School patronage

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

The people are not "putting their names down" for a school, because the proposed school does not yet exist. They are effectively voting for a particular type of school to get the patronage.

Effectively voting is not the same as actually voting, but they're not even effectively voting. Parents weren't offered a choice between schools, or even an opportunity to rank their preference for schools. Each patron individually canvassed for prospective pupils; did parents have any reason to think they could or should only say yes to one?

recedite wrote: »

Lets say for example, a parent misunderstood the situation and thought they were putting the childs name on a waiting list. It would make sense to put the name on each list, then they would definitely be on the waiting list of whichever one won the patronage. But in reality the vote would have no effect, because all were voted for. Then when the school was opening, and the actual waiting list came out, all parents would have an equal opportunity to put their name down, even if they had voted for a different patronage.

Perhaps each of the prospective patrons didn't explain such a tactical approach to parents when asking whether they would want their children to attend a school the patron wanted to open? It wasn't exactly in the remit in fairness.

recedite wrote: »

Unless if course the school decided to renege on their agreement with the Dept. to give equal priority to all kids in the catchment area, as denominational patrons have been known to do.

Not that there's any evidence whatsoever that any of the patrons intended to do any such thing though, eh?

recedite wrote: »

A couple of points here;
1. If ET and SSI had played the double voting game in the same way that RC and ETB played it, then ET would have benefited from both sets of votes and they would have been awarded the patronage.

What double voting game did the Bishop and the ETB play though? Each canvassed parents for potential students, in exactly the same way as ET did; each simply found more parents with eligible children in the catchment area. You're not offering any evidence whatsoever that either the Bishop or ETB did anything that ET didn't, other than find more people in the catchment who said they would use their school.

recedite wrote: »

Its an unacceptable system to allow some people to vote twice. Either create a preferendum, or only allow one vote. But either way, apply the same rule to all voters.

Maybe. But nobody was asked to vote at all, never mind allowed to vote twice.

recedite wrote: »

2. Being in an adjacent catchment, and enrolled in an RC school because there was no choice, should not exclude people when their Constitutional right not to be exposed to unwanted religious indoctrination is being infringed. The same obvoiously goes for someone already enrolled in the catchment area itself, who wants to change schools. There is a likelihood that there would be enough pupils to start the new school off with several classes (not just the entry level class) or at least this possibility should be investigated.

So you're adding a basis for inclusion of your own; a belief that students constitutional rights not to be exposed to unwanted religious indoctrination ( a constitutional right that doesn't exist) is being infringed (which hasn't been demonstrated), and that they want to move as a result (also, undemonstrated). Obviously this wasn't part of the criteria set out by the Dept for inclusion though, and a quick glance at it would suggest it's remarkably unlikely ever to be, unless they first change the Constitution, and then do some quite in depth research into why parents might want to move children from one school to another. I suspect there may be more reasons than than exposure to unwarranted religious indoctrination; there's no evidence that had the Bishop and ETB contacted those 52 parents that they wouldn't have put their childrens names on their lists as well, is there?

recedite wrote: »

3. Lets say there are a series of small villages or towns, and it is established that in each town two thirds favour a RC patronage and one third favour a non-denominational patronage. Is it fair to put a RC school in each village because of the simple majority? No. The Dept recognises this and so has decided to exclude the RC patron in this case on the grounds of lack of school diversity. But this same principle means they should count the votes of those parents who represent the "losing" minority group in the adjacent areas.

I'm not sure that follows; the Bishop was excluded as a patron in this case because it would not expand diversity in the area; the catchment already has 2 Catholic schools, so any other choice that had sufficient pupil numbers would expand the diversity in that area. The principle doesn't really necessitate the Board considering requirements outside the area if there's a clear need within the area, before we even come to the nonsensical notion that there were 'losing votes' in the areas that weren't intended to be served by the new school.
Perhaps the Board weren't looking for a methodology that would ratify their own pre-conceived preference, but instead using a methodology that would best determine the patron must likely to serve the area well?

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

What double voting game did the Bishop and the ETB play though?

According to the Dept. of Ed report there were 13 duplicate votes which I will call "transfers" from the RC Patron. The RC Bishop of Cloyne was never going to get the patronage anyway, due to the complete lack of school diversity in the area.
Having said that, I also concede that "strategic voting" was also an option for the other rival groups, if they were wily enough to harness the system.

Absolam wrote: »

So you're adding a basis for inclusion of your own; a belief that students constitutional rights not to be exposed to unwanted religious indoctrination ( a constitutional right that doesn't exist) is being infringed

This right is defined in Article 44

4° Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations,nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school.

