.
I think you're assuming the State has some sort of constitutional obligation that's not stated? The State's obligation is to provide for free primary education and to endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative. There's no obligation to provide schools that are open to all members of the public on an equitable basis.Therefore in many parts of the country the State is in violation of its constitutional obligations. In this situation, the State appears to be only "providing for" privately owned religious schools, while refusing to provide schools that are open to all members of the public on an equitable basis. This is a flagrant violation of "the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation".
There is an obligation to, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard for the rights of parents, but whether the public goods requires providing other educational facilities at what is not likely to be an inconsiderable cost, for what may not turn out to be a sufficiently substantial portion of the population when there are already sufficient educational facilities to provide for education, I think would be a tough sell.
Bear in mind the parents rights that the State is required to have due regard for in this are "to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children."; not providing a school that does that on their behalf, or even not providing schools that are open to all members of the public on an equitable basis, in no way violates, flagrantly or otherwise, those rights.0 -
Because where availability of funding is a constraint, I think a Supreme Court would lean towards the best use of funds in fulfilling the States obligation to provide reasonable aid; I don't think the State is likely to be held responsible for failing to fund a private or corporate educational initiative for which there is not significant demand, when instead it funds a a private or corporate educational initiative for which there is significant demand.
who said there wasn't significant demand?0 -
Advertisement
-
I did, in the theoretical situation you're questioning.expectationlost wrote: »who said there wasn't significant demand?0
Advertisement