And yes, I am making the (quite reasonable) assumption that pupils attending the RC schools in the adjacent area (and only because there is no other choice; we know that because they tried to vote for an alternative patron but their vote was disenfranchised) are exposed to RC religious instruction. Because this is the default position in all denominational schools. They do not normally provide alternative classes to those who don't want it, nor do they put on the indoctrination towards the end of the day when they could let the other pupils go home early.

I think we also need to look at why the ETB model emerged around the same time as the school divestment program was proposed. Was it just a coincidence?
And what crossover exists between the people involved and the objectives, of ETB and RCC. Is it a coincidence that the "Goodness me Goodness you" religious program of the new ETB school model was largely devised by Clare Moloney who also co-authored books in the RC Alive-O religion program as operated in the Bishops own schools? See here what Muslim parents think about having the specific muslim religious instruction program being written by a representative of the RCC.

Suppose you were in charge of a religious cult that had been allowed to run nearly all the primary schools in the country, while being publicly funded for doing so. And then you learned that all new schools would be awarded to alternative patrons in the interests of "diversity", until some kind of balance had been achieved.
Being clever and devious, your first priority is to set up some kind of proxy patronage model which will fulfill your core requirements; to continue with your own approved indoctrination within the school, and to continue taking advantage of the peer pressure that a majority group of kids always imposes on a minority group. So you want to keep holding your communion classes for the initiation ceremony as an integral part of the school day, knowing that very few kids will voluntarily segregate themselves out of this dominant peer group.
Finally, for those who do have the courage to segregate themselves, you want to write their religious program for them, because they can't be trusted to do that for themselves.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

According to the Dept. of Ed report there were 13 duplicate votes which I will call "transfers" from the RC Patron.

But that's not true. The DoE didn't say there were any votes at all did they? What they actually said was "There are 13 duplicates
between the Bishop of Cloyne list and the Cork ETB list".
13 parents said they would send their children to a school run by the Bishop, and that they would also send their children to a school run by the ETB. Potentially, 1 of them also said they would send them to a school run by ET.
And yet the DoE doesn't report any of them intended a "transfer".

recedite wrote: »

This right is defined in Article 44 And yes, I am making the (quite reasonable) assumption that pupils attending the RC schools in the adjacent area (and only because there is no other choice; we know that because they tried to vote for an alternative patron but their vote was disenfranchised) are exposed to RC religious instruction. Because this is the default position in all denominational schools. They do not normally provide alternative classes to those who don't want it, nor do they put on the indoctrination towards the end of the day when they could let the other pupils go home early.

But it's clearly not defined in Article 44. As you quoted yourself, a child has right to attend a school receiving public money without receiving religious instruction. Manifestly, in fact quite literally, literally, different from a right not to be exposed to unwanted religious indoctrination.
And we certainly don't know that anyone tried to vote for an alternative patron, because there was no vote. They weren't disenfranchised, because they didn't have a vote. We don't even know that the parents of the pupils in the adjacent area actually have children attending a Catholic school, never mind because there is no other choice; there is in fact an ET school in an adjacent area, so all 30 of the children excluded for being in an adjacent area might very well be attending an ET school already. What we know is that parents of pupils attending schools in other catchments when canvassed said they would sent their children to an ET school outside their catchment. The report doesn't indicate any motivation, though the fact that you so readily ascribe one that suits your agenda does rather speak to the prejudiced approach you're taking, don't you think?

recedite wrote: »

I think we also need to look at why the ETB model emerged around the same time as <...>, because they can't be trusted to do that for themselves.

I'd suggest if we were to look at it, the conspiracy theory forum might be a more appropriate venue for the investigation?

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

But that's not true. The DoE didn't say there were any votes at all did they? What they actually said was "There are 13 duplicates between the Bishop of Cloyne list and the Cork ETB list"..

You can call them "expressions of support" instead of "votes" if you like, but it does not change the substance of the discussion. The patronage was going to be awarded to the multi-denominational patronage with the most "votes or whatever they are" after verification of same.

Absolam wrote: »

13 parents said they would send their children to a school run by the Bishop, and that they would also send their children to a school run by the ETB

No, that is your interpretation. For one thing, it is impossible to send a child to two different schools, so they can only really favour one school at a time.
That's why I'm saying the system lacks clarity and natural justice. Either restrict everyone to one vote each, or else establish a different system such as proportional representation or a preferendum. Then let everybody vote for all the candidates, by allocating a numbered preference vote to each patronage model.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

But it's clearly not defined in Article 44. As you quoted yourself, a child has right to attend a school receiving public money without receiving religious instruction. Manifestly, in fact quite literally, literally, different from a right not to be exposed to unwanted religious indoctrination.

In this context of a school being built with public money, what is the difference?

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

You can call them "expressions of support" instead of "votes" if you like, but it does not change the substance of the discussion. The patronage was going to be awarded to the multi-denominational patronage with the most "votes or whatever they are" after verification of same.

Well it does; voting implies some sort of complicity in and responsibility for the selection process, which parents didn't have. Voting also allows for the possibility of disenfranchisement, an argument against the process which you put forward, but in the absence of a vote, your argument is non-existent. The patronage was going to be awarded to the patron which best fulfilled the selection criteria, having due regard for diversity of current provision in the area. That turned out to be ETB.

recedite wrote: »

No, that is your interpretation. For one thing, it is impossible to send a child to two different schools, so they can only really favour one school at a time. That's why I'm saying the system lacks clarity and natural justice.

It's not an interpretation though. The report clearly states:
"There are 13 duplicates between the Bishop of Cloyne list and the Cork ETB list."
The methodology for the lists was also specified:
"Patron bodies proposing schools will be asked to provide evidence of parental demand.
Patrons will be asked to sign up lists of parents who indicate interest in having their children educated in their new school. These lists are to be broken down by the age of the children, including year of proposed entry to school, and by where they are living,having regard for the area to be served by the school. A template for submission of parental demand will be provided for this purpose, and all information must be presented in this format only."
No one asked parents which school they favoured; each patron asked parents if they were interested in having their children educated in their potential school. 13 parents told both the Bishop and the ETB that they were interested in having their children educated in their potential school. There's no interpretation in that; it's just the facts as stated in the report.

recedite wrote: »

Either restrict everyone to one vote each, or else establish a different system such as proportional representation or a preferendum. Then let everybody vote for all the candidates, by allocating a numbered preference vote to each patronage model.

Sure, you could have a voting system; but the DoE doesn't, it obliges patrons to demonstrate there's an appetite for the school they're proposing. On the face it, your voting system seems a pretty cumbersome (and expensive) notion, and you're not exactly proposing any additional benefits over the current system, other than you think it might result in an outcome you'd prefer, which is pretty dubious anyway.

Not a NSA agent

Was talking to someone about the fun an educate together school was having with its communion/confirmation class (cant remember which one or if even both). They locals from the church arent too happy about the ceremony happening there. It turns out you cant really be Catholic unless you want to keep the filthy non Catholic children away from your own.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

In this context of a school being built with public money, what is the difference?

Surely in any context the differences are pretty obvious?
A right not to be exposed to something is far more extensive than a right not to receive something (and lets not forget the Courts have already found that "that the right of a child not to attend religious instruction at a publicly funded school did not protect that child from being influenced, to some degree, by the religious ethos of the school"); the Constitution clearly confers the latter, not the former.
Secondly, you used the word 'unwanted' which is absent from the Constitutional provision; whether the child wants the instruction or not is irrelevant because that choice (and right) belongs to the parent.
Finally, the Constitution uses the word 'instruction', you used the word 'indoctrination'. I know, it's all about using the right snarl word to convey your contempt for religious instruction, but the fact is the Constitution does make provisions regarding religious instruction, and doesn't make any regarding religious indoctrination.
In short; the constitutional right you're trying to use to justify adding your own criteria to the selection process doesn't exist, nor is there any substantive reason to believe that the people you think are having that imaginary right infringed on necessarily exist either.

robindch

Paddy Monahan is a dad from Dublin who wants the government to remove section 7(3)(c) of the Equal Status Act, a section which A+A regulars will be familiar with. He's set up a petition on Avaaz - please sign!

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/The_Joint_Oireachtas_SubCommittee_on_Public_Petitions_Equal_school_access_for_unbaptised_children

Paddy Monahan wrote:

My name is Paddy Monahan. I am from Raheny in Dublin and I am a very happy father to a three month old son. But I am not happy that kids can be rejected by Irish schools based on religion. Below is the petition I am putting before the Oireachtas petitions committee. I really hope you'll support it.

“Section 7(3)(c) of the Equal Status Act 2000 allows schools operated by religious institutions to discriminate in their enrolment policies against unbaptised children. Since almost all schools in the State are owned by religious institutions, though State-funded, unbaptised children face severe barriers to access to education - barriers that have been created by the State. The mere existence of section 7(3)(c) introduces entirely unwarranted tension, anxiety and uncertainty into the lives of children, parents and families in Ireland.

Based on section 7(3)(c), schools throughout the country state in their enrolment policies that baptised children take preference over unbaptised children. Indeed, in many cases a baptised child from anywhere else may be enrolled ahead of an unbaptised local child. This situation is manifestly unfair, discriminatory and undemocratic. This issue affects not only children and parents but all Irish people with an interest in fairness and democracy.

There is no constitutional basis for this discrimination. Article 44.2.3 of the Constitution states that “The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status”.

To this end, this petition demands the repeal of section 7(3)(c) of the Equal Status Act 2000 and that the Government takes any and all actions necessary to ensure fair and equal access to education for all children within the State.”

[Please note: The Oireachtas Petitions Committee states on its webpage that, at its discretion, it may make petition supporters' details public]

Quick update (15 July 2015): Hi folks, thanks for all the support. Just to let you know this isn't all happening in a vacuum, I've met Equality Minister Aodhán Ó Ríordáin and Senator Ivana Bacik on this issue in recent weeks. They are very supportive and are to speak to Education Minister Jan O'Sullivan about repealing section 7(3)(c) as part of the forthcoming School Admissions Bill. Regardless, my aim is to lay this petition before the Oireachtas Petitions Committee when it reconvenes in early September - about 6 weeks time. The more support we drum up, the more likely our call will be heard. Thanks again, Paddy.

expectationlost

Joe Humphreys opinion piece about church letting go of schools which is fair enough but doesn't spend enough time saying how the state should be active in providing secular schools http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/how-the-catholic-church-could-solve-the-school-patronage-problem-1.2297551 the church letting go of some schools doesn't really address the problem

recedite

They could exemplify Catholic teaching in their leadership and educational culture, and they could facilitate Catholic parents and children – in a non-coercive way – to develop their faith alongside other members of the community. Such schools would be Catholic in a much more meaningful sense, demonstrating a Christian spirit of openness to “the other”. Indeed, they would exemplify the sort of Catholicism that many atheists admire – a welcoming, tolerant and intellectually-honest form of Catholicism that puts freedom of conscience centre stage.
If Catholics ever became an endangered minority “positive discrimination” in limited circumstances might warrant reinstatement but that day is a long way off.

Plenty in that article is a long way off the mark

SpaceTime

What annoys me is this is very much like a dog marking his or her territory.

We're supposed to be a democratic, republic where we're equal. The state's "public" education system falls miles short of that ideal.

We shouldn't be even having a debate about who's a majority or a minority or what demand for a particular type of school is in a particular area.

Swap school for Garda Station or council house and apply the same segregated model and we'd all be laughing at the backwards sectarian nonsense but for some reason a religious ethos public school with the right to exclude children based on religious grounds is acceptable!

The sheer level of subjective and selective blindness and hipocracy of it is mind blowing.

The status quo is deeply unfair, it's wrong and it's incompatible with what we claim to be as a country.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

Plenty in that article is a long way off the mark

Here's another whopper

But many others, myself included, see some value – or truth – within Christian teaching, particularly in the realm of ethics, which validates faith as an option.

This isn't supposed to be an opinion piece so he should keep his (uninformed, biased) opinion out of it. Thinly disguised 'but how can atheists have morals without god' guff is all it is.

SpaceTime wrote: »

What annoys me is this is very much like a dog marking his or her territory.

Actually that's a very apt description for the angelus on RTE, too. But apparently we're all bigoted and biased and intolerant if the twice daily reminder that Ireland is run by catholics, for catholics, is objectionable to us.

Absolam

SpaceTime wrote: »

What annoys me is this is very much like a dog marking his or her territory. We're supposed to be a democratic, republic where we're equal. The state's "public" education system falls miles short of that ideal. We shouldn't be even having a debate about who's a majority or a minority or what demand for a particular type of school is in a particular area. Swap school for Garda Station or council house and apply the same segregated model and we'd all be laughing at the backwards sectarian nonsense but for some reason a religious ethos public school with the right to exclude children based on religious grounds is acceptable! The sheer level of subjective and selective blindness and hipocracy of it is mind blowing. The status quo is deeply unfair, it's wrong and it's incompatible with what we claim to be as a country.

One could say that's a subjective and selectively blind point of view though. For instance trying to hold the State public education system up to an ideal that deliberately omits those Constitutionally responsible for providing education, parents, is pretty selective, wouldn't you say? In fact, isn't it hypocritical to pillory the State for not providing the kind of education you want, when you're not actually doing anything to provide it yourself? Especially when you'd rather leave the country than acknowledge that it's not up to the State to fulfil your obligations, it's up to you?

SpaceTime

Absolam wrote: »

One could say that's a subjective and selectively blind point of view though. For instance trying to hold the State public education system up to an ideal that deliberately omits those Constitutionally responsible for providing education, parents, is pretty selective, wouldn't you say? In fact, isn't it hypocritical to pillory the State for not providing the kind of education you want, when you're not actually doing anything to provide it yourself? Especially when you'd rather leave the country than acknowledge that it's not up to the State to fulfil your obligations, it's up to you?

So basically that's the old : "if you don't like the state funded religious education system, just get lost or set up your own school" argument?

I assume I get a tax refund for being unable to access schools that my money and that of many others who are treated as second class citizens is paying for?

In most developed, post 19th century countries, education is a state service.

Ireland's position is utterly bizarre and rather more like what you see in the developing world where education is run primarily by non profits and charities.

It's perfectly reasonable to expect a modern, western state to be capable of proving a decent, open access public education system (free from "strings attached" policies or religious discrimination.)

Also, the constitution can be amended by referendum if there's a problem. It's a living document, not the Ten Commandments.

Peregrinus

SpaceTime wrote: »

In most developed, post 19th century countries, education is a state service.

This argument cuts both ways, though. In "most developed, post 19th century countries" the state funds religious schools.

Absolam

SpaceTime wrote: »

So basically that's the old : "if you don't like the state funded religious education system, just get lost or set up your own school" argument?

That might also be a a subjective and selectively blind point of view
How about, if you don't like the way others offer to fulfil your obligations on your behalf, feel free to fulfil them yourself?

SpaceTime wrote: »

I assume I get a tax refund for being unable to access schools that my money and that of many others who are treated as second class citizens is paying for?

Why? People who make no use of the schools at all don't get a tax refund, how does not liking the schools you can access make you special?
If you like though, I'd certainly support you receiving funding from taxes for a school you set up that meets the needs of your local community. In fact, if you meet the requirements, I would happily agree that you as a a school are entitled to reasonable aid from the State.

SpaceTime wrote: »

In most developed, post 19th century countries, education is a state service. Ireland's position is utterly bizarre and rather more like what you see in the developing world where education is run primarily by non profits and charities.

Ireland is hardly bizarre; there are other States, like Germany, where the State funds non State run educational institutions. In fairness, France is the only developed country I'm aware of that requires a purely secular education; most other countries, even the USA, allow parents to choose denominational education if they wish. Unlike Ireland, access to education isn't even a constitutional right in many developed countries (including the USA, Germany, and even Canada), so arguably Ireland is more 'developed' than any of those nations. I can't say ones opinion of how 'developed' a nation is really amounts to much though; generally most people are going to say the nations that most closely align with their point of view are the most developed.

SpaceTime wrote: »

It's perfectly reasonable to expect a modern, western state to be capable of proving a decent, open access public education system (free from "strings attached" policies or religious discrimination.)

Of course it is. It's also perfectly reasonable to expect a modern western State to not interfere with the civil liberties of it's citizens. What you reasonably expect, and what you're actually entitled to, may well be different things though

SpaceTime wrote: »

Also, the constitution can be amended by referendum if there's a problem. It's a living document, not the Ten Commandments.

Indeed, it can. That begs the question, would it? So far, it seems from the evidence presented on this thread of surveys and consultations, a large proportion (even a majority) of parents lean towards denominational educational institutions. I'm not convinced those parents are likely to vote for an amendment that could reduce their access to, or increase the cost of accessing, those institutions.

Peregrinus

Absolam wrote: »

Ireland is hardly bizarre; there are other States, like Germany, where the State funds non State run educational institutions. In fairness, France is the only developed country I'm aware of that requires a purely secular education; most other countries, even the USA, allow parents to choose denominational education if they wish.

Not to pick nits, or anything, but even in France, while the state schools are rigorously secular, people are free to choose church schools. Abut 18% of primary school students, and 25% of high school students, attend church schools. And the state does provide significant financial support to church schools; from memory, a student in a church school receives about two-thirds of the public funding that he or she would receive if in a state school.

SFAIK, the only western democracy that provides no funding to church schools is the US. And that's not because they have a principled constitutional objection to providing public funding for church-linked institutions; they cheerfully fund church-linked universities, church-linked hospitals, etc, from public sources. It's because, at first and second level, they have no tradition of providing any public funding at all to the voluntary sector. In marked contrast to their quirky distaste for "socialized medicine", the US was an early adopter of socialized education; it was providing free public education to all comers, financed out of local taxation, from colonial times. As a consequence, it never got into the habit of providing funding for voluntary or charitable schools, whether religious or not. And this has continued to the present day. But it has little to do with the prohibition on establishment of religion.

SpaceTime

There's a massive difference between a state funding some religious schools along side a widely available, extensive public, secular open access system and what Ireland does : not provide public schools at all.

No other western country that I can think of has almost 100% of public schools in private outsourced hands with over 90% of them in the hands of one religious grouping that operates enrolment policies based on the child's religion.

That isn't a public school system at all. It's a state supported private catholic school system.

To make it worse, school attendance here is de facto compulsory. Most parents aren't in the position that they can provide their own education at home. It's much too complex these days and to suggest parents should just home school instead of using the public funded school system is basically admitting that Ireland operates schools on the basis of sectarianism.

The situation here is highly unusual compared to most developed countries and it's extremely contrary to any policy of social inclusion.

The state won't even sort out the issue of religious instruction being woven into the entire day and they have dragged their feet on enrolment policies.

It's ridiculous in 2015 in an EU country that a child could easily be excluded from school enrollemebt if the local school were busy based on their religious background.

It's sectarianism at best and if it's end result is excluding people of particular ethnic backgrounds, it's basically racism.
I know a Chinese-Irish family who have faced this. They're not religious by background at all and have been told that they can't get a place in a school due to lack of baptism certs.
The Irish half of this family understands it, the Chinese half thinks it's targeted racism and now feels very uncomfortable about the country and is considering moving back to Britian.

To an Irish person that's like "oh sure that's just how it is"
To a non traditionally catholic family here that's "go get your own school you foreigner"

Can you imagine if you turned up at your local school having say arrived in the UK and they said "oh you're Irish AND catholic ... Sorry this school is for Church of England children.. Would you consider converting?"
You try the next school and get "oh we'll put you on the list but we prioritise C of E children"

The you get told this is how 90%+ of schools are and you are more than welcome to set up your own school or go to the special school for weirdos like yourself which is located conveniently 75miles away.

There'd be outrage and accusations institutional racism against Irish people.

Put the shoe on the other foot and Ireland's full of catholic supremacists who think the status quo is 100% fine because it suits their narrow minded view of the world and, probably keeps out foreigners who they don't like anyway.

To say parents have a choice here is a joke. It's the model T Ford : you can have any colour car you want as long as it's black.

But, I'm not allowed to argue this because anytime you say anything against our perfect little school system you're shouted down and told you're completely wrong and that it's perfect.

As an Irish atheist, I get a very definite sense that I'm unwelcome in my own country.

Also, about that tax refund for public services I can't avail of ? Do you mind sending it on!

expectationlost

Letter responseto the IT op-ed http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/school-patronage-and-parental-choice-1.2299931

1. gov needs to do it


2. and church were given chance to change divest and didn't take it

Fleawuss

I looked over this thread to see the same old points being put forward in favour of denominational patrons maintaining their position in Ireland into the future. If you are a believer in supernaturalism etc.etc. (to avoid retelling the weary nonsenses of religion) you want the status quo to continue. That is frequently hidden behind legal arguments or arguments couched in legalese, a denial of any rights based argument and a lengthy and verbose exposition of why things must remain the same.

Personally I want the state to be sole patron of schools in Ireland. The state should be neutral among the various competing gods and must ensure that the citizens of the state have access to reality based education not solely revelation based education. The problem is in computer terms, a legacy problem. Too much money was given by the infantile state here to religious organisations and they have ownership of property, much of which in recent decades they still own but its upkeep and construction and staffing are entirely state dependent.

But what can the state do? A draconian seizure of property is impossible. A political decision is impractical at the moment. The religious owners and patrons can hide behind their legal protections but that is very different from being credible patrons. And to me there is the nub: how can any group claiming "divine" revelation to various individuals hundreds or thousands of years ago as the fundamental basis for their existence and involvement in education, advancing views of humanity and life that are bizarre and in defiance of scientific evidence and human reason be seen as suitable to educate people in 2015? In 1515, sure. In 1615. In 1715. Less so in 1815. Even less so in 1915. Devoid of any credibility in 2015. Except, of course, to the credulous.

Absolam

SpaceTime wrote: »

There's a massive difference between a state funding some religious schools along side a widely available, extensive public, secular open access system and what Ireland does : not provide public schools at all.

Which is not to say Ireland can't; the Constitutional provision is there, the State could, if it believed it were necessary provide other educational facilities. However, it is still obliged to do so with due regard for the rights of parents in the matter of religious and moral formation, which likely means those schools would have to provide religious education per the parents wishes. The fact is, Ireland is committed to a public education system that is not restricted to solely secular education, unlike other countries Ireland has to provide for a good deal more; religious, moral, intellectual, physical and social education.

SpaceTime wrote: »

No other western country that I can think of has almost 100% of public schools in private outsourced hands with over 90% of them in the hands of one religious grouping that operates enrolment policies based on the child's religion.

No two western countries have the same public education systems either; all of them are products of the evolution of education in the specific circumstances of those States. And the concept of 'one religious grouping that operates enrolment policies based on the child's religion' is a bit off; there are tons of religious groups operating in that 90%, all of whom have different policies.

SpaceTime wrote: »

That isn't a public school system at all. It's a state supported private catholic school system.

Perhaps the problem is with your attempt to redefine the system? If you called it a public education system, or even a public schooling system, that make it easier for you?

SpaceTime wrote: »

To make it worse, school attendance here is de facto compulsory. Most parents aren't in the position that they can provide their own education at home. It's much too complex these days and to suggest parents should just home school instead of using the public funded school system is basically admitting that Ireland operates schools on the basis of sectarianism.

Home schooling is subject to public funding too. Instead of 'basically admitting' something nonsensical, how about actually admitting; education is the Constitutional responsibility of parents. Finding that responsibility too complex to cope with in a way they feel comfortable with doesn't actually absolve parents of their obligations.

SpaceTime wrote: »

The situation here is highly unusual compared to most developed countries and it's extremely contrary to any policy of social inclusion.

That really is, as you would say, a subjective and selectively blind point of view. I would see a State mandated solely secular education system as being far less socially inclusive as it entirely ignores parents wishes when it comes to religious and moral education.

SpaceTime wrote: »

The state won't even sort out the issue of religious instruction being woven into the entire day and they have dragged their feet on enrolment policies.

On the other hand, there's no evidence that the State actually ever enforces the requirement that a religious spirit should inform and vivify the whole work of the school (to be more accurate, as religious instruction is restricted to 30 minutes of the day), and the State has clearly placed a requirement on school patrons to be willing to enrol children in the area for whom the Department has identified the need for a school; the DoE does not restrict that requirement by faith.

SpaceTime wrote: »

It's ridiculous in 2015 in an EU country that a child could easily be excluded from school enrollemebt if the local school were busy based on their religious background.

And yet it's not at all unusual right the world around that denominational schools are often oversubscribed and turn down a substantial number of applicants. That's an argument for more denominational schools, not less.

SpaceTime wrote: »

It's sectarianism at best and if it's end result is excluding people of particular ethnic backgrounds, it's basically racism.
I know a Chinese-Irish family who have faced this. They're not religious by background at all and have been told that they can't get a place in a school due to lack of baptism certs. The Irish half of this family understands it, the Chinese half thinks it's targeted racism and now feels very uncomfortable about the country and is considering moving back to Britian. To an Irish person that's like "oh sure that's just how it is" To a non traditionally catholic family here that's "go get your own school you foreigner"

There's rather a wide gap from feeling like something is racism, and something being racism, even basically racism. And when a determination is based on religion, not race, it's not racism. It's a very creative attempt to try and broaden your argument, but it is absolute nonsense to be fair.

SpaceTime wrote: »

Can you imagine if you turned up at your local school having say arrived in the UK and they said "oh you're Irish AND catholic ... Sorry this school is for Church of England children.. Would you consider converting?"

Actually, I can't imagine turning up at a local school in Ireland and them saying 'Sorry this school is for Catholic children, would you mind converting'.

SpaceTime wrote: »

You try the next school and get "oh we'll put you on the list but we prioritise C of E children"

Like St Mary Redcliffe & Temple School in Bristol?
or the Blue Coat Church of England School & Music College in Oldham?
What about the Archbishop Blanch High School in Liverpool?
Three of the top five schools (according to the Telegraph) in England prioritise CoE applicants over other faiths.

SpaceTime wrote: »

The you get told this is how 90%+ of schools are and you are more than welcome to set up your own school or go to the special school for weirdos like yourself which is located conveniently 75miles away. There'd be outrage and accusations institutional racism against Irish people.

You seem to have switched from the Catholic priority criterion to a race criterion that wasn't mentioned though? Perhaps you befuddled yourself with the half Chinese family from Britain.

SpaceTime wrote: »

Put the shoe on the other foot and Ireland's full of catholic supremacists who think the status quo is 100% fine because it suits their narrow minded view of the world and, probably keeps out foreigners who they don't like anyway.

You do seem to be mixing up religion and race again. What about the foreign Catholics, how do the catholic supremacists filling Ireland feel about them? What about the Irish non catholic supremacists, are they more likely to align with Irish catholic supremacists or foreign non catholic supremacists? How do we know where these peoples loyalties truly lie? It's a disgrace Joe.

SpaceTime wrote: »

To say parents have a choice here is a joke. It's the model T Ford : you can have any colour car you want as long as it's black.

Well, if you don't like the colour of the one being given to you, you can always paint your own

SpaceTime wrote: »

But, I'm not allowed to argue this because anytime you say anything against our perfect little school system you're shouted down and told you're completely wrong and that it's perfect.

In fairness, you've just been allowed to argue all that. And you've not been shouted down, or told that our school system is perfect. In fairness, on some points you are actually completely wrong, but that's hardly anybody else's fault.

SpaceTime wrote: »

As an Irish atheist, I get a very definite sense that I'm unwelcome in my own country. Also, about that tax refund for public services I can't avail of ? Do you mind sending it on!

Still, on the bright side, no one is making you stay. I'm sure you'll get a refund for public services you don't use at the same time as everyone else

inocybe

On the bright side there's nothing like having Catholicism shoved down your throat at school to inoculate you against religion. I hate the fact that my son has to go to a catholic school, but it's brought out the critical thinker in him and at least there's no chance he'll ever be seduced by anyone's superstitious dogma later in life.

robindch

Fleawuss wrote: »

But what can the state do?

It can withdraw funding from schools which practice discrimination. Or it can slap taxes on them. Same, btw, it can do for the religious orders who refuse to pay their fair share of the residential redress costs.

Fleawuss wrote: »

how can any group claiming "divine" revelation to various individuals hundreds or thousands of years ago as the fundamental basis for their existence and involvement in education, advancing views of humanity and life that are bizarre and in defiance of scientific evidence and human reason be seen as suitable to educate people in 2015?

I'd be equally interested to hear why anybody believes that a group with the childcare history of the catholic church should continue to have unrestricted access to schools.

recedite

Fleawuss wrote: »

But what can the state do? A draconian seizure of property is impossible.

Is it?

Absolam

inocybe wrote: »

On the bright side there's nothing like having Catholicism shoved down your throat at school to inoculate you against religion. I hate the fact that my son has to go to a catholic school, but it's brought out the critical thinker in him and at least there's no chance he'll ever be seduced by anyone's superstitious dogma later in life.

Careful now... the idea that it inoculates you against religion runs contrary to the prevailing notion around here that it's indoctrination

SpaceTime

To be honest, I'm not actually going to respond to the above post that's quoting me multiple times.

It's just the same narrow minded, status quo protecting, tightly interpreted legalese that keeps being spouted.

Ireland remains one of the most bizzare and conservative countries in Western Europe when it comes to education.

I see nothing changing on this topic at all.

I bet you if I came back here in 2035, we'd still be having the same circular debate.

I know it's a bit defeatist but I'm actually gone past caring.

If the electorate wants to keep this stupid system, I don't really want to live here. I will take my tax and pay it somewhere else.

I'm actually horrified at how badly the system is treating my relative at the moment. It's the first time I've felt that my family is being treated as second class citizens in my own country and it is very disappointinf and disheartening.

I'm not going to become a catholic to suit the status quo, nor will my relative be doing that either.

I was absolutely flabbergasted by the regular suggestions that "oh you should just get

---

baptised." To ensure choice of schools.
This is coming from otherwise "sane" and liberal Irish people.

It's really not good enough to be putting citizens through this in 2015. It's not the Victorian era and we should be able to expect a functioning public education system in a country that likes to portray itself as this bustling centre of all things modern and IT related!

Also, how exactly does Ireland propose to attract the great and the good of computer science, R&D, academia, business, banking etc etc and get the skills (especially in IT) which cannot be home grown in a country this size?

If you're not Catholic or not episcopalian Protestant or don't want a religious ethos education for your kids there are almost no suitable schools!

This is way beyond just atheists too : it impacts all non Catholic / non C of I people. Non religious and all minority religions are effectively put at a huge disadvantage.

inocybe

Absolam wrote: »

Careful now... the idea that it inoculates you against religion runs contrary to the prevailing notion around here that it's indoctrination

Yeah whatever makes you happy. It makes me happy to see forced indoctrination failing.

Absolam

SpaceTime wrote: »

To be honest, I'm not actually going to respond to the above post that's quoting me multiple times. It's just the same narrow minded, status quo protecting, tightly interpreted legalese that keeps being spouted. Ireland remains one of the most bizzare and conservative countries in Western Europe when it comes to education.

In fairness, it's addressing the specifics you raised. It's obviously easier to have a good moan if you ignore the facts, but at least someone is handing them to you, eh?

SpaceTime wrote: »

I see nothing changing on this topic at all. I bet you if I came back here in 2035, we'd still be having the same circular debate. I know it's a bit defeatist but I'm actually gone past caring.

I do love to see people prepared to stand up for what they want and put the effort into making change happen.

SpaceTime wrote: »

If the electorate wants to keep this stupid system, I don't really want to live here. I will take my tax and pay it somewhere else.

Though I suppose you have to respect peoples choice to not get involved too.

Fleawuss

Absolam wrote: »

Careful now... the idea that it inoculates you against religion runs contrary to the prevailing notion around here that it's indoctrination

Once people see through attempts to indoctrinate them with religious mumbo jumbo they tend to be "inoculated" against supernaturalism. Not all see through it of course.